Urovant Sciences v. Intas Biopharmaceuticals: Vibegron Patent Action Dismissed to Delaware
Urovant Sciences GmbH brought a patent infringement action against Intas Biopharmaceuticals over a proposed generic version of GEMTESA® (vibegron 75 mg tablets), asserting US12102638B2. Within 77 days of filing, Urovant voluntarily dismissed the North Carolina action without prejudice, redirecting the dispute to a parallel proceeding in the District of Delaware.
GEMTESA® Patent Battle Pivots from North Carolina to Delaware
On March 27, 2025, Urovant Sciences GmbH and Sumitomo Pharma America, Inc. filed suit in the Eastern District of North Carolina (Case No. 5:25-cv-00163) asserting US12102638B2 against Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited and Accord Healthcare Inc. The action challenged Intas’s ANDA-based generic version of GEMTESA® — vibegron 75 mg tablets — a beta-3 adrenergic receptor agonist approved for overactive bladder. The case was assigned to Judge Louise Wood Flanagan and represented on the plaintiff side by Mullins Duncan Harrell & Russell PLLC.
On June 12, 2025, just 77 days after filing, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the North Carolina action without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The dismissal notice explicitly stated that litigation would continue in Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-373-GBW, filed in the District of Delaware on March 26, 2025 — one day before the North Carolina action. Voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) requires no court approval and leaves the plaintiff free to refile the same claims.
The 77-day window before dismissal, combined with the pre-existing Delaware filing, suggests the North Carolina action may have been filed as a protective measure or to establish a Hatch-Waxman suit deadline before Urovant consolidated venue in Delaware. No substantive rulings, claim construction orders, or consent judgments were issued in this district. The public record does not disclose the specific strategic rationale, but the pattern is consistent with multi-district ANDA filing strategies common in pharmaceutical patent enforcement.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 77 days
77 days — resolved before any substantive merits ruling; case redirected to D. Del.
Voluntarily dismissed: what this closure means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff dismisses as of right
A voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) may be filed by the plaintiff before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. It requires no court order and takes effect immediately upon filing. Because no answer or MSJ appears on the E.D.N.C. docket, the dismissal was procedurally straightforward. The public record does not specify whether defendants had yet appeared in the case.
No court approval requiredWithout prejudice — but the public record is silent on any conditions
The dismissal notice expressly states ‘without prejudice,’ meaning Urovant retains the right to reassert the same claims and patent. A ‘with prejudice’ dismissal would bar refiling permanently. Here, there is no indication of a settlement, consent order, or negotiated terms — the case simply exits this district. Crucially, the same infringement claims are already active in the District of Delaware (No. 1:25-cv-373-GBW), so the substance of the dispute continues.
Claims survive in DelawareIntas faces continued exposure in Delaware, not North Carolina
Intas Biopharmaceuticals and Accord Healthcare Inc. face no res judicata bar arising from this dismissal — a without-prejudice closure creates no preclusion. Their ANDA application and associated patent challenge now proceed before the District of Delaware under Judge Gregory B. Williams. Delaware is the dominant venue for Hatch-Waxman ANDA litigation, suggesting Intas will face a well-resourced forum with deep pharmaceutical patent precedent.
Delaware litigation continuesVibegron market entry timeline remains patent-dependent
US12102638B2 remains an active enforcement asset. So long as the Delaware action proceeds, the 30-month Hatch-Waxman stay likely delays Intas’s generic entry. Other ANDA filers targeting GEMTESA® should monitor the Delaware docket closely, as any claim construction or validity ruling there will set precedent for subsequent generic challengers. The consolidation to Delaware may signal Urovant’s confidence in that venue’s pharmaceutical patent jurisprudence.
30-month stay implicationsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Urovant Sciences GmbH | Company | Pharmaceutical IP licensor — holder of US12102638B2 covering vibegron (GEMTESA®)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Intas Biopharmaceuticals | Individual | Generic pharmaceutical manufacturer seeking ANDA approval for vibegron 75 mg tabletsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Allison Mullins | Attorney | Counsel for Urovant Sciences GmbHSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Leslie Cooper Harrell | Attorney | Counsel for Urovant Sciences GmbHSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Mullins Duncan Harrell & Russell PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Urovant Sciences GmbHSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Mullins Duncan Harrell & Russell/Turning Point Litigation | Law Firm | Representing Urovant Sciences GmbHSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Louise Wood Flanagan | Judge | North Carolina Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and explicitly states ‘without prejudice,’ confirming no merits adjudication occurred in this district. Notably, the filing identifies both ‘Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited’ and ‘Accord Healthcare Inc.’ as dismissed defendants, suggesting Accord — a distribution affiliate — was also named. The reference to the Delaware action (No. 1:25-cv-373-GBW) confirms the dispute is ongoing and that this dismissal is purely a venue consolidation measure, not a substantive resolution.
