MIT: Stanford v. Roche “Could Have Adverse Impact on Tech Transfer”

Link to MIT News article (“MIT to file amicus brief in intellectual-property case“):

The brief argues that the case threatens to undermine the Bayh-Dole Act, a federal law that has played a central role in America’s system of innovation. Enacted in 1980 as an amendment to the Patent Act, Bayh-Dole expanded and accelerated the transformation of ideas in the lab into the products, jobs and revenues of commercial enterprise.


One Response

  1. The BIO and VC audience must read the MIT/AUTM/AAU brief carefully – not swallow the sound byte spin. Per the Amicus and contrary to the constitution, faculty and students do not originally own their inventions – universities do. The Amicus argues that all industry contracts with inventors can therefore be invalidated when a university later gets a related federal grant and asserts ownership under a Bayh Dole claim. No license, sale, assignment, confidentiality agreement, NDA, is ever certain. Any private contract for IP can be ignored and invalidated because federal laws are superior to private property contracts and the federal Bayh Dole Act – vests all IP rights to federally funded research with University presidents, automatically and without due process. Consequently any IP contract with a US educated individual can potentially be terminated with an omnipotent Bayh Dole claim.

    MIT/WARF/AUTM/AAU have put a full court press on Congress and the Supreme Court to gain total control over faculty research.

    Statement of Senator Birch Bayh
    On the 30th Anniversary of the Bayh-Dole Act

    Thus, Bayh-Dole was created because of a glaring problem– billions of hard earned tax dollars invested annually in government R&D were being squandered by ineffective government patent policies.
    When government takes inventions away from the creators, it extinguishes the fuel of interest the patent system was intended to create.
    They caused our most innovative small companies to shun government research because accepting federal dollars meant giving up any hope of developing innovative products they might invent.
    We recognized that industry is accepting tremendous risk developing early stage university and federal laboratory inventions, and must be protected by strong patent licensing agreements. We believed that the best approach was relying on those actually making the discoveries to know best how these deals should be structured. We said the universities must share royalties with their inventors so all would benefit from successful partnerships.
    And we did not create any new bureaucracy.

    s claims federal law supersedes state law therefore B-D honors University claims of ownership over industry claims.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: