SIP Nose Ltd. v. Aptar Group: Nasal Drug Delivery Patent Dismissed With Prejudice
SIP Nose Ltd. asserted US11116914B2 — a nasal drug delivery patent — against Aptar Group in Delaware District Court, targeting technology relevant to injection-free glucagon delivery products. The parties jointly stipulated to dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice after 306 days, each side absorbing its own legal costs.
Nasal glucagon delivery patent ends in bilateral stipulated dismissal
On December 7, 2023, SIP Nose Ltd. filed a patent infringement action against Aptar Group in the District of Delaware, asserting US11116914B2, a patent covering nasal drug delivery device technology. The dispute centered on technology relevant to injection-free glucagon administration — a fast-growing segment exemplified by products such as BAQSIMI, the needle-free glucagon treatment for severe hypoglycemia in diabetes patients. Aptar Group, a global dispensing and drug delivery systems company, was the named defendant.
The case closed on October 8, 2024, after 306 days, via a stipulated dismissal with prejudice filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Both parties agreed that all claims and counterclaims were dismissed with prejudice, with each side bearing its own attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses. Dismissal with prejudice is a final disposition on the merits — SIP Nose is permanently barred from reasserting the same patent claims against Aptar Group arising from the same conduct.
A resolution within ten months, before any substantive court ruling, is consistent with a negotiated outcome — whether a licensing agreement, cross-license, or commercial settlement — though the public record does not disclose the specific terms. The symmetrical cost-bearing arrangement suggests neither party extracted a clear litigation concession. What drove the timing and substance of the resolution, and whether a commercial arrangement accompanied the dismissal, remains undisclosed.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 306 days
306 days — resolved before trial, consistent with early settlement or licensing resolution
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated exit means for both parties
Rule 41 stipulated dismissal with prejudice explained
A dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires the signed stipulation of all parties who have appeared. When filed ‘with prejudice,’ it operates as a final adjudication on the merits — identical to a judgment — extinguishing the plaintiff’s right to bring the same claims again. No court order is required; the filing itself terminates the action.
Permanent bar on refilingSIP Nose forfeits future infringement claims against Aptar Group
By agreeing to dismissal with prejudice, SIP Nose Ltd. permanently relinquishes the right to reassert US11116914B2 against Aptar Group for the same accused conduct. This is a meaningful concession from a patent holder. However, the patent itself remains valid and enforceable against third parties. The mutual cost-bearing clause suggests SIP Nose did not suffer a fee-shifting penalty, consistent with a negotiated rather than forced exit.
Patent survives vs. third partiesAptar Group secures permanent immunity from this specific claim set
Aptar Group achieves finality: it cannot be sued again by SIP Nose under US11116914B2 for the same accused activities. This provides commercial certainty for its nasal drug delivery product lines. The absence of a cost award against either party suggests Aptar Group did not achieve a full litigation victory but secured the outcome that matters most — freedom from this particular IP claim.
Freedom from re-litigationNasal drug delivery IP remains active risk for the broader sector
US11116914B2 survives the dismissal fully intact and enforceable. SIP Nose retains the right to assert the same patent against other nasal drug delivery device manufacturers and component suppliers. Companies developing or supplying technology for needle-free drug administration — particularly in glucagon, nasal corticosteroids, or similar delivery systems — should treat this patent as an active infringement risk requiring FTO evaluation.
Active risk for third-party competitorsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | SIP Nose, Ltd. | Company | Nasal drug delivery IP licensor — holder of US11116914B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Aptar Group | Company | Global dispensing and drug delivery systems manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew Colin Mayo | Attorney | Counsel for SIP Nose, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael D. Kaminski | Attorney | Counsel for SIP Nose, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ashby & Geddes PC | Law Firm | Representing SIP Nose, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Allison C. Penfield | Attorney | Counsel for Aptar GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Chih-wei Wu | Attorney | Counsel for Aptar GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jason E. Weil | Attorney | Counsel for Aptar GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jennifer H. Wu | Attorney | Counsel for Aptar GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Karina J. Moy | Attorney | Counsel for Aptar GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kelly E. Farnan | Attorney | Counsel for Aptar GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nicholas P. Groombridge | Attorney | Counsel for Aptar GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Peter H. Sandel | Attorney | Counsel for Aptar GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ruben H. Munoz | Attorney | Counsel for Aptar GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Stephen Maniscalco | Attorney | Counsel for Aptar GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Steven D. Maslowski | Attorney | Counsel for Aptar GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Richards Layton & Finger PA | Law Firm | Representing Aptar GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Joel H Slomsky | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s language — ‘all claims and counterclaims… dismissed with prejudice’ — is deliberately broad, extinguishing the entire action bilaterally. The inclusion of counterclaims in the dismissal suggests Aptar Group had filed defensive pleadings, potentially including invalidity challenges, which are now also permanently foreclosed between these two parties. The Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) mechanism requires mutual consent, meaning neither party was forced to this outcome; both parties elected finality over continued litigation risk.
