Brad Watts
Vice President, Patents and Innovation Policy, Global Innovation Policy Center (GIPC), U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Published
August 07, 2024
March-in rights, a provision of the Bayh-Dole Act, allow the government to relicense patents from federally funded research. They have never been invoked, for good reason, but a recent proposal aims to change that. While not finalized, this pending proposal, if enacted, will undoubtedly have profound implications for businesses of all sizes–stymieing American innovation and jeopardizing America’s global competitiveness.
Here’s what you need to know about march-in rights and what they will mean for American innovation.
March-in Rights: An Overview
The Bayh-Dole Act, passed in 1980, allows the private sector to take the initial products of federal government research and development and commercialize it. The Bayh-Dole Act has been recognized as the key driver of U.S. leadership in global innovation. March-in rights permit the government to reassign licensing for patents derived from federally supported research if the patent holder fails to commercialize the invention, if public health or safety needs require it, or if licensing terms are unreasonable. These rights have never been exercised and for good reasons.
However, a new proposal from the Biden Administration could invoke these rights, potentially disrupting existing partnerships and stifling innovation by undermining intellectual property protections. Why have march-in rights never been exercised?
The Counter-Productive Nature of March-in Rights
Private sector commercialization has led to societal benefits—life-saving drugs, closing the digital divide, miniaturization of electronics, and space exploration, to name a few. March-in rights create significant risks for businesses and patent owners, endangering their existing partnerships and intellectual property.
Universities and private inventors rely on stable IP arrangements to attract investors and collaborators. The risk of government intervention can disrupt these essential partnerships, which means less funding and fewer resources going into research and development.
The Administration should withdraw draft guidance and reinforce its commitment to the legal frameworks that have made the U.S. a global leader in innovation. Otherwise, it risks endangering intellectual property, stifling innovation, and risking American competitiveness.
Read more on march-in rights and the Chamber’s BASIC Coalition.
The BASIC Coalition Stands Against Property Confiscation
About the authors
Brad Watts
Brad Watts is the Vice President for Patents and Innovation Policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Global Innovation Policy Center (GIPC). He works with U.S. Chamber members to foster a political, legal, and economic environment where innovators and creators can invest in the next big thing for the benefit of Americans and the world.
