government taking private patents.

[hawk]

they say only government funded patents but read closely seems like only a test run to take anything they want.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-la ... ment-power
Biden Drug Patent Seizures Would Test Scope of Government Power
A Biden administration move to seize some drug patents would likely be met with lawsuits challenging the scope of its authority to commandeer intellectual property.

The administration on Thursday floated a framework on how it could take over some patents for certain drugs if their prices are determined to be too high. It’s the first time the US government has looked to use so-called “march-in rights” for patents on drugs developed with federal funding to license them to other manufacturers, administration officials said.

If a plan is finalized, an all-but-certain legal challenge to the administration’s exercise of march-in rights would force courts to weigh in on a long-running debate among lawmakers and scholars about whether the rights can be used to influence prices.


https://www.mololamken.com/knowledge-Wh ... ers-Rights
What Is the Source of the Federal Government’s Power to ‘Commandeer’ Patents, and What Are Patent-Holders’ Rights?
In the fight against COVID-19, researchers are racing to develop new treatments and an effective vaccine. Patents encourage investment into that potentially life-saving research by giving inventors the exclusive right to their inventions for a period of years. But patent-holders might also wield their rights in ways that render future breakthrough technologies prohibitively expensive or in short supply.

If patents stand in the way of broad access to medicines that might end the pandemic, governments might consider intervening. The United States Government has the power to do so under two statutes: the Bayh-Dole Act, and §1498 of Title 28 of the U.S. Code.


https://www.npr.org/sections/health-sho ... stly-drugs
White House proposes to 'march in' on patents for costly drugs
The Biden administration is taking another crack at high prescription drug prices. This time its sights are set on drugs that rely on taxpayer-funded inventions.

The federal government spends billions of dollars a year on biomedical research that can – and often does – lead to prescription drugs.

For years, activists have pushed the government to use so-called march-in rights when a taxpayer-funded invention isn't publicly available on reasonable terms. They say the law allows the government to march in and license certain patents of high-priced drugs to other companies to sell them at lower prices.



https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/public ... 15a_1_.pdf
The Federal Government holds numerous patents on inventions and discoveries from successful public research. But patents exist to restrict the use,
sale, and manufacture of inventions. If a primary objective of the public
sector is to distribute the benefits of public research as widely as possible,
why does the government patent at all?
The key principle behind patenting is that granting a proprietary right to
generate income from inventive activity is expected to spur inventions. At
the same time, disclosing the invention adds to the stock of knowledge,
thereby enabling further discovery. Inventiveness and technical change are
the engines of economic growth—so it is generally presumed to be in the
public interest to grant intellectual property rights (IPR). The private sector
depends on clearly defined and enforceable property rights for markets to
function and, therefore, enforceable IPR might stimulate private sector
investment in research and development. But this does not explain why the
public sector would need to patent its technologies




https://constitution.congress.gov/brows ... _00013068/
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8:

[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Early Supreme Court cases suggest that Congress has plenary power to enlarge patent rights retrospectively. The extent to which patent rights can be limited retrospectively, consistent with the Intellectual Property (IP) Clause and constitutional protections for property, is an unsettled area of law.

The Supreme Court has presumed that patents, once granted, are property rights subject to the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court has repeatedly suggested that patents are private property the government cannot take without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. The Court has not had occasion to decide the applicability of the Takings Clause to patents, however, because Congress has long provided by statute that a patent holder may sue for reasonable and entire compensation if the Federal Government uses or manufactures a patented invention without a license.