In Washington, a simple narrative has taken hold: if drug prices are too high, patents must be the problem. That assumption now drives policy proposals that would weaken intellectual property protections in the life sciences, including the ETHIC Act. But a new paper by Adam Mossoff challenges that premise and calls for a closer look at the evidence.
That is the central takeaway from Drug Patents Do Not Cause High Drug Prices. The paper argues that widely repeated claims about “patent thickets” and “evergreening” rely on questionable data and incomplete analysis. More importantly, it shows how these claims have shaped a policy debate that risks undermining the very system that enables medical innovation.
The facts tell a different story.
Drug development remains one of the most difficult and uncertain forms of innovation. Researchers and startups invest years of work and billions of dollars into therapies that may never reach patients. Patents provide a foundation for that risk-taking. They give inventors and investors confidence that, if a breakthrough succeeds, it can be protected, commercialized, and scaled.
Without that certainty, fewer breakthroughs would happen.
The paper also takes aim at the idea that patents systematically block competition. In reality, generic medicines dominate the U.S. market, accounting for the vast majority of prescriptions. That level of generic use does not align with claims that innovators routinely use patents to shut competitors out. At the same time, real-world data shows that innovators often operate within a limited window before generic entry, far shorter than critics suggest.
These realities should guide lawmakers’ evaluation of proposals like the ETHIC Act.
Supporters of the ETHIC Act argue that limiting how patents can be asserted will increase competition. In practice, the proposal would restrict how inventors defend their property rights, particularly in complex areas like biopharmaceutical innovation, where multiple patents often protect distinct aspects of a single breakthrough. That approach does not target abuse; it weakens the legal tools that innovators rely on to protect legitimate inventions.
Startups would feel the impact first.
Early-stage biotech companies are responsible for a significant share of new medicines approved each year. They depend on strong patent rights to attract investment and sustain long development timelines. When those rights become less predictable or harder to enforce, investors hesitate, capital dries up, and promising research stalls.
That outcome would not make healthcare more affordable. It would make future cures less likely.
The Alliance of U.S. Inventors and Jobs has been clear: lawmakers should support startups and reject policies built on unproven claims about patent abuse. The ETHIC Act rests on a flawed premise — that clusters of patents routinely block competition — despite growing evidence to the contrary.
Evidence-based policymaking requires more than repeating popular talking points. It requires grounding decisions in reliable data and understanding how innovation actually works.
Mossoff’s research reinforces what inventors already know. Strong patent rights are not the cause of high drug prices — they are a cornerstone of American medical progress. Policymakers should reject the ETHIC Act and similar proposals and instead focus on strengthening the innovation ecosystem that delivers life-saving treatments to patients.