Ferring Pharmaceuticals v. Finch Therapeutics — Delaware Court Upholds $25M Fecal-Transplant Patent Verdict

Background

In 2021, Finch Therapeutics Group and the University of Minnesota sued Ferring Pharmaceuticals over its Rebyota product — the FDA-approved fecal microbiota-based therapy for preventing recurrent Clostridioides difficile infections. Finch and the University alleged that Rebyota infringed three patents covering fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) compositions and methods: U.S. Patent Nos. 10,675,309, 11,541,080, and 10,215,914.

After a multi-week trial, a Delaware jury returned a verdict in August 2024 finding that Ferring had willfully infringed all three patents and awarding $25 million in lump-sum damages plus ongoing royalties of approximately $815,000. Ferring then moved for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), a new trial, and other post-trial relief, arguing the verdict was unsupported by the evidence. Finch and the University cross-moved to enhance damages based on the willfulness finding.

The Court’s Holding

Judge Jennifer L. Hall rejected all of Ferring’s post-trial motions in a June 10, 2026 ruling. The court upheld the jury’s findings of infringement, validity, and willfulness, finding substantial evidence supported each conclusion. On the willfulness finding, the court declined to enhance damages above the jury’s award, concluding that the circumstances did not warrant the punitive enhancement contemplated by 35 U.S.C. § 284, even though the jury found intentional infringement.

The result is a final judgment — subject to any appeal — of approximately $25.8 million in damages. Ferring faces the prospect of either paying the award or challenging it at the Federal Circuit. Given that Rebyota remains Ferring’s only approved FMT product and competes directly with Finch’s rival therapies, the stakes for the microbiome therapeutics sector are high.

Key Takeaways

• Post-trial motions in patent cases face a high bar — courts will sustain a jury verdict if there is any substantial evidence to support the jury’s findings on infringement, validity, and damages.
• A willfulness finding does not automatically enhance damages: the district court retains discretion to decline enhancement even when the jury concludes the defendant acted willfully.
• FMT patent litigation is intensifying as the field matures. The University of Minnesota’s foundational FMT patents, licensed exclusively to Finch, have now been validated through full trial and post-trial review.
• Ongoing royalties ordered alongside a lump-sum verdict create a dual damages stream that will accrue as Rebyota continues to generate sales.

Why It Matters

Fecal microbiota transplants have emerged as an important tool in the fight against drug-resistant C. difficile infections, and Rebyota is one of only two FDA-approved FMT products currently on the market. This verdict effectively puts Ferring on notice that it must either design around the Finch/Minnesota patents, negotiate a license, or litigate all the way to the Federal Circuit. For the broader microbiome therapeutics industry, the ruling confirms that university-licensed FMT patents carry real litigation teeth — and that willful infringement at the time of product launch can expose companies to substantial trial-level damages even before any enhancement.

The case is also a reminder that pharmaceutical companies entering a new therapeutic class should conduct thorough freedom-to-operate analyses before commercializing products in technology areas with active patent portfolios. Ferring’s decision to launch Rebyota in the face of the Finch patents has now resulted in a nine-figure litigation exposure.