美国未行使成果转化“介入权”的四个案例

Four Tech-Transfer Cases in Which Administration Refuses to Exercise March-in Right

为推动科技成果转化,美国《拜杜法案》规定了"介入权"条款。几十年来,美国出现过4个申请强制科技成果转化的案例,但美国职能部门都认为不满足法律规定的条件,因而没有行使"介入权"。根据"介入权"条款,对Fabrazyme、CellPro、Norvir及Xalatan 4个案例进行了分析和研究,并对"介入权"条款的执行情况进行了评价。美国"介入权"强制成果转化的条款形同虚设,其原因主要有:资助部门认为该条款可能影响研究人员参与政府科技项目的积极性;"介入权"程序较为复杂,调查取证需要较长时间,使之难以实施;所涉及的成果往往不只是获得政府一个部门的资助,还获得其他方面的经费,导致"介入权"的行使更加复杂、困难。

To promote technology transfer,the U.S.Congress passed 'The Bayh-Dole Act' which includes the government's 'March-in' right.In the past several decades,there were four cases requesting the exercise of 'March-in' right to transfer the related patents to the third party,but the R&D funding agency refused to exercise this authority while holding that these cases don't meet the law regulation.Based on the language of 'Marchin' right,this paper makes a full analysis on the four cases of CellPro,Norvir,Xalatan and Fabrazyme,and gives a brief comment on the government's exercise of the right.The paper gives reasons that the 'March-in' right performed no function in four cases as follows:the R&D funding agency thinks that the 'March-in' right could have negative effects on researchers to participate the government projects;the complex procedure and long period to obtain evidence through investigation makes it difficult to exercise the right;the research funds involves multi-channel funds besides the government support,resulting in the hard exercise of the 'March-in' right.