Vifor (International), AG v. Xiromed Pharma Espana, SL
Infringement action filed 21 Nov 2025 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and closed 27 May 2026, with 6 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed without prejudice.
Case record
- Case no.
- 3:25-cv-17822
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- D.N.J.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- New Jersey
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 21 Nov 2025 – 27 May 2026
- Duration
- 187 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed without Prejudice
- Products & marks
- Generic version of Plaintiff’s Injectafer®, ferric carboxymaltose injection (500 mg Iron /10 mL; 1000 mg Iron /20 mL)
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Methods and compositions for administration of iron
The present invention generally relates to treatment of iron-related conditions with iron carbohydrate complexes. One aspect of the invention is a method of treatment of iron-related conditions with a single unit dosage of at least about 0.6 grams of elemental iron via an iron carbohydrate complex. The method generally employs iron carbohydrate complexes with nearly neutral pH, physiological osmolarity, and stable and non-immunogenic carbohydrate components so as to rapidly administer high single unit doses of iron intravenously to patients in need thereof.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 6 Sep 2022
- Earliest priority
- 6 Jan 2006
- Est. expiry
- 8 Jan 2027
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- HELENEK, MARY JANE · TOKARS, MARC L. · LAWRENCE, RICHARD P.
- Classification
- A61K31/7135A61K31/715A61K31/721C07H23/00
- Prosecution counsel
- Sorell, Lenna & Schmidt, LLP
- Examiner
- LAU, JONATHAN S
Methods and compositions for administration of iron
The present invention generally relates to treatment of iron-related conditions with iron carbohydrate complexes. One aspect of the invention is a method of treatment of iron-related conditions with a single unit dosage of at least about 0.6 grams of elemental iron via an iron carbohydrate complex. The method generally employs iron carbohydrate complexes with nearly neutral pH, physiological osmolarity, and stable and non-immunogenic carbohydrate components so as to rapidly administer high single unit doses of iron intravenously to patients in need thereof.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 25 Oct 2022
- Earliest priority
- 6 Jan 2006
- Est. expiry
- 8 Jan 2027
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- HELENEK, MARY JANE · TOKARS, MARC L. · LAWRENCE, RICHARD P.
- Classification
- A61K31/7135A61K31/715A61K31/721C07H23/00
- Prosecution counsel
- Sorell, Lenna & Schmidt, LLP
- Examiner
- LAU, JONATHAN S
Also asserted in this case
4 moreThe docket lists 6 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 4 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
- US7754702B2Methods and compositions for administration of iron
- US8895612B2Methods and compositions for administration of iron
- US11364260B2Methods and compositions for administration of iron
- US7612109B2Water-soluble iron-carbohydrate complexes, production thereof, and medicaments containing said complexes
Parties of record
Vifor (International), AG
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Cynthia Stencel Betz · Jane M. Love · Mark M. Makhail · Michael Frederick Werno · Robert W. Trenchard
- Firm
- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Mccarter & English, LLP
Xiromed Pharma Espana, SL
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- C. Kyle Musgrove · Cindy Chang · James S. Richter · Michael B. Cottler
- Firm
- Midlige Richter LLC
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Cynthia Stencel Betz | Vifor (International), AG | Plaintiff |
| Jane M. Love | Vifor (International), AG | Plaintiff |
| Mark M. Makhail | Vifor (International), AG | Plaintiff |
| Michael Frederick Werno | Vifor (International), AG | Plaintiff |
| Robert W. Trenchard | Vifor (International), AG | Plaintiff |
| C. Kyle Musgrove | Xiromed Pharma Espana, SL | Defendant |
| Cindy Chang | Xiromed Pharma Espana, SL | Defendant |
| James S. Richter | Xiromed Pharma Espana, SL | Defendant |
| Michael B. Cottler | Xiromed Pharma Espana, SL | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“All claims,counterclaims, and demands in this action related to Defendants are hereby dismissed without prejudice and without costs, disbursements or attorneys fee to any party.”
Case 3:25-cv-17822 · D.N.J. · closed 27 May 2026
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 3:25-cv-17822?
3:25-cv-17822 is a patent infringement action brought by Vifor (International), AG against Xiromed Pharma Espana, SL, filed on 21 Nov 2025 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The case closed on 27 May 2026.
Which patents were asserted in 3:25-cv-17822?
US11433091B2 (“Methods and compositions for administration of iron”), assigned to AMERICAN REGENT, INC., currently active; US11478502B2 (“Methods and compositions for administration of iron”), assigned to AMERICAN REGENT, INC., currently active; US7754702B2 (“Methods and compositions for administration of iron”), assigned to AMERICAN REGENT, INC.; US8895612B2 (“Methods and compositions for administration of iron”), assigned to AMERICAN REGENT, INC.; US11364260B2 (“Methods and compositions for administration of iron”), assigned to AMERICAN REGENT, INC.; US7612109B2 (“Water-soluble iron-carbohydrate complexes, production thereof, and medicaments containing said complexes”), assigned to VIFOR (INTERNATIONAL) AG. The record also lists Generic version of Plaintiff’s Injectafer®, ferric carboxymaltose injection (500 mg Iron /10 mL; 1000 mg Iron /20 mL).
How was case 3:25-cv-17822 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed without prejudice. The termination text reads: “All claims,counterclaims, and demands in this action related to Defendants are hereby dismissed without prejudice and without costs, disbursements or attorneys fee to any party.”
What does dismissal without prejudice mean?
A dismissal without prejudice ends this action but leaves the claims alive — the plaintiff may file them again later, subject to the limitation period.
How long did case 3:25-cv-17822 take?
187 calendar days, from filing on 21 Nov 2025 to closure on 27 May 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 3:25-cv-17822?
Cynthia Stencel Betz, Jane M. Love, Mark M. Makhail, Michael Frederick Werno and Robert W. Trenchard are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Vifor (International). C. Kyle Musgrove, Cindy Chang, James S. Richter and Michael B. Cottler appear for defendant Xiromed Pharma Espana, SL.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 3:25-cv-17822 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.