PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 17, 2007
Protecting Consumer Access to Generic Drugs Act of 2007 - Prohibits, as an unfair and deceptive act or practice and an unfair method of competition in or affecting interstate commerce, any person from being a party to any agreement resolving or settling a patent infringement claim in which: (1) an abbreviated new drug (generic) application filer receives anything of value; and (2) such filer agrees not to research, develop, manufacture, market or sell the generic drug. Excludes a resolution or settlement that includes no more than: (1) the right to market the generic drug before the expiration of the patent or other exclusivity period; or (2) the waiver of a patent infringement claim for damages.
Authorizes the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to exempt agreements in furtherance of market competition and for the benefit of consumers.
Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide that a generic drug applicant forfeits market exclusivity for failing to market the drug 75 days after: (1) a court dismisses a declaratory judgment action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; or (2) the applicant files with the Secretary of Health and Human Services a covenant that the patent owner will not sue the applicant for patent infringement. Deems an applicant to have forfeited market exclusivity if the applicant enters into an agreement that violates this Act.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Amends the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 to revise reporting requirements related to agreements between a generic drug applicant and a brand name drug company to include: (1) a description of the subject matter of other agreements between the parties; and (2) a certification that the materials filed represent the complete, final, and exclusive agreement between the parties.
People & committees
Rep. Rush, Bobby L. [D-IL-1] · D–IL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1902 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1902 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1902 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1902 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.