The Trump administration has intensified its dispute with Harvard University by launching a comprehensive review of more than 5,800 patents stemming from federally funded research, signalling a potential use of the Bayh-Dole Act’s “march-in” rights. If exercised, these powers would allow the government to claim ownership or relicense the patents to third parties if it determines they are not being used to benefit the public or manufactured sufficiently in the United States. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has given Harvard until early September to provide detailed disclosures on the patents, associated licences, and compliance with statutory obligations.
This investigation comes amid an already tense relationship between the administration and the university, following earlier freezes on billions in federal research funding tied to allegations of civil rights non-compliance. Harvard, while rejecting claims of wrongdoing, argues that it has consistently met Bayh-Dole requirements and views the probe as politically motivated. The university has already initiated legal proceedings to challenge the funding suspension, framing the issue as one of protecting academic freedom and preserving institutional autonomy.
For the legal sector, the case raises critical questions about the scope of federal authority in managing intellectual property arising from public investment. A decision to seize or relicense Harvard’s patents would set a precedent affecting not only universities but also private-sector collaborators, potentially altering the balance between innovation incentives and public benefit mandates. It may also encourage a broader reassessment of compliance frameworks, particularly in sectors where research funding and commercialisation are deeply intertwined.
If the government proceeds, the confrontation could reshape the legal and strategic landscape for patent management in higher education, forcing institutions to adopt more transparent, proactive, and domestically focused commercialisation strategies. For both policymakers and academic leaders, the dispute underscores the growing intersection of politics, law, and the economics of innovation.
