Hawley Walks Out of Senate Patent Hearing After Clash Over Drug Prices and PERA Legislation
Key Insights
Sen. Josh Hawley walked out of a Senate IP subcommittee hearing after Chairman Thom Tillis blocked his questioning on high prescription drug prices as off-topic.
The hearing focused on the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (search) (PERA), which would reverse the Supreme Court's Alice Corp. framework limiting patent eligibility for natural phenomena and abstract concepts.
Hawley cited a 2024 Rand Corp. (search) analysis comparing brand-name drug costs internationally and argued that patent reform should not enable further price gouging by pharmaceutical companies.
A Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing on patent reform descended into acrimony Tuesday when Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) walked out after clashing with Chairman Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) over the relevance of prescription drug pricing to the proposed Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (search) (PERA).
The Subcommittee on Intellectual Property convened to hear expert testimony on PERA, legislation that would overhaul the patent eligibility framework established by the US Supreme Court in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International. The existing test largely excludes from patent protection innovations involving natural phenomena, laws of nature, and abstract concepts. PERA would reverse this approach, explicitly excluding categories such as mathematical formulas and mental processes while making eligible "any process that cannot be practically performed without the use of a machine" or a "manufacture."
Heated Exchange Over Drug Pricing
Nearly two hours of measured debate between advocates and critics of the legislation was disrupted when Hawley directed his questioning toward pharmaceutical companies and drug pricing. Displaying a bar chart referencing a 2024 Rand Corp. (search) analysis comparing brand-name drug costs across countries including Canada, France, and the United States, Hawley pressed the expert panel.
"Don't you think we can find a way to protect our patent system, which I'm all for doing, provided that it's not gamed any further by the pharma companies to keep prices high?" Hawley asked Dr. Debra G.B. Leonard, a professor and chair at the University of Vermont College of Medicine (search).
Hawley also referenced legislation he helped introduce "that would stop big pharma from selling drugs in the United States at a higher price than the international average" and sought Leonard's views on similar measures.
Leonard responded that the question was "totally off the topic" other than the fact that prescription drugs are usually patented.
Expert Panel Weighs In
Andrei Iancu, a partner at Sullivan & Cromwell (search), offered a measured response when asked by Hawley. "I don't think you'll hear a lot of disagreement here about needing to reduce drug prices under the proper circumstances, but that should not come at the cost of innovation," Iancu said.
Hawley countered that the price of innovation should not fall on US citizens and questioned why the government does not prevent price gouging through legislation. At that point, Chairman Tillis intervened.
"The cost of a drug and a therapy that could save millions that was never invented is zero," Tillis said, pushing back against Hawley's framing.
Tillis argued that hospitals, pharmacy benefit managers, insurers, and healthcare providers are all part of "the value chain" and the solution to lowering drug costs. He then declared he would not entertain further discussion outside the scope of PERA.
Walkout and Aftermath
"I've never seen a hearing where the chairman testifies for the witnesses," Hawley said.
"I've never seen a hearing where the entire discussion was off the topic of the bill," Tillis fired back, noting that Hawley had exceeded his allotted time.
Hawley left the hearing shortly thereafter, underscoring the deep tensions between lawmakers over how to balance patent protections, pharmaceutical innovation, and drug affordability in the United States.