American Regent v. Accord Healthcare: Selenious Acid Patent Consent Judgment
American Regent, Inc. filed suit against Accord Healthcare, Ltd. in the District of New Jersey asserting US11998565B2, covering injectable selenious acid products used for selenium supplementation. The case resolved after 511 days via a consent judgment that enjoins Cipla — Accord’s affiliate — from infringing the licensed ARI patents in the United States.
Hatch-Waxman injunction resolved by consent: ARI secures IP perimeter around selenium IV line
American Regent, Inc. (ARI), a specialty pharmaceutical company and holder of US11998565B2, filed this infringement action on 16 July 2024 in the District of New Jersey against Accord Healthcare, Ltd. The dispute centres on ARI’s selenious acid injectable products — specifically three selenium concentration formats (60 mcg/mL in 10 mL, 60 mcg/mL unit dose, and 6 mcg/mL in 2 mL) — which are the subject of an Accord ANDA filing that triggered the Paragraph IV certification litigation pathway under the Hatch-Waxman Act.
The case closed on 9 December 2025 via a consent judgment incorporating the terms of an underlying settlement agreement. Under the consent judgment, Cipla — identified as an affiliate of Accord — is permanently enjoined from making, using, selling, offering to sell, importing, or distributing the CIPLA Product(s) in the United States unless specifically authorised by ARI or permitted under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1). Notably, a preliminary injunction that had been entered on 27 May 2025 was simultaneously vacated as superseded by the consent judgment. All claims and counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice with no cost award to either side.
The 511-day duration — spanning from filing through a contested preliminary injunction stage to final consent judgment — suggests substantive litigation pressure before settlement was reached. The fact that a preliminary injunction was obtained and later superseded, rather than vacated on the merits, indicates ARI maintained sufficient leverage to negotiate binding injunctive relief through the consent decree. The public record does not disclose financial consideration, royalty terms, or any authorised launch date for Cipla’s ANDA product, leaving the precise commercial terms of the underlying settlement agreement undisclosed.
Filing to Consent Judgment in 511 days
511 days — longer than the median Hatch-Waxman first-instance ANDA case, which typically settles within 12–18 months
Consent judgment explained: what the dismissal without prejudice means for both parties
Consent judgment: a court-enforceable settlement with injunctive teeth
A consent judgment differs from a voluntary dismissal: it is a binding court order incorporating agreed terms, enforceable as a judgment. Here, the court retains jurisdiction to supervise compliance. The dismissal of all claims ‘without prejudice’ preserves each party’s right to re-litigate if the settlement agreement is breached — but the injunction against Cipla is immediately operative and independently enforceable by ARI or its assigns.
Court-supervised settlementARI secures enforceable injunction without a merits adjudication
American Regent obtains a permanent injunction against Cipla’s commercial activities in the US market for these selenious acid formulations without needing a full trial. The consent judgment expressly allows ARI’s successors and assigns to enforce the order, making it robust against corporate restructuring. Critically, the without-prejudice dismissal means ARI retains the ability to re-assert claims if Cipla launches outside the settlement’s authorised parameters.
Injunction securedCipla retains ANDA rights but faces a hard US market barrier
Cipla is not barred from maintaining its ANDA or Paragraph IV certifications with the FDA — the consent judgment expressly preserves those regulatory rights. However, commercial launch in the US is enjoined unless ARI grants specific authorisation under the settlement agreement. The without-prejudice dismissal provides Cipla a theoretical re-litigation path, but the operative injunction makes any unlicensed US market entry immediately actionable by ARI.
Launch blocked absent authorisationConsent injunction signals ARI’s intent to enforce its selenium IV patent portfolio aggressively
The willingness to litigate through a preliminary injunction before settling on consent judgment terms suggests ARI treats US11998565B2 as a commercially critical asset. For other generic filers targeting ARI’s selenious acid line, this outcome — a court-supervised injunction with retained jurisdiction — raises the cost and risk calculus of ANDA-based entry. Future ANDA challengers should anticipate early injunctive proceedings and a well-resourced plaintiff litigation strategy.
Elevated ANDA challenge riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | American Regent, Inc. | Company | Specialty pharmaceutical company — holder of US11998565B2 covering selenious acid IV selenium productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Accord Healthcare, Ltd. | Company | Generic pharmaceutical company filing ANDA for selenious acid injectable selenium productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | ANDREW Z. BARNETT | Attorney | Counsel for American Regent, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Charles H. Chevalier | Attorney | Counsel for American Regent, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christine A. Gaddis | Attorney | Counsel for American Regent, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Dennies Varughese | Attorney | Counsel for American Regent, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | MADELEINE C. BOND | Attorney | Counsel for American Regent, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | MADISYN L. RICHARDS | Attorney | Counsel for American Regent, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | NIRAV N. DESAI | Attorney | Counsel for American Regent, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Gibbons PC | Law Firm | Representing American Regent, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox | Law Firm | Representing American Regent, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | KRISTEN HEALEY CRAMER | Attorney | Counsel for Accord Healthcare, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | NOELLE TORRICE | Attorney | Counsel for Accord Healthcare, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN, AND ARONOFF LLP | Law Firm | Representing Accord Healthcare, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | New Jersey District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The consent judgment is notable for several layers of legal architecture. First, it operates as a permanent injunction against Cipla — an entity identified as an affiliate of named defendant Accord — suggesting the settlement negotiations effectively bound the ANDA filer behind Accord. Second, the express vacatur of the May 2025 preliminary injunction order confirms that the consent decree supersedes, rather than supplements, prior court orders. Third, the without-prejudice dismissal with no cost award is standard in ANDA consent judgments and does not signal weakness by either party — it reflects a negotiated neutral exit. The retention of FDA filing rights by Cipla preserves future regulatory optionality without conferring any commercial launch right.
