Glycobiosciences v. Johnson & Johnson: Dismissed for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
Glycobiosciences, Inc. filed a patent infringement action in Maryland against Johnson & Johnson over two sodium hyaluronate polymer matrix patents. After 194 days, Judge Deborah L. Boardman granted J&J's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and denied Glycobiosciences' motion to transfer — ending the case without a merits ruling.
Jurisdictional dismissal ends hyaluronate patent suit in Maryland
Glycobiosciences, Inc. filed suit against Johnson & Johnson in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on 19 April 2023, asserting infringement of US9821005B2 and US10322142B2 — both patents covering polymer matrix compositions comprising a high concentration of bio-fermented sodium hyaluronate. The case was assigned to Judge Deborah L. Boardman. Glycobiosciences was represented by DNL Zito Castellano, while Johnson & Johnson retained Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP.
The recorded basis of termination is 'Case Dismissed.' The docket order states that the court granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Dkt. 14) and denied Plaintiff's Motion to Transfer the Case (Dkt. 16). The case closed on 30 October 2023, 194 days after filing, without any adjudication on the merits of the infringement claims.
The denial of the transfer motion is commercially significant: it means Glycobiosciences was unable to redirect the case to a court that could exercise jurisdiction over Johnson & Johnson, leaving the plaintiff to refile in an appropriate forum if it wishes to continue pursuing its claims. The specific reasons the court found personal jurisdiction lacking, and whether Glycobiosciences intends to refile, are not disclosed in the available record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Case Dismissed in 194 days
194 days from filing to dismissal — a relatively swift pretrial resolution on jurisdictional grounds
US9821005B2 & US10322142B2 — Bio-fermented sodium hyaluronate polymer matrix
R&D teams and product managers developing sodium hyaluronate-based polymer matrix formulations — particularly at high concentrations or using bio-fermentation processes — should treat these patents as active enforcement risks. The Maryland dismissal was procedural: neither patent has been invalidated or found not infringed. Companies in dermal fillers, viscosupplementation, wound care, or ophthalmic formulations that involve bio-fermented hyaluronate are the most directly exposed.
Official order — verbatim text
The court granted Johnson & Johnson's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and denied Glycobiosciences' motion to transfer. This dual ruling — dismissal without transfer — is a complete procedural victory for J&J at this stage: the plaintiff cannot pursue its hyaluronate patent infringement claims in Maryland and must begin fresh proceedings elsewhere. No finding was made on infringement or patent validity.
Case dismissed: what the jurisdictional ruling means for both parties
Dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction — no merits ruling
A dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction means the court found it did not have authority over the defendant in that forum — not that the patent claims lack merit. The infringement claims against Johnson & Johnson remain unadjudicated. Glycobiosciences retains the right to refile in a jurisdiction where personal jurisdiction over J&J can be established.
Procedural dismissalGlycobiosciences must refile — patents remain enforceable
The dismissal is a procedural setback, not a finding against Glycobiosciences on patent validity or infringement. US9821005B2 and US10322142B2 remain active and enforceable. However, the court's denial of the transfer motion means Glycobiosciences bears the cost and delay of initiating fresh proceedings in a competent forum if it chooses to continue enforcement.
Patents intact; forum lostJ&J avoids Maryland forum without a merits finding
Johnson & Johnson secured a full dismissal on jurisdictional grounds, avoiding litigation in Maryland without the court addressing infringement or validity of either asserted patent. The denial of the transfer motion reinforces this result. Whether J&J faces re-filed claims in another forum remains an open question not resolved by this ruling.
Forum challenge succeededVenue strategy is critical in hyaluronate and biologics patent enforcement
This outcome underscores how forum selection can be determinative even before patent merits are tested. Companies commercialising sodium hyaluronate and polymer matrix biologics should assess where large pharmaceutical defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction before filing. A jurisdictional dismissal early in litigation signals the importance of pre-filing due diligence on the defendant's in-forum contacts.
Forum strategy riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Glycobiosciences, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Johnson & Johnson | Individual | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph J. Zito | Attorney | Counsel for Glycobiosciences, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dnl Zito Castellano | Law Firm | Representing Glycobiosciences, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Anthony T. Pierce | Attorney | Counsel for Johnson & JohnsonSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jonathan J. Underwood | Attorney | Counsel for Johnson & JohnsonSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Steven D. Maslowski | Attorney | Counsel for Johnson & JohnsonSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP | Law Firm | Representing Johnson & JohnsonSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Deborah L. Boardman | Judge | Maryland District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the sodium hyaluronate and biopolymer formulation space
Forward-looking patent and R&D intelligence derived from the Glycobiosciences v. Johnson & Johnson case — covering portfolio trends, white space, and competitive positioning in hyaluronate biologics.
