Campbell, director of IP Law Program, 19
[Patricia E., “University Inventions Reconsidered: Debunking the Myth of University Ownership,” 11 WM. & MARY BUS. L. REV. 77 November 2019 acc. 7-17, GDI-LI]
Following the adoption of Bayh-Dole, university administrators continued to amend their IP policies to expand claims of ownership over inventions created on campus, even claiming rights in the inventions of students, visitors, and other members of the university community.130 Some policies justify these broad ownership claims based on the requirements of the Bayh-Dole Act and other federal laws.131 MIT’s Policy Statements relating to patents provide: Research contracts sponsored by the Federal Government are subject to statutes and regulations under which MIT acquires title in inventions conceived or first reduced to practice in the performance of the research. MIT’s ownership is subject to a nonexclusive license to the government and the requirement that MIT retain title and take effective steps to develop the practi- cal applications of the invention by licensing and other means.132 Pennsylvania State University’s policy declares that its requirement that all members of the university (including adminis- trators, faculty, staff, graduate and undergraduate students, and others) sign an intellectual property agreement arises from the university’s “obligations” under the Bayh-Dole Act.133 However, one cannot lose sight of the fact that the Bayh- Dole Act only applies to federally funded research, not to industry- sponsored research or research that is supported by university funds.134 Nevertheless, it appears that many universities seized upon Bayh-Dole as a justification to claim ownership of all research conducted on campus, rather than limiting their ownership claims to federally funded research.135