Limited inventor mobility bad – expanded presumption of access good

[Brenda M. "Preserving the Fruits of Labor: Impediments to University Inventor Mobility," Tennessee Law Review 89, no. 1 (Fall 2021): 1-66 heinonline gdi-tm]

This Article has described the many. challenges university inventors face when attempting to leave their parent institutions. It has set forth how innovation-essential components that are vital to the innovative process create strong ties that effectively inhibit university inventor mobility. Augmenting these obstacles to inventor mobility, universities have forged questionable arrangements with and brought suits against other academic institutions to prevent movement of university inventors.436

Restrictions on university inventor mobility are concerning. Academic inventors often gain specialized insights into their nascent inventions that are critical to commercialization, and excessive limitations on mobility may hamper the transfer of their tacit knowledge.437 In addition, discrepancies between community norms, philosophical principles, and legal doctrine may appear to justify inventors' attempts to continue using their inventions, though that use is proscribed. 438 Even when supported by legal doctrine, far­ reaching restrictions on inventor mobility may be at odds with the foundational objectives of universities. Examples from poaching among academic institutions to innovation in the strawberry industry underscore the implications of overbroad limits on inventor mobility. 439 Although no proposal for addressing these potential harms is ideal, the best options are amending the Bayh-Dole Act to provide a presumptive right to practice for university inventors on payment of a reasonable royalty or placing conditions on governmental incentive structures to encourage university inventor involvement in development.