March-In Rights Explained:
A Rarely Used Power With Big Implications
A Rarely Used Power With Big Implications
August 22, 2025
Most people outside of research institutions or the life sciences industry have never heard of march-in rights. Yet, this little-known provision of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 has become a hot topic in recent policy debates. Understanding what march-in rights are, why they were created, and how they could be applied is critical for businesses, universities, and innovators working with federally funded research.
The Bayh-Dole Act was passed to encourage commercialization of inventions developed with federal funding. Before the law, patents arising from government-funded research often sat unused, as ownership remained with the federal government. Bayh-Dole changed that by allowing universities, non-profits, and businesses to retain ownership of patents stemming from federal grants. This shift unleashed a wave of innovation, leading to the creation of thousands of start-ups, countless new technologies, and trillions of dollars in economic activity.
To balance this flexibility, Congress built in a safeguard: march-in rights. These rights give the federal government authority, under very limited circumstances, to “march in” and require the patent holder to license the invention to others. The intent was not to weaken patent rights but to ensure that publicly funded inventions would ultimately benefit the public.
Under Bayh-Dole, march-in rights may be exercised if:
The patent owner has not taken effective steps to achieve practical application of the invention within a reasonable time.
Action is necessary to alleviate health or safety needs that are not being reasonably satisfied.
Requirements for U.S. manufacturing under the law are not being met.
The benefits of the invention are not made available to the public on reasonable terms.
In practice, these triggers were designed to be narrow and rarely used, aimed at addressing true commercialization failures or urgent public needs.
Despite more than four decades of Bayh-Dole’s success, march-in rights have never been exercised. Agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have consistently declined petitions to use them—even in highly publicized cases involving drug pricing—on the grounds that availability and commercialization, not cost, are the core legal standards.
This consistent restraint reflects the law’s original intent: to encourage innovation by ensuring inventors and private partners can rely on the stability of patent rights, even when public funding is involved.
For businesses, universities, and start-ups that rely on federally funded research, march-in rights are more than an academic policy detail. If the government were to expand its interpretation of march-in rights—for example, using them to regulate pricing—it could create uncertainty around the security of patents derived from federal funding. That uncertainty could:
Discourage private investment in research and development.
Complicate licensing negotiations with industry partners.
Erode the value of patents connected to government grants.
In short, changes in how march-in rights are applied could alter the balance that Bayh-Dole struck between public investment and private commercialization.
As policymakers continue to debate the role of march-in rights, innovators and institutions need to stay informed. While the rights have never been exercised, the possibility of expanded use could reshape strategies around patenting, licensing, and commercialization of federally funded inventions.
At Daly Law & Strategy, we help clients understand how laws like Bayh-Dole affect intellectual property strategy and business planning. If your company, university, or research team is working with federally funded technology, knowing how march-in rights function is essential to protecting both your innovations and your long-term goals.