Par Pharmaceutical vs. Long Grove: Vasopressin Patent Suit Dismissed
A pharmaceutical patent infringement suit filed by Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Par Sterile Products, LLC, and Endo Par Innovation Company, LLC against Long Grove Pharmaceuticals, LLC concluded with a Stipulation of Dismissal Without Prejudice on July 25, 2024 — just 230 days after it was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Presided over by Chief Judge Gregory B. Williams, the case centered on two issued U.S. patents covering vasopressin injection formulations and the defendant’s competing generic product.
For patent attorneys, IP professionals, and pharmaceutical R&D teams, this case offers a window into the litigation dynamics surrounding vasopressin drug patent protection — a commercially sensitive area given the high-stakes market for critical care vasopressors. The dismissal without prejudice leaves open the possibility of future action, making this case a live reference point for competitive intelligence and patent risk management in the parenteral drug space.
Case No.: 1:23-cv-01412 | Court: D. Del. | Closed: July 25, 2024
Que souhaitez-vous faire ensuite ?
Choisissez votre parcours en fonction de vos besoins actuels :
📋 Résumé de l'affaire
| Nom de l'affaire | Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Long Grove Pharmaceuticals, LLC |
| Numéro de dossier | 1:23-cv-01412 (D. Del.) |
| Tribunal | Tribunal fédéral de première instance pour le district du Delaware |
| Durée | Dec 2023 – Jul 2024 7 months |
| Résultat | Rejeté sans préjudice |
| Brevets en cause | |
| Produits incriminés | Vasopressin Injection formulations (0.2 Unit/mL, 0.4 Unit/mL, 1.0 Unit/mL) |
Aperçu du dossier
Les parties
⚖️ Demandeur
Affiliated entities within the Endo International corporate family, responsible for branded pharmaceutical products including VASOSTRICT® (vasopressin injection).
🛡️ Défendeur
Pharmaceutical company pursuing regulatory approval for generic vasopressin injection products under NDA No. 204485.
Les brevets en cause
Two U.S. patents were asserted in this action, both covering vasopressin injection formulations and methods of treatment:
- • U.S. Patent No. 9,993,520 B2 (Application No. 15/688,334)
- • U.S. Patent No. 11,207,372 B2 (Application No. 16/291,796)
Both patents relate to the pharmaceutical composition and use of vasopressin, a critical care hormone used to raise blood pressure in patients with vasodilatory shock.
Développer un médicament générique ?
Check if your formulation might infringe these or related patents before launch.
Le verdict et l'analyse juridique
Résultat
The case was terminated via a Stipulation of Dismissal Without Prejudice — meaning neither party obtained a judicial determination on the merits of infringement or patent validity. No damages were awarded, no injunctive relief was granted or denied by the court, and no claim construction order was issued based on available case data.
A dismissal without prejudice is legally significant: it does not bar the plaintiffs from re-filing the same claims against Long Grove Pharmaceuticals in the future, provided applicable statutes of limitations and procedural requirements are satisfied.
Principales questions juridiques
The infringement action was predicated on Long Grove’s alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,993,520 and 11,207,372 through its vasopressin injection products. Given the NDA-referencing framework underlying the dispute, this case bears hallmarks of Hatch-Waxman Act litigation, where branded pharmaceutical manufacturers assert patents against generic applicants seeking approval based on existing NDAs.
Hatch-Waxman litigation frequently resolves through negotiated settlement or licensing arrangements before reaching trial, which is consistent with this case’s rapid dismissal timeline. The **230-day duration** is notably shorter than the typical pharmaceutical patent trial cycle, reinforcing the inference that settlement or licensing discussions drove the resolution — though the specific terms of any underlying agreement were not disclosed in the case record.
The assertion of both U.S. 9,993,520 and the later-issuing U.S. 11,207,372 demonstrates Par’s use of a continuation patent portfolio strategy to extend protection across the vasopressin formulation space, a common and effective tactic in pharmaceutical IP prosecution.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis for Vasopressin Formulations
Ce cas met en évidence les risques critiques liés à la propriété intellectuelle dans le développement de médicaments génériques. Choisissez votre prochaine étape :
📋 Comprendre l'impact de cette affaire
Découvrez les risques et les implications spécifiques liés à ce litige.
- Voir tous les brevets liés à ce domaine technologique
- See which companies are most active in vasopressin patents
- Comprendre les modèles d'interprétation des revendications pour les formulations pharmaceutiques
🔍 Vérifier les risques liés à mon produit
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own generic pharmaceutical product.
- Saisissez la description de votre produit ou ses caractéristiques techniques.
- L'IA identifie les brevets susceptibles de constituer un obstacle
- Obtenir un rapport d'évaluation des risques exploitable
Zone à haut risque
Vasopressin injection formulations
2 brevets revendiqués
In vasopressin formulation space
Autorisation FTO critique
Pour le développement de médicaments génériques
✅ Points clés à retenir
Dismissal without prejudice in Hatch-Waxman cases rarely signals a plaintiff’s defeat — often reflecting a negotiated settlement.
Rechercher la jurisprudence connexe →Continuation patent portfolios (e.g., ‘520 → ‘372) remain powerful enforcement and licensing tools in pharmaceutical litigation.
Explorer les précédents →Delaware District Court continues to be the preferred venue for complex pharmaceutical patent disputes due to its experienced judiciary.
View D. Del. litigation data →Foire aux questions
Two U.S. patents were asserted: U.S. Patent No. 9,993,520 B2 (App. No. 15/688,334) and U.S. Patent No. 11,207,372 B2 (App. No. 16/291,796), both covering vasopressin injection formulations.
The case was terminated via a Stipulation of Dismissal Without Prejudice, indicating a mutual resolution between the parties without a court ruling on infringement or validity. Specific settlement terms were not disclosed.
The without-prejudice dismissal preserves plaintiffs’ litigation rights, meaning these patents may be asserted again against Long Grove or other generic competitors. Companies in the vasopressin space should monitor this patent family closely.
Prêt à renforcer votre stratégie en matière de brevets pharmaceutiques ?
Rejoignez plus de 18 000 professionnels de la propriété intellectuelle qui utilisent PatSnap Eureka pour effectuer des recherches d'antériorité, rédiger des brevets et analyser le paysage concurrentiel avec une précision optimisée par l'IA.
Références
- United States Patent and Trademark Office — Patent 9,993,520 B2
- United States Patent and Trademark Office — Patent 11,207,372 B2
- PACER Case Locator – D. Del. 1:23-cv-01412
- Delaware District Court IP Docket
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence for Pharmaceuticals
Cet article est publié à titre purement informatif et ne constitue en aucun cas un avis juridique. Toutes les informations relatives aux affaires sont tirées de dossiers judiciaires accessibles au public. Pour en savoir plus sur les fonctionnalités de la plateforme, rendez-vous sur PatSnap.