BarbriSFCourseDetails
  • videocam Live Webinar with Live Q&A
  • calendar_month March 12, 2026 @ 1:00 PM E.T.
  • signal_cellular_alt Intermediate
  • card_travel Patent
  • schedule 90 minutes

Section 1498 vs. March-In Rights: Scope, Procedural Mechanisms, Practical Consequences, Litigation Developments

BarbriPdBannerMessage

About the Course

Introduction

This CLE webinar will guide patent counsel on Section 1498 and government intervention in patent rights. The panel will discuss march-in rights and Section 1498, including the practical consequences for patent holders, licensees, and government contractors. The panel will also discuss current litigation developments.

Description

Recent policy discussions have renewed attention on the federal government's ability to intervene in patent rights to address public health and national emergencies. Most commentary has focused on march-in rights under the Bayh-Dole Act, yet a separate and far more consequential statute—35 U.S.C. § 1498—often governs real world outcomes when the government authorizes the use of patented technology.

The panel will examine march-in rights and Section 1498 side by side, their statutory foundations, scope, procedural mechanisms, and practical consequences for patent holders, licensees, and government contractors. While march-in rights apply narrowly to federally funded inventions and have never been exercised, Section 1498 has been repeatedly invoked to shift patent liability from contractors to the U.S. government, limit remedies to monetary compensation, and eliminate injunctions and willfulness-based damages.

The panel will also discuss current litigation developments, including the ongoing Moderna COVID-19 vaccine patent dispute, in which Section 1498 has emerged as a central issue. Through this lens, the panel will address how these doctrines affect patent valuation, enforcement strategy, government contracting risk, and innovation incentives in the life sciences and other regulated industries.

Presented By

Joanna T. Brougher, Esq., MPH
Owner & Principal
BioPharma Law Group, PLLC

Ms. Brougher is a patent attorney who focuses on all aspects of services related to patents in the areas of biotechnology, pharmaceuticals and medical devices, including patentability opinions, due diligence, patent drafting, domestic and foreign patent prosecution, development and management of patent portfolios, and general client counseling during all phases of a product’s lifecycle, from concept to commercialization.

Her patent experience covers a variety of complex and innovative inventions involving small molecule drugs, biologics, cell-based technologies, compositions, drug formulations and drug delivery systems, immunotherapeutics, medical devices, diagnostic tests, nanotechnology, and immunology, particularly vaccines and antibodies. Ms. Brougher also has experience counseling clients on the Hatch-Waxman Act and is monitoring developments involving biosimilars under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act.



 



Mercedes K. Meyer, Ph.D.
Attorney
Banner & Witcoff Ltd

Ms. Meyer, Ph.D., represents leading life science and technology companies maintaining an extensive biotechnology and pharmaceutical patent management, prosecution, opinion and due diligence practice. With a doctorate in virology and degree in chemistry, she has a deep understanding of complex biotechnology and scientific research, which is key for advising life science clients on commercializing and protecting product innovations as well as performing diligence for investing in new technologies, particularly in corporate joint development projects. Ms. Meyer advises on developing patent strategies, managing the intellectual property rights, and making associated investments and acquisitions. She also handles patent reexaminations and inter partes matters.

Credit Information
  • This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.


  • Live Online


    On Demand

Date + Time

  • event

    Thursday, March 12, 2026

  • schedule

    1:00 PM E.T.

I. March-in rights vs. Section 1498

A. Statutory foundations

B. Scope

C. Procedural mechanisms

D. Practical consequence

II. Litigation developments

III. Implications

A. Valuations

B. Enforcement

C. Contracting risks

The panel will review these and other key issues:

  • Distinguishing march-in rights from Section 1498 with respect to statutory triggers, scope, and remedies
  • Evaluating when government authorization and consent may shift patent liability under Section 1498
  • Assessing how the loss of injunctions, jury trials, and enhanced damages under §1498 affects patent enforcement and valuation
  • Understanding the relevance of current case law to future public health and emergency procurement scenarios
  • Identifying practical considerations for patent holders and companies contracting with the government when navigating public-interest pressures and IP risk