Every day, medical discoveries are made in American labs. But turning those discoveries into accessible diagnostics and treatments requires more than scientific brilliance — it demands a policy environment that supports risk-taking, rewards public-private collaboration, and protects invention.
That’s where the United States’ intellectual property (IP) laws come in, and they are the key to unlocking better access to healthcare.
More broadly, IP rights enable researchers, inventors, businesses, designers, artists, and others to legally protect their innovative and creative outputs and secure an economic return from them.
The United States’ IP laws incentivize investment in medical research by protecting innovation and fostering collaboration between universities, startups, and private industry. One key example is the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, which unlocked a wave of public-private partnerships, transforming government-funded discoveries into more than 200 FDA-approved drugs and countless medical technologies.
However, some lawmakers in Congress believe that strong IP protections are not compatible with affordable healthcare. This is not only a damaging narrative that discourages innovation precisely where it’s needed most, but it’s now been translated into four misguided bills that are awaiting a full vote by the U.S. Senate. The measures — S. 1040, S. 1041, S. 1096, and S. 1097 — are all solutions in search of problems.
The so-called problems are well-worn patent myths.
For example, terms like “evergreening” and “patent thickets” have become shorthand for abuse, which these bills attempt to address. The accusation of “evergreening,” (called “product hopping” in S. 1040), mischaracterizes the practice of obtaining follow-on patents for meaningful improvements — such as turning a twice-daily pill into a once-daily extended-release version.
Researchers don’t stumble onto medical breakthroughs overnight. They build on years — oftentimes decades — of trial, error, and iteration. Small improvements can make a world of difference in how effectively a treatment works for patients.
Likewise, “patent thicket” is a term often used pejoratively to describe the layering of legitimate patents that protect various aspects of a complex innovation. The second bill, S. 1041, rests on the mistaken assumption that companies file multiple patents on a single drug solely to block competition.
Many high-tech products, from medicines to semiconductors, rely on dozens of separate discoveries. That’s not abuse; it’s the natural result of deep, sustained investment in high-risk research. Limiting patent protections for such products would discourage companies from pouring resources into that research.
The real solution lies in education and reforms that strengthen — not undermine — the engine of progress. We encourage organizations and individuals to support the Patent Eligibility Restoration (PERA) Act, bipartisan legislation that would amend Section 101 of the Patent Act to provide patent eligibility for important computer-implemented technological developments and medical advances. Advanced diagnostic tools — built on decades of research — enable earlier detection, more targeted care, and better health outcomes. Yet uncertainty in Section 101 of the Patent Act has created barriers that slow the development and availability of these innovations. PERA will restore much-needed clarity, helping ensure that new discoveries can move beyond the laboratory and reach patients.
Intellectual property protections drive medical innovation. In safeguarding IP, we must remember that we are not just protecting patents — we are protecting lives. Any proposed erosion of these protections threatens the future of medical advancements and access to quality healthcare for generations to come.
