A legal perspective on university technology transfer

Journal of Technology Transfer

Volumn 41, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 270-289

  Hayter, Christopher S ^a   Rooksby, Jacob H ^b  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b DUQUESNE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Bayh Dole; Law; Legal research; Patents; Technology transfer

Indexed keywords

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

CRITICAL QUESTIONS; CROSS-DISCIPLINARY RESEARCH; ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT; LAW; LEGAL RESEARCH; PATENTS; POLICY DISCUSSION; UNIVERSITY TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

ENGINEERING EDUCATION;

EID: 84940850178     PISSN: 08929912     EISSN: 15737047     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10961-015-9436-5     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. 35 U.S.C. § 200.
2. 37 C.F.R § 401.14 c(1-2).
3. Ács, Z. J., Braunerhjelm, P., Audretsch, D. B., & Carlsson, B. (2009). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics,32(1), 15–30.
4. American Intellectual Property Law Association. (2013). Report of the economic survey. Arlington, VA: American Intellectual Property Law Association Law Practice Management Committee.
5. Aquino, J. T. (2014). Universities showing flexibility on industry-sponsored research, Patent Trademark and Copyright Law Daily.
6. Arrow, K. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In Arrow, K. (ed.), The rate and direction of inventive activity: Economic and social factors. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
7. Bagley, M. (2006). Academic discourse and proprietary rights: Putting patents in their proper place. Boston College Law Review,47(2), 217–274.
8. Blumberg, P. (1996). From “publish to perish” to “profit or perish”: Revenues from university technology transfer and the 501(c)(3) tax exemption. University of Pennsylvania Law Review,145(89), 89–147.
9. Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2188 (2011).
10. Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983).
11. Bradley, S., Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. N. (2013). Models and methods of university technology transfer. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship,9(6), 571–650.
12. Bramwell, A., & Wolfe, D. (2008). Universities and regional economic development: The entrepreneurial University of Waterloo. Research Policy,37, 1175–1187.
13. Carter-Johnson, J. (2010). Unveiling the distinction between the university and its academic researchers: Lessons for patent infringement and university technology transfer. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law,12(3), 473–514.
14. Carter-Johnson, J. (2014). Beyond Einstein and Edison: Claiming space for non-faculty inventors in technology transfer. Indiana Law Review,47(3), 645–688.
15. Chew, P. (1992). Faculty generated inventions: Who owns the golden egg? Wisconsin. Law Review,1992, 259–312.
16. Cohen, W. (2004). Patents and appropriation: Concerns and evidence. Journal of Technology Transfer,30(1/2), 57–71.
17. Colombo, J. D. (2010). The NCAA, tax exemption, and college athletics. University of Illinois Law Review,2010, 109–163.
18. Cremers, K. (2009). Settlement during patent litigation trials. An empirical analysis for Germany. Journal of Technology Transfer,34, 182–195.
19. Depinet, A. (2013). The public is paying twice: How Stanford v. Roche undermines the congressional intent of the Bayh–Dole Act. Capital University Law Review,41(3), 729–757.
20. Diamond, S. S., & Mueller, P. (2010). Empirical legal scholarship in law reviews. Annual review of Law and Social Science,6, 581–599.
21. Eisenberg, R. S. (1996). Public research and private development: Patents and technology transfer in government-sponsored research. Virginia Law Review,82, 1663–1727.
22. Feldman, R., & Ewing, T. (2012). The giants among us. Stanford Technology Law Review,8(1), 1–61.
23. Fisch, C. O., Block, J. H., & Sandner, P. G. (2014). Chinese university patents: quantity, quality, and the role of subsidy programs. Journal of Technology Transfer. doi:10.1007/s10961-014-9383-6.
24. Fisch, C. O., Hassel, T. M., Sandner, P. G., & Block, J. H. (2015). University patenting: A comparison of 300 leading universities worldwide. Journal of Technology Transfer,40, 318–345.
25. Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2010). 30 years after Bayh–Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy,40, 1045–1057.
26. Hall, B., Helmers, C., Rogers, M., & Sena, V. (2014). The choice between formal and informal intellectual property: A review. Journal of Economic Literature,52(2), 375–423.
27. Hayter, C. S. (2015). A social responsibility view of the ‘patent-centric linear model’ of university technology transfer. Duquesne Law Review, 53(3).
28. Kapczynski, A., Chaifetz, S., Katz, Z., & Benkler, Y. (2005). Addressing global health inequities: An open licensing approach for university innovations. Berkeley Technology and Law Journal,20, 1031–1114.
29. Kenney, M., & Patton, D. (2009). Reconsidering the Bayh–Dole act and current university invention ownership model. Research Policy,38, 1407–1422.
