Entresto (Sacubitril/Valsartan) Patent

This is a Hatch-Waxman pharmaceutical patent docket, not a personal-injury or consumer matter: the brand manufacturer of the heart-failure medication Entresto sued a group of generic drug companies that filed abbreviated new drug applications seeking to market generic sacubitril/valsartan before the branded patents expire. Centralized in the District of Delaware in 2020, the docket has narrowed sharply over six years of litigation and now carries a single pending action, after a bench trial resolved key validity questions on the earliest-expiring patent and most of the original generic defendants exited the case, with generic entry having since begun in the market.

For a funder, plaintiff-side financing is simply not applicable here in the way it would be for a personal-injury mass tort: the party pursuing the underlying patent-infringement claims is a large, well-capitalized branded pharmaceutical company, and the remaining defendant is likewise a sophisticated commercial generic manufacturer capable of funding its own defense. There is no claimant class, no individual damages population, and no capital gap of the kind that litigation finance is built to fill on either side of this specific dispute.

Where this docket has genuine relevance to a capital or intelligence desk is as a structural reference point for Hatch-Waxman litigation more broadly: it shows how a multi-patent branded-generic fight can run for six-plus years through parallel district court and Federal Circuit proceedings, narrow from a large defendant group to a single holdout, and still see generic competition enter the market before every individual patent question is fully resolved. Criterica Capital does not treat this docket as an active funding target; a structure and litigation brief describing the pharmaceutical patent-litigation lifecycle it illustrates is available for firms doing comparative diligence on other Hatch-Waxman matters.

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.