CAJ | 학술논문

为推动科技成果转化，美国《拜杜法案》规定了“介入权”条款。几十年来，美国出现过?4?个申请强制科技成果转化的案例，但美国职能部门都认为不满足法律规定的条件，因而没有行使“介入权”。根据“介入权”条款，对?Fabrazyme、CellPro、Norvir?及?Xalatan?4?个案例进行了分析和研究，并对“介入权”条款的执行情况进行了评价。美国“介入权”强制成果转化的条款形同虚设，其原因主要有：资助部门认为该条款可能影响研究人员参与政府科技项目的积极性；“介入权”程序较为复杂，调查取证需要较长时间，使之难以实施；所涉及的成果往往不只是获得政府一个部门的资助，还获得其他方面的经费，导致“介入权”的行使更加复杂、困难。
위추동과기성과전화，미국《배두법안》규정료“개입권”조관。궤십년래，미국출현과?4?개신청강제과기성과전화적안례，단미국직능부문도인위불만족법률규정적조건，인이몰유행사“개입권”。근거“개입권”조관，대?Fabrazyme、CellPro、Norvir?급?Xalatan?4?개안례진행료분석화연구，병대“개입권”조관적집행정황진행료평개。미국“개입권”강제성과전화적조관형동허설，기원인주요유：자조부문인위해조관가능영향연구인원삼여정부과기항목적적겁성；“개입권”정서교위복잡，조사취증수요교장시간，사지난이실시；소섭급적성과왕왕불지시획득정부일개부문적자조，환획득기타방면적경비，도치“개입권”적행사경가복잡、곤난。
To promote technology transfer, the U.S. Congress passed “The Bayh-Dole Act” which includes the government’s “March-in”right. In the past several decades, there were four cases requesting the exercise of “March-in” right to transfer the related patents to the third party, but the R&D funding agency refused to exercise this authority while holding that these cases don’t meet the law regulation. Based on the language of “March-in”right, this paper makes a full analysis on the four cases of CellPro,Norvir,Xalatan and Fabrazyme, and gives a brief comment on the government’s exercise of the right. The paper gives reasons that the “March-in” right performed no function in four cases as follows: the R&D funding agency thinks that the “March-in” right could have negative effects on researchers to participate the government projects; the complex procedure and long period to obtain evidence through investigation makes it dififcult to exercise the right; the research funds involves multi-channel funds besides the government support, resulting in the hard exercise of the “March-in” right.