Making matters worse, there is considerable underreporting of government rights in patented inventions. Additional barriers may also exist, particularly those relating to the regulatory pathway or access to know-how or proprietary cell lines.įor example, the proposed guidance states that “timing factors, like the remaining patent life compared to the time required to complete march-in proceedings, exhaust appeals, and further develop the technology … could weigh against march-in.” Notably, the march-in right is subject to an automatic stay while patent holders pursue appeals, presenting the risk that drug firms will game the system and run the clock before a march-in remedy can be put in place. Furthermore, even when the federal government has rights in some patent on a product, companies may claim others. A review of patents for new small-molecule drugs shows only a handful with any government rights and even fewer cases where all the listed patents disclose federal funding. They only apply when the federal government funding is related to an invention but do not apply to other research subsidies. Knowledgeable critics and supporters of march-in rights agree they are relevant to relatively few products. taxpayers should not have to pay more than people in other high-income countries when the federal government funded the invention. Among other things, it avoids the core issue related to every past attempt to use march-in rights to address prices-the argument that U.S. But the actual published document is less ambitious. President Joe Biden, his allies and members of his staff have described the newly announced policy as a significant tool to lower drug prices. But the draft makes mistakes that could limit the march-in right to too few cases and gives pharmaceutical firms an unearned pass on pillaging the taxpayers who paid for the inventions behind their expensive new drugs. It’s a long-standing federal failure to have never exercised this safeguard to lower drug prices, and the new draft document signals a significant change in policy. In the 43 years following the passage of the act, however, the federal government has never formally used the right, despite plenty of cases where it was warranted, including cases of excessive drug pricing. The march-in right is a key safeguard to protect the public from an abuse of patent-granted monopolies on inventions. In doing so, it flexes a muscle that past administrations feared to brandish.Īt issue is the ability and inclination of the federal government to grant compulsory licenses to patents on federally funded inventions, allowed under a 1980 law, the Bayh-Dole Act. The draft guidance fundamentally changes policy on federally funded inventions, including drugs and other products that rely on inventions that are sold at high prices by pharma and biotech companies. These are called “march-in” rights, and they allow the government to force licensing, when necessary, to remedy an abuse or nonuse of such patented inventions. I'm very disappointed in the game,' her fiance Jason Handley added.In December the White House announced a new draft guidance that allows federal agencies to grant nonvoluntary licenses to patents on inventions funded with taxpayer dollars. 'All of a sudden she brought me to this other room and took her clothes off and was asking me to take my clothes off and just all kind of, you know, adult stuff that shouldn't be for kids,' she said. 'She snatched me back up, and now she's doin' stuff to me,' Bordelon said in a video recording of the incident.īordelon recounted the incident to CBS News. However, 'condo games' may not be where the issues end: Louisiana mom Deranda Bordelon said she was playing a regular Roblox game called 'Adopt Me!' with her 8-year-old daughter when someone grabbed the mother's character and took it to bed to simulate a sex act. The company said it has 'a stringent safety system in place,' including monitoring content created by users, acting quickly on reports of inappropriate content and continually evolving its defense systems. Roblox declined an on-camera interview request but said it has 'no tolerance for inappropriate content or behavior'. 'And you don't know if someone is actually an adult pretending to be a child or with very bad intentions,' he said.

Roadblocks the game