By Kristen Osenga
Cross-posted with permission from Professor Osenga’s December 8, 2025, LinkedIn article
I’ve seen a lot of misinformation circulating online lately about patents and their role in drug prices. Some articles – like this one – claim that so-called “patent thickets” are an abusive strategy drug companies use to keep prices high. The idea is that a brand-name medicine is surrounded by dozens of overlapping patents, supposedly making it impossible for generic manufacturers to enter the market once the initial patents expire.
It’s an attention-grabbing narrative. It’s also deeply misleading.
The premise behind the patent-thicket argument is that a large number of patents signals something nefarious – that multiple patents must mean companies are gaming the system. But in practice, multiple patents often reflect continued innovation that happens after a drug is approved, not an attempt to block competition.
Consider how medicines evolve. A drug rarely stays static once it reaches the market. Researchers spend years, sometimes decades, finding new ways to improve how a therapy works, how it’s delivered, or which patients it can help. Botox is a well-known example: it was initially approved for two rare eye disorders. Today it has more than ten approved uses, from chronic migraine to spasticity. Those advancements required research, clinical trials, and, yes, additional patents tied to the new science.
These later-filed patents don’t extend the life of the original product. A new patent on a long-acting injectable version of a therapy doesn’t change when the older pill version loses its exclusivity. Generics are still free to enter when the original patents expire. What the newer patents do is encourage companies to invest in improvements that give patients better options.
HIV treatments illustrate the value of this ongoing innovation. For years, patients relied on complex daily pill regimens. But advances in drug formulation and delivery have made it possible for some individuals to maintain viral suppression with injections every other month. Those breakthroughs stem not from brand-new molecular discoveries, but from refining and improving existing medicines.
We all want broader access to affordable treatments. But blaming drug prices on the mere existence of multiple patents misses how medical innovation actually works. The real question is whether we want a system that continues to generate better, safer, more convenient therapies. Undermining the patent framework that makes that possible won’t reduce costs – it will simply slow the progress patients depend on.