Search company, investor...

MonoSol Rx

monosolrx.com

Founded Year

2000

Stage

Line of Credit | Alive

Total Raised

$98.91M

Last Raised

$50M | 6 yrs ago

About MonoSol Rx

MonoSol Rx is a specialty pharmaceutical company leveraging its proprietary PharmFilm drug delivery technology to develop products that improve patient outcomes and address unmet needs. PharmFilm can benefit patients by improving the efficacy, safety, and convenience of pharmaceutical and over-the counter products.

Headquarters Location

30 Technology Drive

Warren, New Jersey, 07059,

United States

732-564-5000

Missing: MonoSol Rx's Product Demo & Case Studies

Promote your product offering to tech buyers.

Reach 1000s of buyers who use CB Insights to identify vendors, demo products, and make purchasing decisions.

Missing: MonoSol Rx's Product & Differentiators

Don’t let your products get skipped. Buyers use our vendor rankings to shortlist companies and drive requests for proposals (RFPs).

Expert Collections containing MonoSol Rx

Expert Collections are analyst-curated lists that highlight the companies you need to know in the most important technology spaces.

MonoSol Rx is included in 2 Expert Collections, including Biopharma Tech.

B

Biopharma Tech

15,535 items

Companies involved in the research, development, and commercialization of chemically- or biologically-derived therapeutic & theranostic drugs. Excludes vitamins/supplements, CROs/clinical trial services.

M

Medical Devices

8,592 items

Companies developing medical devices (per the IMDRF's definition of "medical device"). Includes software, lab-developed tests (LDTs), and combination products. *Columns updated as regularly as possible.

MonoSol Rx Patents

MonoSol Rx has filed 89 patents.

The 3 most popular patent topics include:

  • Dosage forms
  • Drug delivery devices
  • Estranes
patents chart

Application Date

Grant Date

Title

Related Topics

Status

10/3/2017

3/15/2022

Flavors, Fatty acids, Sesquiterpenes, Perfume ingredients, Medicinal plants

Grant

Application Date

10/3/2017

Grant Date

3/15/2022

Title

Related Topics

Flavors, Fatty acids, Sesquiterpenes, Perfume ingredients, Medicinal plants

Status

Grant

Latest MonoSol Rx News

Suboxone “Product Hopping” MDL: District Court Finds No Conspiracy Between Sublingual Film Developer and Opioid Treatment Manufa...

