Patent Won for BP Drug, but Court Awards Zero Damages.

Case Background

Nexus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Exela Pharma Sciences, LLC on September 21, 2022, after Exela began marketing a competing version of a ready-to-use blood pressure medication. Nexus had previously launched Emerphed, the first FDA-approved injectable ephedrine sulfate solution that doctors could use immediately without diluting it first. This "ready-to-use" format simplified procedures in surgical settings where patients experienced dangerous drops in blood pressure due to anesthesia.

Nexus claimed it had revolutionized the market with this stabilized liquid formula and had secured several patents to protect its invention, including U.S. Patent No. 11,426,369. However, Exela soon introduced its own version called Akovaz PFS, which used a similar 5 mg/mL concentration in a pre-filled syringe. Nexus alleged that Exela’s product was essentially the same as its patented invention. The dispute eventually expanded to include two additional patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 11,571,398 and 11,464,752.

Cause

The legal battle centered on patent infringement. Nexus accused Exela of manufacturing and selling a product that copied the specific chemical compositions and methods described in its patents. Nexus argued that Exela had ignored multiple warnings about these patents before launching Akovaz PFS.

Injury

Nexus claimed that Exela's entry into the market with an infringing product caused it significant financial harm. The company argued it lost sales it otherwise would have made as the sole provider of the ready-to-use 5 mg/mL concentration. Furthermore, Nexus claimed that Exela's presence in the market forced prices down, leading to "price erosion" that further damaged its profits.

Damages Sought

Nexus asked the Court for a judgment that would stop Exela from selling Akovaz PFS. The company also sought monetary compensation for lost profits and the lower prices it had to accept because of the competition. Additionally, Nexus requested "enhanced damages" and attorney's fees, arguing that Exela had willfully and knowingly infringed on its intellectual property.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

The trial took place in late August 2025, during which the jury evaluated three separate patents and four specific patent claims. Before the jury received the case, the Court ruled on several legal issues, including a decision that Nexus's patents were not invalid for "lack of written description".

Legal Representation

Plaintiff(s): Nexus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Defendant(s): Exela Pharma Sciences, LLC

· Experts Retained: Patricia Powell | Robert A. Myers

Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel

Claims

Nexus's legal team argued that Exela’s Akovaz PFS met every requirement of their patent claims. They presented evidence that Exela was aware of Nexus's patent applications as early as February 2022, yet moved forward with its product launch anyway. Counsel emphasized that Nexus had done the hard work of developing a shelf-stable, ready-to-use formula that met strict FDA standards, and Exela simply capitalized on that innovation.

Defense

Exela’s defense focused on two fronts: non-infringement and invalidity. Their attorneys argued that the way they manufactured and administered Akovaz PFS did not actually follow the specific methods claimed in Nexus's patents. Furthermore, Exela contended that the patents should never have been issued in the first place. They argued that the "ready-to-use" concept was "obvious" based on previous medical knowledge and that Nexus had not truly invented something new.

Jury Verdict

On August 29, 2025, the jury returned a verdict that was complex and offered a mix of outcomes for both parties. The jury evaluated four distinct claims and reached the following conclusions:

The Infringement Findings

The jury decided that Exela did not infringe on most of the patents in the case. Specifically, they found that Exela’s Akovaz PFS did not infringe Claims 6 and 9 of the '369 patent, nor did it infringe Claim 1 of the '398 patent. This was a significant win for Exela’s defense team regarding those specific intellectual properties.

However, the jury reached a different conclusion regarding the '752 patent. They found that Exela’s Akovaz PFS product did infringe Claim 7 of the '752 patent. Most importantly, the jury checked the "Yes" box for willful infringement regarding this patent. This meant the jury believed Exela knew about the '752 patent and chose to infringe it anyway.

The Invalidity Findings

Exela failed in its attempt to have the patents declared invalid. The jury was asked if Exela had proven by "clear and convincing evidence" that the patent claims were "obvious" based on prior technology. For all four claims across all three patents, the jury answered "No." This meant that Nexus’s patents remained legally valid and enforceable, even though the jury found that Exela only infringed one of them.

The Damages Award

The most surprising part of the verdict came in the damages section. Even though the jury found that Exela had willfully infringed Claim 7 of the '752 patent, they did not award any money to Nexus. On the verdict form, the jury left the dollar amounts for lost profits, price erosion, and reasonable royalties completely blank.

Following the jury's decision, the Court entered a Final Judgment on September 18, 2025. The judgment confirmed that while Nexus had successfully proven that Exela willfully infringed the '752 patent and had defended the validity of its inventions, the jury chose to award zero damages. The Court noted that the legal battle might continue through post-trial motions or appeals to the Federal Circuit, but for the moment, Nexus won the legal argument without winning a financial payout.

Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]