transplantation procedures; Johns Hopkins had patents on a different method to purify stem cells and had licensed them to Becton Dickinson, which had sublicensed them to Baxter, which was developing products but had none on the market. CellPro argued that the march-in provisions were created for this situation, especially because (in its view) availability of essential medical technology was at stake. The NIH denied this claim citing: Johns Hopkins's licensing of the subject invention Baxter's use, manufacturing, and practice of the subject invention Baxter's application to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to market the invention The actual clinical benefit of purifying stem cells for use in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation was unknown Government intervention into markets has adverse effects and there is insufficient cause to do so in this case. In In the Case of NORVIR, the NIH received requests from Essential Inventions in January 2004, and other members of the public and members of the United States Congress, to exercise march-in rights for patents owned by Abbott Labs covering the drug ritonavir, sold under the trade name Norvir, a prescription drug used in the treatment of HIV infection. In 2003 Abbott raised the price of Norvir 400% for U.S. customers (but not for consumers in any other country), and had refused to license ritonavir to another company for purposes for providing protease inhibitors coformulated with ritonavir. The NIH denied the petition finding no grounds to exercise its march-in rights. The NIH cited: The availability of Norvir to patients with AIDS That there was no evidence that health and safety needs were not adequately met by Abbott, and That the NIH should not address the issue of drug pricing, only Congress. In In the Case of Xalatan the NIH received a request from Essential Inventions in January 2004 to adopt a policy of granting march-in licenses to patents when the patent owner charged significantly higher prices in the United States than they did in other high income countries, on the basis of Pfizer's glaucoma drug being sold in the United States at two to five times the prices in other high income countries. The NIH held that "the extraordinary remedy of march-in was not an appropriate means for controlling prices." In In the Case of Fabrazyme patients with Fabry disease petitioned on August 2, 2010, for march-in rights in response to Genzyme's inability to manufacture enough Fabrazyme to treat