This is an old article, but it perfectly describes how the Bayh-Dole Act helps many government funded researchers make money. The 1.26 Billion in gross licensing is an old figure from 2000. I am looking for the latest. I will keep you posted. Hey, no implications being made, but the facts are the facts.
In 1980, the Bayh-Dole Act (PL 96-517, Patent and Trademark Act Amendments of 1980) created a uniform patent policy among the many federal agencies funding research. As a result of this law, universities retain ownership to inventions made under federally funded research. In return, universities are expected to file for patent protection and to ensure commercialization upon licensing. The royalties from such ventures are shared with the inventors; a portion is provided to the University and department/college; and the remainder is used to support the technology transfer process.
From a historical perspective, there was a need for reliable technology transfer mechanisms and for a uniform set of federal rules to make the process work. It was tough for the federal government to transfer technologies for which it had assumed ownership. In 1980, the federal government had approximately 30,000 patents of which only 5% led to new or improved products. Many patents were not being used as the government did not have the resources to develop and market the inventions. Thus, Bayh-Dole gave universities control of their inventions.
Prior to Bayh-Dole, fewer than 250 patents were issued to universities per year. In FY 2000, there were over 330 U.S. and Canadian institutions and universities engaged in technology transfer. Technology transfer has helped to spawn new businesses, create industries and open new markets. In fact, core technologies, likely to spark new industries, often result from university patents. University-industry collaborations have helped to move new discoveries from the lab to the marketplace faster and more efficiently than ever before -- ensuring that products and services based on federally funded research reach the public.
The reason that the Bayh-Dole act is so instrumental to university technology transfer is that it speeds up the commercialization process of federally funded university research and helps new industries to develop quicker. Examples range from Stanford’s Cohen-Boyer patent on the basic gene splicing tools - to the Axel patents, from Columbia University which provided a completely new process for inserting genes into mammalian cells to make protein. Bayh-Dole has also enabled laboratory advances to become a significant factor in U.S. and Canadian industrial growth. The Bayh-Dole act is also vital to the university as a whole. University gross licensing revenues exceeded $200M in 1991 and by 1992 that number had risen to $250M. In FY 2000, U.S. and Canadian institution and universities Gross Licensing Income is reported in the AUTM survey at $1.26 Billion.
COGR University Technology Transfer: Questions and Answers, October 1999
In 1980, the Bayh-Dole Act (PL 96-517, Patent and Trademark Act Amendments of 1980) created a uniform patent policy among the many federal agencies funding research. As a result of this law, universities retain ownership to inventions made under federally funded research. In return, universities are expected to file for patent protection and to ensure commercialization upon licensing. The royalties from such ventures are shared with the inventors; a portion is provided to the University and department/college; and the remainder is used to support the technology transfer process.
From a historical perspective, there was a need for reliable technology transfer mechanisms and for a uniform set of federal rules to make the process work. It was tough for the federal government to transfer technologies for which it had assumed ownership. In 1980, the federal government had approximately 30,000 patents of which only 5% led to new or improved products. Many patents were not being used as the government did not have the resources to develop and market the inventions. Thus, Bayh-Dole gave universities control of their inventions.
Prior to Bayh-Dole, fewer than 250 patents were issued to universities per year. In FY 2000, there were over 330 U.S. and Canadian institutions and universities engaged in technology transfer. Technology transfer has helped to spawn new businesses, create industries and open new markets. In fact, core technologies, likely to spark new industries, often result from university patents. University-industry collaborations have helped to move new discoveries from the lab to the marketplace faster and more efficiently than ever before -- ensuring that products and services based on federally funded research reach the public.
The reason that the Bayh-Dole act is so instrumental to university technology transfer is that it speeds up the commercialization process of federally funded university research and helps new industries to develop quicker. Examples range from Stanford’s Cohen-Boyer patent on the basic gene splicing tools - to the Axel patents, from Columbia University which provided a completely new process for inserting genes into mammalian cells to make protein. Bayh-Dole has also enabled laboratory advances to become a significant factor in U.S. and Canadian industrial growth. The Bayh-Dole act is also vital to the university as a whole. University gross licensing revenues exceeded $200M in 1991 and by 1992 that number had risen to $250M. In FY 2000, U.S. and Canadian institution and universities Gross Licensing Income is reported in the AUTM survey at $1.26 Billion.
COGR University Technology Transfer: Questions and Answers, October 1999
Last edited: