Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Nanocopoeia: SPRYCEL Patent Claims Dismissed After 527 Days
Bristol-Myers Squibb filed suit against Nanocopoeia, LLC in Minnesota District Court asserting three patents tied to SPRYCEL®. After 527 days of litigation, all claims, counterclaims, and defenses were dismissed, with each party bearing its own costs and attorneys' fees.
BMS Asserts Three SPRYCEL Patents Against Minnesota Nanoformulation Firm
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company filed this infringement action on May 10, 2022 in the District of Minnesota against Nanocopoeia, LLC. The suit asserted three United States patents — US7491725B2, US8680103B2, and US8242270B2 — in connection with BMS's branded oncology product SPRYCEL®. The action was prosecuted by Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Carlson Caspers PA for BMS, while Nanocopoeia retained Latham & Watkins LLP and Fredrikson & Byron PA.
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Case Dismissed.' The docket order, entered October 11, 2023, is styled as a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal stating that 'all claims, counterclaims, and defenses asserted by any of the undersigned parties against any other undersigned party in the above matter are dismissed without prejudice.' The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the stipulation and any related agreements between the parties. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees.
The case closed after roughly 17 months. The parties' stipulation recites that they 'have resolved all outstanding issues between them,' though the specific terms of any resolution are not disclosed in the available record. The without-prejudice dismissal means the claims are not extinguished on the merits, preserving the right to refile, though the practical likelihood of that outcome is unknown from the public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Case Dismissed in 527 days
527 days from filing to closure — approximately 17 months of active litigation
US7491725B2, US8680103B2, US8242270B2 — SPRYCEL® pharmaceutical formulation patents
Any company developing nanoparticle-based pharmaceutical formulations in the oncology space — particularly those involving dasatinib or structurally similar tyrosine kinase inhibitors — should consider a formal freedom-to-operate analysis against these three BMS patents. The claims were never adjudicated in this proceeding, meaning their validity and scope remain legally untested. Generic developers, contract development and manufacturing organisations (CDMOs), and specialty pharma formulators operating near the SPRYCEL® technology space face the most direct exposure.
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation and order records that the parties 'have resolved all outstanding issues between them,' resulting in dismissal of all claims, counterclaims, and defenses without prejudice. No merits determination was made by the court. The retention of jurisdiction to enforce the stipulation and related agreements is a standard provision in court-ordered dismissals that accompany negotiated resolutions; the specific terms of any such agreements are not disclosed in the available record.
Case dismissed: what the stipulated order means for both parties
Stipulated dismissal without prejudice entered by the court
The parties filed a joint stipulation resolving all outstanding issues, which the court converted into a binding order on October 11, 2023. All claims, counterclaims, and defenses were dismissed without prejudice — meaning no merits adjudication occurred. The court expressly retained jurisdiction to enforce the stipulation and any related agreements, a provision that typically accompanies negotiated resolutions.
Without prejudice dismissalBMS patents survive litigation intact — no invalidity ruling recorded
A without-prejudice dismissal leaves the asserted patents — US7491725B2, US8680103B2, and US8242270B2 — legally intact. No court has ruled on their validity or enforceability in this proceeding. BMS retains the right to assert these patents in future actions, subject to any agreements reflected in the parties' resolution, the specific terms of which are not disclosed in the available record.
Patents legally intactNanocopoeia exits litigation with no adverse judgment on the merits
Nanocopoeia, LLC faces no court-entered finding of infringement and no invalidity ruling in its favour. The without-prejudice nature of the dismissal means BMS could theoretically refile on the same patents. Each party bearing its own costs means Nanocopoeia receives no fee award. The specific terms of the parties' resolution are not disclosed in the available record.
No adverse merits rulingUnresolved patent scope creates continued uncertainty in SPRYCEL-adjacent nanoformulation
With no invalidity or non-infringement ruling, the three asserted patents retain their presumption of validity. Competitors and formulators working in dasatinib or related oncology nanoparticle technology space should note that the patent claims were never adjudicated. Any party developing products potentially within the scope of US7491725B2, US8680103B2, or US8242270B2 should consider a formal freedom-to-operate analysis.
FTO review recommendedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Bristol-Myers Squibb | Individual | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Nanocopoeia, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ashley Cade | Attorney | Counsel for Bristol-Myers SquibbSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christopher Jagoe | Attorney | Counsel for Bristol-Myers SquibbSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Hannah Mosby O'Brien | Attorney | Counsel for Bristol-Myers SquibbSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeanna Wacker | Attorney | Counsel for Bristol-Myers SquibbSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph W. Winkels | Attorney | Counsel for Bristol-Myers SquibbSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Samjin Kwon | Attorney | Counsel for Bristol-Myers SquibbSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Shaoyao Yu | Attorney | Counsel for Bristol-Myers SquibbSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Shelleaha L. Jonas | Attorney | Counsel for Bristol-Myers SquibbSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Avantech Law LLP | Law Firm | Representing Bristol-Myers SquibbSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Carlson Caspers PA | Law Firm | Representing Bristol-Myers SquibbSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Kirkland & Ellis LLP | Law Firm | Representing Bristol-Myers SquibbSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Benjamin L. Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Nanocopoeia, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Daniel G. Brown | Attorney | Counsel for Nanocopoeia, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Herman H. Yue | Attorney | Counsel for Nanocopoeia, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joseph T. Dixon III | Attorney | Counsel for Nanocopoeia, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kelley Storey | Attorney | Counsel for Nanocopoeia, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kelsey McElveen | Attorney | Counsel for Nanocopoeia, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Marc N. Zubick | Attorney | Counsel for Nanocopoeia, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Sarah Wang | Attorney | Counsel for Nanocopoeia, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Yi Ning | Attorney | Counsel for Nanocopoeia, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fredrikson & Byron PA | Law Firm | Representing Nanocopoeia, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Latham & Watkins LLP | Law Firm | Representing Nanocopoeia, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Minnesota District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the oncology nanoformulation patent space
Forward-looking patent intelligence signals derived from Bristol-Myers Squibb's assertion of three SPRYCEL® formulation patents against Nanocopoeia in Minnesota.
