Politics link answer – narrow amendment wouldn’t be controversial
Simon, Professor of Law, California Western, 2021
[Brenda M. "Preserving the Fruits of Labor: Impediments to University Inventor Mobility," Tennessee Law Review 89, no. 1 (Fall 2021): 1-66 heinonline gdi-tm]
Some commentators have noted that amendments to Bayh-Dole have been rather difficult to obtain in practice. 358 Lobbying by universities and industry would be expected, as they have strong interests in retaining the status quo with regard to patent protection. 359 For example,' over three dozen universities spent millions of dollars in their attempts to influence recent patent reform legislation. 360 As a result, the America Invents Act (AIA) includes provisions that provide special treatment for academic institutions, such as reduced fees and immunity from a prior use defense. 361 Nonetheless, a narrow amendment such as the one proposed might not raise as many concerns.
In fact, Congress has amended the Bayh-Dole Act many times.362 Although most of the amendments were relatively minor, a few substantive amendments stand out. First, Congress removed some of the limitations on the terms of exclusive licenses in 1984. 363 In addition, it modified a prior policy that had allowed agencies to waive provisions of the Act to advance commercialization. 364 The amendments instead required that agencies include government license and march-in rights in funding agreements. 365 In 2000, Congress made significant changes to provisions dealing with federally-funded inventions. 366 It . also added the important underlined phrase to the previous statutory language in 35 U.S.C. § 200 ("Policy and Objective") as follows: "It is the policy and objective of the Congress to·use the patent system to promote the utilization of inventions arising from federally supported research or development
... to ensure that inventions ... are used in a manner to promote free competition and enterprise without unduly encumbering future research and discovery." 367 The above examples suggest that substantively amending the Bayh-Dole Act,' while not .·a trivial endeavor, is certainly possible.368