The bayh-dole act: Selected issues in patent policy and the commercialization of technology

The America Invents and Bayh-Dole Acts: Patent Progress

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 41-76

  Schacht, Wendy H ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85016592297     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (73)

1. National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators-2006, (Washington, National Science Foundation, 2006), A4-5.
2. John R. Thomas, “Collusion and Collective Action in the Patent System: A Proposal for Patent Bounties," University of Illinois Law Review, 2001, 305.
3. Federic M. Scherer, “The Economics of Human Gene Patents," Academic Medicine, December 2002, 1350.
4. Wesley M. Cohen, Richard R. Nelson, and John P. Walsh, Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not), National Bureau of Economic Research, February 2000, available at http://www.nber.org/papers/w7552.
5. Richard C. Levin, Alvin K. Klevorick, Richard R. Nelson, and Sidney G. Winter, “Appropriating the Returns for Industrial Research and Development," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1987, printed in The Economics of Technical Change, Edwin Mansfield and Elizabeth Mansfield, eds., (Vermont, Edward Elgar Publishing Co., 1993), 253.
6. “Innovation’s Golden Goose," The Economist (US), December 14, 2002, available at http://www.economist.com/node/1476653?story_id=1476653.
7. BJK Associates, The Influence of R&D Expenditures on New Firm Formation and Economic Growth, Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy, October 2002, 2, available at http://www.njit.edu/v2/News/Releases/finalreport_10-02-02.pdf.
8. National Science Foundation, “Indicators of U.S. Small Business’s Role in R&D," InfoBrief, NSF 10-304, March 2010, 1, available at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf10304/nsf10304.pdf.
9. Martin A. Carree and A. Roy Thurik, “Entrepreneurship, Economic Growth and Policy," in Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research, Zoltan J. Acs and David B. Audretsch, eds. (New York, Springer Press, 2003), 439.
10. CHI Research, Inc, Small Serial Innovators: The Small Firm Contribution to Technological Change, Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy, February 2003, 3, available at http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs225tot.pdf.
11. CHI Research, Inc, Small Serial Innovators: The Small Firm Contribution to Technological Change, Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy, February 2003, 3, available at http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs225tot.pdf. 12
12. CHI Research, Inc., Small Firms and Technology: Acquisitions, Inventor Movement, and Technology Transfer, Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy, January 2004, 4, available at http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs233tot.pdf.
13. Marc Levinson, “Small Business: Myth and Reality," Dun’s Business Month, September 1985, 32-33.
14. Zoltan J. Acs and David B. Audretsch, Innovation and Small Firms (Cambridge, The MIT Press, 1990), 50-51.
15. Zoltan J. Acs and David B. Audretsch, Innovation and Small Firms (Cambridge, The MIT Press, 1990), 147.
16. B.S. Tether, “Small and Large Firms: Sources of Unequal Innovation?," Research Policy, November 1998, 742
17. Charles Brown, James Hamilton, and James Medoff, Employers Large and Small, (Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1990), 10.
18. William J. Baumol, Education for Innovation: Entrepreneurial Breakthroughs vs. Corporate Incremental Improvements, NBER, June 2004, 2-3, available at http://www.nber.org/papers/10578.
19. David R. King, Jeffrey G. Covin, W. Harvey Hegarty, “Complementary Resources and the Exploitation of Technological Innovations," Journal of Management, August 1, 2003, 595.
20. David R. King, Jeffrey G. Covin, W. Harvey Hegarty, “Complementary Resources and the Exploitation of Technological Innovations," Journal of Management, August 1, 2003, 592.
21. National Science Foundation, “Changes in Federal and Non-Federal Support for Academic R&D Over the Past Three Decades," InfoBrief, June 2002, available at http://www.nsf.gov, National Science Foundation, National Patterns of R&D Resources: 2003.
22. Patent Policy: Recent Changes in Federal Law Considered Beneficial, 20-21.
23. Patent Policy: Recent Changes in Federal Law Considered Beneficial, 16.
24. Patent Policy: Recent Changes in Federal Law Considered Beneficial, 23.
25. U.S. General Accounting Office, Technology Transfer: Administration of the Bayh-Dole Act by Research Universities, RCED-98-126, May 1998, 2.
26. U.S. General Accounting Office, Technology Transfer: Administration of the Bayh-Dole Act by Research Universities, RCED-98-126, May 1998, 15.
27. National Academy of Sciences, Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy, Workshop on Academic IP: Effects of University Patenting and Licensing on Commercialization and Research, April 17, 2001 [transcript], 261-262, available at http://www.nas.edu.
