Evofem Biosciences v. Padagis: Three-Patent Contraceptive Microbicide Dispute Dismissed Without Prejudice
Evofem Biosciences and its affiliated entities filed a patent infringement action against Padagis Israel Pharmaceuticals and related entities in the District of New Jersey, asserting three patents covering contraceptive microbicide compositions and alginic acid-based antimicrobial methods. The parties stipulated to voluntary dismissal without prejudice after just 113 days, with each side bearing its own costs.
Evofem's three-patent contraceptive microbicide claims end in early mutual walkaway
On June 1, 2023, Evofem Biosciences, Inc., Evofem Biosciences Operations, Inc., and Evofem, Inc. (collectively, the Evofem plaintiffs) filed an infringement action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Padagis Israel Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., Padagis, LLC, and Padagis US, LLC. The suit asserted three patents — US10568855B2, US11439610B2, and US11337989B2 — covering compositions and methods for enhancing the efficacy of contraceptive microbicides and compositions and methods for inhibiting inflammation and diseases using an alginic acid-based antimicrobial compound.
The recorded basis of termination is dismissal without prejudice. The docket order states that all claims, counterclaims, and defenses between the parties relating to the asserted patents were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and 41(c), with each party bearing its own costs and attorneys' fees. The case closed on September 22, 2023, 113 days after filing.
The rapid resolution — well under four months — is notable for a three-patent pharmaceutical infringement action and suggests that the parties reached an accommodation early in the litigation before substantive motion practice or claim construction proceedings. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, Evofem retains the ability to refile claims on these patents. The specific terms driving the dismissal, and whether any commercial arrangement underlies it, are not disclosed in the available public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 113 days
Case resolved in 113 days — well under the median ANDA/pharma patent district court lifecycle
US10568855B2, US11439610B2 & US11337989B2 — contraceptive microbicide and alginic acid antimicrobial compositions
Any pharmaceutical developer, generic manufacturer, or CDMO working on contraceptive microbicide formulations or alginic acid-based vaginal antimicrobial drug delivery systems should treat these three patents as active FTO risks. The without-prejudice dismissal in this case provides no safe harbour — no invalidity or non-infringement determination was entered. The patents remain granted and enforceable, and Evofem retains full right to enforce.
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulated order dismisses all claims, counterclaims, and defenses without prejudice under Rules 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and 41(c), meaning every asserted cause of action and every defensive challenge — including any invalidity counterclaims — is terminated with no binding legal effect. The without-prejudice character is critical: neither the patents' validity nor Padagis's infringement exposure has been adjudicated, and the order creates no res judicata bar to future proceedings between these parties on the same patents.
Dismissed without prejudice: what the voluntary stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41 stipulated dismissal without prejudice — no merits adjudication
The case was terminated by a joint stipulation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and 41(c), covering not only the main claims but also counterclaims and defenses. A dismissal without prejudice means the court enters no judgment on the merits; the underlying patent claims remain viable and can be reasserted in a future action. No judicial finding of infringement, validity, or invalidity was made.
No merits rulingEvofem preserves all three patents and retains right to refile
A without-prejudice dismissal leaves Evofem's three asserted patents — US10568855B2, US11439610B2, and US11337989B2 — intact and enforceable. Evofem is not barred from bringing a future infringement action against Padagis or any other party on these patents. No finding adverse to the patents was entered. The specific terms that led the plaintiffs to agree to dismissal are not disclosed in the available record.
Patents remain enforceablePadagis exits without prejudice finding but faces potential re-litigation risk
Padagis obtained dismissal of all claims, counterclaims, and defenses without any admission of infringement or validity finding against it. However, because the dismissal is without prejudice, Padagis has not secured a binding determination that its products or activities are non-infringing or that the asserted patents are invalid. This leaves residual exposure if Evofem refiles. Each party bearing its own costs means no fee-shifting occurred.
No invalidity ruling securedUnresolved patent scope creates ongoing uncertainty for alginic acid contraceptive space
With no merits adjudication, the scope and enforceability of Evofem's contraceptive microbicide and alginic acid-based antimicrobial patents remain untested by litigation. Competitors and generic entrants in this space cannot rely on this case as precedent for freedom to operate. Any party developing products in the compositions and methods covered by US10568855B2, US11439610B2, or US11337989B2 should treat these patents as live enforcement risks.
