Activist groups routinely accuse companies of using various tactics to “abuse” the patent system to stifle competition. By debunking these myths, the Council for Innovation Promotion hopes to foster a more honest public policy debate.
For an overview of the information below, check out our patent myth video series, which provides brief and accessible explanations of how patents work — and informs viewers on the vital role they play in promoting, rather than hindering, innovation.
Watch the videos here: https://c4ip.org/patent-myth-video-series/
All Too Common Patent Myths
Patent thickets: Some activists claim that companies file multiple patents for a single product to “game” the patent system. But there’s nothing insidious or abnormal about this practice.
High-tech products like smartphones and medicines routinely combine numerous inventions, each of which requires its own patent. For example, there are often many distinct and novel innovations that go into a single medicine. Patents can cover separate — yet equally important — characteristics of a drug such as its ingredients, method of administration, and dosage.
Crucially, if an inventor files a patent for a variant of their product that would not qualify for its own standalone patent, the new patent is given the same expiration date as the product’s original patent.
A 2024 study from the USPTO demonstrates that there is no clear correlation between the number of patents filed on a drug and the duration of its market exclusivity, with the average period of drug exclusivity being significantly shorter than the 20-year duration of a patent term. It also determined that abandoned and pending patent applications, as well as “follow-on” patents, have no impact on exclusivity.
Learn more about the study:
https://c4ip.org/debunking-patent-disinformation-insights-from-the-usptos-drug-patent-and-exclusivity-study/
Patent Evergreening: Some activists allege that companies file additional patents on existing products to “extend” the life of the product’s original patents, a practice that’s often dubbed “patent evergreening.”
But patenting a genuine improvement of an existing product has zero effect on the life of the original patent, nor does it deter generic competition. Patenting a new formulation of a medicine would not delay the expiration of the patent on the original version of the drug.
Moreover, so-called “secondary” or “follow-on” patents, sometimes filed years after the initial patents for a product, definitionally represent additional, real innovations. After all, the USPTO only grants patents to inventions that are novel, useful, and non-obvious.
Contrary to what some groups claim, secondary patents are not “small” or “trivial” improvements. Follow-on innovations require significant research and development — and they deliver meaningful, tangible improvements to patient care. For instance, an updated drug might include a time-release function that reduces the chance of an adverse reaction.
As a recent report from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation notes, more than 60% of drugs on the World Health Organization’s Essential Drug List are follow-on innovations. Follow-on patents are just as vital to patient outcomes as initial patents — and protecting them is crucial to promote better outcomes for patients.
Learn more about the report: https://c4ip.org/fact-check-misguided-attacks-on-follow-on-patents-would-harm-patients/
Product Hopping: Activists also claim that drug companies engage in “product hopping,” an alleged practice that is closely related to evergreening. The difference between the two concepts is that firms who product hop stop producing or marketing earlier iterations of a product once they patent a new version. Some groups say this practice only serves to increase the market share of brand-name drugs and deter generic competition.
It’s critical to remember that virtually all companies in every industry eventually stop making early versions of their technologies. For instance, the top smartphone manufacturers no longer produce or support the earliest iterations of their products. Few would consider this a malicious practice, yet it still qualifies as “product hopping,” at least according to activists’ definition.
In the case of drugs, generic manufacturers are welcome to create knockoff versions of the original formulation once the original patent expires.
Learn more about this patent myth: https://c4ip.org/fact-check-patents-are-not-to-blame-for-high-drug-prices/
Patent Gaming: Another common myth is that drug companies’ “gaming” of the patent system impedes access to generic medications and keeps prices high.
Bemoaning a lack of generic competition discounts the reality that 9 in 10 U.S. prescriptions are filled with generic drugs. In fact, unbranded generic drugs make up 90% of U.S. prescription drug volume, and only 41% of volume in other nations, according to a RAND Corporation report.
As C4IP Co-Chairs and former USPTO Directors Andrei Iancu and David Kappos explain: “America already prohibits the sort of patent gaming that lawmakers are concerned about, and the United States has the highest rate of generic drug usage in the developed world. There’s simply no evidence that the patent process is unduly delaying the introduction of generic medicines.”
Legislation Built on Patent Myths
Congress is considering several ill-conceived bills that purport to address abuses in the patent system, but would in reality weaken core intellectual property protections, undermine U.S. innovation leadership, and benefit foreign competitors at America’s expense. This includes the Drug Competition Enhancement Act (S. 1040), the Affordable Prescriptions for Patients Act (S. 1041), the Interagency Patent Coordination and Improvement Act of 2025 (S. 1097), and the Preserve Access to Affordable Generics and Biosimilars Act (S. 1096).
In our letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee on these four bills, we wrote:
“While well-intentioned, each of these proposals risks weakening the predictability,
reliability, and effectiveness of the U.S. patent system. Though the stated intent of these
bills is to foster competition, their practical impact would undermine foundational principles
of intellectual property protection that drive innovation across numerous industry sectors
critical to the American economy — not only biopharmaceuticals but also the high-tech,
manufacturing, telecommunications, and consumer products industries.”
For more information on these bills, read the full letter here: https://c4ip.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/C4IP-Letter-RE_-4_3-SJC-Hearing.pdf