Item 3. Legal Proceedings
ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.
From time to time and in the ordinary course of business, Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Company") and any of its subsidiaries may be subject to various claims, charges and litigation. Parent and any of its subsidiaries may be required to file infringement claims against third parties for the infringement of our patents.
Oxtellar XR ®
I. Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Ajanta Pharma Limited, C.A. No. 22-cv-1431 (GBW) (D. Del.)
The Company received a Paragraph IV Notice Letter from generic drug maker Ajanta Pharma Limited (“Ajanta”) dated September 19, 2022, directed to ten of its Oxtellar XR® Orange Book patents. Supernus’s U.S. Patent Nos. 7,722,898; 7,910,131; 8,617,600; 8,821,930; 9,119,791; 9,351,975; 9,370,525; 9,855,278; 10,220,042; and 11,166,960 generally cover once-a-day oxcarbazepine formulations and methods of treating seizures using those formulations. The FDA Orange Book lists all ten of the Company’s Oxtellar XR® patents as expiring on April 13, 2027. On October 28, 2022, the Company filed a lawsuit against Ajanta alleging infringement of the Company’s ten Oxtellar XR® patents. The Complaint—filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware—alleges, among other things, that Ajanta infringed the Company’s Oxtellar XR® patents by submitting to the FDA an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) seeking to market a generic version of Oxtellar XR® prior to the expiration of the Company’s patents. Filing its October 28, 2022 Complaint within 45 days of receiving Ajanta’s Paragraph IV certification notice entitles Supernus to an automatic stay preventing the FDA from approving Ajanta’s ANDA for 30 months from the date of the Company’s receipt of the Paragraph IV Notice Letter. On January 3, 2023, Ajanta answered the Complaint and denied the substantive allegations of the Complaint, asserting affirmative defenses that include non-infringement and invalidity. Ajanta also asserted Counterclaims seeking declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity. On January
68
Table of Contents
24, 2023, the Company filed its Reply, denying the substantive allegations of Ajanta’s Counterclaims. The Court issued a Scheduling Order on July 13, 2023, that set a trial date of February 10, 2025. The Company entered into a settlement agreement with Ajanta, and on January 18, 2024, a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice was entered by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The agreement has been submitted to the applicable governmental agencies.
II. Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. and Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., C.A. No. 24-cv-9380 (KMW) (MJS) (D.N.J)
The Company received a Paragraph IV Notice Letter from generic drug maker Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. dated August 9, 2024, directed to eleven of its Oxtellar XR® Orange Book patents. Supernus’s U.S. Patent Nos. 7,722,898; 7,910,131; 8,617,600; 8,821,930; 9,119,791; 9,351,975; 9,370,525; 9,855,278; 10,220,042; 11,166,960; and 11,896,599 generally cover once-a-day oxcarbazepine formulations and methods of treating seizures using those formulations. The FDA Orange Book lists all eleven of the Company’s Oxtellar XR® patents as expiring on April 13, 2027. On September 23, 2024, the Company filed a lawsuit against Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. and Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. (collectively, “Aurobindo”) alleging infringement of the Company’s eleven Oxtellar XR® patents. The Complaint—filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey—alleges, among other things, that Aurobindo infringed the Company’s Oxtellar XR® patents by submitting to the FDA an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) seeking to market a generic version of Oxtellar XR® prior to the expiration of the Company’s patents. Filing its September 23, 2024, Complaint within 45 days of receiving Aurobindo’s Paragraph IV certification notice entitles Supernus to an automatic stay preventing the FDA from approving Aurobindo’s ANDA for 30 months from the date of the Company’s receipt of the Paragraph IV Notice Letter. The Company entered into a settlement agreement with Aurobindo, and on December 9, 2024, a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice was entered by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The agreement has been submitted to the applicable governmental agencies.
Trokendi XR ®
III. Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Ajanta Pharma Limited, et al., C.A. No. 21-cv-6964 (GC)(DEA) (D.N.J.)
