J&J hit with suit over Neutrogena products
Canadian firm alleges infringement of patent directed to cosmetic and pharmaceutical formulations | Pharma giant declined a licensing agreement.
Johnson & Johnson (J&J) is facing a lawsuit from GlycoBioSciences over the alleged infringement of patented formulations used in its blockbuster brand of cosmetic creams, Neutrogena.
Canada-based Glyco filed the complaint on April 19 at the US District Court for the District of Maryland, citing the alleged infringement of a pair of US patents.
The patents-in-suit are directed to cosmetic and pharmaceutical formulations for the effective delivery of hyaluronate in a polymer matrix.
US patent number 9,821,005 is entitled ‘Polymer Matrix Compositions Comprising a High Concentration of Bio Fermented Sodium Hyaluronate and Uses’, and was issued in 2017.
Meanwhile, US patent number 10,322,142—entitled ‘Polymer Matrix Compositions Comprising a High Concentration of Bio-fermented Sodium Hyaluronate and Uses Thereof’—was issued two years later as a continuation of the '005 patent, and is co-terminus with the '005 patent, both expiring on August 5, 2035.
According to the suit, J&J infringes the ‘005 and ‘142 patents by manufacturing and selling cosmetics, generally known as Neutrogena Hydro Boost Body Gels and Creams.
Glyco asserted that it has developed numerous formulations for the effective delivery of therapeutic agents, including hyaluronic acid.
Such formulations may be used in the treatment of wounds, burns, certain dermatological conditions and in topical, transdermal delivery and sustained release of active ingredients, added the complaint.
Glyco alleged that after an investigation, it found that J&J’s Neutrogena products contain high concentrations of hyaluronic acid in a polymer matrix which includes a non-ionic polymer, and are formulations that have all of the elements of one or more of the claims of the Glyco patents and/or have formulae that are equivalent to the claimed formulas.
It further claimed that it contacted J&J to resolve the issue, after which the pharma giant refused to respect the patent rights of Glyco, despite the offers of a licence.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories sent like this straight to your inbox.
