Congress Weighs the Evidence on Patent Thickets
Congress weighs the evidence on patent thickets
Patent thickets are rarely the focus of congressional hearings. On June 4, 2026, however, patent thickets and skinny labels took center stage at a hearing held by the U.S. House Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet. The hearing focused on two bipartisan proposals cosponsored by several intellectual property subcommittee members, the Eliminating Thickets to Increase Competition (ETHIC) Act and the Skinny Labels, Big Savings Act. The ETHIC Act would help curb drug patent thickets by allowing right holders to assert no more than one patent per terminal disclaimer cluster.
Read the statement submitted by Peyton Agard Miles in support of the ETHIC Act Read the statement submitted by Luis Gil Abinader in support of the ETHIC ActCritics of the ETHIC Act, led by the Council for Innovation Promotion (C4IP), often claim that patent thickets are a “myth.” Opponents of the ETHIC Act have also argued that generic and biosimilar competition typically enters the market between twelve to fourteen years after brand launch, which they interpret as evidence that the patent system is working as intended. C4IP was represented in the hearing by witness Jamie Simpson, their chief policy officer and counsel. Professor Michael Carrier, Doctor Rachel Goode, and Krista Hessler Carver also testified.
Generation Patient reviewed how many times the term “myth” was mentioned during the hearing. The term “myth” was mentioned only twice, first during the opening remarks by Doctor Rachel Goode and then in a question from Representative Lance Gooden to Professor Michael Carrier. In both instances, the witnesses explained that patent thickets are not a “myth” and offered concrete evidence of how these duplicative patents have been asserted in court to delay competition.
Jamie Simpson downplayed the importance of the number of duplicative patents that brand companies accumulate and claimed several times during the hearing that competitors typically enter the U.S. market between twelve to fourteen years after brand launch. Chairman Darrell Issa challenged the claim made by Simpson, noting that his office has seen data indicating delays of approximately twenty years between brand product launch and biosimilar competition. Doctor Goode explained that the data she has seen similarly suggest lags of roughly eighteen years between brand launch and competition.
Weighing the evidence is an important step towards legislative reforms. Doctor Rachel Goode and Professor Michael Carrier were effective witnesses. They summarized the evidence on duplicative patents clearly and provided concrete examples of how these thickets are asserted in court to delay competition. Goode also explained that patent thickets drive incentives away from innovation and mentioned examples specifically relevant to young adult patients, like the drug Symbravo. With evidence of patent thickets now on the record, the June 4 hearing was a positive bipartisan step and we hope this momentum carries the ETHIC Act forward.
Video highlights
Representative Lance Gooden asked Michael Carrier whether patent thickets were a “myth.” Carrier explained that pharmaceutical companies are routinely securing duplicative patents and deploying these thickets in drug litigation to deter generic and biosimilar competition.
Data shows that the rate of terminally disclaimed patents in the pharmaceutical industry has been increasing over time, Rachel Goode explained.
Carrier and Goode offered multiple examples of patent thickets throughout the hearing.
Responding to a question by Representative Laurel Lee about legal and regulatory certainty, Rachel Goode explained that a volatile patent system creates additional risks for prospective competitors.
Critics of the ETHIC Act sometimes cite examples in the electronics sector to suggest that covering one product or technology with patent thickets is normal and harmless. Disagreeing with that claim, Carrier explained that drug manufacturers are uniquely vulnerable to patent thickets.
Jamie Simpson claimed various times during the hearing that brand drugs typically face biosimilar competition on average between twelve to fourteen years after first launch. Chairman Darrell Issa said that his office has seen evidence suggesting that the delay for biosimilar competition to enter the market is closer to twenty years. Goode added that the recent data shows an eighteen-year lag between brand product launch and the entrance of biosimilar competition into the market.
Rachel Goode explained that the ETHIC Act would increase competition and lower drug prices by requiring brand companies to assert only one patent per terminally disclaimed cluster.
Representative Scott Fitzgerald asked Goode whether the ETHIC Act could result in other benefits beyond increasing generic competition and lowering drug prices. Noting that patent thickets drive incentives towards duplication and litigation, Rachel Goode explained that the ETHIC Act would encourage brand companies to create more biomedical breakthroughs.
Chairman Issa asked Goode whether narrower legislation focused on follow-on litigation would be effective in curbing patent thicket abuses. Citing the case of Symbravo, where a brand company asserted seventy duplicative patents against a generic manufacturer, Goode advised Chairman Issa that the ETHIC Act was the right approach. Generation Patient has documented the large patent thicket created by Axsome Therapeutics around Symbravo.
Ranking Member Jamie Raskin asked whether the ETHIC Act would restrict companies from obtaining patents claiming new discoveries on existing drugs. Goode explained that, under the ETHIC Act, brand companies will continue to patent new discoveries on existing drugs.