US12102638B2 — Vibegron formulations for overactive bladder (GEMTESA®)
US12102638B2 (application number US16/620179) covers vibegron-based pharmaceutical compositions — specifically the 75 mg oral tablet formulation marketed as GEMTESA® by Urovant Sciences. Vibegron is a selective beta-3 adrenergic receptor agonist indicated for overactive bladder with symptoms of urge urinary incontinence, urgency, and urinary frequency. The patent sits within the formulation and method-of-use layer of the GEMTESA® IP portfolio, which is central to Urovant’s market exclusivity strategy against generic ANDA challengers.
As branded vibegron faces generic challenge from multiple ANDA filers, US12102638B2 functions as a key exclusivity asset. A sustained validity finding in Delaware would delay generic entry across all pending ANDAs, preserving Urovant and Sumitomo Pharma America’s revenue position in the overactive bladder market. Competitors and ANDA filers must assess both the patent’s claim scope and the risk that Delaware claim construction could establish unfavourable precedent for invalidity arguments. The patent’s corrected application number (US16/620179) provides a precise prosecution history search anchor.
Should your vibegron ANDA filing be cleared against US12102638B2?
Any company with a pending or prospective ANDA for vibegron 75 mg tablets faces direct exposure to US12102638B2. Given that Urovant has demonstrated willingness to file in multiple districts and consolidate aggressively in Delaware, an FTO analysis is not optional — it is a prerequisite to ANDA submission strategy. Formulation teams, regulatory counsel, and BD teams evaluating vibegron generic entry should all have visibility into this patent’s claim scope.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map US12102638B2’s independent claims against proposed generic formulations, identify prior art that could support IPR or inter partes review petitions, and monitor the Delaware docket for real-time claim construction developments. Set up a patent family watch on US16/620179 to receive alerts on any continuation filings that could extend the exclusivity runway beyond the current patent term.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US12102638B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Hatch-Waxman ANDA patent disputes in pharmaceutical formulation IP
Cases involving beta-3 agonist or overactive bladder drug patent enforcement in federal district courts, including the District of Delaware, most relevant to ANDA filers.
What this case signals for the pharmaceutical patent enforcement landscape
A rapid pivot from North Carolina to Delaware reveals calculated venue strategy in Hatch-Waxman ANDA litigation over GEMTESA®.
Multi-district ANDA filings are a deliberate patent enforcement tool
Filing in multiple districts simultaneously — then dismissing without prejudice to consolidate — is a recognised strategy to lock in Hatch-Waxman 30-month stay deadlines while choosing the most favourable forum. IP teams monitoring ANDA litigation should track both the filing date and the chosen consolidation venue as signals of plaintiff confidence.
Delaware remains the centre of gravity for pharmaceutical patent disputes
Urovant’s decision to consolidate in Delaware over E.D.N.C. is consistent with the broader industry pattern. Delaware’s bench has deep familiarity with ANDA claim construction, and its local rules are calibrated for complex pharmaceutical IP. Generic manufacturers facing ANDA suits should ensure Delaware-specific litigation preparedness, including local counsel and prior art strategies tuned to that forum.
Urovant v Intas — key questions answered
The dismissal notice states that the action was dismissed without prejudice in favour of a parallel proceeding already filed in the District of Delaware (No. 1:25-cv-373-GBW, filed March 26, 2025). The public record does not disclose the precise strategic rationale, but the pattern is consistent with ANDA venue consolidation strategies where a protective multi-district filing is subsequently narrowed to a single preferred forum.
A dismissal without prejudice means Urovant retains the right to reassert the same patent claims in a future action. No preclusion or res judicata effect attaches. In practice, the same claims are already active in Delaware, so the without-prejudice designation preserves Urovant’s full enforcement posture. Intas and Accord face no procedural advantage from the North Carolina closure alone.
The case asserts US12102638B2 (application number US16/620179), a patent covering vibegron pharmaceutical compositions. Vibegron is the active ingredient in GEMTESA® (vibegron 75 mg tablets), a beta-3 adrenergic receptor agonist for overactive bladder approved by the FDA. The patent is a formulation asset central to Urovant’s exclusivity strategy against generic ANDA challengers.
The North Carolina action (5:25-cv-00163) is closed as of June 12, 2025. The substantive patent dispute continues in the District of Delaware under Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-373-GBW, assigned to Judge Gregory B. Williams. Parties and IP professionals should monitor the Delaware docket for claim construction orders, scheduling, and any merits rulings that will determine generic entry timing.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The dismissal takes effect immediately and is without prejudice unless otherwise stated. In this case, Urovant filed the notice and expressly designated the dismissal as without prejudice. Note that a second voluntary dismissal of the same claim by the same plaintiff would operate as a dismissal with prejudice under the ‘two-dismissal rule.’
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.