Appeals Court Vacated $70.6 Million Award Against United Therapeutics
The Third Circuit overturned a judgment in a long-standing contract dispute between the company and Sandoz.
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. The appellate court remanded the case to the New Jersey federal district court for a jury trial.
Why it matters
The court ruled that a jury must now determine if the drug maker breached its settlement agreement by restricting access to injection cartridges. Additionally, the ruling revived a claim that United Therapeutics interfered with Sandoz business relationships.
The Third Circuit vacated a $70.6 million award linked to a 2015 patent settlement. The dispute hinges on allegations of restricted access to medical injection cartridges.
The players
United Therapeutics Corp.
This biotechnology company focuses on developing products for patients with chronic and life-threatening conditions.
Sandoz Inc.
This global pharmaceutical entity specializes in the development and manufacturing of generic and biosimilar medicines.
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
This federal court hears appeals from the district courts located within its jurisdiction, including New Jersey.
The details
The appellate panel sent the contract dispute back to the district court after determining the prior judgment failed to properly resolve key questions of fact. The legal battle originated nearly a decade ago following an agreement between the two pharmaceutical companies.
Timeline
The initial patent settlement between United Therapeutics and Sandoz occurred in 2015.
The Third Circuit issued the appellate ruling on October 7, 2026.
Market Landscape
This case underscores the intense legal scrutiny applied to pharmaceutical patent settlements and supply chain agreements. By returning the case to a jury, the court creates further uncertainty for market participants relying on long-standing licensing deals.
The ruling sends the litigation back to the district court, meaning the final financial liability of the drug manufacturer remains uncertain. This move could influence future pricing or availability of medical products associated with the settlement terms.
The takeaway
Legal disputes surrounding patent settlements can lead to protracted courtroom battles that reshape market competition for years. Stakeholders should monitor trial dates in New Jersey to understand how these proceedings may affect industry settlement practices.
Further reading
For broader trends in the industry, explore our Healthcare section.
Live Poll
Do you trust juries more than judges to resolve complex corporate contract disputes?
