“March-In” Pressure: What University Tech Transfer Officers Need to Know and Do

The Harvard Letter: A Wake-Up Call

In August 2025, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick sent Harvard University a letter that landed like a thunderclap across the tech-transfer community. Invoking the Bayh-Dole Act’s march-in provisions, the government demanded a detailed accounting of Harvard’s federally funded patents: how they were disclosed, whether title was properly elected, who they were licensed to, and whether those licensees are manufacturing in the United States.

The letter warns that, if Harvard is found out of compliance, federal agencies may require third-party licensing—or even take title to certain patents altogether. That’s a step never before taken at this scale.

For decades, march-in rights have existed mostly on paper, and universities have assumed that compliance reviews were rare and focused. The Trump Administration’s action signals that those assumptions may no longer hold. Every public research university should view this as an opportunity—and a warning—to ensure their own house is in order.

Why This Matters Beyond Harvard

Bayh-Dole has always required universities to report inventions, elect title within set timelines, prefer U.S. manufacturing, and ensure that federally funded discoveries are brought to practical use. But those requirements have often been handled quietly, in the background of faculty innovation and industry licensing.

The Harvard letter puts these obligations back in the spotlight. It also highlights the political dimension: federal funding is taxpayer money, and the government is increasingly interested in making sure the public sees the benefit—especially when high-value patents are involved.

If a compliance review landed in your inbox tomorrow, could you produce a comprehensive inventory of your federally funded patents, along with documentation showing how they are used and whether manufacturing takes place domestically?

Shorter Term Actions	Inventory & Audit – Build a complete list of patents tied to federal funding, including grant identifiers, disclosure dates, license status, and whether U.S. manufacturing clauses are in place.	Creates a single source of truth and highlights gaps before an agency does.
	Compliance Review – Check whether disclosures, election of title, and government reports were made on time. Identify any lapses that could be corrected or mitigated.	Prevents small issues from becoming major legal problems.
	Legal Assessment – Work with counsel to understand exposure and prepare defenses or corrective action plans.	Positions the university to respond quickly if questioned.
	Stakeholder Engagement – Brief leadership, grants administration, and inventors.	Ensures everyone is aligned and can help fill in missing information.
	Document Public Benefit – Gather evidence of commercialization and practical application.	Shows that the university is fulfilling Bayh-Dole’s public-use mandate.

Longer Term Actions	Update Policies & Agreements – Add or strengthen U.S. manufacturing preferences and reporting clauses in new licenses. Consider amendments where feasible.	Brings future deals into compliance and shows good faith effort.
	Improve Tracking Systems – Strengthen procedures for invention disclosures, deadlines, and license monitoring.	Reduces risk of repeat compliance issues.
	Plan Communications – Prepare internal and external messaging in case the issue becomes public.	Protects reputation and maintains trust with funders and industry partners.
	Transparency – Publish summaries of how federally funded inventions are being used.	Builds public trust and may preempt political scrutiny.
	Advocacy – Engage with AUTM and other associations to shape policy and seek regulatory clarity.	Helps ensure universities’ voices are heard in evolving federal practice

A Moment for Leadership

The Harvard case could become a turning point for how the federal government enforces Bayh-Dole. Whether or not this march-in action proceeds to its most extreme conclusion, it signals that compliance is going to be scrutinized more closely.

Tech transfer offices should not wait for their own letter. By auditing, documenting, and strengthening compliance now, universities can protect their patent rights, demonstrate public benefit, and continue to fulfill the mission of turning research into real-world impact.