The intent of Bayh-Dole was to remove a barrier to technology transfer from universities to commercialization.   Prior to the Act, much of the federally funded IP was in limbo as to who could, would, should patent.  Who had rights wasn't clear.

> >The tremendous impact of commercialization on plant breeding research can
> be traced to the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980 that led to a rapid
> increase in the patents granted to U.S. colleges and universities




"It is entirely up to each university or perhaps the individual researcher
as to what it does with the patent.  It can license it for profit, or
release it to the public.  Some plant breeders left the UC system, feeling
that they should individually benefit financially.  Others simply want to
leave a legacy of contributing to the community."




Partially correct.  For federally funded projects, the government has first rights - always.  If the government waives its rights, then the university has next claim.  If the university doesn't claim, then the inventors can claim.  How that all plays out, licensing, etc. does vary by university and by state.


Problem with UC Davis is that it's faculty hasn't asserted it's claim to IP.  At Univ of MT, our contract spells out IP rights.   If, for example, UM claims the patent, the faculty can license (promoting spin-off companies) from UM, but regardless, if UM licenses, the faculty (researcher(s) get a split of any royalties, regardless.   UC Davis researchers, instead of leaving, should have pressed for their own rights, as allowed by Bayh-Doyle.


How do I know this - I had some of the first patents at UM, the first Regentially approved spin-off company, and was on the UM faculty union board for about 20 years.


In MT, after Bayh-Dole, the first thing we had to do was get a bill called the Faculty Equity bill passed by our state legislature so that the innovators (researchers) could legally participate in spin-offs, either as owners or consultants or on boards.  Prior to this act, it was essentially illegal - which I assume was the case in CA whereby the researchers left.  Bayh-Dole left virtually every state with the challenge of 'fixing' their own laws regarding IP.  It gave the researcher rights.


All of this was similar to the case of the guy who invented the quick-release socket wrench while working for Sears (as I remember).  He initially got nothing.

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html