Court Vacated $70.6 Million United Therapeutics Award
The ruling forces a new trial for drugmakers in a long-running patent settlement contract dispute.
Updated on Oct. 8, 2026 in Healthcare
Live Poll
Do you trust juries more than judges to resolve complex corporate contract disputes?
The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated a $70.6 million judgment against United Therapeutics Corp. arising from a 2015 patent settlement dispute with Sandoz Inc.
Why it matters
The appellate court ruled that a jury must determine whether United Therapeutics breached its settlement agreement by restricting access to injection cartridges, reviving claims that the firm interfered with Sandoz business relationships.
The ruling vacates a $70.6 million award that stemmed from a 2015 patent settlement agreement. The case is now remanded to the New Jersey federal district court for a full jury trial to resolve the contract dispute.
The players
United Therapeutics Corp.
A biotechnology company that develops drugs for pulmonary arterial hypertension and other rare diseases.
Sandoz Inc.
A global pharmaceutical company specializing in the production of generic and biosimilar drugs.
The details
The Third Circuit appellate court determined that a jury, rather than a judge, must evaluate whether United Therapeutics breached its settlement terms. By restricting access to injection cartridges, the company allegedly interfered with the business relationships of Sandoz. The decision sets the stage for a new trial to address these claims in the lower court.
Timeline
2015: United Therapeutics and Sandoz entered a patent settlement.
October 7, 2026: The Third Circuit issued the appellate ruling.
Market Landscape
The appellate ruling follows nearly a decade of litigation stemming from the 2015 United Therapeutics-Sandoz patent settlement. This decision marks a major shift in the ongoing contract dispute by invalidating the prior judgment and ordering a new trial.
Operators in highly regulated sectors like pharmaceuticals should recognize that settlement agreements require precise, defensible operational adherence to avoid costly contract litigation. Business leaders must ensure their legal counsel reviews current supplier and partner access protocols against all active settlement terms.
The takeaway
The appellate decision highlights the necessity of strict, documentable adherence to patent settlement stipulations to prevent future interference claims. Review all active settlement agreements with counsel to identify potential operational conflicts regarding product or service access.
Further reading
For broader trends on pharmaceutical legal risks, explore the Healthcare section.
Live Poll
Do you trust juries more than judges to resolve complex corporate contract disputes?
