The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware has dismissed Eli Lilly's lawsuit against Strive Pharmacy, citing a lack of personal jurisdiction. Judge Stephanos Bibas, who was sitting by designation, determined that Eli Lilly failed to establish a connection between Strive’s online advertisements and Delaware, leading to the case being dismissed without prejudice.
According to Bibas, compounded drugs serve as essential solutions for patients with allergies or unique needs and can be beneficial during drug shortages or when brand-name drug prices are high. This ruling aligns with a broader trend of courts scrutinizing expansive claims against compounders. Empower Pharmacy has also been mentioned in related actions by Eli Lilly, underscoring the central issues of access, customization, and competition for patients and clinicians.
Eli Lilly's legal actions have been described as excessive in both timing and scale. On April 1, 2025, the company filed lawsuits against Strive in Delaware and Empower Clinic Services in New Jersey while preparing approximately 50 cease-and-desist letters aimed at halting compounded tirzepatide amid strong demand for lower-cost alternatives. Courts have pushed back on these efforts; the Delaware case was dismissed due to jurisdictional issues, and others were dropped without prejudice due to procedural flaws rather than patient harm. The nationwide crackdown on small, locally regulated compounders appears less focused on consumer protection and more on market control.
Price and coverage realities contribute to the demand for compounded options. Reports surrounding the Strive decision indicate that out-of-pocket costs for compounded GLP-1s typically range from $129 to $497 per month, whereas brand-name drugs often exceed $1,000 monthly. Many insurers limit coverage to individuals with high BMI thresholds, leaving working families to pay out-of-pocket expenses. Courts recognizing the benefits of customization support the notion that lawful compounding can enhance choice and affordability. These financial figures illustrate why patients, prescribers, and free-market advocates consider compounders as a competitive check against monopoly pricing.
