Compulsory Licensing and March-in Rights in COVID-19 Vaccine Production
March-in rights are a measure intended to protect against nonuse or unreasonable use of federally funded inventions. The federal agency under whose funding agreement the subject invention was made has the right to require the granting of a license to a responsible applicant.
September 29, 2021 at 11:00 AM
9 minute read
Discussions of a waiver by the World Trade Organization (WTO) regarding certain intellectual property protections for prevention, containment and treatment of COVID-19 have once again put a spotlight on compulsory licensing and march-in rights. Undeniably the COVID-19 pandemic has changed our lives and the way we do things. However, discussions of compulsory licensing and march-in rights are not new. In the U.S., laws historically have been enacted that affect intellectual property rights during times when the need for technology was of utmost importance.
Congress, reacting to a holding of patent infringement liability on government contractors during World War I, enacted a statute that was later codified as 35 U.S.C. §68 (1926) and re-codified as 28 U.S.C. §1498 to protect wartime contractors from patent infringement. See, Zoltek Corp. v. U.S., 815 F.3d 1302 (Fed Cir. 2012)(describing the history of 28 U.S.C. §1498). The later re-codified and so called "Government Use Patent Law" (28 U.S.C. §1498) provided a shield from patent infringement and provided for compensation to patent owners when the U.S. government utilized their patented technology.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFirst-of-Its-Kind Parkinson’s Patch at Center of Fight Over FDA Approval of Generic Version
3 minute readIntellectual Property Lawyer of the Year Finalist: Ronald S. Bienstock
1 minute readMcCarter & English Acquires Connecticut IP Boutique Harrington & Smith
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Houston Law Firm Files $250K Breach of Contract Suit Against 2 Former Lawyers
- 2The Week in Data Feb. 3: A Look at Legal Industry Trends by the Numbers
- 3Mass Tort Cases: Challenges for Plaintiff’s and Defense Counsel
- 4Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs: Davis Wright Tremaine, Wilmer and More
- 5Forum Clause Axes $844M Case Against Reinsurer Over Deadly Plane Crash, Judge Rules
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250