28. Gregory K. Sobolski, John H. Barton, Ezekiel J. Emanuel, “Technology Licensing, Lessons From the US Experience," Journal of the American Medical Association, December 28, 2005, 3138.
29. David Roessner, Jennifer Bond, Sumiye Okubo, and Mark Planting, The Economic Impact of Licensed Commercialized Inventions Originating in University Research, 1996-2007, Final Report to the Biotechnology Industry Organization, September 3, 2009, 32, available at http://www.bio.org/ip/techtransfer/BIO_final_report_9_3_09_rev_2.pdf.
30. David C. Mowery, Richard R. Nelson, Bhaven N. Sampat, and Arvids A. Ziedonis, “The Growth of Patenting and Licensing by U.S. Universities: An Assessment of the Effects of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980," Research Policy 30, 2001, 99.
31. David C. Mowery, The Bayh-Dole Act and High-Technology Entrepreneurship in U.S. Universities: Chicken, Egg, or Something Else?, paper prepared for the Eller Center conference on “Entrepreneurship Education and Technology Transfer," University of Arizona, January 21-22, 2005, available at http://entrepreneurship.eller.arizona.edu/docs/conferences/2005/colloquium/D_Mowery.pdf
32. Ashley J. Stevens, “Is Bayh-Dole Under Siege Again?" Technology Access Report, July 2001.
33. Lori Turk-Bicakci and Steven Brint, “University-Industry Collaboration: Patterns of Growth for Low- and Middle-Level Performers," Higher Education, January 2005, 61-89.
34. Bhavan N. Sampat, “Patenting and US Academic Research in the 20th Century: The World Before and After Bayh-Dole," Research Policy, July 2006, 773.
35. Marie Thursby, Jerry Thursby, and Emmanuel Dechenaux, Shirking, Shelving, and Sharing Risk: The Role of University License Contracts, April 9, 2004, National Bureau of Economic Research, available at http://www.nber.org/~confer/2004/entf04/thursby.pdf.
36. Jerry G. Thursby and Marie C. Thursby, University Licensing Under Bayh-Dole: What are the Issues and Evidence?, May 2003, available at http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/Thursby.pdf.
37. Scott Shane, “Encouraging University Entrepreneurship? The Effect of the Bayh-Dole Act on University Patenting in the United States," Journal of Business Venturing, 2004, 128.
38. House Committee on the Judiciary, Biotechnology Development and Patent Law, 102d Cong., 1st Sess., November 20, 1991, 48.
39. Ernst & Young, Beyond Borders, Global Biotechnology Report 2010, 59, available at http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Beyond_borders_2010/FILE/Beyond_borders_2010.pdf.
40. Battelle Technology Partnership Practice, Technology, Talent and Capital: State Bioscience Initiatives 2008, Biotechnology Industries Organization, June 2008, available at http://bio.org/local/battelle2008/State_Bioscience:Initiatives_2008.pdf.
41. Battelle Technology Partnership Practice and SSTI, Laboratories of Innovation: State Bioscience Initiatives 2004, June 2004, 27-29, available at http://www.washingtonlifescience.com/econ_dev_reports/OregonBioscienceInitiatives2004.pdf.
42. Steven R. Salbu, “Aids and Drug Pricing: In Search of a Policy," Washington University Law Quarterly, Fall 1993, 5-20.
43. Evan Ackiron, “Patents for Critical Pharmaceuticals: The AZT Case," American Journal of Law and Medicine, 1991, 18.
44. Edwin Mansfield, “Social Returns From R&D: Findings, Methods, and Limitations," Research/Technology Management, November-December 1991, 24.
45. Gregory Tassey, The Economics of R&D Policy (Connecticut, Quorum Books, 1997), 54.
46. Edwin Mansfield, “Intellectual Property Rights, Technological Change, and Economic Growth," in: Intellectual Property Rights and Capital Formation in the Next Decade, eds. Charls E. Walker and Mark A. Bloomfield (New York, University Press of America, 1988), 5.
47. General Accounting Office, Technology Transfer: Agencies’ Rights to Federally Sponsored Biomedical Inventions, GAO-03-536, July 2003, 7.
48. General Accounting Office, Technology Transfer: Agencies’ Rights to Federally Sponsored Biomedical Inventions, GAO-03-536, July 2003, 8.
49. General Accounting Office, Technology Transfer: Agencies’ Rights to Federally Sponsored Biomedical Inventions, GAO-03-536, July 2003, 12.
