- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
U.S. government targets Harvard’s patents
Threatens to take action under the Bayh-Dole Act
US President Donald Trump’s administration has ordered a comprehensive review of Harvard University's federally funded research programs. It threatened to take title to or grant licenses from the school's lucrative portfolio of patents.
In a letter addressed to the University President Alan Garber, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick accused it of breaching the legal and contractual requirements on research programs and patents.
Lutnick stated that the Department of Commerce had begun a ‘march-in’ process under the federal Bayh-Dole Act that could let the government take ownership of the patents or grant licenses.
Signed in 1980 by President Jimmy Carter, about six weeks before he left the White House, the bipartisan Bayh-Dole Act was sponsored by Senators Birch Bayh of Indiana and Bob Dole of Kansas.
Carter had said it was important that industrial innovations promoted the country’s economy, and the legislation "strengthens the effectiveness of the patent incentive in stimulating innovation in the United States."
The Act ensures that Americans benefit from inventions funded through taxpayer dollars.
Lutnick added, "The Department places immense value on the ground-breaking scientific and technological advancements that emerge from the Government's partnerships with institutions like Harvard.”
The Commerce Secretary said that it carried a ‘critical responsibility’ for Harvard to ensure that its intellectual property, derived from federal funding, was used to maximize benefits to Americans.
Meanwhile, President Trump has made bolstering the country's manufacturing and economic competitiveness a priority in his second term in the White House. He has also raised tariffs on imports from dozens of countries.
Lutnick’s communication has increased the pressure on Harvard, accusing it of civil rights violations for failing to address antisemitism on campus.
In April, Harvard sued after the administration began freezing billions of dollars of federal research money.
Lutnick demanded that by 5 September, Harvard must provide a list of all patents from federally funded research grants, including how they were used and whether any licensing required substantial U.S. manufacturing.
As of 1 July 2024, Harvard held over 5,800 patents and more than 900 technology licenses with over 650 industry partners.
Meanwhile, several civil rights experts, faculty and White House critics believe the administration's targeting of schools was a pretext to assert federal control and threatened academic freedom and free speech.
Other schools that have faced federal funding losses include Columbia University, which agreed to pay $220 million to settle the government's antisemitism claims.
It was reported that Harvard was willing to pay $500 million to settle similar claims.



