Litigation Details for SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. RICONPHARMA LLC (D.N.J. 2021)

✉ Email this page to a colleague

SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. RICONPHARMA LLC (D.N.J. 2021)

Docket	⤷ Try for Free	Date Filed	2021-06-03
Court	District Court, D. New Jersey	Date Terminated	2023-08-21
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Michael E. Farbiarz
Jury Demand	None	Referred To	Michael A. Hammer
Patents	10,220,042; 7,722,898; 7,910,131; 8,617,600; 8,821,930; 9,119,791; 9,351,975; 9,370,525; 9,855,278
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Small Molecule Drugs cited in SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. RICONPHARMA LLC

The small molecule drug covered by the patents cited in this case is ⤷ Try for Free .

Details for SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. RICONPHARMA LLC (D.N.J. 2021)

+ Get email alerts for changes to this table

Glossary

Show entries

Subscribe to access the full database, or Try for Free
Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document

2021-06-03				External link to document
2021-06-03	102	Opinion	the ’975 patent”), 9,370,525 (“the ’525 patent”), 9,855,278 (“the ’278 patent”), and 10,220,042 (“the … The patents-in-suit are Patent Nos. 7,722,898 (“the ’898 patent”), 7,910,131 (“the ’131 patent”), 8,…,600 (“the ’600 patent”), 8,821,930 (“the ’930 patent”), 9,119,791 (“the ’791 patent”), 9,351,975 (“the…Supernus’s complaint for patent infringement (DE 1) ’898 Patent = Patent No. 7,722,898 (DE 80-2)…the ’042 patent”). These patents describe a formulation for an extended- release oxcarbazepine tablet used	External link to document
>Date Filed	>Document No.	>Description	>Snippet	>Link To Document

Showing 1 to 2 of 2 entries

SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. RICONPHARMA LLC: A Patent Infringement Battle

In the world of pharmaceutical innovation, patent protection is paramount. The case of SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. RICONPHARMA LLC et al (Case No. 2:21-cv-12133) highlights the intense legal battles that can ensue when generic drug manufacturers attempt to enter the market. This article delves into the intricacies of this patent infringement lawsuit, exploring its implications for the pharmaceutical industry and patent law.

The Parties Involved

Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a Delaware corporation specializing in the development and commercialization of novel central nervous system (CNS) therapies. With its headquarters in Rockville, Maryland, Supernus has made significant strides in creating innovative treatments for epilepsy and other neurological disorders.

RiconPharma LLC and Ingenus Pharmaceuticals, LLC

The defendants in this case are RiconPharma LLC, a New Jersey-based limited liability company, and Ingenus Pharmaceuticals, LLC. These companies are in the business of developing, manufacturing, and distributing generic pharmaceutical products throughout the United States.

The Patents at Stake

The lawsuit revolves around nine patents owned by Supernus:

U.S. Patent No. 7,722,898 ('898 patent)
U.S. Patent No. 7,910,131 ('131 patent)
U.S. Patent No. 8,617,600 ('600 patent)
U.S. Patent No. 8,821,930 ('930 patent)
U.S. Patent No. 9,119,791 ('791 patent)
U.S. Patent No. 9,351,975 ('975 patent)
U.S. Patent No. 9,370,525 ('525 patent)
U.S. Patent No. 9,855,278 ('278 patent)
U.S. Patent No. 10,220,042 ('042 patent)

These patents are collectively referred to as "the patents in suit" and are listed in the FDA's Orange Book in connection with Oxtellar XR®, Supernus' extended-release oxcarbazepine formulation.

The Crux of the Dispute

ANDA Filing and Paragraph IV Certification

The conflict arose when RiconPharma filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) No. 215796 with the FDA. This application sought approval to manufacture and sell a generic version of Supernus' Oxtellar XR® product. As part of this process, RiconPharma included a "paragraph IV" certification, asserting that Supernus' patents were invalid, unenforceable, or would not be infringed by their generic product.

Supernus' Response

Upon receiving notice of RiconPharma's ANDA filing, Supernus initiated this patent infringement lawsuit. The company alleges that RiconPharma's actions constitute infringement under various provisions of U.S. patent law, including 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A), which specifically addresses infringement through the filing of an ANDA.

Legal Arguments and Claims

Direct and Indirect Infringement

Supernus argues that RiconPharma's actions constitute both direct and indirect infringement of their patents. The complaint alleges that the commercial manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, and/or importation of RiconPharma's generic product would infringe one or more claims of each patent in suit.

Inducement and Contributory Infringement

Furthermore, Supernus contends that RiconPharma's offering for sale and/or sale of their generic product would induce and/or contribute to third-party infringement of the patents. This argument extends the scope of potential infringement beyond RiconPharma's direct actions to include the actions of others who might use or sell the generic product.

The "Homogeneous Matrix" Debate

One of the key points of contention in this case revolves around the interpretation of the term "homogeneous matrix" used in the patent claims. This technical dispute highlights the importance of precise language in patent drafting and the complexities involved in pharmaceutical formulations.

