Xeris Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.

2:26-cv-02929 D.N.J. Closed 4 patents
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 20 Mar 2026 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and closed 8 Jun 2026, with 4 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case consolidated.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Case no.
2:26-cv-02929
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
20 Mar 2026 – 8 Jun 2026
Duration
80 days
Basis of termination
Case Consolidated
Products & marks
RECORLEV® (levoketoconazole) 150 mg tablets · levoketoconazole tablets, oral, 150 mg per tablet
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 2:26-cv-02929, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

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
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue

Also asserted in this case

2 more

The docket lists 4 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 2 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.

Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Counsel of record

Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket. Compare both portfolios
Outcome

Basis of termination

From the record · verbatim

"WHEREFORE, all counsel who have made their appearances, including pro hac vice admission, in Civil Action No. 2:26-cv-2929 shall be deemed to be admitted in the consolidated action, Civil Action No. 2:26-2044, and shall receive notices of electronic filings in the consolidated action."

Case 2:26-cv-02929 · D.N.J. · closed 8 June 2026
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.

Related cases

Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 2:26-cv-02929?

2:26-cv-02929 is a patent infringement action brought by Xeris Pharmaceuticals, Inc. against Sandoz, Inc., filed on 20 Mar 2026 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The case closed on 8 June 2026.

Which patents were asserted in 2:26-cv-02929?

US11020393B2 (“Methods of treating disease with levoketoconazole”), assigned to XERIS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; US11278547B2 (“Methods of treating disease with levoketoconazole”), assigned to XERIS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; US12377096B2 (“Methods of treating disease with levoketoconazole”), assigned to XERIS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; US11903940B2 (“Methods of treating disease with levoketoconazole”), assigned to XERIS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.. The record also lists RECORLEV® (levoketoconazole) 150 mg tablets and levoketoconazole tablets, oral, 150 mg per tablet.

How was case 2:26-cv-02929 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is case consolidated. The termination text reads: "WHEREFORE, all counsel who have made their appearances, including pro hac vice admission, in Civil Action No. 2:26-cv-2929 shall be deemed to be admitted in the consolidated action, Civil Action No. 2:26-2044, and shall receive notices of electronic filings in the consolidated action."

How long did case 2:26-cv-02929 take?

80 calendar days, from filing on 20 Mar 2026 to closure on 8 June 2026.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:26-cv-02929?

Charles H. Chevalier is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Xeris Pharmaceuticals. Eric I. Abraham and Kristine L. Butler appear for defendant Sandoz.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 2:26-cv-02929 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:26-cv-02929 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.

Help us improve

Something wrong, out of date, or missing on this page? Tell us and it goes straight to the team that maintains it.