Dec 2, 2022

To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog: <iframe frameborder="1" height="620" scrolling="auto" src="//www.jdsupra.com/post/contentViewerEmbed.aspx?fid=83ab5196-6cb7-4e1e-974d-04d287d0e98a" style="border: 2px solid #ccc; overflow-x:hidden !important; overflow:hidden;" width="100%"></iframe> On October 19, 2022, U.S. District Judge Mitchell Goldberg in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted Aquestive Therapeutics Inc.’s (f/k/a MonoSol Rx LLC) motion for summary judgment in the long-running Suboxone MDL, finding Aquestive was not liable for its role in an alleged anticompetitive “product hopping” scheme.1 Facts and Allegations Indivior, Inc. (f/k/a Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) manufactures opioid-addiction treatment, Suboxone (buprenorphine), which was originally provided as a tablet. As the tablet’s exclusivity was coming to an end, Indivior investigated whether it could change the drug in a way that could extend its exclusivity. Indivior consulted with Aquestive, which had developed a patented sublingual or under-the-tongue dissolvable film. Aquestive touted the benefits of its film for patients, including that it was quick dissolving with rapid onset that bypasses the GI, has no need for water and is easy to administer (particularly to children and elderly) with no difficulty swallowing and no chance of error in dosing, is portable, easy to find if dropped, and discrete, among other benefits. Aquestive also promoted its film product as allowing brand drug manufacturers to extend product life cycles and to protect against generic encroachment. In 2010, Indivior removed the tablet version from the market and replaced it with the film version, just as generic competitors were readying to launch their own versions of the tablets. In 2016, a group of States’ Attorneys General (“States”) brought an antitrust suit against Indivior and Aquestive based on the product switch. The States alleged that Aquestive partnered with Indivior to develop the Suboxone film beginning in 2006 and agreed in 2008 to manufacture it. They further claimed that Aquestive first suggested the strategy of pulling the pill from the market, which Aquestive denied. Indivior engaged in a public campaign to allegedly disparage the tablet product, raised the price on the tablets, and filed a citizen petition with the FDA, seeking to persuade the agency to approve the film by raising safety concerns that the tablet could accidentally be taken by children. Indivior also requested that the tablet be subject to a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) to which it did not partake in. The FDA decided to allow the generic pills in 2013, but many patients had already switched to the film version. As a result, the States alleged that their health insurance programs overpaid for the drug. Summary Judgment Decision In a 33-page opinion, Judge Goldberg recently granted summary judgment and dismissed Aquestive from the case, finding that the States failed to adduce evidence that Aquestive joined a conspiracy. First, Judge Goldberg rejected the States’ argument that Aquestive’s own promotion of its film product as “protection against generic encroachment” and “not AB-rated” to other versions of a product proved Aquestive’s agreement to join a conspiracy in violation of the antitrust laws.2 Judge Goldberg found such promotion to be in line with harm to a competitor, not to the competitive process. “To hold otherwise would suggest that a company such as MonoSol, whose sole purpose is the development and marketing of film, could not pursue its business goals without violating antitrust laws.”3 Second, Judge Goldberg rejected the States’ argument that Aquestive conspired with Indivior by merely suggesting a “hard switch” strategy.4 While there was a factual dispute over whether Aquestive actually suggested the strategy, Judge Goldberg found the dispute to be immaterial as “[e]ven assuming MonoSol originally suggested the introduction of film and the withdrawal of the tablet” the evidence did not “create a reasonable inference that [the parties] reached an agreement[. ]”5 “[O]ther than the ‘suggestion’ . . . MonoSol took no action to help Reckitt . . . . MonoSol had no ability to cause the withdrawal . . . could not have prevented Reckitt from withdrawing . . . and was not even aware of the final withdrawal decision[. ]”6 Thus, Judge Goldberg held that “mere suggestion or awareness of that strategy is insufficient to establish an antitrust conspiracy.”7 Third, Judge Goldberg found that the States failed to adduce evidence that Aquestive agreed to “any other portion of the alleged antitrust conspiracy,” such as Indivior’s choice to raise the price of Suboxone tablets, engage in an allegedly false safety marketing campaign, file a citizen petition with the FDA, and allegedly delay a shared REMS process.8 While Aquestive was generally aware and supportive of Indivior’s conduct, “[m]ere awareness of and private support for actions by an alleged monopolist do not establish that there had been a meeting of the minds[. ]”9 Fourth, Judge Goldberg rejected the argument that a conspiracy could be inferred by virtue of economic incentives alone found in the supply agreements between Aquestive and Indivior. The States had argued that Aquestive was “not paid strictly on a per-strip basis but also received royalties to share in Reckitt’s profits” such that “the more film Reckitt sold, the more profits for MonoSol.”10 Judge Goldberg found that the agreements were “lawful and procompetitive” and that “[d]eveloping a new product and getting paid for it, including a royalty, is fully consistent with legitimate conduct and does not create an inference of anticompetitive behavior.”11 Fifth, Judge Goldberg rejected the use by the States of certain language used by the parties to draw broad conclusions of conspiracy. Specifically, the States pointed out that Aquestive referred to itself as a “strategic partner” and not “just a contract manufacturer[. ]”12 Judge Goldberg refused to draw any such broad inferences, finding that “[c]ompanies often choose to present themselves as existing for more than just a mere profit-making purpose.”13 Takeaways In summary, Judge Goldberg held that: The States have presented no evidence that MonoSol and Reckitt ever reached any agreement, meeting of the minds, or conscious commitment to a common scheme as to the actual withdrawal of tablets, the pricing of tablets or film, the safety marketing campaign, the Citizen Petition, or the REMS process. At best, MonoSol worked diligently to do precisely what it contractually agreed to do: produce Suboxone film sufficient to meet Reckitt’s needs in exchange for a per-strip charge and a royalty share of the profits. Antitrust laws do not prohibit agreement to engage in such a lawful endeavor.14 Judge Goldberg’s decision stands as a reminder that alleged anticompetitive conduct coupled with an otherwise pro-competitive agreement does not render the agreement anticompetitive or join all parties to the agreement to an antitrust conspiracy. Judge Goldberg’s decision further confirms that “‘knowledge alone is not sufficient to prove that any particular defendant intended to join a conspiracy.’”15 1 In re Suboxone (Buprenorphine Hydrochloride & Naloxone) Antitrust Litig., No. 2445 13-MD-2445, 2022 WL 11804048 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 19, 2022). 2 Id. at *2, 12. 3 Id. at *13. 4 Id. 5 Id. (emphasis in original). In dicta, Judge Goldberg stated that even if Aquestive reached an agreement with Indivior regarding the tablet withdrawal strategy, “it is not clear that mere introduction of a new product combined with withdrawal of the prior product, standing alone, could be the basis of an unlawful antitrust conspiracy.” Id. at *15 n.10. In so stating, Judge Goldberg distinguished the Second Circuit’s 2015 Namenda decision, noting that other courts had since required “some conduct beyond the hard switch . . . to prove unlawful, anticompetitive conduct.” Id. (discussing New York ex rel. Schneiderman v. Actavis PLC, 787 F.3d 638, 653-54 (2d Cir. 2015), In re Loestrin 24 Fe Antitrust Litigation, 433 F. Supp. 3d 274, 330-31 (D.R.I. 2019), and Mylan Pharms Inc. v. Warner Chilcott Public Ltd., 838 F.3d 421, 440 (3d Cir. 2016)).

