United Therapeutics v. Liquidia: Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Treprostinil Patent Battle
United Therapeutics Corporation sought Supreme Court review of its treprostinil inhalation patent dispute (US10716793B2) against Liquidia Technologies. The petition was denied in just 119 days, leaving the lower court decision intact and sharpening the competitive stakes for inhaled pulmonary arterial hypertension therapy.
Supreme Court closes the door on United Therapeutics’ treprostinil appeal
United Therapeutics Corporation filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on June 10, 2024, seeking review of a lower court ruling in its patent dispute with Liquidia Technologies, Inc. The case centres on US10716793B2, a patent covering the administration of treprostinil by inhalation — the active ingredient in United Therapeutics’ pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) franchise. Liquidia’s competing inhaled treprostinil product, Yutrepia, sits at the heart of the commercial conflict.
The Supreme Court denied the petition on October 7, 2024 — 119 days after filing — without comment or written opinion, which is standard practice for cert denials. A denial does not constitute a ruling on the merits; it signals only that fewer than four Justices voted to grant review. The practical consequence is that the decision below, which Liquidia had successfully defended through the appellate process, remains the operative legal outcome. United Therapeutics has no further avenue of review at the Supreme Court level on this petition.
The speed of the denial — resolved within a single Supreme Court term — suggests the Court did not view the case as presenting a question of exceptional federal importance or a circuit split warranting intervention. What remains unclear from the public record is whether the parties reached any commercial accommodation in parallel with the cert process, and whether United Therapeutics will pursue any collateral litigation strategies, including new patent filings or IPR petitions on related patents in its treprostinil portfolio.
Filing to Petition Dismissed in 119 days
119 days from petition to denial — faster than the median Supreme Court cert cycle
Certiorari denied: what the Supreme Court’s refusal means for both parties
Cert denial leaves the lower court ruling untouched
A denial of certiorari is a procedural act, not a merits ruling. The Supreme Court declines the vast majority of petitions — typically over 99% — often without explanation. Here, the denial means the appellate decision in Liquidia’s favour stands as binding law between these parties. United Therapeutics cannot re-petition on the same question from this case.
No merits adjudicationUnited Therapeutics loses its final federal appeal route
With certiorari denied, United Therapeutics has exhausted appellate options under this petition for US10716793B2. The company retains other tools — continuation patents, separate litigation on distinct claims, or regulatory exclusivity arguments — but the specific invalidity or infringement findings upheld below now carry full precedential weight against further challenge on the same grounds in federal court.
Appellate options exhaustedLiquidia secures legal certainty for Yutrepia’s market position
The denial is a significant commercial victory for Liquidia. With the lower court ruling intact, Liquidia’s position regarding US10716793B2 is legally settled at the highest level. This removes a key litigation overhang on Yutrepia’s commercial launch trajectory and reduces the patent-related risk that investors and partners would price into the asset. Further challenges to this specific patent via this litigation path are foreclosed.
Litigation overhang clearedPAH inhalation drug space faces a clearer — but still contested — IP landscape
The denial confirms that inhaled treprostinil technology is not comprehensively ring-fenced by US10716793B2 alone, at least as interpreted by the courts below. Competitors and biosimilar developers in the pulmonary arterial hypertension space should note that United Therapeutics’ broader treprostinil patent portfolio remains active, and litigation risk has not been entirely eliminated — only this petition’s specific claim has closed.
PAH sector IP risk persistsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | United Therapeutics Corporation | Company | Biopharmaceutical company — holder of US10716793B2, inhaled treprostinil for PAHSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Liquidia Technologies, Inc. | Company | Biopharmaceutical company developing Yutrepia, a competing inhaled treprostinil therapySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | ADAM W. BURROWBRIDGE | Attorney | Counsel for United Therapeutics CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | ARTHUR P. DYKHUIS | Attorney | Counsel for United Therapeutics CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Douglas H. Carsten | Attorney | Counsel for United Therapeutics CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | WILLIAM M. JAY | Attorney | Counsel for United Therapeutics CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Goodwin Procter LLP | Law Firm | Representing United Therapeutics CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | McDermott Will & Emery LLP | Law Firm | Representing United Therapeutics CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kathleen Roberta Hartnett | Attorney | Counsel for Liquidia Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Cooley LLP | Law Firm | Representing Liquidia Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | U.S. Supreme CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The terse ‘Petition DENIED’ disposition is standard Supreme Court practice and carries no precedential weight on the underlying merits of US10716793B2’s validity or infringement. It indicates only that the Court exercised its broad certiorari discretion against review — not that the Justices endorsed or rejected the lower court’s legal reasoning. For practitioners, this forecloses the federal appellate path under this petition but leaves collateral avenues, including new litigation on distinct patent claims, open to United Therapeutics.