30. Kenney, M., & Patton, D. (2011). Does inventor ownership encourage university research-derived entrepreneurship? A six university comparison. Research Policy,40, 1100–1112.
31. Kesan, J. (2009). Transferring innovation. Fordham Law Review,77, 2169–2223.
32. Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 1697 (2015).
33. Kitch, E. (1977). The nature and function of the patent system. Journal of Law and Economics,20(2), 265–290.
34. Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science,3(3), 383–397.
35. Lee, P. (2012). Transcending the tacit dimension: Patents, relationships, and organizational integration in technology transfer. California Law Review,100, 1503–1572.
36. Lee, P. (2013). Patents and the university. Duke Law Journal,63(1), 1–87.
37. Lemley, M. (2008). Are universities patent trolls? Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal,18, 611–632.
38. Lerner, J. (2004). The university and the start-up: Lessons from the past two decades. Journal of Technology Transfer,30(1–2), 49–56.
39. Litan, B., Mitchell, L., & Reedy, E. J. (2008). Commercializing university innovations: Alternative approaches. Innovation Policy and the Economy,8, 31–57.
40. Locke, S. D. (2003). Patent litigation over federally funded inventions and the consequences of failing to comply with Bayh–Dole. Virginia Journal of Law and Technology,8(3), 1–20.
41. Madey v. Duke University, 307 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
42. MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007).
43. Mikhail, P. (2000). Hopkins versus Cellpro: An illustration that patenting and exclusive licensing of fundamental science is not always in the public interest. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology,13(2), 375–394.
44. Mowery, D., Nelson, R., Sampat, B., & Ziedonis, A. (2004). Ivory Tower and Industrial Innovation: University-Industry technology before and after the Bayh-Dole act in the United States. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
45. Nelson, R. (2001). Observations on the post-Bayh–Dole rise of patenting at American universities. Journal of Technology Transfer,26, 13–19.
46. Phan, P., & Siegel, D. S. (2006). The effectiveness of university technology transfer: Lessons learned. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship,2(2), 77–144.
47. Rai, A. (2005). Open and collaborative research: A new model for biomedicine, intellectual property rights in frontier industries. Washington, DC: AEI-Brookings Press.
48. Rai, A., & Eisenberg, R. (2003). Bayh–Dole reform and the progress of biomedicine. Law and Contemporary Problems,66(1), 289–314.
49. Ritchie de Larena, L. (2005). What copyright teaches patent law about “fair use” and why universities are ignoring the lesson. Oregon Law Review,84, 779–819.
50. Robbennolt, J. K. (2002). Evaluating empirical research methods: Using empirical research in law and policy. Nebraska Law Review,81, 777–804.
51. Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy,98, 71–102.
52. Rooksby, J. H. (2013a). When tigers bare teeth: A qualitative study of university patent enforcement. Akron Law Review,46, 169–205.
53. Rooksby, J. H. (2013b). Innovation and litigation: Tensions between universities and patents and how to fix them. Yale Journal of Law and Technology,15, 314–406.
54. Rooksby, J. H. (2015). Protecting University patents while pursing the public good. In Audretsch, D. B., Hayter, C. S., Link, A. N. (eds.), Concise guide to entrepreneurship and innovation, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, forthcoming.
55. Rowe, E. A. (2006). The experimental use exception to patent infringement: Do universities deserve special treatment? Hastings Law Journal,57, 921–954.
56. Schneider, C. (2011). The battle for patent rights in plant biotechnology: evidence from opposition fillings. Journal of Technology Transfer,36, 565–579.
57. Smith, G. K. (1997). Faculty and graduate student generated inventions: Is university ownership a legal certainty? Virginia Journal of Law and Technology,1(4), 1522–1687.
58. Solow, R. M. (1956). A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics,70, 65–94.
59. Tassey, G. (1991). The functions of technology infrastructure in a competitive economy. Research Policy,20, 234–243.
60. Thursby, J., Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. (2001). Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: A survey of major US universities. Journal of Technology Transfer,26(1–2), 59–72.
61. U.S. Const., art. 1., sec. 8., cl. 8.
62. Vertinsky, L. (2012). 2012. Universities as guardians of their inventions, Utah Law Review,4, 1949–2021.
63. Vertinsky, L. (2013). Making knowledge and making drugs? Experimenting with university innovation capacity. Emory Law Journal,62, 740–821.
64. Voreacos, D. (April 21, 2015). Princeton loses appeal in bid to dismiss tax-exemption suit, Bloomberg Business, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-21/princeton-loses-appeal-in-bid-to-dismiss-tax-exemption-lawsuit.
65. Whittemore v. Cutter, 29 Fed. Cas. 1120 (C.C.D. Mass. 1813).