PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 31, 2025
Stopping Pharma’s Ripoffs and Drug Savings For All Act
This bill addresses double patenting with respect to drug-related patents. Specifically, the bill requires an owner of drug-related patents, if the owner lists more than one patent as covering a particular drug, to prove in certain proceedings that each patent covers a distinct invention. If the patent owner fails to do so, then the owner shall have disclaimed patent protection from all the listed patents after the first patent expires.
This requirement shall apply to various proceedings challenging the validity of drug-related patents, as well as to infringement lawsuits filed by the patent owner against companies seeking Food and Drug Administration approval for generic or biosimilar versions of patented drugs.
The bill also directs the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to review its examination procedures to prevent granting multiple patents for the same drug or biological product, unless the patents cover distinct inventions. The USPTO shall report to Congress its findings and recommendations from the review.
People & committees
Rep. Ryan, Patrick [D-NY-18] · D–NY
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jun 9, 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.890 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.890 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.890 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.890 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.