PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 43.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 13, 2025
Drug Competition Enhancement Act
This bill prohibits product hopping by drug manufacturers and authorizes the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to enforce this prohibition.
Generally, product hopping describes a situation where, when the patents on a reference drug (or biological product) expire, the manufacturer switches to a follow-on product that is covered by a later-expiring patent. Under this bill, a follow-on product is a modified version of the reference drug that has an indication (what the drug is used for) that is identical or substantively similar to an indication of the reference drug.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill establishes a presumption that product hopping has occurred when a reference drug manufacturer, after receiving notice that the Food and Drug Administration has received an application to market a competing generic (or biosimilar) version, takes certain actions such as withdrawing the reference drug from the market and selling a follow-on product.
A drug manufacturer may rebut these presumptions by demonstrating that its conduct was not intended to limit competition.
The bill makes product hopping an unfair method of competition and provides for enforcement by the FTC. If the FTC has reason to believe a manufacturer has violated or is about to violate this prohibition on product hopping, the FTC may institute an administrative proceeding or bring suit in federal court to stop the manufacturer’s action and seek equitable remedies, including disgorgement of unjust profits or paying restitution to those harmed.
People & committees
Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 43.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Grassley with an amendment. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Grassley with an amendment. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered to be reported with an amendment favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in Senate
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 10, 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 S.1040 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 S.1040 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 S.1040 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 S.1040 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.