US11116914B2 — Nasal Drug Delivery Device Technology
US11116914B2 (application number US14/733143) covers nasal drug delivery device technology enabling the administration of pharmaceutical compounds — such as glucagon — without injection. This patent family is directly relevant to the growing market for needle-free emergency and chronic disease treatments, including intranasal glucagon products targeting severe hypoglycemia in diabetic patients. The application underpins device-level innovations in how therapeutic agents are delivered via the nasal passage.
Nasal drug delivery represents a high-growth segment in pharmaceutical device technology, driven by patient preference for needle-free administration and expanding indications including emergency medicine, CNS disorders, and endocrinology. US11116914B2 sits at the intersection of device design and drug delivery method — a strategically valuable position that creates infringement exposure for device OEMs, component suppliers, and pharmaceutical companies co-developing delivery systems. The patent’s survival through this litigation makes it an active risk factor for the sector.
Should you run an FTO against US11116914B2?
Any company developing, manufacturing, or commercialising nasal drug delivery devices — particularly those targeting injection-free administration of glucagon, naloxone, or other emergency or chronic-care compounds — should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against US11116914B2. The patent is active, has been litigated against a major industry player, and its holder has demonstrated willingness to enforce. Component suppliers and co-development partners in the nasal device supply chain face equal exposure.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map US11116914B2’s claim scope against your product architecture in minutes, flagging overlapping claim elements and surfacing prior art that may support design-around strategies or invalidity arguments. For drug delivery R&D teams, Eureka can also identify continuation applications and related family members that may extend the original patent’s reach into adjacent delivery technologies.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11116914B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar nasal drug delivery patent cases in Delaware federal courts
Explore comparable patent infringement actions involving nasal drug delivery devices and injection-free pharmaceutical technology litigated in Delaware District Court.
What this case signals for the nasal drug delivery IP landscape
A pre-trial dismissal with prejudice in a nasal drug delivery case typically signals either a licensing resolution or a strategic IP boundary-setting exercise by the patent holder.
US11116914B2 remains fully enforceable against all other parties
The dismissal with prejudice binds only SIP Nose and Aptar Group. Every other company operating in the nasal drug delivery device space — component suppliers, drug manufacturers, competing device OEMs — faces unchanged exposure under US11116914B2. The patent’s enforceability has not been tested or weakened by this proceeding.
Mutual cost-bearing suggests a negotiated commercial resolution
Fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285 is reserved for exceptional cases. The stipulation’s silence on merits and symmetric cost allocation is consistent with a licensing agreement or cross-licensing arrangement reached privately. IP teams at competitor companies should factor in the possibility that SIP Nose is actively licensing this patent portfolio.
SIP v Aptar — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice by stipulation of both parties on October 8, 2024, after 306 days. All claims and counterclaims were dismissed, with each party bearing its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. No merits ruling was issued.
SIP Nose Ltd. asserted US11116914B2 (application US14/733143), a patent covering nasal drug delivery device technology. The dispute was connected to injection-free drug delivery products, including technology relevant to nasal glucagon administration for severe hypoglycemia.
No. The dismissal with prejudice binds only SIP Nose and Aptar Group and is limited to the specific claims and conduct at issue in this action. US11116914B2 remains valid, in force, and fully enforceable against any other party in the nasal drug delivery device sector.
It means neither party was awarded attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, or expenses from the other. This is a departure from fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which requires a finding of an ‘exceptional case.’ The symmetrical arrangement is consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a clear litigation victory by either side.
The case involved nasal drug delivery technology used in injection-free pharmaceutical products. The product reference in the case is BAQSIMI, an intranasal glucagon product sold by Amphastar Pharmaceuticals for treating severe hypoglycemia in diabetes patients — a category where nasal delivery devices are critical enabling components.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.