Delaware court issues its opinion in Lilly v. Strive Pharmacy

A federal judge in Delaware dismissed Eli Lilly's lawsuit against Strive Pharmacy over the marketing of compounded tirzepatide, ruling on October 8, 2025 that the court had no personal jurisdiction over the Arizona-based pharmacy ^[1]. The decision does not decide whether Strive's advertising was false. It decides only that Delaware is the wrong place to bring the case ^[1].

Judge Stephanos Bibas, a Third Circuit judge sitting by designation, wrote that "Lilly's complaint has both" innovative drug development and "innovative jurisdictional theories," and that Lilly "does not connect Strive's online ads to Delaware" ^[1]. Quoting the Supreme Court's Ford Motor decision, he wrote that even in the digital age, personal jurisdiction has "real limits" ^[1]. The case is No. 1:25-cv-00401-SB in the District of Delaware ^[1].

What Lilly claimed

Lilly sells tirzepatide under the brand names Mounjaro and Zepbound and, according to its complaint, is the only seller of FDA-approved tirzepatide ^[1]. The complaint says bringing the average drug to market takes more than ten years and $2.6 billion, and that tirzepatide took nearly a decade to invent and required thirty-seven clinical trials for FDA approval ^[1].

Strive sells what it calls a "personalized" combination of tirzepatide, vitamin B12, and glycine to providers across the country, according to the complaint ^[1]. The opinion describes the stated purpose of each ingredient: tirzepatide as the GLP-1, B12 to reduce nausea, and glycine, an amino acid, to help maintain muscle mass during rapid weight loss ^[1].

Lilly's claims were commercial, not clinical ^[1]. It alleged that Strive's marketing of "customize[d]" medications "specifically designed" for "one-of-a-kind needs" is false and deceptive because Strive sells only one form of tirzepatide and does not tailor the drug to individuals ^[1]. Lilly also challenged Strive's claims that its products are "safer and better for you" than ones from "Big Pharma," and that Strive goes "above and beyond regulatory standards" ^[1]. The suit was brought under the Lanham Act's false-advertising provision, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B), and Delaware's Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act ^[1].

Why the case was tossed

The judge found that Strive, a Delaware-licensed pharmacy that ships drugs into the state through local providers, does "purposefully avail" itself of Delaware ^[1]. But Lilly's claims still had to "arise out of or relate to" those contacts, and the judge said Lilly pleaded no facts linking the online statements themselves to Delaware ^[1]. Lilly had made "painfully clear" that it "challenges Strive's claims about its pharmaceutical practice, not the pharmaceutical practice itself," which the court said cut against using the drug shipments as a jurisdictional hook ^[1].

The court also rejected the "effects test," finding Strive's posts were not "aimed" anywhere but the World Wide Web, and said the older Zippo sliding-scale website test "may no longer be good law" and in any event did not fit these facts ^[1]. Allowing the suit would turn specific jurisdiction into "a loose and spurious form of general jurisdiction," the opinion said ^[1].

Why it matters for patients

Nothing in this ruling settles whether compounded tirzepatide marketed as "personalized" is accurately described, or whether such products are safe or effective. Those questions were not reached ^[1].

The opinion does restate points from Lilly's complaint that patients may already have heard: compounded drugs are not FDA-approved and are not subject to the same labeling, testing, or manufacturing requirements as brand-name drugs, which the complaint says makes injuries both more common and harder to track ^[1]. The court also noted that compounded drugs can be "a godsend" for patients with allergies or unique needs that make FDA-approved medications unsuitable ^[1].

Practically, the ruling means a Delaware court will not be policing Strive's advertising in this case, and Lilly "must sue Strive elsewhere" ^[1]. Strive's motion asked the court to dismiss or else transfer the case to Arizona ^[1].

What happens next

The opinion is dated October 8, 2025 ^[1]. Whether Lilly refiles in another state, appeals, or whether the case is transferred rather than dismissed outright is not stated in the portion of the opinion available here ^[1]. Patients taking compounded tirzepatide should know that this decision changes nothing about the availability or legal status of those products; it addresses only where a marketing dispute can be heard ^[1].