Tolmar & Janssen Pharmaceutica v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Federal Circuit Remands Paliperidone Patent Appeal
Tolmar, Inc. and Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V. appealed against Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. at the Federal Circuit over US9439906B2, a patent covering paliperidone palmitate 50 mg-eq injectable formulations. After 749 days, the Federal Circuit granted a motion to remand both appeals, with each side bearing its own costs.
Federal Circuit Remands Paliperidone Patent Appeals Without Merits Decision
This Federal Circuit appeal (No. 24-1699) was filed on 16 April 2024 by Tolmar, Inc. and Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V. against Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The case concerned US9439906B2 (application no. US12/337144), a patent covering paliperidone palmitate injectable formulations at 50 mg-eq — a long-acting antipsychotic depot injection used in treating schizophrenia. The underlying action was characterised as an infringement action.
The Federal Circuit's order granted a motion to remand the appeals, sending the matter back to the lower level. Each side was ordered to bear its own costs. The recorded basis of termination is 'Case Remanded'. The specific grounds for the remand and any further instructions to the lower tribunal are not detailed beyond the order text in the available record.
The case ran for 749 days before the remand order issued on 5 May 2026. A remand without a merits ruling at the appellate level means the underlying dispute over US9439906B2 remains unresolved on the substance. The specific terms and reasons driving the remand are not disclosed in the available public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Case Remanded in 749 days
749 days from filing to remand order — a mid-length Federal Circuit appeal timeline
US9439906B2 — paliperidone palmitate long-acting injectable formulation
Any R&D team, ANDA filer, or product team working on paliperidone palmitate long-acting injectable formulations — particularly at the 50 mg-eq dosage strength — should treat US9439906B2 as a live FTO concern. The Federal Circuit remand means the patent's enforceability has not been resolved, and the underlying infringement action remains active. Generic manufacturers and biosimilar developers in the LAI antipsychotic space face meaningful clearance risk until final disposition is recorded.
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit's order is narrow in scope: it grants the motion to remand both appeals and orders each side to bear its own costs. No merits determination on infringement or validity of US9439906B2 is recorded in the order. The remand means the originating tribunal will need to address the substance of the dispute before any appellate merits review can occur. The specific grounds for the remand are not detailed in the available record.
Federal Circuit remands: what the order means for both parties
What a Federal Circuit remand means in practice
A remand order sends the case back to the originating tribunal for further proceedings. Unlike an affirmance or reversal, a remand does not resolve the underlying merits at the appellate level. The Federal Circuit here granted a motion to remand both appeals, meaning the substantive questions around US9439906B2 will be addressed at the level to which the case is returned. The specific instructions accompanying the remand are not detailed in the available record.
No merits ruling issuedTolmar & Janssen Pharmaceutica: dispute continues below
The appellants — Tolmar, Inc. and Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V. — secured a remand rather than a final appellate ruling. This means the matter returns for further proceedings, preserving their ability to pursue the infringement claims concerning US9439906B2. However, no vindication on the merits was issued at this stage. Each side bearing its own costs suggests neither party achieved a clear appellate victory sufficient to attract a cost award.
Dispute preserved, no merits winJanssen Pharmaceuticals: no final disposition of infringement claim
Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. faces the prospect of continued proceedings at the remand level on the paliperidone palmitate patent dispute. The Federal Circuit's remand order does not extinguish the infringement action. The absence of a merits ruling means Janssen Pharmaceuticals retains the opportunity to contest the claims in the remanded proceedings. Specific terms of any undertakings or conditions are not disclosed in the available record.
Infringement claim not extinguishedLong-acting antipsychotic market: patent uncertainty persists
For manufacturers and competitors operating in the long-acting injectable antipsychotic space — particularly paliperidone palmitate formulations — the remand signals that patent coverage under US9439906B2 remains actively contested. Uncertainty over the ultimate validity or infringement findings may affect product launch timing, licensing negotiations, and freedom-to-operate assessments for 50 mg-eq paliperidone palmitate products. Stakeholders should continue to monitor proceedings at the remand level.
Patent validity still unresolvedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Tolmar, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Janssen Pharmaceutica, N.V. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Tolmar, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David C. Van Dyke | Attorney | Counsel for Tolmar, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph Barber | Attorney | Counsel for Tolmar, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kevin E. Warner | Attorney | Counsel for Tolmar, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kevin Shortsle | Attorney | Counsel for Tolmar, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Natasha L. White | Attorney | Counsel for Tolmar, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ty William Callahan | Attorney | Counsel for Tolmar, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William A. Rakoczy | Attorney | Counsel for Tolmar, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Howard & Howard Attorneys PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Tolmar, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rakoczy, Molino, Mazzochi, Siwik LLP | Law Firm | Representing Tolmar, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andrew D. Cohen | Attorney | Counsel for Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Aron Russell Fischer | Attorney | Counsel for Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Barbara Mullin | Attorney | Counsel for Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP | Law Firm | Representing Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the long-acting injectable antipsychotic IP space
Forward-looking patent intelligence on paliperidone palmitate formulations, Tolmar and Janssen portfolio activity, and emerging white space in LAI antipsychotic drug delivery.
