Congress is currently considering several ill-conceived bills that purport to address abuses in the patent system, but would, in reality, weaken core intellectual property protections. Among them are the Drug Competition Enhancement Act (S. 1040) and the Affordable Prescriptions for Patients Act (S. 1041).
By attempting to devalue the United States’ robust intellectual property system, these bills threaten the future of medical breakthroughs and undermine the incentives that bring better treatments to patients.
Here’s a look at some of the core arguments underlying these bills and why they misrepresent reality.
The Myth of “Product Hopping”
The Drug Competition Enhancement Act targets the perceived issue of “product hopping,” a term inaccurately suggesting innovators attempt to block competition by making tiny modifications to existing products while ceasing production or marketing of prior versions.
We do not find fault with automakers for phasing out older models in favor of safer, more efficient versions. The same logic should apply to biopharma. Follow-on innovations — like chewable medicine tablets, transdermal patches, and extended-release formulations — offer real clinical value: greater safety, easier use, and improved adherence. They also don’t block the entry of generics.
A 2025 report from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a non-profit, nonpartisan research institute, debunks the myth of product hopping. One of the key takeaways of this report includes that follow-on drugs comprise over 60% of the World Health Organization’s Essential Medicines List, underscoring the value of ongoing innovation to global health.
S. 1040 is a solution in search of a problem. It mischaracterizes progress as misconduct — jeopardizing improved treatments and threatening the very system that delivers medical breakthroughs. Congress should reject this bill and protect the innovation pipeline that keeps America at the forefront of global health care.
The Myth of “Patent Thicketing”
The Affordable Prescriptions for Patients Act would limit the number of patents that a drug manufacturer could defend in court, and particularly restrict companies from defending follow-on patents filed more than four years after a drug initially secured FDA approval.
Lawmakers behind the bill want to combat the alleged practice of “patent thicketing,” in which drug companies supposedly file numerous patents on various components of their medicines to extend their market exclusivity and prevent the entry of generic and biosimilar competitors.
But a comprehensive study conducted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office at the request of Senator Thom Tillis thoroughly debunked the myth of patent thickets. The study found that simply counting the number of patents on a drug does not provide a clear picture of the competitive environment or how long the product’s exclusivity will actually last. It also concluded that follow-on patents do not “extend” earlier patents or block the introduction of biosimilars.
By limiting inventors’ ability to protect various novel components of medicines — and also conditioning patent enforceability on the date a drug was approved — the bill would discourage investment into improved versions of medicines.
S. 1041 would arbitrarily limit the enforceability of certain patents — not due to any alleged defect with the patents themselves, but simply due to the quantity of other patents owned by a litigant and the date those patents were filed. While this bill only targets drug patents, it would set a worrying precedent for innovators and investors in other industries who will surely perceive the potential future risk to their own inventions.