MonoSol Rx Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

  • When was MonoSol Rx founded?

    MonoSol Rx was founded in 2000.

  • Where is MonoSol Rx's headquarters?

    MonoSol Rx's headquarters is located at 30 Technology Drive, Warren.

  • What is MonoSol Rx's latest funding round?

    MonoSol Rx's latest funding round is Line of Credit.

  • How much did MonoSol Rx raise?

    MonoSol Rx raised a total of $98.91M.

  • Who are the investors of MonoSol Rx?

    Investors of MonoSol Rx include Perceptive Advisors, Edward P. Bass Group and CNF Investments.

  • Who are MonoSol Rx's competitors?

    Competitors of MonoSol Rx include Erydel, Corium International, Savara, Sagent Pharmaceuticals, Quinnova Pharmaceuticals and 12 more.

Compare MonoSol Rx to Competitors

S
Spherics

Pharmaceutical company focused on applying its oral drug delivery platform to develop products with improved therapeutic profiles

T
Talima Therapeutics

Talima Therapeutics is an emerging drug delivery company dedicated to the development of novel products that increase patient choice and improve quality of life. With a unique approach to therapy, we design customized drug-delivery systems that optimize the local therapeutic performance and reduce the undesired systemic side effects enabling us to address unmet needs or underserved markets. We foster a collaborative environment and strive for excellence internally and with our partners. Our lead product is currently in Phase I/II clinical testing for the treatment of onychomycosis, a fungal disease of the nails and we are in the process of planning its pivotal trials.

N
Nanomi

Nanomi develops membrane emulsification process technology and equipment for:nn * monodisperse emulsionsn * monodisperse double emulsionsn * monodisperse microspheres (e.g. drug delivery systems)n * monodisperse microbubblesnnHeart of the company's technology is a emulsification membrane, fabricated with microscopic precision by proven photolithographic processes from the semiconductor industry. Nanomi follow a partnering strategy where the combination of the company's technology and their application formulation will enable users to provide their customers with new high value-added products.n

G
Glycologic

Glycologic Limited is a company dedicated to the creation of nutritional, clinical nutrition and drug delivery systems based on carbohydrates which overcome the limitations of other technologies. The Company utilises the properties of carbohydrates to develop customised solutions to a wide variety of nutritional and pharmaceutical problems.

P
Point Biomedical

POINT Biomedical is a privately held pharmaceutical company, founded to pursue technologies related to imaging and drug delivery. POINT's core technology is based upon an ultrasonically responsive two-layer, biodegradable microsphere or biSphere. One of the most important features of this technology is the ability to noninvasively trigger the biSpheres to release their contents at sites within the body using externally generated pulses of ultrasound. From this basic platform, POINT is developing a pipeline of products that leverage the unique properties of the biSphere technology in the areas of imaging and therapeutics. POINT has initially focused development of this platform on the assessment of tissue specific blood flow. The lead product, CARDIOsphere, is a pharmaceutical agent that will enable cardiologists to perform myocardial perfusion imaging studies in the office setting using ultrasound rather than more expensive and cumbersome nuclear (or radioisotope) techniques.

E
EZRA Innovations

EZRA Innovations currently holds exclusive worldwide rights in a controlled-release drug delivery system. Drug Surfactant Complex (DSC) Deoxycholate is used in combination with active pharmaceutical ingredients (API), DSC possesses the ability to change the chemical moiety of existing drugs and better extend release rates.

Discover the right solution for your team

The CB Insights tech market intelligence platform analyzes millions of data points on vendors, products, partnerships, and patents to help your team find their next technology solution.

Request a demo

CBI websites generally use certain cookies to enable better interactions with our sites and services. Use of these cookies, which may be stored on your device, permits us to improve and customize your experience. You can read more about your cookie choices at our privacy policy here. By continuing to use this site you are consenting to these choices.