Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
American Regent v. Somerset Therapeutics — Selenious Acid Patent | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID2:24-cv-07807
FiledJul 2024
ClosedNov 2024
Patent Litigation

American Regent v. Somerset Therapeutics: Selenious Acid ANDA Litigation Consolidated

American Regent, Inc. filed suit against Somerset Therapeutics, LLC, Somerset Pharma, LLC, and Odin Pharmaceuticals, LLC in the District of New Jersey, asserting US11998565B2 covering its Selenious Acid Injection (600 mcg Selenium/10 mL) against a proposed generic entrant. The case was consolidated within 128 days into a coordinated 13-defendant ANDA action — one of the largest multi-defendant selenious acid patent disputes on record.

Resolution time
128days
128 days to consolidation — markedly faster than typical ANDA case resolution, suggesting procedural efficiency was prioritised early
Patents asserted
1
US11998565B2 — Selenious Acid Injection USP, intravenous selenium supplementation formulation
Outcome
Case Consolidated
Case merged into 13-defendant consolidated action; all filings now proceed under lead case No. 24-7791
Cost ruling
N/A
No costs ruling recorded at this stage; matter transferred to consolidated proceeding
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

Hatch-Waxman wave: ARI’s 13-front selenious acid patent defence

On July 16, 2024, American Regent, Inc. filed this action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Somerset Therapeutics, LLC, Somerset Pharma, LLC, and Odin Pharmaceuticals, LLC, asserting infringement of US11998565B2 in connection with defendants’ ANDA filing for a generic version of ARI’s Selenious Acid Injection, USP (600 mcg Selenium/10 mL). The patent covers the formulation and composition of ARI’s branded intravenous selenium product, a critical trace element supplement used in parenteral nutrition.

On October 22, 2024 — just 98 days after filing — the parties jointly moved to consolidate this action with twelve parallel ANDA suits filed by ARI against defendants including Accord Healthcare, Cipla, Dr. Reddy’s, Hikma, Sun Pharmaceutical, and Zydus, among others. The court consolidated all 13 cases under lead docket No. 2:24-cv-07791, with all future filings to proceed under that caption. Consolidation is a procedural mechanism, not a merits disposition; no liability finding or dismissal has occurred.

The 128-day timeline from filing to consolidation is consistent with coordinated Hatch-Waxman strategy, where brand-name holders simultaneously sue multiple ANDA filers to trigger the 30-month stay and consolidate discovery. The breadth of defendants — spanning domestic generics, Indian pharma groups, and specialty formulators — suggests ARI received paragraph IV certifications from a large cohort simultaneously, a pattern typical of competitive parenteral nutrition markets. The ultimate merits of the ‘565 patent’s validity and infringement remain unresolved and will be litigated in the consolidated proceeding.

Case at a glance
Case no.2:24-cv-07807
CourtNew Jersey
JudgeN/A
FiledJuly 16, 2024
ClosedNovember 21, 2024
Duration128 days
OutcomeCase Consolidated
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisCase Consolidated
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / New Jersey District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to Case Consolidated in 128 days

128 days to consolidation — markedly faster than typical ANDA case resolution, suggesting procedural efficiency was prioritised early

Case timeline: Complaint filed JUL 16 2024, SEP–OCT — 128 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in American Regent, Inc. v Somerset Therapeutics, LLC from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, New Jersey District Court. JUL 16 2024 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings NOV 21 2024 Case Consolidated 128 DAYS TOTAL
Case consolidation

What consolidation means: one docket, 13 defendants, live patent dispute

Legal mechanism

Consolidation is procedural — not a merits ruling

Case consolidation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) allows a court to join related actions sharing common questions of law or fact. Here, all 13 ANDA suits involve the same patent (US11998565B2) and the same reference product. No findings on validity or infringement have been made. All claims survive and will be adjudicated together under lead case 2:24-cv-07791.

No merits disposition
Plaintiff’s position

ARI gains litigation efficiency across 13 ANDA filers

Consolidation benefits American Regent by centralising discovery, claim construction, and any validity challenges into a single proceeding. This reduces duplication of expert testimony and briefing costs. Critically, each individual suit filing still triggers a separate 30-month Hatch-Waxman stay against the respective ANDA applicant, preserving ARI’s market exclusivity window during litigation.

30-month stay preserved
Defendants’ position

Somerset and co-defendants face coordinated patent challenge

Somerset Therapeutics, Somerset Pharma, and Odin Pharmaceuticals now litigate alongside 10 other generic challengers. Consolidation may align their invalidity and non-infringement arguments with co-defendants, potentially sharing costs. However, each defendant’s FDA approval timeline remains individually at risk under the 30-month stay triggered by ARI’s individual suit filings.

