Murray & Poole v. Cigna Group: LODOCO® Colchicine Patents Dismissed Without Prejudice
Murray and Poole Enterprises, Ltd. filed a five-patent infringement action against The Cigna Group and three affiliated entities in the Eastern District of Texas over LODOCO®, the first anti-inflammatory atheroprotective cardiovascular treatment based on colchicine. All claims and counterclaims were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice after just 154 days, with no costs, fees, or expenses awarded to either side.
Five-patent LODOCO® action against Cigna ends without merits ruling
On April 8, 2024, Murray and Poole Enterprises, Ltd. filed a patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 4:24-cv-00303) against The Cigna Group and three affiliated defendants — Cigna Healthcare of Texas, Inc., Cigna Health & Life Insurance Company, and Connecticut General Life Insurance Company. The complaint asserted five US patents (US11026900B2, US10265281B2, US10206891B2, US11026899B2, and US11026901B2) covering LODOCO®, described as the first anti-inflammatory atheroprotective cardiovascular treatment containing colchicine.
The case closed on September 9, 2024 — just 154 days after filing — pursuant to a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. Judge Amos L. Mazzant ordered all of the plaintiff’s claims dismissed without prejudice and without costs, fees, or expenses. Critically, the defendants’ counterclaims were also dismissed without prejudice and without costs, suggesting a mutually agreed resolution rather than a unilateral withdrawal by the plaintiff.
The speed of resolution and the mutual dismissal of counterclaims — with no fee shifting — is consistent with a negotiated settlement or licensing arrangement, though the public record provides no confirmation of such terms. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, Murray and Poole retains the theoretical ability to re-file these claims, and the underlying patent validity questions remain unadjudicated. The involvement of four Cigna entities as defendants suggests the dispute may have touched coverage, formulary, or reimbursement practices for LODOCO®.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 154 days
154 days — faster than the E.D. Texas median for patent cases proceeding to disposition
Voluntarily dismissed: what the without-prejudice order means for both parties
Voluntary dismissal without prejudice — what the order actually says
The court’s order reflects a joint Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, meaning both sides agreed to exit the litigation. Dismissal without prejudice means the plaintiff’s infringement claims have not been adjudicated on the merits, and no res judicata bar attaches. Murray and Poole retains the right to reassert these five patents against Cigna or new defendants in a future action, subject to applicable statutes of limitations.
No merits ruling issuedThe public record does not specify underlying settlement terms
While the order specifies ‘without prejudice,’ it does not disclose whether the parties reached a licensing agreement, a covenant not to sue, or simply agreed to stand down. These distinctions matter significantly: a license would resolve the commercial dispute; a covenant not to sue would protect Cigna from future suit on these patents; an outright withdrawal leaves the dispute latent. The public docket is silent on which scenario applies.
Terms undisclosedMurray & Poole preserves all five patents for future enforcement
Because the dismissal was without prejudice and no costs were assessed against the plaintiff, Murray and Poole exits the litigation without penalty and with full patent rights intact. All five LODOCO® patents remain enforceable and uncontested by any IPR or court ruling on validity. This outcome is consistent with a plaintiff who secured its commercial objective — whether through licensing or a coverage agreement — without needing a judicial determination.
Patents remain enforceableCigna’s counterclaims also dismissed — no invalidity ruling obtained
The dismissal of Cigna’s counterclaims without prejudice means the insurer did not secure a ruling on patent invalidity or non-infringement that could be used offensively in future disputes. Cigna and its affiliates face the same exposure to these five patents as before the lawsuit, absent any private covenant or license. Other insurers and pharmacy benefit managers handling LODOCO® formulary decisions should monitor whether Murray and Poole pursues similar actions.
No invalidity ruling securedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Murray and Poole Enterprises, Ltd. | Company | Cardiovascular pharmaceutical IP holder — owner of five LODOCO® colchicine patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Cigna Group | Company | Major US health insurance group and three affiliated Texas and national entitiesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Cigna Healthcare of Texas, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Cigna Health & Life Insurance Company | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Connecticut General Life Insurance Company | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alfonso Garcia Chan | Attorney | Counsel for Murray and Poole Enterprises, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Britton F. Davis | Attorney | Counsel for Murray and Poole Enterprises, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph Don Eng , Jr | Attorney | Counsel for Murray and Poole Enterprises, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Katherine Vessels | Attorney | Counsel for Murray and Poole Enterprises, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | King & Spalding LLP | Law Firm | Representing Murray and Poole Enterprises, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | King & Spalding, LLP (Denver) | Law Firm | Representing Murray and Poole Enterprises, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Geuneul Yang | Attorney | Counsel for The Cigna GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lance Eric Wyatt , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for The Cigna GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nan Lan | Attorney | Counsel for The Cigna GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil J McNabnay | Attorney | Counsel for The Cigna GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ricardo Joel Bonilla | Attorney | Counsel for The Cigna GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Yun Dong | Attorney | Counsel for The Cigna GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson PC | Law Firm | Representing The Cigna GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson PC (Dallas) | Law Firm | Representing The Cigna GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Amos L. Mazzant | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order reflects a joint notice mechanism under which both offensive and defensive pleadings were withdrawn simultaneously. The mutual without-prejudice dismissal of both plaintiff’s infringement claims and defendants’ counterclaims is procedurally significant: it preserves all legal positions for both sides, prevents any issue or claim preclusion, and leaves no judicial record on the merits of infringement or validity of the five LODOCO® patents. The absence of any fee or cost award to either party is consistent with a consensual resolution rather than a contested withdrawal.
