Skip to content

Delaware Court Denies Preliminary Injunction Seeking To Block Liquidia’s YUTREPIA Launch

The United States District Court for the District of Delaware recently denied United Therapeutics Corporation‘s motion for a preliminary injunction.  The motion sought to prevent Liquidia Technologies, Inc. from launching its YUTREPIA, which is used to treat pulmonary hypertension associated with interstitial lung disease (PH-ILD).  YUTREPIA is an inhaled dry power formulation of treprostinil delivered through a palm-sized inhalation device.

United Therapeutics Corporation moved for a preliminary injunction, alleging that Liquida’s launch of YUTREPIA would induce infringement of claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,826,327 (the ‘327 Patent) requiring a “pulse inhalation device.”  Liquidia argued that its product did not infringe because it was not a pulsed inhalation device.  Liquidia’s expert witness opined that the dry powder inhaler used with YUTREPIA “does not include any electronic machinery; it does not generate a ‘pulse’ of inhaled treprostinil; and it does not itself generate any energy or power to expel powder from the device.”  The Court found that United had not shown it was likely to prove infringement of some claims, stating that “[a]lthough the specification of the ‘327 Patent teaches that some pulsed inhalation devices are dry powder inhalers, the specification does not teach that all dry powder inhalers are pulsed inhalation devices.”  The Court also found that United failed to show that Liquidia’s obviousness defense lacked substantial merit.  The Court further found that United failed to show that the launch of YUTREPIA would cause irreparable harm to United, who sells its competing treprostinil-based TYVASO products.  Additionally, the Court found that United failed to show that a preliminary injunction of YUTREPIA was in the public interest.

Commenting on the decision, Dr. Roger Jeffs, Chief Executive Officer of Liquidia, stated:

We are pleased that Judge Andrews ruled that United Therapeutics’ request for an injunction failed on critical grounds, including UTHR’s failure to show our obviousness challenge lacks substantial merit and UTHR’s failure to show that the public interest weighs in favor of an injunction. While we await a final FDA action, we will continue to intensify our commercial preparations as we work to make this important treatment option available to pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) and PH-ILD patients.


, , , , , , , ,

By using this blog, you agree and understand that no information is being provided in the context of any attorney-client relationship. You further agree and understand that nothing herein is intended to be legal advice. This blog is solely informational in nature, and is not intended as, and should not be used as, a substitute for competent legal advice from a retained and licensed attorney in your state. Knobbe Martens LLP makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or availability of the information in this blog. Knobbe Martens LLP will not be liable for any injury or damages relating to your use of, or access to, any such information. Knobbe Martens LLP undertakes no obligation to correct or update information on this blog, which may be incorrect or become incorrect or out of date over time. Knobbe Martens LLP reserves the right to alter or delete content or information on the blog at any time. This blog contains links and references to other websites and publications that you may find of interest. Knobbe Martens LLP does not control, promote, endorse or otherwise have any affiliation with any other websites or publications unless those websites or publications expressly state such an affiliation. Knobbe Martens LLP further has no responsibility for, and makes no representations regarding, the content, accuracy or any other aspect of the information in such websites or publications.
close modal