Secretary Lutnick’s Royalty Grab: Bad for America—and the Administration

“The proposed royalty grab is one of those rare ideas which harms all parties involved. It’s a mistake the White House would be wise to avoid.”

royalty grabCommerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is urging the White House to turn a proposal he floated into an Executive Order that would weaken the economy and cost the government tens of billions of dollars in foregone tax revenue. It’s bad policy, and even worse politically. The Trump Administration would be wise to reject it.

Secretary Lutnick is convinced that the government is being short-changed when academic institutions make patentable inventions under federal grants, which are primarily licensed to entrepreneurial small companies that take great risk and expense to turn them into real-world products. The Secretary wants the government to seize 50% of the royalties that universities receive when resulting products are sold—sales that bolster our economy while promoting public well-being.

Past is Prologue

Before 1980, the “problem” that worries Lutnick didn’t exist. That’s because few new products resulted from the billions of dollars that the government invested annually in academic research. The reason was simple. The government took the patent rights on discoveries, destroying the incentives needed for commercialization. As a result, nearly 27,000  inventions gathered dust in Washington and not a single new drug was developed.

The bipartisan Bayh-Dole Act changed all that. It allows universities, federal laboratories, and small companies to own inventions they make from federally funded research. And just as importantly, it allows them to earn royalties from licensing those patents to private companies that want to further develop the technologies.

Universities, not the government, incur substantial costs in patenting inventions, defending them from challenges in court, and seeking out private firms interested in licensing the discoveries. Royalty income allows those expenses to be met.

Bayh-Dole catalyzed an innovation revolution that continues to this day. On average, academic discoveries create between two and three new companies and two new products every day. No other country comes close to having this impact from government funded R&D, but China is working feverishly to clone this model and overtake our lead.

The most amazing thing is that all this happened without any increased costs to hard pressed taxpayers—which is why The Economist Technology Quarterly once called the Bayh-Dole Act “possibly the most inspired piece of legislation to be enacted in America over the past half-century … More than anything, this single policy measure helped reverse America’s precipitous slide into industrial irrelevance.”

Lutnick’s Plan Would Gut Bayh-Dole Boon

The law mandates how university royalties must be used. For one, they can pay the considerable costs of technology management that the government does not cover. They must also be used to reward the academic inventors who made the discoveries. Without that incentive system, breakthrough inventions like immunotherapy for treating cancer, high-definition video and audio, the nicotine patch and firefighting drones would be research papers, not products.

Finally, the law mandates that any money left over be used to fund more research, leading to new discoveries driving our economy.

Under Lutnick’s proposal, the Bayh-Dole engine would run dry, as the dollars needed to support technology transfer would be seized by the government for an undefined slush fund. And those most likely to suffer are red states where university research is a critical driver of the regional economy. For most schools, technology transfer is a cost, not a profit center. Academic institutions in the heartland are least likely to have the required discretionary income to maintain their commercialization programs if Sec. Lutnick’s royalty grab is implemented.

Ironically, the proposal would cost the government money. According to the most recent data, academic institutions generated about $3.6 billion in royalties in 2023. It often takes nearly a decade for these royalties to generate, and most academic inventions are never commercialized so their costs accrue. But Sec. Lutnick sees royalties as all profit and argues the government deserves half. At best, his proposal would raise $1.8 billion in annual revenue.

The most widely accepted estimate of the economic impact of U.S. academic patent licensing shows a $1 trillion impact on U.S. gross domestic product over 25 years. That comes to $40 billion a year. Additionally, 6.5 million U.S. jobs were created. That comes to 260,000 jobs per year. A conservative estimate shows that activity generates over $6 billion in federal tax revenue—or 330% more than Lutnick’s idea would realize.

And that’s very much a low ball estimate. Academic research parks, innovation districts, and technology hubs benefitting from Bayh-Dole generate $33 billion in federal tax revenue every year.

Thus, the licensing tax will forfeit far more federal revenue than it raises—all while depressing the economy. That’s why Congress removed a “government payback” provision when passing Bayh-Dole. History shows they were correct.

Royalties would fall under Lutnick’s proposal because many universities would be forced to curtail their licensing efforts as the government would siphon away the money needed to pay their costs. Under Lutnick’s idea, academic institutions would likely focus on licensing low hanging fruit, avoiding the breakthrough, high risk technologies which take many years to license and many more before they become royalty generating products. Yet these are precisely the inventions which are critical for maintaining our lead in our technological race with China.

Worse Than a Crime

Reflecting on a critical blunder in Napoleonic France, Minister Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord allegedly quipped: “It was worse than a crime, it was a mistake.” The proposed royalty grab is one of those rare ideas which harms all parties involved. Ironically, Lutnick’s idea hits the states hardest that are crucial for Republican chances of holding onto Congress in the 2026 election. That’s a mistake the White House would be wise to avoid.

Let’s hope the Administration does some basic homework before they adopt a proposal that pushes the economy—and the GOP—over the cliff. If not, they have no one but themselves to blame.

Image source: Deposit Photos
Author: studiostoks
Image ID: 583065546 

 

Share

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com.

Join the Discussion

7 comments so far. Add my comment.