Glycobiosciences' hyaluronate portfolio: enforcement scope beyond these two patents
Glycobiosciences holds at least two granted patents (US9821005B2, US10322142B2) in the bio-fermented sodium hyaluronate space. Monitoring their broader filing activity — including continuations, divisionals, and pending applications — can reveal where their enforcement strategy may move next and which product categories face the highest claim-coverage risk.
Portfolio watchFiling trends in high-concentration hyaluronate formulation patents
The bio-fermented sodium hyaluronate space is seeing increasing patent activity as demand grows in dermal fillers, orthopaedic injectables, and ophthalmic products. Tracking filing trends around high-concentration hyaluronate polymer matrices can identify which players are staking new claim territory and where competitive density is rising — signalling both risk zones and white space.
Filing trendJohnson & Johnson's hyaluronate IP position and defensive portfolio
Johnson & Johnson operates across dermatology, orthopaedics, and ophthalmology — all sectors where hyaluronate formulations are commercially significant. Assessing J&J's own patent filings in sodium hyaluronate and related biopolymers reveals the defensive depth they can deploy and the gaps that competing innovators or licensees might exploit.
Competitive IP mappingAdjacent formulation white space near the asserted hyaluronate claims
The specific claim scope of US9821005B2 and US10322142B2 — focused on high-concentration bio-fermented sodium hyaluronate in polymer matrices — leaves adjacent formulation spaces potentially unprotected. Modified crosslinking methods, alternative bio-fermentation sources, or combination polymer systems may represent R&D opportunity zones where freedom to operate is greater and competitive patent density is lower.
R&D white spaceSimilar hyaluronate and biologics patent infringement cases in US district courts
Explore related patent infringement actions involving sodium hyaluronate, biopolymer compositions, and pharmaceutical formulation patents litigated in US district courts.
What this case signals for the hyaluronate and biologics IP landscape
A jurisdictional dismissal against J&J in Maryland reveals enforcement risks that patent holders in specialty biologics must anticipate.
Personal jurisdiction due diligence is essential before filing against large pharma
The swift dismissal of this case — 194 days, before any merits engagement — highlights that patent holders must establish a defendant's actionable contacts with the chosen forum before filing. Against global companies like Johnson & Johnson, a seemingly logical venue can still fail on jurisdiction, wasting time and resources.
Transfer denial leaves Glycobiosciences fully exposed to refiling costs
When a court denies transfer after dismissing for jurisdiction, the plaintiff must restart in a new forum rather than have the case efficiently moved. For smaller patent holders like Glycobiosciences, this compounds enforcement costs and delays substantive resolution of the infringement claims against a well-resourced defendant.
Glycobiosciences v Johnson — key questions answered
The court granted Johnson & Johnson's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Dkt. 14). This means the Maryland District Court found it lacked authority over J&J in that forum. No merits ruling on patent infringement or validity was made. Glycobiosciences' Motion to Transfer (Dkt. 16) was also denied, meaning the case could not be redirected to another court.
Glycobiosciences asserted two patents: US9821005B2 (App. No. US14/818810) and US10322142B2 (App. No. US15/727820). Both cover polymer matrix compositions comprising a high concentration of bio-fermented sodium hyaluronate and uses thereof. Neither patent was invalidated or found not infringed in these proceedings.
A dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction is generally without prejudice to refiling in a forum that can properly exercise jurisdiction over the defendant. The specific terms of the dismissal order are not further detailed in the available record. Glycobiosciences would need to identify and file in a court with an established basis for personal jurisdiction over Johnson & Johnson.
The denial of the Motion to Transfer means the court declined to redirect the case to another district that might have jurisdiction, rather than simply dismissing it. As a result, Glycobiosciences must initiate entirely new proceedings in an appropriate forum if it wishes to continue pursuing its infringement claims, bearing the associated costs and time delays of starting over.
Both patents cover polymer matrix compositions comprising a high concentration of bio-fermented sodium hyaluronate and their uses. Sodium hyaluronate is a biopolymer widely used in pharmaceutical and medical device formulations including dermal fillers, viscosupplementation, ophthalmic products, and wound care. The patents' focus on bio-fermented production at high concentrations is the key technical distinction.
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.