US11998565B2 — Injectable selenious acid pharmaceutical formulations
US11998565B2, filed under application number US18/124391, protects American Regent’s selenious acid injectable products used for parenteral selenium supplementation. The patent covers formulations at clinically relevant concentrations — including 60 mcg selenium/mL and 6 mcg selenium/mL — administered intravenously, typically in hospital and critical care settings where oral selenium intake is not feasible. As an issued utility patent, it reflects ARI’s investment in formulation science for trace element supplementation in parenteral nutrition.
Selenious acid injectables occupy a niche but medically essential segment of the parenteral nutrition market. ARI’s enforcement of US11998565B2 against an ANDA filer signals that the company views this patent as commercially central to its selenium product line. For competitors, the existence of a court-enforced injunction — backed by a consent judgment with retained jurisdiction — significantly elevates the risk of ANDA-based market entry in this formulation space until the patent’s expiry or any agreed authorisation window.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US11998565B2?
Any company developing, manufacturing, or distributing injectable selenium or selenious acid formulations for the US market — whether as an ANDA generic, a biosimilar-adjacent product, or a hospital compounding alternative — should treat US11998565B2 as a mandatory FTO checkpoint. ARI has demonstrated willingness to seek and obtain preliminary injunctions quickly, meaning the litigation risk is not theoretical. The consent judgment’s injunction against Cipla also establishes a precedent that affiliates and contract manufacturers can be bound by such orders.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map US11998565B2’s claim scope against your formulation parameters — concentration ranges, excipient profiles, and administration routes — to identify design-around opportunities or validity challenges before ANDA filing. Eureka’s citation analysis can also surface related ARI patents in the parenteral nutrition space, helping you assess whether a single FTO opinion is sufficient or whether a broader portfolio clearance is warranted.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11998565B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar ANDA patent disputes over injectable pharmaceutical formulations in New Jersey
Explore comparable Hatch-Waxman infringement actions involving injectable pharmaceutical formulations litigated in the District of New Jersey, including consent judgment and preliminary injunction outcomes.
What this case signals for the injectable selenium pharmaceutical IP landscape
ARI’s consent judgment playbook — preliminary injunction followed by court-supervised settlement — is increasingly common in specialty pharma ANDA disputes.
Preliminary injunctions remain a powerful settlement lever in Hatch-Waxman cases
ARI obtained a preliminary injunction in May 2025 — roughly 10 months after filing — before ultimately converting it into a consent judgment. This sequencing suggests that securing early injunctive relief materially improved ARI’s settlement position. Companies holding pharmaceutical patents on injectable formulations should assess injunction viability as a litigation strategy, not merely a remedy of last resort.
ANDA filers should audit Paragraph IV exposure on injectable micronutrient formulations
US11998565B2 covers selenious acid injectable products — a niche but growing segment of parenteral nutrition. Generic entrants in this space should conduct thorough freedom-to-operate analysis before filing ANDAs, particularly where the innovator has recently secured patent issuance and has demonstrated willingness to litigate aggressively through the preliminary injunction stage.
American v Accord — key questions answered
The case closed on 9 December 2025 via a consent judgment. Cipla — Accord’s affiliate — was permanently enjoined from infringing ARI’s licensed patents covering selenious acid injectable products in the US. All claims were dismissed without prejudice with no cost award to either party. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.
American Regent asserted US11998565B2 (application no. US18/124391), which covers injectable selenious acid pharmaceutical formulations used for intravenous selenium supplementation, including products at 60 mcg selenium/mL and 6 mcg selenium/mL concentrations.
In this consent judgment, dismissal without prejudice means the underlying infringement claims are not adjudicated on the merits and could theoretically be re-asserted if the settlement agreement is breached. However, the operative injunction against Cipla remains in force and is independently enforceable by ARI, regardless of the without-prejudice dismissal of the underlying pleadings.
Yes. The consent judgment expressly states that nothing in the order precludes the FDA from granting final ANDA approval to Cipla, nor does it prevent Cipla from filing, modifying, or maintaining a Paragraph IV Certification with the FDA. However, commercial launch in the US remains enjoined unless ARI grants specific authorisation under the terms of the underlying settlement agreement.
A preliminary injunction was entered by the court on 27 May 2025. When the parties reached a consent judgment incorporating settlement terms, that consent judgment expressly superseded the preliminary injunction order, which was then vacated as to Cipla. This is standard practice: the consent judgment itself provides the operative injunctive relief on a permanent basis, making the interim preliminary order redundant.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.