A recent revelation that the US Department of Commerce is eyeing Harvard University’s patent portfolio could carry repercussions beyond the Ivy League. That same portfolio is often viewed — and treated — as foundational by the private sector, raising concerns about a potential trickledown effect on innovation.
With more than 1,800 active patent families comprised of 23,800 individual patents, Harvard University’s portfolio size ranks 195th in the world among all universities.Whatever it may lack in quantity is more than made up for in quality, however.
In the US, although the Ivy League school ranks 14th among all universities in regard to the size of its active patent portfolio, it jumps to third when measuring total portfolio strength, according to data from LexisNexis PatentSight.
Specifically, the Cambridge, Massachusetts-based school trails only the University of California system and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in LexisNexis’ Patent Asset Index.
That measure of competitive impact is calculated by multiplying technological relevance — the number of times a patent is cited as prior art adjusted for technology field, patent age, and patent office citation practices — with market coverage, an indicator of the size of the global market — authorities weighted by gross national income — in which protection for a given technology is sought and secured.
Some of Harvard’s highest-value IP involves breakthroughs in antibody fragmenting, considered key to the development of immunotherapeutic drugs, and genetic editing tools like CRISPR-Cas9.
Among all universities globally, its portfolio ranks 24th as measured by the Patent Asset Index.
But patenting doesn’t only confer an exclusive right to practice and commercialize one’s own invention: the public nature of prosecution provides other innovators with the building blocks necessary to improve upon existing technologies.
On that front, Harvard’s portfolio shines as well.
Its patent families are regularly pointed to not only by other public research institutions but also those in private industry, data from LexisNexis PatentSight shows.
No third party has cited Harvard’s patents as prior art more often than multinational healthcare conglomerate Johnson & Johnson. Other corporate stalwarts who have treated the school’s portfolio as foundational during patent prosecution include Roche and Samsung.
— Billions financed —
Harvard’s outsized impact on the IP landscape is also evident in the boardroom.
Since launching in 2011, Harvard Innovation Lab, or i-Lab, has purportedly incubated or supported 6,000 student and alumni-led ventures raising more than $8 billion in capital.
While i-Lab does not engage in direct patent prosecution, it advises its members on patenting best practices and connects them with potential sources of outside funding.
Additionally, Harvard has an estimated 900 active patent licensors, including Samsung — who settled infringement litigation with the school earlier this year.
Harvard’s Office of Technology Development touts 300 startups which have collectively raised $15.6 billion in financing since 2000, as well as spinouts like Morphic Therapeutic, acquired by Eli Lilly in 2024 for $3.2 billion.
Those existing agreements and history of entrepreneurial success appear to be in line with the public-private bargain envisioned by Congress when passing the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980.
— Retaliation alleged —
Recent developments are threatening to upend that balance, however.
Earlier this month, the US gave notice (see here) that it would be taking a closer look at Harvard’s patent practices.
In a letter later posted to social media, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick steered clear of any reference to the well-documented clash between school leadership and President Donald Trump over issues like academic freedom and Harvard’s diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
Instead, the school stands accused of failing to abide by its statutory obligation to, among other things, make breakthroughs stemming from federally funded research available to the public.
Lutnick’s “immediate comprehensive review” of an unquestionably lucrative portfolio and vow to exercise “march-in” rights — an occasionally threatened, but never before executed, maneuver that allows federal agencies to compel third-party patent licenses — have led to concerns of a potential slowdown in research and development, or R&D, at the school.
A Harvard spokesperson tells MLex “this unprecedented action is yet another retaliatory effort targeting Harvard for defending its rights and freedom.”
“Technologies and patents developed at Harvard are life-saving and industry-redefining. We are fully committed to complying with the Bayh-Dole Act and ensuring that the public is able to access and benefit from the many innovations that arise out of federally funded research at Harvard,” the spokesperson adds.
— Flatlined funding —
In the decades since Bayh-Dole became law, the private sector has increasingly relied on the public sector — backed by federal funding — to do the R&D leg work and assume the associated risks.
Data from LexisNexis PatentSight shows more than 18,000 active patent families held by corporations cite Harvard patents as prior art, building on the university’s work.
That’s why Steve Susalka, CEO of the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM), says universities aren’t the only ones who stand to lose if threats to exercise march in rights become commonplace.
AUTM data shows fluctuation in federal funding for university research since 1992 — the percentage has dropped while the dollar value has risen — but over that same period, funding from private industry has flatlined.
When asked whether corporations are willing and able to close the gap, Susalka was unequivocal: “There’s no way,” he tells MLex.
That, in turn, could pose a threat to not only those in private industry seeking to improve upon prior art but also a public in need of a technological or medical breakthrough.
“Less research means fewer invention disclosures,” Susalka adds.
— New model —
The escalation of the president’s feud with Harvard comes on the heels of deep cuts across all higher ed funding by the current administration.
The school was already taking steps to mitigate those losses, however.
This summer it announced a $39 million influx from İş Private Equity of Istanbul in support of research on metabolic disorders being conducted by Gokhan Hotamisligil, a T.H. Chan School of Public Health professor. Breakthroughs that flow from his Harvard laboratory will be commercialized by Enlila — a biotech startup also backed by the Turkish firm, but at an undisclosed cost.
While the deal may pale in comparison to the valuation of some of Harvard’s most prominent and profitable IP, it could provide a roadmap to other cash-strapped researchers who now find themselves on shaky ground.
For now, Susalka urges his members to tell their story to elected officials.
“Tech transfer is all about impact. The Honeycrisp Apple? Thank you, University of Minnesota. The Allegra you take to stop your seasonal allergies? That came from Georgetown. It goes on and on. Highlighting these successes is really important,” he adds.
Please email editors@mlex.com to contact the editorial staff regarding this story, or to submit the names of lawyers and advisers.