BMS's SPRYCEL formulation patent family — scope and expiry outlook
Bristol-Myers Squibb asserted three patents across at least two application series in this action. Mapping the full continuation and divisional family around these applications — including any child applications still pending — is critical for any party planning dasatinib-related product development. The filing progression from App. 11/192867 through to App. 13/562399 suggests an iterative claim-broadening strategy worth monitoring.
BMS SPRYCEL portfolio depthNanoparticle drug delivery patent filing trends in oncology small molecules
Nanocopoeia's position as a nanoformulation specialist targeted by a major branded pharma reflects broader competition in nanoparticle-enabled oral oncology delivery. Filing activity in nanoparticle formulations of tyrosine kinase inhibitors has grown as branded manufacturers seek to extend exclusivity. Monitoring IPC class A61K9 and related formulation subclasses will surface emerging competitive filings in this space.
Nanoparticle oncology filing trendsNanocopoeia's patent position in nanoparticle pharmaceutical platforms
As a specialist nanoformulation firm, Nanocopoeia may hold its own patent filings covering nanoparticle manufacturing or delivery platform technology. Understanding Nanocopoeia's IP posture — including any patents it holds or has licensed — provides competitive intelligence for other nanoformulation players assessing freedom to operate or partnership opportunities in the Minnesota-based nanoparticle ecosystem.
Nanocopoeia IP landscapeAdjacent nanoformulation opportunities outside the BMS SPRYCEL claim perimeter
With three BMS formulation patents unadjudicated, formulators should identify claim-space white spots: nanoparticle compositions or processes sufficiently differentiated from the asserted claims to avoid infringement risk. Structural analogues, alternative polymeric matrices, or novel particle size ranges not covered by the BMS applications may represent viable R&D directions for next-generation oral oncology delivery platforms.
Formulation white space analysisSimilar SPRYCEL and oncology nanoformulation patent cases in federal court
Explore related pharmaceutical patent infringement actions involving oncology drug formulations and nanoparticle technology filed in the District of Minnesota and comparable federal courts.
What this case signals for the oncology nanoformulation IP landscape
Three BMS SPRYCEL patents went untested on the merits — a signal worth tracking for any formulator operating near this technology.
Unadjudicated SPRYCEL patents remain live enforcement tools for BMS
US7491725B2, US8680103B2, and US8242270B2 were dismissed without prejudice and without any invalidity finding. BMS can reassert these patents, and competitors in the nanoparticle formulation space for oncology drugs should treat them as active enforcement risk until they are either expired, invalidated, or addressed in a subsequent proceeding.
Own-costs order signals neither party claimed a clear win at dismissal
When both sides absorb their own legal costs — estimated at significant sums given the involvement of Kirkland & Ellis and Latham & Watkins — neither party extracted a fee-shifting award, consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a clear litigation victory. This suggests the dispute reached a commercial resolution, though the specific terms are not in the public record.
Squibb v Nanocopoeia — key questions answered
Bristol-Myers Squibb asserted three patents: US7491725B2 (App. No. 11/192867), US8242270B2 (App. No. 12/342141), and US8680103B2 (App. No. 13/562399). All three were asserted in connection with the branded oncology product SPRYCEL® (dasatinib). The case was filed in the District of Minnesota on May 10, 2022.
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Case Dismissed.' The docket order of October 11, 2023 is a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal stating that all claims, counterclaims, and defenses are dismissed without prejudice. The order recites that the parties 'have resolved all outstanding issues between them.' The specific terms of any resolution are not disclosed in the available record.
No. The case was dismissed without prejudice pursuant to a stipulated order, and no court made any finding on the validity or infringement of US7491725B2, US8242270B2, or US8680103B2. All three patents remain legally intact and carry the statutory presumption of validity.
A without-prejudice dismissal does not extinguish BMS's underlying patent claims on the merits. Absent any contractual bar arising from the parties' resolution (the terms of which are not in the public record), BMS retains the legal right to assert these patents in future proceedings. Competitors and formulators in the dasatinib or oncology nanoparticle space should treat the patents as potentially active.
BMS was represented by Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Carlson Caspers PA, and Avantech Law LLP. Nanocopoeia was represented by Latham & Watkins LLP and Fredrikson & Byron PA. The involvement of two Am Law 100 firms on each side is consistent with the commercial significance of the SPRYCEL® patent portfolio at issue.
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.