"The core of the dispute is whether those ingredients must be uniformly dispersed in a matrix (Supernus's position), or whether they must be uniformly dispersed throughout the entire tablet or dosage form (Ricon's position)."[4]

Supernus' Interpretation

Supernus argues for a broader interpretation of "homogeneous matrix," suggesting that the uniformly dispersed ingredients need only be present within a matrix, not necessarily throughout the entire tablet. This interpretation would allow for multi-layer tablets or other complex formulations to fall within the scope of their patents.

RiconPharma's Counter-Argument

RiconPharma, on the other hand, pushes for a narrower interpretation. They contend that a "homogeneous matrix" requires uniform dispersion throughout the entire tablet, which would exclude multi-layer tablets or formulations with distinct compartments.

The Markman Hearing and Claim Construction

A crucial phase in this patent infringement case was the Markman hearing, held on October 19, 2022. This hearing, named after the landmark Supreme Court case Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., is a pretrial hearing where the court determines the proper interpretation of disputed terms in a patent claim.

Key Terms Under Scrutiny

The court focused on two main claim terms:

"A pharmaceutical formulation comprising ... a homogeneous matrix comprising"
"At least one release-promoting agent comprising a polymer having pH-dependent solubility"

The Court's Interpretation

After careful consideration of both parties' arguments and the patent specifications, the court leaned towards Supernus' interpretation of the "homogeneous matrix" term. The court found no basis in the patent itself for limiting the invention to single-layer tablets or requiring homogeneity throughout the entire dosage form.

Implications for the Pharmaceutical Industry

This case highlights several critical aspects of pharmaceutical patent litigation:

1. The Importance of Precise Patent Language

The dispute over the term "homogeneous matrix" underscores the need for clear, unambiguous language in patent claims. Even small differences in interpretation can have significant implications for patent scope and enforceability.

2. The Complexity of Pharmaceutical Formulations

The technical nature of the dispute reflects the intricate science behind drug formulations. Patents in this field must balance broad protection with specific technical details.

3. The Role of Generic Challenges

This case exemplifies the ongoing tension between brand-name pharmaceutical companies and generic manufacturers. It illustrates the legal strategies employed by both sides in the battle for market share.

4. The Economic Stakes

Patent infringement cases in the pharmaceutical industry often involve substantial economic interests. The outcome can significantly impact a company's market position and revenue streams.

The Broader Context: Patent Law and Innovation

This case is not just about two companies and a set of patents; it reflects broader issues in patent law and its role in fostering innovation.

Balancing Innovation and Competition

Patent law aims to strike a delicate balance between protecting innovators' rights and promoting healthy competition. Cases like this one test the boundaries of this balance, potentially influencing future patent strategies and regulatory approaches.

The Role of Generic Drugs

Generic drugs play a crucial role in making medications more affordable and accessible. However, the path to market for these drugs is often fraught with legal challenges, as illustrated by this case.

The Future of Pharmaceutical Patents

As pharmaceutical companies continue to develop more complex and sophisticated drug formulations, patent disputes are likely to become increasingly technical and nuanced. This case may set important precedents for how courts interpret patent claims in the future.

Key Takeaways

The case highlights the critical importance of precise language in patent claims, especially in the pharmaceutical industry.
The interpretation of technical terms like "homogeneous matrix" can significantly impact the scope and enforceability of patents.
Generic drug manufacturers face substantial legal hurdles when challenging patents held by brand-name pharmaceutical companies.
The outcome of such cases can have far-reaching implications for drug accessibility and pharmaceutical market dynamics.
Patent infringement lawsuits in the pharmaceutical sector often involve complex scientific and legal arguments, requiring courts to delve into technical details.

FAQs

Q: What is an ANDA, and why is it significant in this case? A: An Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) is a simplified submission process for generic drug approval. It's significant because filing an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification triggers the potential for patent infringement lawsuits.
Q: What is a Markman hearing? A: A Markman hearing is a pretrial hearing in patent infringement cases where the court interprets the meaning of key terms in the patent claims. It's named after the Supreme Court case Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.
Q: How does the "homogeneous matrix" debate affect the case? A: The interpretation of "homogeneous matrix" could determine whether RiconPharma's generic product infringes on Supernus' patents. A broader interpretation favors Supernus, while a narrower one could benefit RiconPharma.
Q: What are the potential outcomes of this case? A: Possible outcomes include a finding of infringement (favoring Supernus), a finding of non-infringement (favoring RiconPharma), or a settlement between the parties. The court could also invalidate some or all of the patents in question.
Q: How might this case impact future pharmaceutical patent disputes? A: This case could set precedents for how courts interpret technical terms in pharmaceutical patents and how they balance the interests of brand-name and generic drug manufacturers. It may influence future patent drafting strategies and the approach to ANDA filings.

Sources cited:

More… ↓

⤷ Try for Free