eVenus Pharma vs. Pacira: Bupivacaine Patent Case Dismissed with Prejudice in 126 Days

Case Overview

The Parties

In a swift resolution that closed within 126 days of filing, *eVenus Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc. v. Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Inc.* (Case No. 2:24-cv-11014, D.N.J.) concluded with a stipulated dismissal with prejudice — leaving no winner declared, no damages awarded, and no injunction entered. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on December 10, 2024, and closed on April 15, 2025, the case centered on bupivacaine liposome injectable suspension patent infringement, specifically targeting Pacira’s market-leading EXPAREL® product.

The Patent at Issue

The patent at the center of this dispute is **U.S. Patent No. 12,156,940 B1** (Application No. US18/761863), held by the plaintiffs. The patent covers formulations or methods related to bupivacaine liposome injectable suspension — a drug delivery technology designed to extend local anesthetic efficacy post-surgery. The ‘940 patent was notably recent at the time of filing, suggesting an aggressive assertion strategy timed to the patent’s issuance.

• • US 12,156,940 B1 — Bupivacaine liposome injectable suspension formulations

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

Pursuant to **Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules 41(a)(1) and 41(c)**, all parties — eVenus Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc. and Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. as plaintiffs, and Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Pacira BioSciences, Inc. as defendants — **stipulated to dismissal of all claims, counterclaims, and affirmative defenses with prejudice and without costs, disbursements, or attorneys’ fees** to any party.

No damages were awarded. No injunctive relief was granted or denied by the court. The dismissal was bilateral and symmetric — neither side extracted a publicly disclosed monetary recovery.

Verdict Cause Analysis

The action was initiated as an **infringement action** targeting EXPAREL®, a product with an established and aggressively defended patent estate. Pacira has a long history of litigation surrounding EXPAREL®, having previously litigated against multiple generic challengers. The assertion of U.S. Patent No. 12,156,940 B1 by eVenus/Hengrui represents a novel offensive angle — a plaintiff asserting its own formulation patent against Pacira’s commercial product, rather than a generic defendant seeking to clear Pacira’s blocking patents.

The mutual dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41 eliminates any risk of re-litigation on the same claims between these parties. The absence of a cost-shifting provision is consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a litigation-driven outcome. Given the parties’ respective market positions and the commercial sensitivity of EXPAREL®, a confidential licensing arrangement, market access agreement, or cross-license cannot be ruled out — though none has been publicly disclosed.