Tolmar's paliperidone and LAI formulation filing activity
Tolmar, Inc. has been an active participant in long-acting injectable pharmaceutical IP. Mapping Tolmar's broader patent portfolio in the paliperidone and depot injection formulation space can reveal the depth of their enforcement perimeter and identify continuation or divisional applications that may extend coverage beyond US9439906B2.
Tolmar LAI patent portfolioFiling trends in LAI antipsychotic depot formulation patents
The long-acting injectable antipsychotic sector has seen sustained patent filing activity around depot formulations, solubility enhancement, and dosage optimisation. Tracking filing trends around paliperidone palmitate and competing LAI antipsychotics can reveal where innovation is concentrating and which players are building defensive or offensive IP positions in this space.
LAI antipsychotic filing trendsJanssen Pharmaceuticals' broader paliperidone IP position
Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is the respondent in this appeal and a major player in the paliperidone palmitate market. Analysing Janssen's patent portfolio in the LAI antipsychotic space — including related formulation, device, and method-of-use patents — provides a fuller picture of the competitive IP landscape and potential future enforcement vectors.
Janssen paliperidone IP mapAdjacent innovation opportunities in LAI antipsychotic delivery
Despite extensive patenting around paliperidone palmitate, opportunities may exist in adjacent LAI delivery technologies — including novel particle engineering approaches, alternative dosing schedules, device-integrated delivery, and combination formulations. Identifying claim-free zones adjacent to US9439906B2 can inform R&D prioritisation for teams seeking to develop non-infringing LAI antipsychotic products.
LAI formulation white spaceSimilar Federal Circuit patent appeals in pharmaceutical formulation disputes
Explore Federal Circuit appeals involving pharmaceutical formulation patents, long-acting injectable antipsychotics, and Hatch-Waxman infringement actions comparable to this paliperidone palmitate dispute.
What this case signals for the paliperidone and long-acting injectable IP landscape
The Federal Circuit remand in this paliperidone palmitate case keeps a key antipsychotic formulation patent in active dispute, with commercial and competitive implications for the LAI market.
US9439906B2 remains an active enforcement risk for paliperidone palmitate products
The remand without a merits ruling means US9439906B2 has not been invalidated or found non-infringed at the Federal Circuit level. Any manufacturer of paliperidone palmitate 50 mg-eq long-acting injectables should maintain an active FTO posture against this patent and monitor remand-level proceedings closely.
Cost-neutral remand orders typically signal unresolved procedural or substantive complexity
An order remanding appeals with each side bearing its own costs, without a merits ruling, is consistent with a case where a threshold procedural or substantive issue requires resolution below before appellate review can proceed. The specific nature of that issue is not disclosed in the available record, but the structure of the order suggests the dispute is far from over.
Tolmar v Janssen — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit granted a motion to remand the appeals in case No. 24-1699, returning the matter to the originating tribunal without issuing a merits ruling on US9439906B2. Each side was ordered to bear its own costs. The case was filed on 16 April 2024 and the remand order issued on 5 May 2026.
US9439906B2 (application no. US12/337144) covers paliperidone palmitate injectable formulations, specifically the 50 mg-eq dosage strength involved in this dispute. Paliperidone palmitate is the active compound in long-acting injectable antipsychotic products used in treating schizophrenia. The patent's precise claim scope is a matter for the proceedings at the remand level.
A remand order sends the case back to the originating tribunal for further proceedings. It does not resolve the infringement or validity questions concerning US9439906B2 at the appellate level. The underlying dispute remains active, and the outcome will depend on the remand-level proceedings. The specific grounds and instructions for the remand are not detailed in the available public record.
Appellants were Tolmar, Inc. and Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V., represented by Howard & Howard Attorneys PLLC and Rakoczy, Molino, Mazzochi, Siwik LLP, with counsel including William A. Rakoczy and David C. Van Dyke. Respondent was Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., represented by Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, with counsel including Andrew D. Cohen, Aron Russell Fischer, and Barbara Mullin.
The order directing each side to bear its own costs is a procedural feature of the remand and does not constitute a merits finding on infringement or validity of US9439906B2. Reading any substantive outcome signal into a cost-neutral remand order would require speculation beyond what the available record supports. The specific terms and reasons driving the remand are not disclosed in the public record.
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.