  • [Avatar for Anon]
    Anon
    January 6, 2026 09:25 am

    Erich,

    Having studied the history of science and innovation, I believe the suggested approach of

    but it will start with reporting [ ] and performance [ ]…” will lead quite similarly to a disaster combination of “What have you done for me lately?/only low hanging fruit will be aimed for,” overly controlled ‘central planning,’ and the worst of group-think ‘publish or perish’ mentality.

    Having a focus of “this is not free money” takes the eye off the real prize of “what innovations can bring about the most impact?”

    Yes, accountability should be in the management mix.
    No, I have worked with too many TT offices that already operate at a myopic “this is not free money” mindset, which is very frustrating given that many of these same universities (in other areas) teach how innovation unfolds.

  • [Avatar for Erich Spangenberg]
    Erich Spangenberg
    January 6, 2026 07:57 am

    With the exception of the Cosa Nostra joker comment, the comments are all focused on a similar first step — reporting and perfomance. Maybe we would have different fixes, but it will start with reporting (how many do you have, how many did you license and for how much) and performance (do it with funding — sorry but the bottom 20%, you get cut completely; next 20% you get cut 50%; next 20% you hold; next 20% you go up 25%; top 20% you go up 50%). Do not get why TT does not take this of Commerce and say “We are sorry, we get it now–this is not free money. Here are your reports and we endorse this plan of perform or perish.” I believe Commerce would welcome this.

  • [Avatar for Anon]
    Anon
    January 5, 2026 02:09 pm

    TT Offices have a rather unusual combination of hubris (sometimes – see Erich Spangenberg’s comment) and humility (or perhaps more accurately, false humility, as in: we do not have enough money to really spend the effort on top notch curation of innovation.

    That being said, pharma has always been a red-headed step-child to me (stemming from earlier in my career, seeing into the belly of that beast).

    Here’s a different approach: leave the innovation side alone and instead simply require absolute sunshine.

    Every dollar through the entire medical chain, from research to hospitals, to pharmacies, to suppliers, to insurers, must be open and accountable.

    If all of this information were publicly available, we would solve multiple ‘crises’ in VERY short order because there would be no shadows to hide in.

  • [Avatar for PeteMoss]
    PeteMoss
    January 5, 2026 11:57 am

    The record industry has used recoupment for decades. Most US states have a Medicaid reimbursement statute that authorizes recoupment of Medicaid expenses from the estate of a Medicaid recipient. This is not a new concept. If an entity receives government funding, that money, minus any out-of-pocket IP expense paid by the entity, should be paid back to taxpayers from royalty streams until the original funding is repaid. After that, the entity that received government funding should keep 100% of the royalty revenue. No payback for patented technology that is not commercially exploited. To keep universities from only accepting free money for fluff research, thus avoiding commercialization and royalty reimbursement to the government, universities should show, bi-annually, that some percentage of its patent holdings are being actively licensed. Else, future funding to an under-performing university is reduced or is diverted to another research university that is at least batting .300 or better. See also the quote by Dr. Raymond Stantz (Dan Aykroyd’s character in “Ghostbusters”) regarding universities and the private sector.

  • [Avatar for mike W.]
    mike W.
    January 5, 2026 10:51 am

    Sounds like a shakedown to me. Cosa Nostra is now running the country..

  • [Avatar for Nancy J Linck]
    Nancy J Linck
    January 5, 2026 09:28 am

    Nonsense! When the institutions accepted public funding, they were well aware of the government’s rights. When I was a VP of IP at Guilford Pharmaceuticals, I warned the company about accepting such funds. Why shouldn’t the government (and we taxpayers) benefit when government-supported research is successful? It’s time the government enforced Bayh-Dole to the public’s benefit.

  • [Avatar for Erich Spangenberg]
    Erich Spangenberg
    January 5, 2026 06:40 am

    Tech Transfer brought this on themselves IMO–no real reporting and very poor results. In FY 2023, federal funding for university R&D was about $59B. $3.6B tells you a lot (not everything, but a lot) about this tax payer investment. While I agree taking half of current royalties is a drop in the bucket, perhaps it will end the arrogance of most TT offices and they will get back on mission of quickly monetizing all government funded assets and reporting results. Your job is to generate a cash return and quit gaslighting us with meaningless data telling us what a great job you are doing–you are not and the people at Commerce are now paying attention. I get that being held accountable for real returns is painful — welcome to the world most of us live in.

Add Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Varsity Sponsors

IPWatchdog Events

IPWatchdog LIVE 2026 at the Renaissance Arlington Capital View
March 22 @ 1:00 pm - March 24 @ 7:00 pm EDT
Webinar: Sponsored by LexisNexis
March 31 @ 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm EDT
Webinar: Sponsored by NLPatent
April 2 @ 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm EDT
Webinar: Sponsored by Clearstone IP
April 9 @ 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm EDT

Industry Events

PIUG 2026 Joint Annual and Biotechnology Conference
May 19 @ 8:00 am - May 21 @ 5:00 pm EDT
Certified Patent Valuation Analyst Training
May 28 @ 9:00 am - May 29 @ 5:00 pm EDT

From IPWatchdog