PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Dec 5, 2025
Skinny Labels, Big Savings Act
This bill provides a statutory safe harbor from patent infringement claims for generic or biosimilar manufacturers that seek or obtain approval for skinny labels of their drugs.
Under current law, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) may approve generic and biosimilar drugs through a process known as skinny labeling, which allows a generic manufacturer to seek approval only for approved uses of the drug that are no longer protected by patents. However, in GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., a court held that a generic manufacturer may sometimes be liable for patent infringement when it markets skinny label generics.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill specifically lists the following as actions that are not considered infringement of a method of use claim in a patent under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act:
submitting or seeking approval of a skinny label for a generic or biosimilar drug;
promoting or commercially marketing a drug with skinny labeling approved by the FDA; or
describing a drug product approved by the FDA as a generic of, or therapeutically equivalent to, the branded drug.
The bill also applies the safe harbor to similar actions under the Public Health Service Act.
People & committees
Rep. Cline, Ben [R-VA-6] · R–VA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 19, 2026. 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.6485 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.6485 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.6485 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.6485 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.