US10716793B2 — treprostinil administration by inhalation
US10716793B2 protects methods and formulations for administering treprostinil — a prostacyclin analogue — via inhalation for treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension. The patent, filed under application number US16/778662, covers a therapeutic approach that underpins United Therapeutics’ inhaled PAH franchise. Treprostinil’s inhalation route is clinically significant because it delivers the vasodilatory agent directly to the pulmonary vasculature, reducing systemic side effects compared to intravenous administration.
The strategic importance of US10716793B2 lies in its role as a gatekeeper patent for the inhaled treprostinil category. PAH is a high-value rare disease market with limited approved therapies, making each patent in the treprostinil estate commercially significant. The dispute with Liquidia over Yutrepia illustrates how a single formulation or method patent can determine whether a competitor can enter the market, driving litigation all the way to a Supreme Court petition — a rare escalation in pharmaceutical patent disputes.
Should you run an FTO against US10716793B2?
Any company developing, manufacturing, or commercialising inhaled treprostinil products — including biosimilar or generic entrants, device developers, or combination therapy researchers — should treat US10716793B2 as a primary FTO checkpoint. The Supreme Court cert denial confirms that the lower court interpretation of this patent is now settled law between these parties, but it does not extinguish the patent itself. Related claims in continuation or divisional applications may create fresh exposure.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the full treprostinil inhalation patent landscape — including granted patents, pending applications, and lapsed claims — against a specific product or method. For PAH-focused R&D and regulatory teams, Eureka can also surface United Therapeutics’ prosecution history and identify claim scope trends that signal where new enforcement risk may materialise. Run your FTO before committing to clinical or commercial investment in this space.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10716793B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar pharma inhalation patent cases at federal appellate and Supreme Court level
Explore patent disputes involving inhaled drug delivery and pulmonary therapeutics at U.S. appellate and Supreme Court level — cases most analogous to this treprostinil litigation.
What this case signals for the inhaled treprostinil IP landscape
The cert denial reshapes competitive dynamics in the PAH inhalation therapy market and sets a precedent for how courts view this patent.
Cert denial is not a safe harbour — United Therapeutics’ portfolio is still active
A Supreme Court cert denial only forecloses this specific petition. United Therapeutics holds a broad treprostinil patent portfolio. R&D and legal teams at PAH-focused companies should monitor continuation filings, new assertions, and regulatory exclusivity arguments that may create fresh litigation exposure independent of US10716793B2.
Liquidia’s Yutrepia gains legal certainty, but commercial risk remains multi-dimensional
Removing the US10716793B2 litigation overhang strengthens Yutrepia’s commercial position. However, inhaled drug delivery patents in the PAH space are dense. In-house teams should run full FTO analyses across the broader treprostinil formulation and delivery device patent landscape before treating this denial as a green light.
United v Liquidia — key questions answered
The denial means the Supreme Court declined to review the lower court’s ruling without reaching the merits. US10716793B2 remains a live patent, but the specific legal findings upheld in the appellate decision below are now final between these parties. United Therapeutics cannot re-petition on the same grounds from this case.
No. A cert denial is not a ruling on patent validity. The patent remains in force unless separately invalidated through IPR, ex parte reexamination, or a new district court proceeding on distinct grounds. The denial simply closes the Supreme Court appellate path arising from this specific litigation.
United Therapeutics may pursue new litigation on related patents in its treprostinil portfolio, file continuation applications with narrower or differently scoped claims, initiate IPR proceedings on Liquidia’s own patents, or argue regulatory exclusivity before the FDA. The cert denial does not foreclose these parallel strategies.
The denial removes the primary federal appellate litigation overhang related to US10716793B2. Liquidia’s legal position is strengthened regarding this specific patent. However, Yutrepia’s market entry may still be affected by other pending patents in United Therapeutics’ portfolio or by FDA regulatory exclusivity periods unrelated to this litigation.
119 days is notably fast for a Supreme Court cert cycle, suggesting the petition was resolved within a single conference schedule without extended deliberation. This pace is consistent with a straightforward denial where the Court found no circuit split or federal question of exceptional importance — a pattern common in fact-intensive pharmaceutical patent disputes.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.