Since its enactment in 1980, the Bayh-Dole Act has been credited with selling the event of over 10,000 startup corporations and at the very least 200 pharmaceutical medicine and vaccines, whereas contributing greater than $500 billion or, by some estimates, over $1 trillion to the financial system. While the eye of Washington was elsewhere in early January 2021, a discover of proposed rulemaking was revealed that will change the present laws implementing the Act. Two of probably the most noteworthy adjustments are directed to march-in rights and conveyance of title to patent rights to the federal government.

More particularly, the National Institution of Science and Technology (NIST), which oversees implementation of the Bayh-Dole Act, proposed to reorganize sections, take away redundancies, make clear sure options, and add new provisions to the Bayh-Dole laws. Two noteworthy adjustments within the proposed rulemaking are (i) a clarification of the federal government’s causes for exercising march-in rights, and (ii) allowing federal businesses, at their discretion, to waive the requirement to switch possession of patent rights to the federal company for not assembly the deadlines of sure actions. For the previous, a brand new provision would stop price issues from offering the only real foundation to train march-in rights. For the latter, a brand new provision would allow a federal company to waive the requirement for a funding recipient to convey title to the federal company for late disclosure, election of title, or submitting of patent functions.

Both provisions, if adopted, might present extra certainty to possession of patent rights and consequently, improve their worth and attractiveness to funding in and commercialization of the respective applied sciences. NIST has invited the general public to supply feedback.[1]


The Bayh-Dole Act facilitates the commercialization of federally funded analysis and improvement by offering dependable patent rights to the funding recipients. After the enactment of the Bayh-Dole Act, funding recipients, or “contractors,” have been lastly capable of benefit from and monetize such patent rights. As reported to Congress, “[o]ne of the major factors in the reported success of the Bayh-Dole Act is the certainty it conveys concerning ownership of intellectual property.”[2]

In an effort to replace Bayh-Dole laws to present patent legal guidelines and advance the federal government’s Lab-to-Market (L2M) initiative,[3] the Secretary of Commerce charged NIST to revisit the Bayh-Dole Act to replace its laws. According to NIST, the L2M-driven regulatory actions included bettering funding partnerships, growing compliance by funding recipients, and bettering company entry to reported information. This effort resulted in amended and new laws that have been carried out in May 2018.

Under Bayh-Dole, any enterprise entity or nonprofit group that receives federal authorities funding, and has innovations and patent functions made with such funding – even partially – is required to well timed disclose and elect title (i.e., safe possession) to such innovations and patent functions from the federal company that’s offering funding. Under the present laws, a federal company can demand title to topic innovations and related patent rights at any time in the course of the lifetime of patent rights after studying of non-compliance with these actions, e.g., an premature disclosure or election of title. Non-compliance successfully offers the federal company limitless time to take title, putting a cloud over the possession of the worldwide patent rights for his or her length.

Another characteristic of the Bayh-Dole Act is march-in rights. March-in rights have been included to forestall huge enterprise from licensing federally funded applied sciences from universities and small companies, solely to shelve the applied sciences and never commercialize them, opposite to the aim of the Act. March-in rights are a car for a federal company to research and, if sure necessities are met, to license third events to follow the expertise.

On January 4, 2021, NIST revealed within the Federal Register a discover of proposed rulemaking affecting the Bayh-Dole Act laws.


To defend towards the non-use or suppression of federally funded innovations, for instance, a big company licensing and never utilizing expertise from a college, the Bayh-Dole Act included “march-in” provisions, i.e., the power of the federal company to research and, if warranted, to power the contractor or their licensee to license the innovations on affordable phrases to a 3rd social gathering.

Specifically, 35 U.S.C. § 203, entitled, “March-In Rights,” states, in related half, that “the Federal agency under whose funding agreement the subject invention was made shall have the right … to require the contractor, an assignee or exclusive licensee of a subject invention to grant a nonexclusive, partially exclusive, or exclusive license in any field of use to a responsible applicant or applicants, upon terms that are reasonable under the circumstances …” The part enumerates causes for when such motion might be taken:

  1. Failure to take, inside an affordable time, efficient steps to attain sensible software of the topic invention;
  2. To alleviate well being or security wants which aren’t moderately glad;
  3. To meet necessities for public use specified by federal laws and such necessities aren’t moderately glad; or
  4. Failure to considerably manufacture within the United States any merchandise embodying the topic invention which can be supposed for U.S. commerce, until this requirement has been waived.[4]

Since the enactment of the Bayh-Dole Act, there was appreciable debate surrounding the interpretation and perceived lack of assertion of march-in rights. In 2001, two professors revealed a idea that march-in rights have been relevant when the value of products or companies weren’t supplied on affordable phrases to the general public, which funded the invention by their taxes.[5] This studying of the regulation was embraced by critics of excessive drug costs, who started petitioning the federal businesses, such because the National Institutes of Health (NIH), to train this alleged price-control provision.

Soon after this publication, Birch Bayh and Bob Dole revealed a counter op-ed piece in The Washington Post denouncing the usage of Bayh-Dole to regulate the value of medicine. In explicit, they wrote:

Bayh-Dole didn’t intend that authorities set costs on ensuing merchandise. The regulation makes no reference to an affordable worth that must be dictated by the federal government. This omission was intentional; the first objective of the act was to entice the personal sector to hunt public-private analysis collaboration slightly than focusing by itself proprietary expertise.[6]

Despite all of the petitions filed through the years, not as soon as have march-in rights been exercised by a federal company. However, with ever growing drug costs within the United States, which might restrict drug entry by decrease revenue lessons, activist teams and now state attorneys basic proceed to petition the federal authorities and federal businesses[7] to make use of march-in rights to power federally funded drug builders to supply their medicine at affordable costs. To date, at the very least eight petitions to train march-in rights have been filed with the NIH, together with, most not too long ago, a petition with respect to a possible COVID-19 therapy.[8],[9] Only one time did the NIH consider it was justified in exercising march-in rights; nonetheless, they deemed that motion wouldn’t have solved the manufacturing downside of the patent proprietor any earlier than a licensee might. Thus, the NIH declined to march in.

