Dr. Gerald Barnett is a recognized thought leader in the arena of intellectual property management and technology transfer. With more than two decades of experience, Dr. Barnett's inspiration remains motivated by the talented researchers in universities, industry and government, whose dedicated work remains focused on making a difference in the world.

Over the last several years, Dr. Barnett has challenged current university policies and practices that were put in place over thirty years ago due to the Bayh-Dole Act. He believes that this legislation has limited innovation, collaboration and competition in American universities.

He currently serves as Director of University of Washington's Research Technology Enterprise Initiative (RTEI). One of his areas of RTEI connects research and community, using innovations in intellectual property management, contracting, and collaboration.

We are delighted to have Dr. Barnett's views on this subject and welcome your feedback and comments to his expert perspective.

In this article, Dr. Barnett discusses the pending Supreme Court Decision over the law case of Stanford v. Roche. This landmark case, if patent administrators win could, "turn the lights out for all private agreements involving university inventions until there is an actual reduction to practice," says Barnett.

Read how University patent administrators are proposing a distorted reading of federal regulations in an effort to ensure that you never own your own inventions, even when you've developed them on your own time, and without the use of university facilities!

Read More >>

2010 marked the 30^th anniversary of the Bayh-Dole Act. However, after thirty years, its intent continues to be misinterpreted and often misguided. This in-depth article by Dr. Barnett has captured in detail the complex issues surrounding Bayh-Dole and provides a perspective grounded in the logic that calls for change-in-policy at the national level.

Read More about how patent administrators have distorted this law, and by doing so, may jeopardize your intellectual property rights.

In the current case of Stanford v. Roche, Stanford's position is that the university has a subject invention, and as a result of an imprudent employee and a sneaky company, the rightful licensing income due to the university and protected under the Bayh-Dole Act is at jeopardy. This article considers the "What if" by providing a series of interesting views that do not challenge the integrity of Bayh-Dole, but rather the misinterpretation of its original intent.

Read More >>

It is often difficult to win the argument that faculty researchers have a right to participate in the process of patent obligation. This is because it is believed they will inevitably create a situation where no one has undivided ownership of a research invention. At least that's what AUTM imagines. How can one make money if you don't have the entire title? While this article does not argue that specific premise, it does ask who should have participation in that title. If research were only about public benefit. This article explores both sides of the argument and makes an excellent case for the faculty inventor.

Read More >>

Dr. Barnett has skillfully presented an even more in-depth view of the original intention of Bayh-Dole Act and the misinterpretations of this law over time. As quoted by Barnett, "Bayh-Dole deserves a much better reading than it is being given by some of its most vocal, most determined 'defenders'." And this article certainly provides that in detail.

Read More >>

There are two branches to the ongoing case between Stanford v. Roche. They represent whether an employee is required to assign their future patent rights to their university that may later become substantive in federally funded research. What the Supreme Court is now being asked to consider is whether the assignment made by a faculty inventor to a third party can be valid. The answer again and again is yes! But that isn't the end of it, by any means. This article provides a humorous view of the cascading debate of faculty inventor ownership.

Read More >>

As a result of the Stanford v. Roche litigation, the historic Bayh-Dole Act has once again been put under the magnifying glass. Questions have been asked such as: What is the proper role or involvement of the university patent administrator? What kinds of responses might be indicated to guide the courts? And how any of this advances collaboration between universities and industry? This article provides a perspective surrounding the highly controversial Bayh-Dole Act.

Read More >>

The Bayh-Dole Act was established to more efficiently use federal funding in universities so that the results of these funds could make it into the public more rapidly. However, is it consistent with the original intent of Bayh-Dole that a university can litigate for infringement with no licenses in place to practice the invention, and no active development by those licensees? Sound like trolling? This article presents a hypothesis worth reading!

Read More >>

For more in depth analysis of the legal and policy aspects of the 1980 Bayh Dole Act follow Dr. Barnett's interactive analysis at the RTEI blog. RTEI is funded by a grant from the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. RTEI connects research and community, using innovations in intellectual property management, contracting, and collaboration.