Delaware Court Denies Preliminary Injunction Seeking to Block Liquidia S Yutrepia Launch
Contributed by Knobbe Martens. Originally published on Patexia; republished here as part of the LexDana archive.

Written by: Mark Rubinshtein, Ph.D.
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:

More insights
Structuring Solar IP Claims for Leverage: How System Claims and Induced or Contributory Infringement Can Expand Enforcement Options
Written by: Tyler S. Cox Key Takeaways: Nextpower’s mix of apparatus and system claims illustrates how claim strategy can expand enforcement flexibility. Additionally, carefully drafting patent claims can expand the scope of protection of the claim…

Patexia Insight 256: Patent Litigation Remains Concentrated in Key U.S. District Courts
U.S. District Court patent litigation continues to be one of the most consequential and data-rich arenas in intellectual property enforcement. Between July 1, 2020, and June 30, 2025, 18,352 patent cases were filed across federal courts, involving tens of…

Litigation Finance Tax Dropped From Trump S Big Beautiful Bill
In a major development for the billion dollar litigation finance industry, a tax provision targeting litigation funders has been removed from President Trump’s sweeping tax and spending legislation, dubbed the “Big, Beautiful Bill”,…