Bayer & Janssen v. Epic Pharma: Rivaroxaban Patent Dispute Ends in Consent Judgment
Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH, Bayer Pharma AG, Bayer AG, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals filed suit against generic challenger Epic Pharma LLC in Delaware, asserting two patents covering rivaroxaban formulations for thromboembolic and cardiovascular indications. The case closed by consent judgment just 117 days after filing.
Rivaroxaban ANDA Litigation Resolved by Consent Judgment in 117 Days
On 10 November 2022, Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH, Bayer Pharma AG, Bayer AG, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. filed suit against Epic Pharma, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware before Judge Richard G. Andrews. The plaintiffs asserted two patents — US9539218B2 and US10828310B2 — covering pharmaceutical formulations directed to the prevention and treatment of thromboembolic disorders and to reducing the risk of cardiovascular events, consistent with formulations of the anticoagulant rivaroxaban.
The recorded basis of termination is Consent Judgment. The docket order states that, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) and 41(c), all parties stipulated that Plaintiffs' claims against Epic and Epic's claims against Plaintiffs — including all claims and defenses on both sides — are dismissed with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs, disbursements, and attorneys' fees. The specific terms underlying the parties' agreement are not disclosed in the available record.
Resolution within 117 days of filing suggests the parties reached their arrangement at an early stage, before substantive motion practice or claim construction proceedings would typically have advanced. What drove the resolution — and any commercial terms between the parties — is not disclosed in the public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Consent Judgment in 117 days
117 days — resolved well before typical ANDA patent trial timelines in Delaware
US9539218B2 & US10828310B2 — Rivaroxaban Formulation Patents
Any company developing, filing an ANDA for, or commercialising oral anticoagulant formulations — particularly those in the rivaroxaban, Factor Xa inhibitor, or related thromboembolic/cardiovascular indication space — should conduct a freedom-to-operate assessment against both patents. Neither was invalidated or narrowed in this proceeding, meaning their claims remain as-filed and presumptively valid.
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation — entered under Rules 41(a)(1) and 41(c) — extinguishes all claims and defenses on both sides with prejudice and requires each party to bear its own costs. The recorded basis of termination is Consent Judgment. Because the disposition preceded any substantive court rulings, no judicial assessment of the validity, enforceability, or scope of US9539218B2 or US10828310B2 appears in the public record.
Consent judgment: what the agreed resolution means for both parties
What a consent judgment means in patent litigation
A consent judgment is a binding, court-entered judgment on terms agreed by the parties. Unlike a bare voluntary dismissal, it carries the full weight of a court judgment and can be enforced as such. Here, the stipulation was entered under Rules 41(a)(1) and 41(c), resolving all claims and defenses on both sides with prejudice. The specific agreed terms beyond the dismissal mechanism are not disclosed in the available record.
Court-entered, binding judgmentBayer and Janssen: claims resolved with finality
For the patent holders, the consent judgment closes this action with prejudice, meaning Epic cannot relitigate the same claims in this district. Both asserted patents — US9539218B2 and US10828310B2 — remain in force. Whether the resolution imposes any restrictions on Epic's ability to launch a generic rivaroxaban product is not disclosed in the available record.
Patents intact; terms not publicEpic Pharma: all counterclaims also dismissed with prejudice
Epic's own claims and defenses against the plaintiffs — including any invalidity or non-infringement counterclaims — are dismissed with prejudice under the stipulation. Epic bears its own legal costs. What, if anything, Epic received in exchange for this resolution is not disclosed in the available record.
Counterclaims extinguishedGeneric rivaroxaban market entry: uncertainty remains
Rivaroxaban (marketed as Xarelto) is a high-value anticoagulant. Consent judgments in ANDA patent cases can reflect a range of commercial arrangements — from agreed entry dates to licensing terms — but none of those details appear in the public record here. Competitors monitoring the generic entry landscape for rivaroxaban should note that the terms of Epic's path forward are not publicly disclosed.
Market entry terms undisclosedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Bayer Intellectual Property, GMBH | Company | Pharmaceutical IP holding and operating entities — holders of US9539218B2 and US10828310B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Bayer Pharma AG | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Bayer AG | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Epic Pharma, LLC | Company | Epic Pharma, LLC — generic pharmaceutical manufacturer and ANDA applicantSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Derek James Fahnestock | Attorney | Counsel for Bayer Intellectual Property, GMBHSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jack B. Blumenfeld | Attorney | Counsel for Bayer Intellectual Property, GMBHSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Rodger Dallery Smith , II | Attorney | Counsel for Bayer Intellectual Property, GMBHSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP | Law Firm | Representing Bayer Intellectual Property, GMBHSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Richard G. Andrews | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the rivaroxaban and anticoagulant formulation space
Patent and innovation intelligence derived from Bayer, Janssen, and Epic Pharma's activity in oral anticoagulant and thromboembolic formulation R&D.
