PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.

Drug Patent Term Restoration Review Procedure Act of 1999

Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 106-772.

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 27, 1999

Drug Patent Term Restoration Review Procedure Act of 1999 - Amends Federal law to require, if the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks determines that certain standards are met, restoration of the term of any patent already extended (subject to a two-year limitation), as well as in force on September 24, 1984, and on the filing date of a patent term restoration application under this Act, that claims: (1) a drug product; (2) a method of using a drug product; or (3) a method of manufacturing a drug product.(Sec. 1) Defines such standards as: (1) a regulatory review period from application submission to application approval exceeding 60 months; (2) clear and convincing evidence by the owner of record of the patent (or its agent) that the patent owner acted with due diligence; and (3) absence of any detriment by the granting of patent restoration to the public interest and the interest of fairness. Requires subtraction from the total amount of the restoration term of any time during the regulatory review period during which the Commissioner finds that the applicant for patent term restoration did not act with due diligence.Limits a restoration period, together with any extension period, and subject to other specified restrictions and adjustments, to five years.Requires restoration term applications to be filed within 90 days after enactment of this Act.Specifies factors of public interest and fairness the Commissioner shall consider when making a term restoration determination, including whether: (1) grant of the application would disserve society's interest in the availability of innovative drugs at competitive prices; or (2) denial of the application would disserve society's interest in encouraging and rewarding pharmaceutical research and innovation.Provides for: (1) claim determination procedure; (2) a one-year extension of the patent term pending final disposition; and (3) appeal of the Commissioner's determinations to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit only.Entitles to compensation by the patent owner of any person who has submitted an new drug application under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act for a drug product covered by a patent for which a patent term was restored under this Act, if such application has been found by the Food and Drug Administration on or before enactment of this Act to be sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. Sets the amount of compensation at: (1) $2 million; or (2) $1 million for any holder of a Type II Drug Master File that has permitted a reference to its File to be made in such application. Limits a patent owner's overall liability to: (1) $10 million to persons submitting new drug applications; or (2) $5 million to holders of Type II Drug Master Files.Requires the Commissioner to report to Congress: (1) an evaluation of the patent term restoration review procedure established by this Act; and (2) a recommendation whether Congress should consider establishing such a patent term review procedure for patents not covered by this Act.(Sec. 2) Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to limit a certain required certification in an application (including an abbreviated application) for an approved product claimed in a patent whose term has been restored, to any patent that claims an active ingredient, including any salt or ester of the active ingredient, of the approved product, alone or in combination with another active ingredient (thus limiting the use of patents to prevent new drug approval).

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Sen. Torricelli, Robert G. [D-NJ] · D–NJ

Committees

  • Judiciary Committee
10 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

  1. Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 106-772.

  2. Read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

  3. Introduced in Senate

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

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.

Explore the bill from different angles

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.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze S.1172 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.

View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine S.1172 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.

View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine S.1172 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.

View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine S.1172 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.

View full prompt & sources