By Dr. Rachel Dorin

When researchers discover a new technology, its potential isn't always obvious. No one knew at first that email would become a vital daily tool for four billion people. Today, as artificial intelligence goes mainstream, we have no idea of all the possible applications.

Inventors bridge the gap between initial breakthrough and usable product through a process of constant innovation. But this doesn't happen by accident. The United States is one of the most innovative countries in the world thanks to a well-designed system of intellectual property law, which encourages entrepreneurs to keep driving technology to tangibly improve the world around them.

We must continue to uphold and defend the laws that encourage investment in entrepreneurial pursuits and enable America to excel in innovation.

Our current system began with the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act, a bipartisan law that enabled universities to retain patent rights on discoveries that received federal grants. Before Bayh-Dole, the government kept patent rights to any publicly funded breakthroughs. But federal agencies had little incentive to commercialize early-stage research, so they mostly didn't.

After the law passed, universities could license their discoveries to private companies. Thanks to this system, more than 141,000 patents have been issued to academic institutions over the last three decades, leading to the formation of more than 18,000 startup companies. Small companies and startups hold 73 percent of university licenses.

As a PhD student at Cornell University, I developed a novel membrane that filters out nanoscopic impurities during drug manufacturing, making the process safer and more efficient. Despite the fact up to nine out of ten startups fail, often due to financing challenges, I decided to become an entrepreneur to turn my invention into a product and share it with the world.

After securing a patent-licensing agreement with Cornell, I had to convince venture capitalists to invest in my idea by assuring them that my technology could someday generate a return on their investment. This same process is spurring research and development at tens of thousands of startups nationwide.

Yet some critics continue to push for a misguided interpretation of the Bayh-Dole Act's "march in" clause that allows the government to relicense patents under certain very narrow circumstances. These critics claim that government agencies can cancel patent protections on federally funded inventions whenever they deem the price of the end product "unreasonable."
Proponents of this say it could lower prescription drug costs. Their theory is that the patents the government "marches in" on could be relicensed to other companies, which would then make copycat products for less. But it is unlikely to have that effect. Nearly 98 percent of drugs aren't even eligible for this new twist on march-in rights, since they don't rely exclusively on federally funded patents.

Moreover, this reinterpretation of Bayh-Dole would apply to all government-funded products, not just drugs. It would stifle investment in every technological sector.

The Bayh-Dole system has fueled innovation for more than 40 years, enabling entrepreneurs to build on the work of academic researchers. We don't yet know what today's breakthrough discoveries will bring. But it's safe to say that we'll compromise our technological future if we start hammering away at patent rights.

Dr. Rachel Dorin is the founder and CEO of TeraPore Technologies, Inc.