35 U.S.C. § 200
Policy and objective
It is the policy and objective of the Congress to use the patent system to promote the utilization of inventions arising from federally supported research or development; to encourage maximum participation of small business firms in federally supported research and development efforts; to promote collaboration between commercial concerns and nonprofit organizations, including universities; to ensure that inventions made by nonprofit organizations and small business firms are used in a manner to promote free competition and enterprise without unduly encumbering future research and discovery; to promote the commercialization and public availability of inventions made in the United States by United States industry and labor; to ensure that the Government obtains sufficient rights in federally supported inventions to meet the needs of the Government and protect the public against nonuse or unreasonable use of inventions; and to minimize the costs of administering policies in this area.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: Bd. of Trs. of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2188 (2011).
Bd. of Trs. of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2188 (2011). “” 35 U. S. C. §200 . To achieve these aims, the Act allocates rights in federally funded “subject invention[s]” between the Federal Government and federal contractors (“any person, small business firm, or nonprofit organization that is a party to a funding agreement”).”
Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., Inc., Monsanto Co., Pharmacia Corp., & Pfizer Inc., 358 F.3d 916 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “See 35 U.S.C. § 200 . By vesting in universities the patent rights to their federally funded research, the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 encouraged “private industry to utilize government funded inventions through the commitment of the risk capital necessary to develop such inventions…”
Ali v. Carnegie Inst. of Washington, 684 F. App'x 985 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “Ali contended that UMass waived its sovereign immunity when it accepted funds from the federal government under the University and Small Business Patent Procedures Act, 35 U.S.C. §§ 200–12 (2012), commonly known as the Bayh-Dole Act, in support of certain research that led to…”
Madey v. Duke Univ., 413 F. Supp. 2d 601 (M.D.N.C. 2006). “Duke next contends that the Government has a license to practice or have practiced on its behalf the ’103 and ’994 Patents under the Bayh-Dole Act, 35 U.S.C. § 200 , et seq., because the inventions described in the ’103 and ’994 Patents were originally developed as part of…”
Pub. Citizen Health Rsch. Grp. v. Nat'l Institutes of Health, 209 F. Supp. 2d 37 (D.D.C. 2002). “These CRADA agreements serve as an instrument for federal laboratories to receive research funds from an outside party and also allows the federal laboratories to agree to license the invention arising out of the CRADA to the outside party at the outset of the collaboration…”
Hochendoner v. Genzyme Corp., 95 F. Supp. 3d 15 (D. Mass. 2015). “3015-28, codified as amended at 35 U.S.C. §§ 200 et seq., which provides protections against nonuse and unreasonable use of publicly funded inventions, by producing insufficient Fabrazyme® to treat U.”
Progressive Animal Welfare Soc'y v. Univ. of Washington, 884 P.2d 592 (Wash. 1994). “35 U.S.C. §§ 200 , 205. For three reasons this does not apply.”
Ali v. Carnegie Inst. of Washington, 967 F. Supp. 2d 1367 (D. Or. 2013). “Ali contends that because the United States allegedly provided some or all of the funding that supported the research underlying the patents-in-suit, any patents resulting from that funding fall within the purview of the Bayh-Dole University and Small Business Patent Procedures…”
Bd. of Trs. of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., 583 F.3d 832 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “” 35 U.S.C. § 200 (2006). The Act allows the Government to take title to “subject inventions” under certain circumstances, id.”
Carik v. United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 4 F. Supp. 3d 41 (D.D.C. 2013). “The Bayh-Dole Act Drugs developed, at least in part, with federal funding are subject to what is commonly referred to as the Bayh-Dole Act (“the Act”), 35 U.S.C. §§ 200 et seq. The Act is designed “to ensure that the Government obtains sufficient rights in federally supported…”
Platzer v. Sloan-Kettering Inst. for Cancer Rsch., 787 F. Supp. 360 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). “3019 , codified at 35 U.S.C. § 200 et seq.). The Bayh-Dole Act grants non-profit organizations exclusive title to inventions developed through federal funding, and allows them to freely license such inventions for profit so long as such profit is used to fund additional…”
Wisconsin Alumni Rsch. Found. v. Xenon Pharm., Inc., 591 F.3d 876 (7th Cir. 2010). “Alternatively, the Foundation claimed it had title to the compounds under the Bayh-Dole Act, 35 U.S.C. §§ 200 et seq., because federal funds had been used in the research and development of the compounds.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.