The Eliminating Thickets to Increase Competition Act (ETHIC Act) would amend 35 U.S.C. 271(e) to bar asserting more than one patent per Patent Group in an infringement action. A Patent Group is defined as two or more commonly owned patents or applications that are identified on a disclaimer under section 253 to obviate obviousness-type double patenting.
The amendment targets drug and biological product contexts, and applies to actions involving FDA drug applications under 505(b)(2) or (j) and biologics licensure under 351(k). The changes would take effect for applications submitted after enactment.
The goal is to reduce pharma patent thickets and speed competitive entry, potentially lowering costs for patients and payers while altering litigation dynamics for patent owners.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds a limit: in any infringement action under 271(e), a party may assert at most one patent per Patent Group. It also defines Patent Group and ties the limit to disclaimers used to obviate double patenting.
Who It Affects
Directly affects patent holders and litigants in pharma contexts, specifically those contesting drug approvals (505(b)(2)/(j)) and biosimilars (351(k)); affects patent portfolios built around common ownership and disclaimer-based groupings.
Why It Matters
By constraining how many patents can be asserted together, the ETHIC Act aims to streamline litigation, reduce strategic patent thickets, and accelerate market entry for generic and biosimilar products, with broader implications for drug pricing and competition.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The ETHIC Act is a targeted change to how patent infringement lawsuits are litigated in the pharma space. It limits the number of patents that can be asserted in a single 271(e) action to one patent per Patent Group, as defined by two or more commonly owned patents or applications tied together by a disclaimer under section 253 intended to address obviousness-type double patenting.
The law makes clear that a party cannot bring additional actions within the same Patent Group against the same opponent in the same context. The Patent Group concept hinges on the presence of disclaimers identifying related patents or applications, which means groups are defined by ownership and the way patents are disclaimed to avoid double patenting.
The amendment applies to FDA drug applications under 505(b)(2) or (j) and biosimilar licensure under 351(k), but only for applications submitted after the date of enactment. The practical effect is to shrink the leverage that a patent owner can deploy when protecting a drug or biologic product, potentially allowing earlier competition by generics and biosimilars and reducing the duration of patent-based market exclusivity in overlapping portfolios.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds a new limit on patent assertions in 271(e) actions: at most one patent per Patent Group.
Patent Groups consist of two or more commonly owned patents/applications identified on a section 253 disclaimer.
Disclaimers tying patents together due to obviating obviousness-type double patenting define group membership.
The amendment applies to FDA 505(b)(2)/(j) drug applications and biosimilar licensing under 351(k), for applications submitted after enactment.
A patent owner cannot bring additional actions in the same Patent Group against the same party.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Section 1 designates the act as the Eliminating Thickets to Increase Competition Act (ETHIC Act). The short title helps anchor citation and reference as the bill moves through Congress.
Limit on number of patents per Patent Group
Section 2(a) adds a limit to infringement proceedings under 271(e): in any action against a party described in the statute, the plaintiff may assert not more than one patent per Patent Group. A Patent Group is defined as two or more commonly owned patents or applications that are identified on a disclaimer under section 253 to obviate obviousness-type double patenting. This creates a procedural cap intended to reduce the leverage of large, aggregated patent portfolios in a single suit.
Applicability and effective date
Section 2(b) specifies that the amendment applies to applications submitted under the FDCA or PHSA after the date of enactment. This frames when the new limit becomes law-holding, ensuring that pre-enactment portfolios may not be retroactively constrained, while new applications must contend with the Patent Group rule going forward.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Technology across all five countries.
Explore Technology in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- ANDA holders and biosimilar developers—benefit from potentially faster clearance to market due to fewer multi-patent blockades in single actions.
- Health insurers and patients—could see lower costs and earlier access resulting from intensified competition.
- Regulators and courts—may experience narrower, more predictable litigation pathways and reduced case complexity.
- New market entrants and smaller biopharma firms pursuing generic or biosimilar products—face a lower barrier to entry as patent thickets shrink.
- Policy observers and market analysts—gains clearer signals about patent dynamics in pharma.
Who Bears the Cost
- Brand-name drug patentees relying on dense, multi-patent portfolios may lose leverage and protection when only one patent per group may be asserted per action.
- Patent enforcement entities and firms specializing in multi-patent campaigns could see revenues decline as the strategic value of asserting many patents in one suit erodes.
- Some inventors and portfolio managers may face higher transaction costs to track how disclaimers group patents and to determine Patent Group membership under the new rule.
- The USPTO and litigants may incur transitional costs to interpret and apply the new grouping rules during early enforcement cycles.
- There could be unintended halting or shifting of patent strategies as portfolios are reorganized to avoid broad groupings.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether constraining patent grouping to a single asserted patent per action preserves enough incentive for early pharma innovation while unlocking competition through faster generics and biosimilars; both aims are legitimate but can pull in opposite directions depending on portfolio structure and market dynamics.
The ETHIC Act sensibly aims to reduce patent thickets that slow pharmaceutical competition. Yet, it raises questions about the balance between innovation incentives and the need for faster market entry.
Defining Patent Group through 253-based disclaimers ties the rule to a narrow mechanism for coordinating related patents, but may invite disputes over whether particular patents are sufficiently linked to be in the same group. The time-bound applicability (post-enactment filings) limits retroactive disruption but creates a transitional period where legacy portfolios may still dominate some actions.
Implementation will require consistent interpretation across courts and may prompt more litigation over the validity and scope of the disclaimers that determine group membership.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.