Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2024631
 


 



The Real Issue Behind Stanford v. Roche: Faculty Conceptions of University Assignment Policies Stemming from the 1947 Biddle Report


Sean M. O'Connor


University of Washington - School of Law

March 15, 2012

Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 379-422, 2013
University of Washington School of Law Research Paper No. 2012-05

Abstract:     
The recent Supreme Court decision in Stanford v. Roche laid bare a faulty assumption of the federal research funding system. Government patent policy for federally funded research relies on “contractors” — the recipients of federal funding — to secure patent assignments from their employees. While this practice was routine for private firms and nonprofit research institutions, it was not for universities. This was in part based on the relationship of faculty and other researchers to universities that differed from industry employment relationships. The roots of this faulty assumption can be traced to the seminal 1947 Biddle Report. Detailed monographs drafted as appendices to the Biddle Report made plain these different practices. Yet the formal report glossed over the differences in favor of a summary that government research patent policy need only concern the relationship between the funding agencies and contractors. This left assignments between the contractors and their employees to the contractors. Despite regulations up through the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 that obliquely referenced the obligation of contractors to secure adequate rights to protect the government’s interests, universities never adopted the assignment practices of private industry. This Article traces the roots of this issue from the Biddle Report to the current government regulations in order to clarify challenges that funding agencies and universities face in securing adequate agreements from researchers in the wake of Stanford v. Roche.

An earlier version of this paper was posted with the title “Mistaken Assumptions: The Roots of Stanford v. Roche in Post-War Government Patent Policy.”

Number of Pages in PDF File: 45

Keywords: patents, inventions, Bayh-Dole Act, technology transfer, colleges and universities, higher education, government contracts

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: May 31, 2012 ; Last revised: October 15, 2013

Suggested Citation

O'Connor, Sean M., The Real Issue Behind Stanford v. Roche: Faculty Conceptions of University Assignment Policies Stemming from the 1947 Biddle Report (March 15, 2012). Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 379-422, 2013; University of Washington School of Law Research Paper No. 2012-05. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2024631 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2024631

Contact Information

Sean M. O'Connor (Contact Author)
University of Washington - School of Law ( email )
William H. Gates Hall
Box 353020
Seattle, WA 98105-3020
United States
206-543-7491 (Phone)
HOME PAGE: http://www.law.washington.edu/faculty/oconnor

Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 384
Downloads: 57
Download Rank: 226,477
Paper comments
No comments have been made on this paper

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo2 in 0.328 seconds