Shared invalidity strategy likely
Commercial implications

Parenteral selenium market entry delayed pending outcome

With 13 ANDA applicants blocked by litigation, ARI effectively controls the near-term competitive landscape for Selenious Acid Injection USP. Generic entry for all named defendants is contingent on either a successful patent challenge or expiry. The consolidated structure suggests this case will proceed to claim construction and likely summary judgment or trial, making it a high-stakes bellwether for the parenteral nutrition generic market.

Generic entry delayed
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 2:24-cv-07807 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffAmerican Regent, Inc.CompanyPharmaceutical manufacturer — holder of US11998565B2 covering Selenious Acid Injection USPSearch in Eureka ↗
DefendantSomerset Therapeutics, LLCCompanyGeneric pharmaceutical entities: Somerset Therapeutics LLC, Somerset Pharma LLC, and Odin Pharmaceuticals LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Co-DefendantOdin Pharmaceuticals, LLCCompanySearch in Eureka ↗
Co-DefendantSomerset Pharma, LLCCompanySearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselCharles H. ChevalierAttorneyCounsel for American Regent, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselChristine A. GaddisAttorneyCounsel for American Regent, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselDennies VarugheseAttorneyCounsel for American Regent, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmGibbons PCLaw FirmRepresenting American Regent, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmSterne Kessler Goldstein & FoxLaw FirmRepresenting American Regent, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselJames S. RichterAttorneyCounsel for Somerset Therapeutics, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmMIDLIGE RICHTER LLCLaw FirmRepresenting Somerset Therapeutics, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge N/AJudgeNew Jersey District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

“WHEREAS, Plaintiff American Regent, Inc. (“ARI”) initiated Civil Action No. 2:24-cv7791 (BRM) (CLW) against Defendant Accord Healthcare, Inc.; and WHEREAS, ARI initiated Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-7794 (BRM) (CLW) (“24-7794”) against Defendant Aspiro Pharma Ltd.; and WHEREAS, ARI initiated Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-7796 (BRM) (CLW) (“24-7796”) against Defendants Cipla USA, Inc. and Cipla Limited; and WHEREAS, ARI initiated Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-7799 (BRM) (CLW) (“24-7799”) against Defendants Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd.; and WHEREAS, ARI initiated Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-8956 (BRM) (CLW) (“24-8956”) against Defendants Eugia Pharma Specialities Ltd. and Eugia US LLC; and WHEREAS, ARI initiated Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-7802 (BRM) (CLW) (“24-7802”) against Defendant Gland Pharma Ltd.; and WHEREAS, ARI initiated Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-7803 (BRM) (CLW) (“24-7803”) against Defendant Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.; and WHEREAS, ARI initiated Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-7804 (BRM) (CLW) (“24-7804”) against Defendant Long Grove Pharmaceuticals, LLC.; and Case 2:24-cv-07807-BRM-CLW Document 22 Filed 10/22/24 Page 4 of 10 PageID: 162 5 WHEREAS, ARI initiated Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-7805 (BRM) (CLW) (“24-7805”) against Defendant RK Pharma, Inc.; and WHEREAS, ARI initiated Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-7807 (BRM) (CLW) (“24-7807”) against Defendants Somerset Therapeutics, LLC, Somerset Pharma, LLC, and Odin Pharmaceuticals, LLC; and WHEREAS, ARI initiated Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-7810 (BRM) (CLW) (“24-7810”) against Defendants Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.; and WHEREAS, ARI initiated Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-7811 (BRM) (CLW) (“24-7811”) against Defendants Xiromed, LLC and Xiromed Pharma España, S.L.; and WHEREAS, ARI initiated Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-7812 (BRM) (CLW) (“24-7812”) against Defendant Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc.; and WHEREAS, good cause exists to consolidate these actions; and WHEREFORE, all parties, through their attorneys, respectfully request that this Court consolidate Civil Action Nos. 24-7791, 24-7794, 24-7796, 24-7799, 24-8956, 24-7802, 24-7803, 24-7804, 24-7805, 24-7807, 24-7810, 24-7811, 24-7812 and that all papers be filed and maintained in Civil Action No. 24-7791. WHEREFORE, all filings in the Consolidated Action shall use the following caption going forward”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 2:24-cv-07807, New Jersey District Court

The consolidation order recites each of the 13 parallel civil actions filed by ARI and states that ‘good cause exists to consolidate these actions,’ directing all filings to proceed under lead case No. 2:24-cv-07791. The order is purely procedural in scope — it makes no findings on infringement, validity, or enforceability of US11998565B2. For Somerset and its co-defendants, consolidation means their individual cases are absorbed into a coordinated proceeding where claim construction rulings and any invalidity findings will have binding effect across all 13 defendants simultaneously.