While the entry to reasonably priced medicine within the United States is a legitimate and ever-increasing concern, the train of march-in rights would possible have a chilling impact on the funding group, universities, and analysis institutes, amongst others. Commercialization of expertise made with federal funding would possible be negatively impacted, which can be a supply of federal businesses’ repeated reluctance to train march-in rights.[10]

The proposed rulemaking would make clear the march-in rights laws by including a provision that march-in rights shall not be exercised by an company completely on the premise of pricing of economic items and companies arising from the sensible software of the invention. That is, worth management can’t be the only real motive for exercising march-in rights. If this proposed provision is enacted, the associated unease and disputes concerning the certainty of patent rights and related product price management ought to abate.


Any entity that receives federal authorities funding, and has innovations and patent rights made with such funding, is required to well timed disclose and elect title to such innovations and patent rights from the funding federal company. NIST modified the implications for premature disclosure or election of title in May 2018. Previously, a contractor had the power to retroactively appropriate such a defect in title. After studying of a contractor’s premature disclosure or election of title, the federal company had a 60-day interval inside which it might take title. If the federal company didn’t request title throughout that interval, the possession of the topic invention and patent rights would vest within the contractor.

Now, importantly, for funding agreements or renewals after May 2018, this 60-day interval has been eradicated. Under the brand new laws, after studying of the premature disclosure or election of title, the federal company can require the contractor to switch title to the company at any time in the course of the lifetime of the patents. Without the power of a contractor to treatment the non-compliance, a everlasting cloud over the possession of the related patent rights is current, thereby eradicating that which made the Bayh-Dole Act profitable – the knowledge of possession of the patent rights ensuing from federally funded analysis and improvement.

The threat that possession rights to a patent might be taken away at any time can turn into a deterrent to funding and licensing of the topic invention. Consequently, following such non-compliance, the federally funded applied sciences might by no means obtain their full potential worth, opposite to the supposed objective and what helped Bayh-Dole obtain such success.

A brand new proposed regulation removes the uncertainty of possession of the patent rights because of premature disclosure or election of title by allowing the federal company to waive its means to convey title to the patent rights.

Although the federal company can waive its proper to request title to the patent rights to a topic invention, it isn’t beneath an obligation to take action, nor are there pointers as to when such a waiver is suitable. Thus, even when adopted, the brand new provision may not be utilized uniformly by the totally different federal businesses. Nevertheless, the brand new provision would offer an avenue for a contractor to start a dialogue with a federal company to clear title to the patent rights.


In sum, the proposed rulemaking with respect to the Bayh-Dole Act has constructive implications in reference to its supposed objective and success, particularly, to supply certainty of possession of the patent rights to innovations developed utilizing federal funding. By expressly together with within the laws that price alone can’t be used to train march-in rights and {that a} federal company can waive its means to require switch of title to it after non-compliance by the funding recipient, these new provisions might help to attain possession and management over the patent rights to draw funding for commercialization, to profit Americans and society all over the place.

[1] NIST has invited the general public to supply written feedback on the proposed adjustments by April 5, 2021. Information supplied at
[2] Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, “The Bayh-Dole Act: Selected Issues in Patent Policy and the Commercialization of Technology,” by W. Schacht (December 3, 2012); House Small Business Committee Testimony by Bryan Lord, Vice President for Finance and Licensing and General Counsel of AmberWave Systems Corporation, Patent Issues and Small Business (March 29, 2007); and Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee Testimony by Neil Veloso, Executive Director for Technology Transfer of John Hopkins Technology Ventures (February 25, 2016).
[3] The authorities’s Lab-to-Market (L2M) initiative, extra particularly known as the Lab-to-Market (L2M) Cross Agency Priority (CAP) objective, was a part of the 2018 President’s Management Agenda and was launched to speed up the switch of recent applied sciences from laboratories to the industrial market. It was supposed to maximise the financial and developmental return on the estimated $150 billion that the federal authorities invests in analysis and improvement at universities, Federal laboratories, and corporations. The L2M CAP objective is co-led by the Department of Commerce by way of NIST and the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP).
[4] 35 U.S.C. § 203.
[5] Peter S. Arno and Michael H. Davis, “Why Don’t We Enforce Existing Drug Price Controls? The Unrecognized and Unenforced Reasonable Pricing Requirements Imposed Upon Patents Deriving in Whole or in Part from Federally Funded Research,” 75 Tulane Law Review (2001), p. 631.
[6] B. Bayh and B. Dole, “Our Law Helps Patients Get New Drugs Sooner,” The Washington Post, April 11, 2002.
[7] In addition to the Director of the NIH, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are recipients of a few of such petitions.
[9] Recently, 34 state attorneys basic requested that the NIH train march-in rights on Gilead’s remdesivir, a promising therapy for COVID-19. See
[10] The NIH acknowledged that “as a result of the market dynamics for all merchandise developed pursuant to licensing rights beneath the Bayh-Dole Act might be altered if costs on such merchandise have been directed in any method by NIH… the extraordinary treatment of march-in shouldn’t be an applicable technique of controlling costs. The challenge of drug pricing has world implications and, thus, is appropriately left for Congress to deal with legislatively. See Elias A. Zerhouni, Director, NIH, In the Case of Norvir Manufactured by Abbott Laboratories, Inc., July 29, 2004, In-Norvir.pdf.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *