PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text of measure as introduced: CR S5247-5252)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 25, 2006
Life-Saving Medicines Export Act of 2006 - Allows the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to issue a compulsory license to a generic manufacturer of a pharmaceutical product or a patented product needed to prevent or treat potentially life threatening public health problems for the purposes of manufacturing and exporting such pharmaceutical products to an eligible country. Allows exportation to a country that is a least developed country as designated by the United Nations (U.N.) or a country that lacks sufficient manufacturing capacities to produce the pharmaceutical product. Sets forth application requirements for compulsory licenses, including that the manufacturer sought a voluntary license from the patent holder.
Requires the Director to establish an office within USPTO to assist applicants and eligible counties, nongovernmental organizations, or nations likely to become eligible countries in identifying companies in the United States which could provide pharmaceutical products under this Act.
Sets forth formulas for calculating the royalty amount that the holder of a compulsory license must pay to the patent holder.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Allows the Director to grant a compulsory license to a generic manufacturer on an expedited basis for a limited period for a pharmaceutical product to address a national emergency or other circumstances of extreme urgency.
Declares that it is not patent infringement to manufacture and export a pharmaceutical product in accordance with this Act.
Requires the Director to establish the National Advisory Board on Implementation of the General Council Decision to provide advice and guidance regarding the implementation and administration of the compulsory licensing program established under this Act.
People & committees
Sen. Leahy, Patrick J. [D-VT] · D–VT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text of measure as introduced: CR S5247-5252)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S5245-5247)
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.3175 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.3175 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.3175 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.3175 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.