Bausch & Lomb, Inc. v. Granules India, Ltd.
Infringement action filed 9 Dec 2025 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and closed 1 Apr 2026, with 4 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: consent judgment.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US11596600B2US9259425B2US11833245B2US8293742B2
- Case no.
- 3:25-cv-18325
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- D.N.J.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- New Jersey
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 9 Dec 2025 – 1 Apr 2026
- Duration
- 113 days
- Basis of termination
- Consent Judgment
- Products & marks
- Lumify® Brimonidine tartrate 0.025% ophthalmic solution
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Vasoconstriction compositions and methods of use
The invention generally relates to compositions for inducing vasoconstriction. The compositions comprise highly selective alpha-2 adrenergic receptor agonists, at low concentrations, such as below 0.05% weight by volume. The compositions preferably comprise brimonidine. The compositions preferably have pH between about 5.5 and about 6.5.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 7 Mar 2023
- Earliest priority
- 12 Feb 2009
- Est. expiry
- 27 Jul 2029
- Validity challenges
- 1 on recordIPR2024-00563 · Patentability · filed by DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES S.A.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- HORN, GERALD
- Classification
- A61K9/48A61K9/00A61K9/08A61K45/06A61K31/44A61K31/498
- Prosecution counsel
- COOLEY LLP
- Examiner
- SZNAIDMAN, MARCOS L
Compositions and methods for eye whitening
The invention provides compositions and methods for whitening of eyes. The provided compositions and methods utilize low concentrations of selective α-2 adrenergic receptor agonists. The compositions preferably include brimonidine.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 16 Feb 2016
- Earliest priority
- 17 Dec 2009
- Est. expiry
- 14 Jul 2030
- Validity challenges
- 1 on recordIPR2022-00146 · Other · filed by Slayback Pharma LLC
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- HORN, GERALD
- Classification
- A61K31/498A61K9/08A61K45/06A61K31/4178A61K31/198A61K31/4168A61K31/4174A61K9/00A61K31/165
- Prosecution counsel
- WOOD, PHILLIPS, KATZ, CLARK & MORTIMER
- Examiner
- FAY, ZOHREH
Also asserted in this case
2 moreThe docket lists 4 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 2 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
Parties of record
Bausch & Lomb, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- J. Brugh Lower · William P. Deni Jr.
- Firm
- Fbt Gibbons LLP, Gibbons PC
Granules India, Ltd.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Dmitry V. Shelhoff · Kenneth Canfield
- Firm
- Shelhoff Canfield & Chin LLC
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| J. Brugh Lower | Bausch & Lomb, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| William P. Deni Jr. | Bausch & Lomb, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Dmitry V. Shelhoff | Granules India, Ltd. | Defendant |
| Kenneth Canfield | Granules India, Ltd. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED as follows: 1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the above action and has personal jurisdiction over the parties for purposes of this action only, including as set fmth below in Paragraph 6 of this Consent Judgment. 2. As used in this Consent Judgment, the term “Defendant ANDA Product” shall mean a drug product manufactured, impmted, sold, offered for sale, marketed, or disti’ibuted pursuant to Abbreviated New Drug Application No. 220937 in or for the United States of America, including its territories, possessions, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.As used in this Consent Judgment, the term “Patents-in-Suit” shall mean U.S. Patent Nos. 8,293,742, 9,259,425, 11,596,600, and 11,833,245. 4. Until expiration of the Patents-in-Suit, Defendant, including any of its successors and assigns, is enjoined from infringing the Patents-in-Suit, on its own part or through any third party on its behalf, by making, having made, using, selling, offering to sell, impo1iing, or distributing of the Defendant ANDA Product in or for the United States of America, unless and to the extent othe1wise specifically authorized by Plaintiffs, and is further enjoined from assisting or cooperating with any third parties in connection with any infringement of the Patents-in-Suit by any such third patiies in connection with making, having made, using, selling, offering to sell, importing, or distributing of any brimonidine tartrate 0.025% ophthalmic solution that references NDA208144 in or for the United States of America, unless and to the extent otherwise specifically authorized by Plaintiffs. 5. Compliance with this Consent Judgment may be enforced by Plaintiffs and their respective successors in interest or assigns. 6. This Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Consent Judgment and to enforce and resolve any disputes related thereto. 7. All claims, counterclaims, affirmative defenses, motions and petitions asserted in this Action are hereby dismissed without prejudice and without costs, disbursements or attorneys’ fees to any patiy. 8. Nothing herein prohibits or is intended to prohibit Defendant from maintaining any “Paragraph IV Certification” pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV) or pursuant to 21 C.F.R. § 314.94(a)(12) with respect to the Patents-in-Suit.Nothing herein prohibits or is intended to prohibit Defendant from engaging in any activity permitted under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(l). 10. Nothing herein restricts or is intended to restrict the U.S. Food and Dmg Administration from approving Abbreviated New Drug Application No. 220937 or the ANDA Product.”
Case 3:25-cv-18325 · D.N.J. · closed 1 April 2026
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 3:25-cv-18325?
3:25-cv-18325 is a patent infringement action brought by Bausch & Lomb, Inc. against Granules India, Ltd., filed on 9 Dec 2025 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The case closed on 1 April 2026.
Which patents were asserted in 3:25-cv-18325?
US11596600B2 (“Vasoconstriction compositions and methods of use”), assigned to EYE THERAPIES LLC, currently active; US9259425B2 (“Compositions and methods for eye whitening”), assigned to EYE THERAPIES LLC, currently active; US11833245B2 (“Vasoconstriction compositions and methods of use”), assigned to EYE THERAPIES LLC; US8293742B2 (“Preferential vasoconstriction compositions and methods of use”), assigned to EYE THERAPIES LLC. The record also lists Lumify® Brimonidine tartrate 0.025% ophthalmic solution.
How was case 3:25-cv-18325 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is consent judgment. The termination text reads: “ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED as follows: 1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the above action and has personal jurisdiction over the parties for purposes of this action only, including as set fmth below in Paragraph 6 of this Consent Judgment. 2. As used in this Consent Judgment, the term “Defendant ANDA Product” shall mean a drug product manufactured, impmted, sold, offered for sale, marketed, or disti’ibuted pursuant to Abbreviated New Drug Application No. 220937 in or for the United States of America, including its territories, possessions, and the Commonwealth of P
What does dismissal without prejudice mean?
A dismissal without prejudice ends this action but leaves the claims alive — the plaintiff may file them again later, subject to the limitation period.
How long did case 3:25-cv-18325 take?
113 calendar days, from filing on 9 Dec 2025 to closure on 1 April 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 3:25-cv-18325?
J. Brugh Lower and William P. Deni Jr. are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Bausch & Lomb. Dmitry V. Shelhoff and Kenneth Canfield appear for defendant Granules India.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 3:25-cv-18325 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.