Bayer and Janssen's layered rivaroxaban patent estate
The assertion of both a legacy application (US11/883218) and a 2019 application (US16/264032) in the same suit suggests Bayer and Janssen actively layer their rivaroxaban exclusivity across successive patent families. Monitoring their continuing applications and divisionals in this space may reveal the next wave of enforcement risk for generic filers.
Layered exclusivity strategyFiling trends in oral Factor Xa inhibitor formulations
The rivaroxaban formulation space continues to attract patent activity from both originators and generic players seeking design-around positions. Tracking claim-level filing trends in Factor Xa inhibitor dosage forms, solid oral formulations, and bioavailability-enhancing technologies can reveal where the next patentability white space — and enforcement risk — sits.
Factor Xa inhibitor IP trendsEpic Pharma's generic anticoagulant pipeline and IP strategy
Epic Pharma's participation in rivaroxaban ANDA litigation signals active positioning in the high-value oral anticoagulant generic market. Analysing Epic's own patent filings and ANDA history may reveal their formulation approach and whether they are pursuing design-around innovations that could be relevant to other generic competitors or originator enforcement watchers.
Generic anticoagulant pipelineAdjacent innovation in anticoagulant delivery and indication expansion
Beyond core rivaroxaban formulations, adjacent R&D white space exists in modified-release delivery systems, paediatric formulations, and novel cardiovascular indications not covered by the existing Bayer-Janssen patent estate. Mapping claim boundaries of US9539218B2 and US10828310B2 against this adjacent space can identify where innovation can proceed with lower infringement risk.
Adjacent formulation white spaceSimilar Rivaroxaban and Anticoagulant Patent Cases in Delaware
Explore related ANDA and formulation patent disputes involving rivaroxaban, Factor Xa inhibitors, and cardiovascular pharmaceuticals litigated in the Delaware District Court.
What this case signals for the rivaroxaban and anticoagulant IP landscape
A 117-day consent judgment in a multi-plaintiff ANDA case carries specific signals for generic challengers and originators alike.
Early consent judgments in ANDA cases limit public invalidity record
When ANDA litigation ends by consent judgment before claim construction, no court-issued ruling on validity or claim scope enters the public record. For competitors, this means US9539218B2 and US10828310B2 have not been tested in adversarial proceedings — their claims retain full presumptive validity and uncertain scope from a third-party perspective.
Multi-entity plaintiff structure signals coordinated IP enforcement
The filing by four related Bayer and Janssen entities as co-plaintiffs is consistent with portfolio-level enforcement strategy for rivaroxaban. Generic challengers should anticipate that any ANDA filing against rivaroxaban formulation patents is likely to trigger coordinated multi-party litigation from the originator side.
Bayer v Epic — key questions answered
The case closed by consent judgment on 7 March 2023, 117 days after filing. All claims and defenses asserted by the Bayer and Janssen plaintiffs against Epic Pharma, and all of Epic's claims against the plaintiffs, were dismissed with prejudice. Each party bears its own costs and attorneys' fees. The specific terms of the parties' agreement are not disclosed in the available record.
The plaintiffs asserted two patents: US9539218B2 (application US11/883218) and US10828310B2 (application US16/264032). Both relate to pharmaceutical formulations covering the prevention and treatment of thromboembolic disorders and reducing the risk of cardiovascular events — consistent with rivaroxaban formulations marketed as Xarelto.
A consent judgment is a binding, court-entered judgment on terms the parties have agreed. In ANDA cases, it ends the litigation without a merits ruling on patent validity or infringement. Because the disposition here preceded any substantive court rulings, neither US9539218B2 nor US10828310B2 was adjudicated on the merits — their claims remain presumptively valid and untested in this proceeding.
The public record does not disclose any terms governing Epic Pharma's ability to launch a generic rivaroxaban product. Whether the consent judgment permits, restricts, or sets a date for market entry is not stated in the available docket. Companies monitoring the generic rivaroxaban landscape should track FDA approval status and 30-month stay expiry for indirect signals.
The plaintiffs — Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH, Bayer Pharma AG, Bayer AG, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. — were represented by Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, with attorneys of record including Jack B. Blumenfeld, Derek James Fahnestock, and Rodger Dallery Smith II. No defendant law firm is identified in the available record.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.