US11026900B2 and four related patents — LODOCO® colchicine cardiovascular formulations
The five asserted patents — US11026900B2, US10265281B2, US10206891B2, US11026899B2, and US11026901B2 — cover LODOCO®, described as the first anti-inflammatory atheroprotective cardiovascular treatment formulated with colchicine. The application numbers span filings from US14/440147 through the US17/103xxx family, indicating a portfolio built over multiple prosecution cycles to protect distinct aspects of the formulation and its therapeutic uses. LODOCO® represents a novel use of a well-known anti-inflammatory compound in a cardiovascular indication.
The breadth of a five-patent portfolio targeting a single branded product is commercially significant: it creates overlapping layers of protection that complicate design-around efforts and raise the cost of invalidity challenges. For competitors developing colchicine-based cardiovascular therapies and for insurers structuring formulary access for branded anti-inflammatory cardiovascular treatments, this portfolio represents a meaningful barrier. The absence of any IPR or validity ruling from this litigation leaves all five patents in their pre-suit enforceability status.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US11026900B2 and the LODOCO® patent family?
Any organisation involved in the development, manufacture, distribution, or formulary management of colchicine-based cardiovascular treatments should treat these five patents as active risk factors. This includes generic manufacturers exploring colchicine cardiovascular indications, specialty pharma companies developing anti-inflammatory cardiac therapies, and health insurers or PBMs whose coverage policies for LODOCO® could be characterised as influencing product use. The dismissal without prejudice in this case does not reduce that risk.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the full claim scope of US11026900B2 and its four related patents against your product pipeline or formulary portfolio. Eureka identifies prior art, flags claim overlap, and surfaces related applications that may extend the patent family’s protection timeline — giving IP teams the intelligence needed to structure licensing conversations or design-around strategies before a new infringement action is filed.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11026900B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar colchicine cardiovascular patent cases in US district courts
Explore related pharmaceutical patent infringement actions involving colchicine formulations and cardiovascular drug patents litigated in US district courts, including the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the cardiovascular pharma IP landscape
A five-patent infringement suit against a major insurer, resolved in 154 days with no costs, is a rare and strategically significant event in pharmaceutical patent enforcement.
Insurer-targeted patent suits over branded drugs are an emerging enforcement vector
This case signals that patent holders may increasingly target health insurers and PBMs — not just generic manufacturers — when they believe coverage or formulary decisions undermine brand exclusivity. IP teams at insurance carriers and PBM operators should assess exposure to pharmaceutical patent assertions tied to formulary placement and reimbursement practices.
Without-prejudice dismissals at 154 days typically reflect pre-litigation deal-making
When a multi-defendant pharmaceutical patent case resolves in under six months with mutual dismissal of counterclaims and zero fee shifting, the most commercially plausible explanation is a private agreement. R&D and licensing teams at colchicine-adjacent companies should treat this as a signal that Murray and Poole is actively monetising its LODOCO® portfolio.
Murray v Cigna — key questions answered
Murray and Poole asserted five patents: US11026900B2, US10265281B2, US10206891B2, US11026899B2, and US11026901B2. All five relate to LODOCO®, described as the first anti-inflammatory atheroprotective cardiovascular treatment containing colchicine. The case was filed in the Eastern District of Texas on April 8, 2024.
The case was terminated via a joint Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice, ordered by Judge Amos L. Mazzant on September 9, 2024. Both plaintiff’s claims and defendants’ counterclaims were dismissed without costs. The public record does not disclose the underlying reason, though mutual dismissal without fee shifting is typically consistent with a negotiated resolution or licensing agreement.
Yes. A dismissal without prejudice does not bar the plaintiff from refiling the same claims, subject to applicable statutes of limitations and any private agreements between the parties. No res judicata or collateral estoppel effect attaches from a without-prejudice dismissal, meaning all five patents remain available for future enforcement actions.
No. Cigna’s counterclaims — which likely included invalidity and non-infringement defences — were also dismissed without prejudice. No court ruled on the validity or infringement of any of the five asserted patents. All five remain presumptively valid and enforceable, leaving the underlying IP dispute legally unresolved.
LODOCO® is described in the complaint as the first anti-inflammatory atheroprotective cardiovascular treatment formulated with colchicine, an established anti-inflammatory compound repurposed for cardiovascular disease. Patent suits against insurers rather than generic manufacturers are relatively uncommon but may arise where formulary placement, coverage restrictions, or reimbursement practices are alleged to affect the exclusivity or commercial value of a branded patented product.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.