FILTERS
- Age Discrimination
- Disability Discrimination
- Diversity in Employment
- Diversity in the General Counsel’s Office
- Enforcement of Non-Discrimination Laws
- Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA)
- Race and National Origin Discrimination
- Religious Discrimination & Accommodation
- Retaliation
- Sex Discrimination
- Veterans Discrimination
- Academic Freedom & Employee Speech
- Background Checks & Employee Verification
- Collective Bargaining
- Diversity in Employment
- Employee Benefits
- Employee Discipline & Due Process
- Employee Sexual Misconduct
- Employment of Foreign Nationals
- Employment Separation, RIFs, ERIPs & Retrenchment
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) & Categorization of Employees
- Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- Intellectual Property
- Reproductive Health Issues
- Research
- Retaliation
- Tenure
- Veterans & Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
- Diversity in the General Counsel’s Office
- Ethical Obligations of Higher Education Lawyers
- Evaluation of Operations & Staff in the General Counsel’s Office
- External Counsel
- Law Office Management
- Law Office Technology
- Law Office Training
- Roles & Responsibilities of the General Counsel
- Wellness & Stress Management
- Academic Performance and Misconduct
- Admissions
- Distressed & Suicidal Students
- Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans
- Hazing
- Internships, Externships, & Clinical Work
- Student Athlete Issues
- Student Conduct
- Student Housing
- Student Organizations
- Student Speech & Campus Unrest
- Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct
- Uncategorized
Latest Cases & Developments
Date:
Univ. of S. Fla. Bd. of Trs. v. United States (Fed. Cir. Feb. 9, 2024)
Opinion affirming summary judgment in favor of the U.S. Government. Plaintiff, the University of South Florida (USF), sued the United States, alleging infringement of its patent entitled “Transgenic Mice Expressing APPK670N,M671L and a Mutant Presenilin Transgenes,” for mice used in studying Alzheimer’s Disease and other neurogenerative disorder, by allowing a third party to use and manufacture the mice, which were developed, in large part, by USF researchers. At issue was whether research, which had been delegated to USF researchers by two former USF professors who moved to the Mayo Clinic (Mayo) in December 1996, was supported by a grant awarded to Mayo by the National Institute on Aging, thereby entitling the Government to a license to practice the patent under the Bayh-Dole Act. USF urged that Bayh-Dole is not triggered since the invention was reduced to practice in April 1997, but Mayo did not execute its subcontract with USF to pay for the work under the NIH grant until November 1997. In affirming summary judgment in favor of the U.S. Government, the Federal Circuit upheld the Government’s right to the invention, noting that “against the well-known background of the Bayh-Dole Act Regime” USF accepted funding under the grant that was designated for past-work. The court found this consistent with the “statutory policy to ‘ensure that the Government obtains sufficient rights to federally supported inventions’” and noted that it is common for research work to continue without interruption with the expectation that it will be covered by a subsequent grant award.
Topics:
Faculty & Staff | Intellectual Property | Technology | Technology TransferDate:
ACE Letter to NIST re: the Bayh-Dole Framework (Feb. 1, 2024)
Letter from the American Council on Education (ACE) and five other higher education associations to the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) regarding its Draft Guidance for the Exercise of March-In Rights. In commenting on NIST’s proposed framework for government agencies considering exercising march-in rights under the Bayh-Dole Act, the letter expresses concern that the proposed guidance would introduce considerations beyond the original statutory framework, create uncertainty and ambiguity around criterial for march-in consideration, and disincentivize private sector partnerships. It expressed particular concern that permitting the use of “reasonable pricing” in petitions for march-in might “embolden corporate entities to file petitions in bad faith or to undercut competitors in commercialization efforts.” The letter recommends that the administration rescind the framework.
Topics:
Technology | Technology Transfer
NACUA Annual Conference
Join us in the Music City June 29 – July 2 to connect, learn, and lead alongside higher education attorneys shaping policy, practice, and impact nationwide together.