Unresolved IP riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Evofem Biosciences, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Evofem Biosciences Operations, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Evofem, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Padagis Israel Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Padagis, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Padagis US, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Charles H. Chevalier | Attorney | Counsel for Evofem Biosciences, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Gibbons PC | Law Firm | Representing Evofem Biosciences, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Rebekah R. Conroy | Attorney | Counsel for Padagis Israel Pharmaceuticals, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Stone Conroy LLC | Law Firm | Representing Padagis Israel Pharmaceuticals, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | New Jersey District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the contraceptive microbicide and alginic acid IP space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence for the contraceptive microbicide, alginic acid antimicrobial, and vaginal drug delivery landscape shaped by Evofem's and Padagis's IP activity.
Evofem's continuation pipeline in alginic acid and microbicide formulations
Evofem has built a multi-patent cluster spanning at least two application families covering contraceptive microbicide efficacy and alginic acid antimicrobial methods. Monitoring continuation and continuation-in-part filings from these families — particularly from US16/239314 and US16/738868 — will reveal how broadly Evofem is seeking to extend claim coverage into adjacent formulation and indication spaces.
Portfolio watchFiling trends in alginic acid-based vaginal antimicrobial drug delivery
Alginic acid and bioadhesive polymer platforms for vaginal drug delivery are an active innovation area, with applications ranging from contraception to STI prevention and microbiome modulation. Tracking recent global patent filings in this space reveals which organisations are building competing IP positions and where white space may exist for differentiated formulation approaches outside the scope of the asserted Evofem patents.
Landscape trendsPadagis's generic pharmaceutical patent and formulation strategy
Padagis, operating through Israeli and US entities, is active in the generic and specialty pharmaceutical manufacturing space. Assessing Padagis's own patent filings and any ANDA paragraph IV certifications in contraceptive or antimicrobial product lines indicates both their competitive ambitions in this space and the potential trigger points for future patent disputes with Evofem or other innovator companies.
Competitor watchAdjacent R&D opportunities near Evofem's claimed microbicide compositions
The asserted patents focus on specific alginic acid-based compositions and methods for contraceptive microbicide efficacy enhancement. White space analysis around these claims — examining non-alginic polymer carriers, alternative antimicrobial actives, and combination delivery mechanisms — may reveal formulation approaches that fall outside Evofem's current claim footprint and represent viable development paths for other pharmaceutical developers.
Innovation white spaceSimilar contraceptive microbicide and pharmaceutical antimicrobial patent cases
Explore related patent infringement actions in the New Jersey District Court and federal courts involving pharmaceutical contraceptive, antimicrobial composition, and alginic acid drug delivery patents.
What this case signals for the contraceptive microbicide IP landscape
An early without-prejudice exit on three pharmaceutical patents leaves enforcement risk open and the technology space contested.
Without-prejudice dismissal keeps Evofem's enforcement options fully open
No merits ruling was entered. Evofem can refile against Padagis or assert the same three patents against any other entrant. Companies operating in the alginic acid-based contraceptive and antimicrobial composition space should not treat this dismissal as clearing the enforcement landscape.
Rapid 113-day resolution suggests early engagement, not prolonged litigation
The case closed before claim construction or substantive motion practice would typically conclude in a New Jersey District Court multi-patent action. This timeline is consistent with early-stage commercial or procedural resolution, though the specific drivers are not disclosed in the public record.
Evofem v Padagis — key questions answered
Evofem Biosciences asserted three patents: US10568855B2 and US11439610B2, covering compositions and methods for enhancing the efficacy of contraceptive microbicides, and US11337989B2, covering compositions and methods for inhibiting inflammation and diseases using an alginic acid-based antimicrobial compound. All three were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.
The case was dismissed without prejudice by joint stipulation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and 41(c), covering all claims, counterclaims, and defenses. Each party bears its own costs and attorneys' fees. No merits adjudication was entered. The recorded basis of termination is dismissal without prejudice.
Yes. A dismissal without prejudice does not bar Evofem from refiling the same infringement claims against Padagis or asserting the same patents against other parties. No res judicata or collateral estoppel effect arises from the dismissal. The patents remain granted and enforceable.
The case was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (case number 3:23-cv-03003) on June 1, 2023, and closed on September 22, 2023 — a duration of 113 days.
No. Because the case was dismissed without prejudice and no merits ruling was entered, there is no judicial determination regarding the validity or invalidity of US10568855B2, US11439610B2, or US11337989B2. The patents remain fully effective and their validity has not been adjudicated by any court in this proceeding.
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.