University Policy Discussions

Here are discussions of university patent policies and statements regarding Bayh-Dole, previously published at Research Enterprise. For those articles published as a sequence, I am gathering them into single articles.

History of University Patent Policies

A Brief History of University Patent Policies

The long, slow 180 degree turn

University Patent Policies, Past and Present, Part I

University Patent Policies, Past and Present, Part II

Blasts from the Past

 

Brief Mentions

Santa Clara University, Caltech, and Yale

A Good Policy for a Patent-Trolling University

Boston University, New York University, Washington University

Abstraction as an Obfuscating Drafting Technique in University Patent Policies

Northwestern University and North Carolina State University

What universities can and can’t do with their patents

 

Longer Treatments

 

Arizona State University

When to disclose inventions? Part I. Arizona State

University of Arizona

1962 University of Arizona patent policy allowed inventors to choose their agent

University of Arkansas

How the Grudging Farmer Really Feels About the Hens

Brown University

A patent policy’s stated objectives mean something

University of California

University of California’s Office of the President self-servingly misrepresents Bayh-Dole

Dealing with compulsory assignment policies, Part 1 (California)

Catholic University of America

Bayh-Dole served up by the Catholic University of America’s general counsel

 

University of Colorado

CU’s a-Mazing IP Policy

Cornell University

Cornell’s incompetent "procedural revision" of its patent policy

 

University of Florida

Dealing with compulsory assignment, Part 4 (Florida)

Florida State University

Florida State’s garbled mess of patent guidance

Florida Atlantic University

Florida Atlantic’s patent policy misrepresents Bayh-Dole four ways in just one sentence

University of Iowa

University of Iowa’s patent policy claims reduced to simple terms

University of Michigan

The University of Michigan’s Mess of Intellectual Property Policy

University of Nevada, Las Vegas

The Very Model of a Modern University IP Policy Preamble

Ohio State University

Where’d you go, Ohio?

University of Oklahoma

Sooner or later, Oklahoma IP counsel might get it right about inventions

Penn State University

Penn State’s Protection Racket

Penn State gets innovative

Penn State’s Pscyhomagnotheric IP Policy

Bayh-Dole Bombast in Penn State’s 2001 Report on Technology Transfer

Penn State’s 1940 Patent Policy

 

University of Pittsburgh

The University of Pittsburgh’s Fake News Summary of Bayh-Dole

University of Southern California

All your works are belong to USC

University of Texas

From Provider to Predator: University of Texas Patent Policy

University of Utah

University of Utah’s Policy on State Control of Research Results

University of Utah’s New Patent Policy, Part II

University of Washington

A compulsory policy so messed up, it must be voluntary!

All your non-general expertise and ideas are belong to us

And all your student ideas are belong to us, too!

 

University of Wisconsin

The IPA and Wisconsin’s 1969 Patent Policy

Wisconsin offers a little choice

Transmogrifying Bayh-Dole into University Self-Interest, Wisconsin-style

Can’t you see what Wisconsin has been doin’ to free?

Wisconsin continues to defy the US Supreme Court, five years on

The Unofficial University of Wisconsin Patent Policy, c. 1960