This article catalogues and discusses challenges to the Bayh–Dole Act from a perspective broader than the legal, industrial or academic. Because the act is a Congressional enactment placed in the federal patent law and the author served for many years as Chief Counsel of the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Intellectual Property and worked on the 1984 amendments to the Bayh–Dole Act, the perspective here is a political one. The author asks for a celebration of the act's twenty-fifth anniversary, and issues a call to action for those engaged in technology transfer to defend it.
FTC (2003), To Promote Innovation: The Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law and Policy, Report of the Federal Trade Commission, October, http://www.ftc.gov/os/2003/10/innovationrpt.pdf.
3.
GAO (1999), Report to the Chairman, Technology Transfer: Reporting Requirements for Federally Sponsored Inventions Need Revision, GAO/RCED-99–242, US General Accounting Office, Washington, DC, available at http://www.gao.gov/archive/1999/rc99242.pdf.
GuttagEricW. (2003), ‘Immunizing university research from patent infringement: Implications of Madey v Duke University’, Journal of the Association of University Technology Managers, Vol XV, 2003, pp 1–20. Also published in Industry and Higher Education, Vol 18, No 3, 2004, pp 157–165.
6.
JaffeAdamB.LernerJosh (2004), Innovation and Its Discontents: How Our Broken Patent System is Endangering Innovation and Progress, and What to Do About It, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, p 170.
7.
JeffersonThomas (1801), ‘Address at the Inaugural Ceremony’, 4 March 1801, in Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States 1989, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1989.
8.
JeffersonThomas (1816), ‘Reform of the Virginia Constitution’, to Samuel Kercheval, 12 July 1816, in PetersonMerrillD., ed, Writings: Thomas Jefferson, Library of America, New York, 1984, p 1401.
9.
LandesWilliamM.PosnerRichardA. (2003), The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
10.
MerrillStephenA.LevinRichardC.MyersMarkB., eds (2004), A Patent System for the 21st Century, report of the National Research Council, National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
11.
Milken Institute (2003), Biopharmaceutical Industry Contributions to State and US. Economies: United States Overall Summary, Milken Institute, Santa Monica, CA, http://www.biopharmaimpact.com/index.taf.
12.
NaderRalphLoveJames (1993), ‘Looting the medicine chest: How Bristol-Myers Squibb made off with the public's cancer research’, The Progressive, February, p 26.
13.
NelsenLita (1988), ‘The rise of intellectual property protection in the American universities’, Science, 6 March, p 1460.
14.
PCAST (2003), Report on Technology Transfer of Federally Funded R&D, President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Washington, DC, 15 May, available at http://www.ostp.gov/PCAST/PCASTTechTransferReport.pdf.
15.
RaiArtiK.EisenbergRebeccaS. (2003), ‘Bayh–Dole reform and the progress of biomedicine’, American Scientist, January/February, pp 52, 59.
16.
RelmanArnoldS.AngellMarcia (2002), ‘America's other drug problem’, New Republic, 16 December, pp 27, 39.
17.
RooseveltTheodore (1905), ‘Address at the Inaugural Ceremony’, 4 March 1905, in Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States 1989, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1989.
