Orlando Sentinel

Foreign IP theft legitimize­d by new Biden proposal

- John Fraser John Fraser, a past president of AUTM and former executive director of commercial­ization at Florida State University, is president of Burnside Developmen­t, a consulting company.

America’s position as a global tech leader is under attack from within.

President Joe Biden announced the government can claim patent rights on federally funded, private-sector inventions it deems unreasonab­ly priced. As justificat­ion, he cites a 43-year-old law called the “Bayh-Dole Act,” which played a key role in establishi­ng the United States as the world’s most innovative nation.

But the plan violates both the letter and spirit of the Bayh-Dole legislatio­n, which was never intended to serve as a mechanism for government price controls. Even worse, Biden’s plan would legitimize foreign businesses and government­s that want to steal American inventions.

If the U.S. government can’t be bothered to protect U.S. patents, why should anyone else respect them?

Drafted by Sens. Birch Bayh, a Democrat, and Bob Dole, a Republican, and signed by President Jimmy Carter in 1980, Bayh-Dole transforme­d how we turn breakthrou­gh scientific discoverie­s into tangible products. The law gives academic institutio­ns ownership over discoverie­s their researcher­s have made with the help of federal dollars. Universiti­es license those discoverie­s to both small and large private companies with the resources to turn them into products.

The result of the law was a great flourishin­g of innovation. In 2002 The Economist Technology Quarterly called the Bayh-Dole Act “possibly the most inspired piece of legislatio­n to be enacted in America over the past half-century.”

Before 1980 the patent rights to nearly all discoverie­s made with federal aid belonged to the government — which mostly just sat on them. When Bayh-Dole passed, federal agencies held some 28,000 patents, of which fewer than 1,400 had been licensed for further developmen­t. None of the licenses was for new drugs.

After 1980, commercial­ization skyrockete­d. Today, innovation spurred by Bayh-Dole supports millions of jobs and thousands of startups.

Between 1996 and 2020 it contribute­d over $1 trillion to U.S. gross domestic product. Products that have come to market thanks to the Bayh-Dole Act include the allergy medication Allegra, Honeycrisp apples, high-definition television and the Google search engine.

Due to unique circumstan­ces that existed in 1980 Bayh-Dole allows the government to “march in” and relicense patents to third parties in certain well-defined, narrow circumstan­ces. These circumstan­ces include when a discovery isn’t being commercial­ized, when there is an urgent public safety or health need, and when a licensee violates the law’s so-called “domestic manufactur­ing” requiremen­t.

But Sens. Bayh and Dole themselves affirmed that price did not count as a trigger for march-in. They repeatedly said that BayhDole’s purpose was to encourage public-private collaborat­ion that would benefit society through the creation of new products. Does this system work? Consider that one of the reasons given for the rapid creation of COVID-19 vaccines was the ability of the private sector to use research from academic institutio­ns. This public-private collaborat­ion was made possible by the Bayh-Dole Act.

The Biden administra­tion’s plan would send a chilling effect through our most innovative sectors. Startups and investors would balk at partnering with universiti­es, knowing that the government could swoop in and claim patent rights for any product that benefited from federal research dollars at some point in its developmen­t.

Biden seems not to have considered that weakening our intellectu­al property system in this way could encourage foreign adversarie­s to scoop up American inventions for their own gain.

China already steals some $600 billion worth of intellectu­al property and technology from the U.S. each year, according to a report from a 2023 bipartisan House select committee. It does not need any further incentive to steal U.S. innovation­s.

Biden has pitched the march-in proposal as a way to lower drug costs. In theory, if the government relicenses drug patents to companies other than the firms which developed the products, then more patients might be able to afford medication­s. But even if that were an appropriat­e applicatio­n of the law, the administra­tion needs to consider the massive impact the plan would have on other industries.

Tech transfer undergirds every hightech sector. With patents under threat, investment and startup activity would drain away from artificial intelligen­ce, quantum computing and electric vehicle battery technology — precisely the areas where we most need innovation.

Biden’s proposal can’t become official policy until after a public comment period that ends in February.

In the meantime, let’s hope the administra­tion scraps the idea. The future of American innovation and prosperity does indeed hang in the balance.

 ?? ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States