50. General Accounting Office, Technology Transfer: Agencies’ Rights to Federally Sponsored Biomedical Inventions, GAO-03-536, July 2003, 10.
51. General Accounting Office, Intellectual Property: Federal Agency Efforts in Transferring and Reporting New Technology, October 2002, GAO-03-47, 29.
52. General Accounting Office, Intellectual Property: Federal Agency Efforts in Transferring and Reporting New Technology, October 2002, GAO-03-47, 33.
53. Justin E. Bekelman, Yan Li, and Cary P. Gross, “Scope and Impact of Financial Conflicts of Interest in Biomedical Research: A Systematic Review," Journal of the American Medical Association, January 22/January 29, 2003.
54. David Blumenthal, Eric G. Campbell, Melissa S. Anderson, Nancyanne Causino, and Karen Seashore Louis, “Withholding Research Results in Academic Life," Journal of the American Medical Association, April 16, 1997, 1224.
55. Wesley M. Cohen, Richard Florida, Lucien Randazzese, and John Walsh, “Industry and the Academy: Uneasy Partners in the Cause of Technological Advance," in: Challenges to Research Universities, eds. Linda R. Cohen, Wesley Cohen, Roger Noll, William Rogerson, and Albert Teich (Washington, The Brookings Press, 1998), 188-189.
56. Pierre Axoulay, Waverly Ding, and Toby Stuart, The Impact of Academic Patenting on the Rate, Quality, and Direction of (Public) Research, National Bureau of Economic Research, January 2006, available at http://www.nber.org/papers/w11917.pdf.
57. Everett Rogers, Jing Yin, and Joern Hoffmann, “Assessing the Effectiveness of Technology Transfer Offices at U.S. Research Universities," Journal of the Association of University Technology Managers, v. XII, 2000, available at http://www.autm.net.
58. Ann M. Thayer, “University Technology Moves to Market via Patenting, Licensing,: Chemical and Engineering News, August 24, 1992, 17-18
59. Jerry G. Thursby and Marie C. Thursby, “Intellectual Property: University Licensing and the Bayh-Dole Act," Science, August 22, 2003, 1052.
60. Lita Nelson, “Increase of Intellectual Property Licensing at Universities Stems from Changes in Funding and Legislation," MIT Tech Talk, August 26, 1998, available at http://web.mit.edu.
61. Eric Niller, “Biotech & Health: Report Fails to Address the Downside of Academic-Industry Collaborations," Wall Street Journal (Europe), August 6, 2001, 17.
62. Clifton Leaf, “The Law of Unintended Consequences," Fortune, September 19, 2005, 252.
63. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, NIH Response to the Conference Report Request for a Plan to Ensure Taxpayers’ Interests are Protected, July 2001, available at http://www.nih.gov/news/070101wyden.htm.
64. Science and Engineering Indicators, 2010, Appendix table 5-6, available at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/append/c5/at05-06.pdf.
65. Edwin Mansfield, “Academic Research and Industrial Innovation: An Update of Empirical Findings," Research Policy, 1998, 773-776.
66. Hamilton Moses, III and Joseph B. Martin, “Academic Relationships with Industry," Journal of the American Medical Association, February 21, 2001, 933.
67. Timothy Caulfield, Robert M. Cook-Deegan, F. Scott Kieff, and John P. Walsh, Evidence and Anecdotes: An Analysis of Human Gene Patenting Controversies, Nature Biotechnology, September 2006, available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2701726/.
68. Arti K. Rai and Rebecca S. Eisenberg, “Bayh-Dole Reform and the Progress of Biomedicine," American Scientist, January-February 2003, 52.
69. Rebecca S. Eisenberg and Richard R. Nelson, “Public vs. Proprietary Science: A Fruitful Tension?," Daedalus, Spring 2002.
70. Sara Boettiger and Alan B. Bennet, “Bayh-Dole: If We Knew Then What We Know Now," Nature Biotechnology, 2006, available at http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v24/n3/full/nbt0306-320.html.
71. John P. Walsh, Ashish Arora, Wesley M. Cohen, “Working Through the Patent Problem," Science, February 14, 2003, 1021
72. John P. Walsh, Charlene Cho, and Wesley Cohen, “View for the Bench: Patents and Material Transfers," Science, September 23, 2005, 2002-2003.
73. Howard Bremer, “The First Two Decades of the Bayh-Dole Act as Public Policy," National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, November 11, 2001, available at http://www.nasulgc.org.