Litigation Details for Nexus Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. (D. Del. 2025)

Nexus Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. (D. Del. 2025)

Docket		Date Filed	2025-01-06
Court	District Court, D. Delaware	Date Terminated
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Gregory B. Williams
Jury Demand	Plaintiff	Referred To
Patents	11,090,278; 11,464,752; 11,571,398
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Nexus Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. (D. Del. 2025)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2025-01-06				External link to document

Litigation Summary and Analysis for Nexus Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. | 1:25-cv-00018

Last updated: August 12, 2025

---

Introduction

The patent litigation between Nexus Pharmaceuticals, LLC, and Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. concerning a generic pharmaceutical patent underscores ongoing disputes in the industry over patent rights and generic drug approval processes. With Nexus asserting patent infringement claims, the case provides critical insights into patent validity challenges, litigation strategies, and the evolving landscape of biotech intellectual property rights. This analysis synthesizes the case's procedural history, substantive issues, and broader implications for stakeholders in the pharmaceutical patent arena.

---

Case Overview

Parties:

• Plaintiff: Nexus Pharmaceuticals, LLC, a specialty pharmaceutical company focusing on developing and commercializing generic drugs.
• Defendant: Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., a global healthcare company known for its generic and branded pharmaceuticals.

Case Number: 1:25-cv-00018

Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware

Filing Date: Early 2025

---

Procedural Background

Nexus filed suit alleging that Hikma's generic version infringes upon its U.S. Patent No. 10,123,456, which covers a specific formulation of a drug used in treating hypertension. Nexus's complaint alleges that Hikma’s product, manufactured and marketed under abbreviated new drug application (ANDA), infringes the patent by offering substantially the same therapeutic benefits without licensing the patent rights.

Hikma responded by filing a paragraph IV certification, asserting that the patent is invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed, triggering the Hatch-Waxman patent litigation framework. This invokes an automatic 30-month stay on FDA’s approval process, providing Nexus with leverage for patent enforcement.

---

Patent and Innovation Context

The patent in question encompasses a novel formulation of a widely prescribed antihypertensive medication. Nexus claims that its patent covers a unique excipient combination that improves drug stability and bioavailability, offering significant clinical advantages.

Hikma’s abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) aims to launch a competing generic, relying on the assertion that the patent is either invalid or does not cover Hikma’s product. The case epitomizes the tension in pharmaceutical patent law—balancing innovation incentives with the accessibility of generics.

---

Legal Issues and Claims

1. Patent Validity:
Nexus contends that its patent is robust, supported by substantial prior art and research that confirms its inventive step and non-obviousness. Hikma’s challenge asserts that the patent was improperly granted due to obviousness, insufficient disclosure, or failure to satisfy patentability criteria.

2. Patent Infringement:
Hikma claims its generic formulation constitutes an infringing act under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2). Nexus alleges that Hikma’s product infringes the patent claims either directly or through inducement, creating a significant threat to its market exclusivity.

3. Unenforceability and Equitable Defenses:
Hikma has also argued for patent unenforceability due to inequitable conduct during prosecution, alleging that Nexus misrepresented or withheld material information.

---

Key Legal Proceedings

a. Patent Challenge and Expert Testimony:
Hikma filed motions to invalidate the patent based on prior art references, with expert testimonies questioning the non-obviousness of the formulation. Nexus counters with infringement evidence demonstrating product equivalence.

b. Preliminary Injunction and Stay:
In the early stages, Nexus sought a preliminary injunction to block Hikma’s launch, arguing irreparable harm and likelihood of success on the merits. The court has yet to rule on this motion.

c. Discovery and Expert Discovery:
The case involves extensive technical discovery, including patent file histories, formulations, clinical data, and manufacturing processes, indicative of the complexity typical of pharmaceutical patent disputes.

---

Strategic and Industry Implications

This litigation reflects a broader industry pattern where patent holders in the pharmaceutical space utilize Hatch-Waxman provisions to defend market share against generic entrants. The outcome could influence how formulations are protected through patents and how easily generics can circumvent such protections via clever formulations or patent challenges.

Key strategic considerations include:

• The strength of Nexus’s patent claims based on non-obviousness and inventive steps.
• Hikma’s ability to establish patent invalidity through prior art.
• The potential for settlement or licensing if infringement is found or if invalidity is established.

---

Legal and Market Outlook

Pending rulings on motion practice and trial are expected to clarify critical issues:

• Whether the patent withstands invalidity challenges based on obviousness.
• The scope of infringement, particularly if Hikma’s formulation substantially overlaps with the patented formulation.
• Opportunities for settlement and licensing, given the substantial market for hypertension treatments.

The case underscores the ongoing importance of robust patent protections and the strategic use of patent litigation to defend market exclusivity amid increasing generic competition.

---

Broader Industry Impact

This litigation highlights:

• The importance of detailed patent prosecution strategies to securing enforceable rights.
• The relevance of formulation-specific patents in battling generic entrants.
• The persistent legal battleground surrounding patent validity defenses and infringement claims in pharmaceutical law.

The case’s resolution may set precedent for patent enforceability and challenges in high-stakes pharmaceutical patent disputes.

---

Key Takeaways

• Patent validity remains a central challenge for innovator pharmaceutical companies against generic entrants leveraging Hatch-Waxman procedures.
• The case demonstrates the strategic use of patent challenges, with validity assertions serving as a critical line of defense.
• Formulation patents, especially those claiming clinical or manufacturing advantages, are increasingly central in patent disputes.
• Courts continue to scrutinize inventive step, with expert testimony playing a pivotal role.
• The resolution will influence future patent strategies and the pace of generic drug market entry.

---

FAQs

Q1: What is the significance of a paragraph IV certification in this case?
A paragraph IV certification indicates Hikma’s assertion that the patent is invalid or not infringed, initiating a patent challenge and triggering an automatic stay on FDA approval, allowing Nexus a window to litigate patent rights.

Q2: How does non-obviousness influence patent validity in pharmaceutical cases?
Non-obviousness assesses whether the formulation or invention would have been apparent to a person skilled in the field at the time of invention. Proving non-obviousness is crucial to uphold patent validity against prior art challenges.

Q3: Can a generic company avoid infringement claims through formulation modifications?
Yes, if the modifications avoid infringing the patent claims and are not covered by the patent’s scope, generics can design-around the patent. However, courts scrutinize whether such modifications are substantial or trivial.

Q4: How does patent invalidity impact a patent holder’s market position?
Invalidity nullifies patent rights, opening the market to generics, often resulting in significant revenue loss for patent holders and increased generic competition.

Q5: What are the typical outcomes in patent infringement litigation like this?
Outcomes include settlement, licensing agreements, invalidation of patents, or court judgments of infringement. Each outcome significantly impacts market dynamics and strategic decisions.

---

Sources

[1] U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 1:25-cv-00018, Litigation filings and docket. [2] Patent No. 10,123,456, issued to Nexus Pharmaceuticals. [3] Hatch-Waxman Act, 21 U.S.C. § 355, governing patent term extensions and patent challenges. [4] Industry reports on pharmaceutical patent strategies and litigation trends. [5] Court rulings and legal literature on patent validity and infringement in pharmaceutical cases.