Robert P. Taylor, General Counsel of the Alliance of U.S. Startups & Inventors for Jobs, responds to the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) Request for Information (RFI) regarding the proposed “Framework” in the Federal Register on December 8, 2023. The framework aims to guide U.S. government departments and agencies providing research grants to contractors (universities, private research labs, and companies) on the exercise of “march-in rights” under the Bayh-Dole Act, 35 U.S.C. §203.
“USIJ shares the views expressed by the Bayh-Dole Coalition (“BDC”) , the entire U.S. higher education system, the National Venture Capital Association (“NVCA”) and dozens of other experts, business leaders and former government officials in urging the immediate withdrawal of this ill-conceived effort to reinterpret Section 203. The Framework erroneously purports to be carrying out the intent of the Bayh-Dole Act, but it clearly departs from the fundamental purpose and statutory language of the Act in ways likely to diminish the role of the federal government in funding future public/private partnerships. Nothing in the Bayh-Dole Act supports the use of march-in rights based on prices charged by a contractor or its licensee, a power erroneously assumed by the authors of the Framework.”
USIJ Response to NIST Bayh Dole Guidance RFI
Robert P. Taylor, General Counsel of the Alliance of U.S. Startups & Inventors for Jobs, responds to the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) Request for Information (RFI) regarding the proposed “Framework” in the Federal Register on December 8, 2023. The framework aims to guide U.S. government departments and agencies providing research grants to contractors (universities, private research labs, and companies) on the exercise of “march-in rights” under the Bayh-Dole Act, 35 U.S.C. §203.
“USIJ shares the views expressed by the Bayh-Dole Coalition (“BDC”) , the entire U.S. higher education system, the National Venture Capital Association (“NVCA”) and dozens of other experts, business leaders and former government officials in urging the immediate withdrawal of this ill-conceived effort to reinterpret Section 203. The Framework erroneously purports to be carrying out the intent of the Bayh-Dole Act, but it clearly departs from the fundamental purpose and statutory language of the Act in ways likely to diminish the role of the federal government in funding future public/private partnerships. Nothing in the Bayh-Dole Act supports the use of march-in rights based on prices charged by a contractor or its licensee, a power erroneously assumed by the authors of the Framework.”