PACER case 2:24-cv-07807 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

US11998565B2 — Selenious Acid Injection USP formulation patent

Publication No.US11998565B2
Application No.US18/124391
Patent details
ProductIntravenous selenious acid injection for parenteral trace element supplementation
Cited in actionJuly 16, 2024

US11998565B2 protects American Regent’s Selenious Acid Injection, USP — a 600 mcg selenium per 10 mL (60 mcg/mL) intravenous formulation used in parenteral nutrition to supplement selenium in patients who cannot receive adequate oral nutrition. The application number US18/124391 indicates prosecution was completed relatively recently, suggesting the patent covers formulation-specific innovations rather than the selenium compound itself, which is long off patent. The precise scope of claims — whether directed to concentration, excipient composition, container type, or manufacturing process — will be central to the consolidated litigation.

Selenious acid injections occupy a niche but clinically essential segment of the parenteral nutrition market. ARI’s decision to assert this patent simultaneously against 13 generic filers signals that it views the ‘565 patent as a robust blocking position. For any company developing or supplying IV selenium products, this patent is now the primary freedom-to-operate risk. The consolidated litigation will likely produce a claim construction ruling that sets the de facto industry standard for what constitutes infringing selenium injection formulations — making the outcome commercially significant well beyond the named defendants.

Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Freedom to operate

Should your IV nutrition pipeline require an FTO against US11998565B2?

Any company developing, manufacturing, or distributing a generic or biosimilar selenious acid injection — particularly at the 60 mcg/mL concentration — should treat US11998565B2 as a live blocking patent until the consolidated NJ litigation resolves. The 13-defendant case confirms ARI is actively enforcing, and the 30-month stays mean FDA approval alone will not guarantee market access. R&D teams reformulating or repackaging IV selenium products for pharmacy bulk package distribution should conduct a formal FTO analysis before committing to ANDA filings.

PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the full claim scope of US11998565B2 against your product specifications, surface relevant prior art that co-defendants may use in invalidity challenges, and flag related continuation or divisional applications in ARI’s portfolio that could extend the blocking window. Monitoring the consolidated docket for claim construction orders will be essential — Eureka’s litigation tracking tools allow R&D and IP teams to receive real-time alerts as the case progresses.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11998565B2 to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

Related Hatch-Waxman ANDA patent cases in parenteral nutrition

Explore parallel ANDA infringement actions involving intravenous formulation patents litigated in the District of New Jersey, including co-pending ARI cases under lead docket 24-7791.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
American Regent, Inc. patent enforcement history, New Jersey case history, American Regent, Inc.’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
ARI v. Accord HealthcareARI v. Hikma PharmaceuticalsARI v. Sun PharmaceuticalARI v. Zydus Pharmaceuticals
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the parenteral nutrition IP landscape

ARI’s coordinated 13-defendant filing is a deliberate Hatch-Waxman enforcement strategy that every generic pharma team in the IV nutrition space should monitor closely.

Simultaneous paragraph IV filings trigger coordinated brand-side response

When multiple ANDAs include paragraph IV certifications against the same patent, brand holders routinely file parallel suits to capture 30-month stays against each applicant. ARI’s 13 simultaneous filings are textbook execution of this strategy, signalling confidence in US11998565B2’s enforceability and a determination to delay all generic entrants in parallel.

Consolidation accelerates claim construction — watch for early Markman hearing

Consolidated ANDA proceedings in the District of New Jersey typically move toward a Markman claim construction hearing within 12–18 months. The outcome of claim construction will be pivotal for all 13 defendants: a narrow construction of the ‘565 patent’s formulation claims could open design-around opportunities, while a broad construction strengthens ARI’s blocking position across the board.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock deeper analysis on US11998565B2 claim scope, ANDA strategy, and generic entry risk in the NJ District Court parenteral nutrition docket.
Prosecution history risksClaim construction forecastDesign-around pathways
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

American v Somerset — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

Monitor the consolidated selenious acid ANDA docket in real time

PatSnap Eureka tracks all 13 defendants in American Regent’s consolidated NJ litigation, flags claim construction orders as they issue, and runs FTO analysis against US11998565B2 for any IV selenium product in development.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.