Search the RE article base
Contact Information
Twitter
My TweetsUseful Web Sites
Tag Archives: vesting
NIST smokes Stanford v Roche, 2
Let’s get simple about the NIST rule change on assignment of subject inventions. This requires logic. I’m sorry about that. I know it’s not the Bayh-Dole way. Supreme Court: Bayh-Dole applies only to subject inventions. A subject invention is an … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche
Tagged equitable title, NIST, prissy, Stanford v Roche, vesting, written agreement
Comments Off on NIST smokes Stanford v Roche, 2
NIST makes Bayh-Dole a vesting statute
NIST has issued its final rule on Bayh-Dole and disregards the Supreme Court on the ownership of subject inventions. The Supreme Court was clear that Bayh-Dole’s definition of subject invention means that an invention must be “owned by the contractor” to … Continue reading
Whistling all the way to the bank, revisited 1
Back in 2010, I wrote an article titled “Whistling all the way to the bank.” The article explored the problem of compensation tied to the argument that the Bayh-Dole Act was a “vesting statute” that vested ownership of inventions made … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche
Tagged Bayh-Dole, class action, eminent domain, invention, Stanford v Roche, status, vesting
Comments Off on Whistling all the way to the bank, revisited 1
They just can’t kill the beast
After the Supreme Court ruled in Stanford v Roche, Joe Allen and Howard Bremer wrote an article (“After Stanford v Roche: Bayh-Dole Still Stands“) in which they asserted that they had argued against the idea that Bayh-Dole vested with contractors … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, History, Policy, Stanford v Roche
Tagged Allen, Bremer, Stanford v Roche, vesting
Comments Off on They just can’t kill the beast
Stanford v Roche was not about how to make Bayh-Dole into a vesting statute
The Stanford v Roche decision was not at all about the proper technical steps to make Bayh-Dole into a vesting statute. Even the Court’s minority opinion–what the lawyer-krakkens fixated on–was a musing on whether there should be any difference in the equitable ownership of an … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche
Tagged 35 USC 200-212, 35 USC 261, Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche, vesting
Comments Off on Stanford v Roche was not about how to make Bayh-Dole into a vesting statute