Does Australia Need its Own Bayh-Dole Style Legislation?

It has been thirty years since US federal policy in relation to the commercialisation of publicly-funded research underwent a major change through the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980.  Bayh-Dole fostered greater uniformity in the way research agencies treat inventions arising from the work they sponsor.  Before the Act, if government agencies funded university research, the funding agency retained ownership of the knowledge and technologies that resulted.  However, very little federally funded research was actually commercialised.

As a result of the Act, which provides for the universities to take title to the IP in most circumstances, patenting and licensing activity from such research has accelerated.

Although the system created by Bayh-Dole has remained stable, concerns have sometimes arisen that it might impede other forms of knowledge transfer, or that universities might prioritize commercialization at the expense of their traditional mission to pursue fundamental knowledge.

The US National Research Council therefore convened a committee of experts from universities, industry, foundations, and similar organizations, as well as scholars of the subject, to review experience and evidence of the technology transfer system's effects and to recommend improvements.  The result of this review is a report, published by National Academies Press (NAP), entitled Managing University Intellectual Property in the Public Interest. 

A prepublication proof of the report is now available online (or access via the widget below)..

In brief, the report's key findings are:

1. The first goal of university technology transfer involving IP is the expeditious and wide dissemination of university-generated technology for the public good.
2. The transition of knowledge into practice takes place through a variety of mechanisms, and not only patenting and licensing activity.
3. The system under Bayh-Dole has been much more effective than its predecessor in making research advances available to the public
4. The Bayh-Dole legal framework and the practices of universities have not seriously undermined academic norms.
5. A persuasive case has not been made for converting to a system in which inventors are able to dispose their inventions without university administration approval.
6. There is a feeling in some quarters that in the current system of university management, inventor initiative is not sufficiently valued and encouraged, particularly in view of the important role often played by inventors in successful commercialisation of technology.

The report includes fifteen recommendations for improving the system of university IP management, but almost all of these comprise proposals for effective practices to be adopted within the relevant institutions.  No substantive regulatory or legislative change is recommended, which would seem to be a fairly strong endorsement of the framework provided by the Bayh-Dole system.

Given the success of the Bayh-Dole regime in the US, we wonder if it is time for Australia to give serious consideration to adopting similar legislation?

---

Before You Go…

Thank you for reading this article to the end – I hope you enjoyed it, and found it useful.  Almost every article I post here takes a few hours of my time to research and write, and I have never felt the need to ask for anything in return.

But now – for the first, and perhaps only, time – I am asking for a favour.  If you are a patent attorney, examiner, or other professional who is experienced in reading and interpreting patent claims, I could really use your help with my PhD research.  My project involves applying artificial intelligence to analyse patent claim scope systematically, with the goal of better understanding how different legal and regulatory choices influence the boundaries of patent protection.  But I need data to train my models, and that is where you can potentially assist me.  If every qualified person who reads this request could spare just a couple of hours over the next few weeks, I could gather all the data I need.

The task itself is straightforward and web-based – I am asking participants to compare pairs of patent claims and evaluate their relative scope, using an online application that I have designed and implemented over the past few months.  No special knowledge is required beyond the ability to read and understand patent claims in technical fields with which you are familiar.  You might even find it to be fun!

There is more information on the project website, at claimscopeproject.net.  In particular, you can read:

1. a detailed description of the study, its goals and benefits; and
2. instructions for the use of the online claim comparison application.

Thank you for considering this request!

Mark Summerfield

Tags: Australia, Innovation policy, Intellectual Asset Management, Public research, US