MDL Tracker›Intellectual Property

Aflibercept Patent

Q: Is there a funding opportunity in this biosimilar patent litigation?

No. Every party, the branded biologic manufacturer and each biosimilar developer, is a large, well-capitalized pharmaceutical or biotechnology company able to fund its own litigation, so there is no capital gap for litigation finance to fill here.

Q: Why did some biosimilar defendants launch products while others remain enjoined?

Different defendants litigated preliminary-injunction motions to different outcomes, and product-specific and manufacturing-specific factual differences among the biosimilar formulations produced genuinely different results even under a shared patent-infringement theory.

Q: What does this docket teach funders about biosimilar patent litigation generally?

That a large asserted patent portfolio litigated against multiple biosimilar defendants in one MDL can still produce sharply divergent, defendant-specific outcomes, which matters for how comparable future biosimilar disputes should be diligenced even though this specific docket has no funding role.

Q: Why does Criterica Capital track a docket with no active funding target?

As a structural and outcome benchmark for the broader BPCIA and biosimilar patent litigation category, informing diligence on other matters in this space where a genuine capital question, such as smaller or contract-manufacturer defendants, may actually arise.

MDL No. 3103 · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia

Discuss Funding Related Capital Product

MDL No.

3103

Docket Type

Intellectual Property

Transferee Judge

Hon. Thomas S. Kleeh

Centralized

2024-04-11

Actions Pending

As Of

2026-09-01

Funding Considerations

This docket consolidates Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act litigation in which the manufacturer of the ophthalmic biologic aflibercept (marketed for retinal disease) has sued a group of biosimilar developers, alleging that their proposed follow-on biologic products infringe a common set of patents covering the reference product. Centralized in the Northern District of West Virginia in 2024, the docket has narrowed to 3 pending actions after several of the originally named biosimilar developers settled, and at least one biosimilar product has since launched in the U.S. market following resolution of preliminary-injunction proceedings specific to that defendant.

As with other branded-versus-biosimilar patent litigation, plaintiff-side or defense-side funding is not a realistic capital conversation in this docket: every party involved is a large, well-capitalized pharmaceutical or biotechnology company with the resources to litigate a BPCIA dispute of this scale on its own. There is no individual claimant population, no damages class, and no capital gap for litigation finance to fill on either side of the remaining actions.

This docket's value to a capital or intelligence desk is as a structural benchmark for biosimilar patent litigation: it shows how a large asserted patent portfolio, thirteen patents across the original filings, can produce sharply different outcomes for different biosimilar defendants within the same docket, with some securing market entry through settlement or a denied preliminary injunction while others remain enjoined pending further proceedings. Criterica Capital does not treat this as an active funding target; the structural pattern is referenced in comparative diligence for other BPCIA and biosimilar patent matters where a genuine capital question does arise.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is there a funding opportunity in this biosimilar patent litigation?

Why did some biosimilar defendants launch products while others remain enjoined?

What does this docket teach funders about biosimilar patent litigation generally?

Why does Criterica Capital track a docket with no active funding target?

Pre-settlement funding is a non-recourse purchase of a portion of the proceeds of a pending legal claim — not a loan. If the case does not result in a recovery, nothing is owed. Rates, fees, and repayment terms are disclosed in full in the funding agreement, which the applicant’s attorney reviews before signing. Availability and terms vary by state.

Litigation structure and resolution-risk brief on Criterica Intelligence →

Holding Aflibercept Patent claims or inventory?

Send the details and our institutional team will respond within one business day.