Andrew Neighbour, representing the Council on Governmental Relations (COGR) and speaking as a university administrator, delivered testimony to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) on the issue of utilizing the Bayh-Dole Act’s march-in rights in response to a request from Essential Inventions regarding the pricing and access to Abbott’s HIV drug, Norvir. Neighbour articulated COGR’s strong concern that invoking march-in rights to address product pricing or compel broader licensing would undermine the successful public-private partnership established by Bayh-Dole, which has promoted the effective commercialization of federally funded research since 1980. He emphasized that while the Act grants the government authority to intervene if an invention is not made practically available to the public, the current situation does not fit this criterion, as Norvir is accessible and the market should determine reasonable licensing terms, not the government.
Neighbour cautioned that reinterpreting or expanding march-in rights to include price control would deter private industry from licensing university technologies, especially in fields such as biopharmaceuticals that require substantial investment. He noted that such a precedent could disrupt the balance Bayh-Dole has achieved between government, academia, and industry in promoting innovation for public benefit. Neighbour asserted that no previous use of march-in rights has been necessary, indicating the efficacy of the existing system, and urged that any changes to the legislation should only follow comprehensive stakeholder dialogue. He concluded by recommending NIH uphold the established interpretation of Bayh-Dole, pursue alternative measures for public interest concerns, and avoid actions that would destabilize the university-industry-government collaboration critical to advancing research outcomes for societal benefit.
