Category Archives: Technology Transfer

The Dumbest Possible Model

It’s hard to describe how devastating the Stanford v Roche decision is to autocracy-minded university bureaucrats.  They claimed Bayh-Dole requires university ownership. So they instituted policies that require university ownership, “to comply with Bayh-Dole”. Then they argued in Stanford v Roche … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, Commons, Policy, Present Assignment, Sponsored Research, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off

How Bayh-Dole was used to expand university IP claims

I’ve put together a graphic that shows a cascade of possible places where a university and faculty might consider the matter of ownership of inventions and works of authorship. I’ve arranged things into various rows, each with a corresponding letter … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, history, Policy, Present Assignment, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off

A carefully crafted scheme

How should a federal government deal with ownership of inventions made at universities with federal support?  Consider the situation that existed at the time the Bayh-Dole Act was being implemented.  Many universities did not have technology transfer offices of the … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, history, Policy, Technology Transfer | Comments Off

A present assignment wouldn’t have saved Stanford claim

Since the topic keeps coming up, let’s look again at Stanford v Roche.   The standard analysis is that the case teaches universities that they have to make their invention assignment agreements “tighter”.  The argument goes, in Stanford v Roche a … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Present Assignment, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off

A serious flaw in a paper about a serious flaw in Bayh-Dole that isn’t a flaw

A recent paper argues that there’s a hole in Bayh-Dole’s treatment of assignments.  I thought that for a while, but then I went and read the law and the implementing regulations and realized that there was no hole. In Stanford … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Innovation, Policy, Technology Transfer | Comments Off

The Retrenchment Movement

The Stanford v. Roche case was about how universities get ownership of inventions under Bayh-Dole.  Stanford argued vesting.  The Solicitor General argued voiding all other alternatives.  WARF argued faculty were gullible, inept, and selfish.  AUTM threw sticks and dirt in … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off

Penn State gets innovative

Penn State has for years been one of the leaders in industry sponsored research.  In the past few months, they have also changed their IP policies on ownership.  Penn State has announced that it will no longer claim ownership of … Continue reading

Posted in Policy, Sponsored Research, Technology Transfer | Comments Off

It’s a dead parrot, guys

Joe Allen, whom I respect a great deal for his work on Bayh-Dole, won’t give up after the ruling on Stanford v Roche.  He has published a piece that aims to undermine the arguments I made in a commentary published … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off

Ten Ways to Avoid the License Contract

Judge Learned Hand: Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase … Continue reading

Posted in Ageements, Sponsored Research, Technology Transfer | Comments Off

Breaking a social contract, with startups

For those universities that have made it a centerpiece of their practice to start companies as a way to get rich and create jobs, there’s a sobering critique of using the venture capital route to do it in the April … Continue reading

Posted in Policy, Sponsored Research, Technology Transfer | Comments Off