Court Sets Evidentiary Hearing in Judicial Watch Lawsuit on NIH Royalty Payments to Government Scientists, Including Records on Dr. Anthony Fauci

Judicial Watch litigation previously forced disclosure of more than $1 billion in NIH royalty payments marked for inventors; court will now examine whether NIH can keep secret how much individual government scientists received

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that a federal court has scheduled an evidentiary hearing in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed on behalf of Open the Books. The lawsuit seeks records about royalty payments made to scientists and employees at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). It specifically asks for records concerning former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Director Dr. Anthony Fauci, whose institute participated extensively in the NIH royalty program.

The hearing will take place March 10, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. ET before U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in the case American Transparency (OpenTheBooks.com) v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services(No. 1:21-cv-02821).

The evidentiary hearing will address a key dispute over whether the NIH improperly withheld records showing how much individual government scientists received through royalty payments tied to taxpayer-funded inventions.

Mehta ordered the hearing after finding a “genuine dispute of material fact” regarding the NIH’s claim that releasing the royalty payments made to individual employees would reveal confidential commercial information from third parties licensing government patents. The NIH argues that outsiders could allegedly “back-calculate” confidential royalty rates and payments made by licensees if the amounts paid to government inventors were disclosed.

Judicial Watch and Open the Books dispute that claim and argue that disclosing the amounts paid to government employees does not reveal confidential commercial information and is required under the Freedom of Information Act. The watchdog groups contend that the NIH’s theory is speculative and improperly used to conceal how much taxpayer-funded government employees received in royalty income.

In earlier rulings in the case, Mehta rejected the NIH’s effort to broadly shield the royalty program using employee privacy claims, writing that “federal government employees have a limited privacy interest in information concerning their compensation.”

The court also emphasized the strong public interest in disclosure, noting that transparency regarding royalty payments could help the public assess whether inventors’ financial interests in licensed technologies “could potentially bias the design, conduct, or reporting of clinical research.” Mehta further concluded that the public interest in understanding these financial arrangements is significant, particularly where government scientists involved in taxpayer-funded biomedical research may receive payments tied to the commercialization of those technologies.

The October 2021 lawsuit was filed after the NIH failed to adequately respond to FOIA requests seeking records about royalty payments and financial arrangements involving NIH personnel.

The FOIA requests sought records including:

• Employment contracts for NIH employees
• Financial disclosure and conflict-of-interest records
• Confidentiality agreements
• Job descriptions for senior officials, including Dr. Anthony Fauci
• Records regarding royalty payments received by NIH scientists and employees

Over $2.685 billion was paid to NIH institutes or scientists – of which more than $1 billion was marked for inventors – between 2010-2023 from pharmaceutical companies and other private entities licensing government-owned patents. Those payments were obtained only after Judicial Watch and Open the Books forced the NIH to release previously hidden royalty payment records through FOIA litigation.

The disclosures include royalty payments connected to inventions developed across multiple NIH institutes, including the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which was led for decades by Fauci and played a central role in federally funded biomedical research. 

“This upcoming hearing will determine whether the NIH can continue withholding records showing how much individual government scientists received in royalty payments,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Judicial Watch and Open the Books already forced disclosure of more than $1 billion of dollars in NIH royalty payments marked to inventors, like Fauci. The court will now examine whether the agency can keep secret key details about the payment amounts tied to those taxpayer-funded inventions.”

Judicial Watch recently filed a separate FOIA lawsuit on behalf of Open the Books seeking records concerning whether statutory limits on royalty payments to federal employees are being effectively bypassed (American Transparency v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (No. 1:26-cv-00432)).

The new lawsuit seeks records including:

• Emails referencing royalty payments that may exceed the statutory cap
• Records concerning royalty payments placed in reserve when payments exceed statutory limits
• Internal guidance and procedures governing the NIH Public Health Service Technology Transfer Policy Manual

The records requested cover the period January 2020 through December 2025.

Federal law limits the amount individual government employee-inventors may receive in royalty payments to $150,000 per year. NIH scientists may receive royalty payments when inventions developed with taxpayer funding are licensed to private companies. These payments originate from license fees paid by pharmaceutical companies and other entities seeking to commercialize government-developed biomedical technologies.

The disclosures already forced through Judicial Watch’s litigation have raised questions about whether government scientists receiving royalties may have financial interests connected to technologies or products they help develop, test, or promote using taxpayer funds. 

OpenTheBooks.com, operated by American Transparency, maintains one of the largest independent databases of public-sector spending in the United States, promoting transparency by putting government spending records online for public review.

###