AbbVie Withdraws Patent Challenge, Clearing Path for Enveric’s Psychedelic IP Strategy

In a development that could ripple across the fast evolving neuroplastogen sector, Enveric Biosciences announced that a Post Grant Review petition filed against one of its key U.S. patents has been withdrawn. The decision leaves no remaining challenges pending against the company’s U.S. Patent No. 12,138,276, a patent covering halogenated psilocybin derivatives.

The petition had originally been filed by Gilgamesh Pharmaceuticals, which was later acquired by AbbVie Inc. in a deal worth up to 1.2 billion dollars centered on bretisilocin, also known as GM 2505. After the acquisition, AbbVie was identified as a real party in interest in the patent proceeding. In November, AbbVie’s counsel requested withdrawal of the petition. The U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted that request.

For Enveric, the outcome represents more than a procedural win. It removes a cloud that hung over a patent potentially relevant to bretisilocin and reinforces the strength of its intellectual property estate in next generation psychedelic inspired therapeutics.

At issue was Enveric’s ’276 patent, titled “Halogenated psilocybin derivatives and methods of using.” The claims appear relevant to bretisilocin, a clinical stage compound originally developed by Gilgamesh and now owned by AbbVie. That overlap likely prompted the original challenge.

Post Grant Review proceedings are designed to invalidate recently issued patents on specific legal grounds. They are often used strategically in competitive fields such as oncology and biologics. Their use in the neuroplastogen space signals that the field has entered a more commercially serious phase.

The withdrawal suggests that AbbVie, after acquiring Gilgamesh and evaluating the landscape, chose not to pursue the challenge further. That could reflect a number of strategic calculations: litigation risk, licensing possibilities, freedom to operate analysis, or confidence in differentiation. What it clearly reflects is that Enveric’s patent position was strong enough to withstand scrutiny from one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world.

For Enveric, the resolution strengthens its hand at a critical moment. The company has been positioning itself as a leader in non hallucinogenic neuroplastogens, with its lead asset EB 003 designed to selectively engage both 5 HT2A and 5 HT1B receptors. That dual receptor strategy aims to harness neuroplastic benefits without the perceptual distortions associated with classic psychedelics.

In a sector where intellectual property is foundational to valuation, clarity matters. Early stage biotech companies are often priced as much on defensibility as on data. Removing an active challenge from a deep pocketed pharmaceutical acquirer reduces perceived risk and enhances optionality, whether in licensing, partnership, or acquisition scenarios.

Joseph Tucker, PhD, Enveric’s CEO, framed the development as validation of the company’s commitment to defending its discoveries. His comments point to a broader narrative: that Enveric’s expanding patent estate may represent one of the more durable IP positions in the neuroplastogen category.

The psychedelic medicine renaissance has matured quickly. Billions of dollars have flowed into companies exploring psilocybin, DMT derivatives, LSD analogs, and related compounds. The next wave is increasingly focused on neuroplastic rewiring without the trip, a model aimed at scalability, outpatient delivery, and payer acceptance.

As that shift accelerates, patent boundaries are becoming more consequential. Large pharmaceutical companies are entering the space not just as observers but as acquirers, as evidenced by AbbVie’s billion dollar bet on bretisilocin.

This episode underscores a key reality: IP disputes are now part of the competitive landscape in psychedelic drug development. The withdrawal of the petition may indicate that collaboration, coexistence, or differentiation can sometimes be more attractive than confrontation.

It also reinforces that the non hallucinogenic neuroplastogen field is no longer fringe science. When global pharmaceutical leaders weigh the risks of challenging emerging biotech patents, it signals that the space is strategically significant.

With the petition withdrawn and no remaining challenges pending, Enveric regains a clearer runway. That matters as it advances EB 003 and expands its protected chemical library. A fortified IP position may also strengthen its leverage in discussions with potential partners seeking exposure to next generation psychiatric therapeutics.

For investors, the takeaway is twofold. First, patent durability is not theoretical in this category. It is being tested in real time. Second, Enveric has demonstrated both the willingness and the capacity to defend its estate, including hiring elite IP counsel to respond.

In biotech, science drives possibility. Patents determine who captures value. In this case, Enveric emerged with its claims intact, while a major pharmaceutical acquirer stepped back from contesting them.

In a field racing toward scalable treatments for depression and other psychiatric disorders, that shift could prove consequential.