Jump to content
The United States Bayh-Dole Act and its Effect on University Technology Transfer / Misallocated Research Priorities
The United States Bayh-Dole Act and its Effect on University Technology Transfer / Misallocated Research Priorities
Contents
Chapter
Expand
|
Collapse
Page
2–8
Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis
2–8
Details
9–12
Abstract
9–12
Details
13–14
Acronyms and Abbreviations
13–14
Details
15–21
I. Introduction
15–21
15–18
A. Introduction to Technology Transfer
15–18
15–17
1. Licenses and Assignments Used by Universities in Technology Transfer
15–17
Details
17–18
2. Prohibition on Assignments by Universities to Third Parties
17–18
Details
18–21
B. History of the Bayh-Dole Act
18–21
18–19
1. Historical Characteristics of the United States Higher Education System
18–19
Details
19–19
2. The Growth of Federal Funding on Academic Research
19–19
Details
19–20
3. University Patenting and Patent Policy Trends Prior to Bayh-Dole
19–20
Details
20–21
4. Birth of Bayh-Dole
20–21
Details
22–27
II. Statutory Provisions of the Bayh-Dole Act
22–27
22–23
A. Introductory Provisions
22–23
1. Policy and Scope of the Act
Details
23–23
2. Definitions
23–23
Details
23–25
B. Disposition of Rights
23–25
23–24
1. The Disclosure and Election
23–24
Details
24–25
2. Contractor Failure to Elect Title
24–25
Details
25–26
C. Government Rights
25–26
25–25
1. Non-Exclusive License
25–25
Details
2. March-in Rights
Details
26–27
D. Implied Duty to Commercialize
26–27
Details
28–33
III. Perceived Successes and Shortfalls of the Bayh-Dole Act
28–33
28–30
A. Perceived Successes of the Bayh-Dole Act
28–30
28–29
1. Single, Uniform Policy
28–29
Details
29–29
2. Increase in Patents. Cooperative Ventures, and Commercial Products
29–29
Details
29–30
3. The Emergence of the Biotechnology Field
29–30
Details
30–33
B. Perceived Shortfalls of the Bayh-Dole Act
30–33
30–31
1. It Would Have Happened Anyway
30–31
Details
31–32
2. Undermining Research, Development, and Technology Transfer
31–32
Details
32–33
3. Misallocated Research Priorities
32–33
Details
33–33
4. The "Anticommons" Effect
33–33
Details
34–48
IV. Effectiveness of the Bayh-Dole Act
34–48
34–43
A. Is the March-In Right Provision (§ 203) Effective?
34–43
34–37
1. Cases in Point: CellPro, Fabrazyme, and the Government Refusal to March-in
34–37
Details
a) The 1997 CellPro Decision
Details
b) The 2010 Fabrazyme Decision
Details
37–39
2. Perceived Advantages of the March-in Provision
37–39
Details
39–41
3. Perceived Weaknesses and Asserted Ineffectiveness of the March-In Provision
39–41
Details
a) March-In has Negative Effects on Technology Transfer
Details
b) Nonuse of the Provision has Rendered it Unnecessary
Details
41–43
4. Evaluating the March-in Provision
41–43
Details
a) Analysis
Details
b) Recommendations for Change
Details
43–48
B. Is Bayh-Dole's Shift in Presumption of Ownership Effective? A Review of Empirical Data
43–48
43–46
1. Bayh-Dole's Effect on Patenting
43–46
Details
a) Importance and Generality
Details
b) Rise in Biotechnological Patents
Details
c) Anticommons Concerns
Details
46–47
2. Bayh-Dole's Effect on Commercialization
46–47
Details
47–48
3. Bayh-Dole's Effect on Research and Scientific Progress
47–48
Details
49–57
V. Bayh-Dole Moving Forward: Ownership Concerns and the Stanford v Roche Case
49–57
49–50
A. Who Develops a University Invention?
49–50
Details
50–57
B. The Stanford v. Roche Case
50–57
50–50
1. The Legal Issue
50–50
Details
50–51
2. The Facts
50–51
Details
51–54
3. The Proceedings
51–54
Details
a) The Federal Circuit Opinion
Details
b) The Supreme Court Decision
Details
54–57
4. Future Implications
54–57
Details
a) Implications with Respect to Contract Drafting
Details
b) Gap in the Law between Patent Rights and Bayh-Dole Obligations
Details
c) General Complications for the Technology Transfer Sector
Details
58–63
VI. Bayh-Dole Abroad: International Efforts to Emulate the Statute, and Recommendations for Future Success
58–63
58–59
A. Japan
58–59
Details
59–60
B. Europe
59–60
Details
60–63
C. Bayh-Dole in Developing Countries? The Indian Bayh-Dole Debate
60–63
60–62
1. Shortfalls of the United States Bayh-Dole Act
60–62
Details
62–63
2. Differences between India and the United States
62–63
Details
64–66
VII. Conclusion
64–66
Details
67–68
Appendix A
67–68
Details
69–74
List of Works Cited
69–74
69–69
Cases
69–69
Details
69–69
Statutes and Regulations
69–69
Details
69–70
Legislative Reports and Materials
69–70
Details
70–71
Journal Articles
70–71
Details
71–71
Books and Compilations
71–71
Details
71–73
Non-Journal Articles and Other Supplementary Materials with Author Explicit (alphabetical by author)
71–73
Details
73–74
Articles and Other Supplementary Materials without Explicit Author (alphabetical by title)
73–74
Details
Durchsuchen Sie das Werk
Geben Sie ein Keyword in die Suchleiste ein
CC-BY
Access
The United States Bayh-Dole Act and its Effect on University Technology Transfer , page 32 - 33
Misallocated Research Priorities
Autoren
Joel Gotkin
DOI
doi.org/10.5771/9783845242217-32
ISBN print: 978-3-8329-7706-1
ISBN online: 978-3-8452-4221-7
Chapter Preview
Chapter Preview
Share
Current chapter
Complete document
Download citation
RIS
BibTeX
Copy DOI link
doi.org/10.5771/9783845242217-32
Share by email
Video schließen
Share by email Nomos eLibrary
Recipient*
Sender*
Message*
Your name
Send message
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy
and
Terms of Service
apply.