The Company received a Paragraph IV Notice Letter from generic drug maker Ajanta Pharma Limited dated February 10, 2021, directed to ten of its Trokendi XR® Orange Book patents. Supernus’s U.S. Patent Nos. 8,298,576; 8,298,580; 8,663,683; 8,877,248; 8,889,191; 8,992,989; 9,549,940; 9,555,004; 9,622,983; and 10,314,790 generally cover once-a-day topiramate formulations and methods of treating or preventing seizures and migraines using those formulations. The FDA Orange Book currently lists United States Patent No. 8,298,576 as expiring on April 4, 2028, and United States Patent Nos. 8,298,580; 8,663,683; 8,877,248; 8,889,191; 8,992,989; 9,549,940; 9,555,004; 9,622,983; and 10,314,790 as expiring on November 16, 2027. On March 26, 2021, the Company filed a lawsuit against Ajanta Pharma Limited and Ajanta Pharma USA Inc. (collectively “Ajanta”) alleging infringement of the Company’s Trokendi XR® Orange Book patents. The Complaint—filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey—alleges, among other things, that Ajanta infringed the Company’s Trokendi XR® patents by submitting to the FDA an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) seeking to market a generic version of Trokendi XR® prior to the expiration of the Company’s patents. Filing its March 26, 2021, Complaint within 45 days of receiving Ajanta’s Paragraph IV certification notice entitles Supernus to an automatic stay preventing the FDA from approving Ajanta’s ANDA for 30 months from the date of the Company’s receipt of the Paragraph IV Notice Letter. On June 7, 2021, Ajanta answered the Complaint and denied the substantive allegations of the Complaint, asserting affirmative defenses that include non-infringement and invalidity. Ajanta also asserted Counterclaims seeking declaratory judgments of non‑infringement and invalidity for the Trokendi XR® Orange Book patents. On June 28, 2021, the Company filed its reply, denying the substantive allegations of Ajanta’s Counterclaims. Following the initial Rule 16 Scheduling Conference, the Court issued a case schedule. On December 17, 2021, the Court issued an order consolidating this lawsuit with the lawsuit against Torrent, discussed in Section IV, below. The consolidation order extended the 30‑month stay preventing the FDA from approving Ajanta’s ANDA to December 16, 2023. The Company entered into a settlement agreement with Ajanta, and on April 4, 2023, a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice was entered by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The agreement has been submitted to the applicable governmental agencies.
IV. Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 21-cv-14268 (GC)(DEA) (D.N.J.); Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Ajanta Pharma Limited, et al., Appeal No. 2024-1606 (Fed. Cir.)
The Company received a Paragraph IV Notice Letter from generic drug maker Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. dated June 15, 2021, directed to ten of its Trokendi XR® Orange Book patents. Supernus’s U.S. Patent Nos. 8,298,576; 8,298,580; 8,663,683; 8,877,248; 8,889,191; 8,992,989; 9,549,940; 9,555,004; 9,622,983; and 10,314,790 generally cover once-a-day topiramate formulations and methods of treating or preventing seizures and migraines using those formulations. The FDA Orange Book currently lists United States Patent No. 8,298,576 as expiring on April 4, 2028, and United States Patent Nos. 8,298,580; 8,663,683; 8,877,248; 8,889,191; 8,992,989; 9,549,940; 9,555,004; 9,622,983; and 10,314,790 as expiring on November 16, 2027. On July 28, 2021, the Company filed a lawsuit against Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Torrent Pharma Inc. (collectively,
69
Table of Contents
“Torrent”) alleging infringement of the Company’s Trokendi XR® Orange Book patents. The Complaint—filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey—alleges, among other things, that Torrent infringed the Company’s Trokendi XR® patents by submitting to the FDA an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) seeking to market a generic version of Trokendi XR® prior to the expiration of the Company’s patents. Filing its July 28, 2021 Complaint within 45 days of receiving Torrent’s Paragraph IV certification notice entitles Supernus to an automatic stay preventing the FDA from approving Torrent’s ANDA for 30 months from the date of the Company’s receipt of the Paragraph IV Notice Letter. On September 29, 2021, Torrent answered the Complaint and denied the substantive allegations of the Complaint, asserting affirmative defenses that include non-infringement and invalidity. Torrent also asserted Counterclaims seeking declaratory judgments of non‑infringement for the Trokendi XR® Orange Book patents. On November 3, 2021, the Company filed its reply, denying the substantive allegations of Torrent’s Counterclaims. Following the initial Rule 16 Scheduling Conference, the Court issued a case schedule. On December 17, 2021, the Court issued an order consolidating this lawsuit with the lawsuit against Ajanta, discussed in Section III, above. The Court held a bench trial between July 31, 2023, and August 3, 2023. Closing arguments for the trial were held on October 4, 2023. On December 12, 2023, the Court issued an Order enjoining Torrent from launching its generic drug product through January 31, 2024, or until the Court’s trial decision issues, whichever is sooner. On January 30, 2024, the Court issued a Trial Opinion and Order, deciding in Supernus’s favor that the patent claims that Supernus asserted at trial against Torrent are both valid and infringed. The District Court entered a Final Judgment in Supernus’s favor on February 22, 2024.
On March 4, 2024, Torrent filed a Notice of Appeal of the Final Judgment with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit docketed the appeal as Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Ajanta Pharma Limited because the lawsuit against Torrent was previously consolidated with the lawsuit against Ajanta ( see Section III above). The Court has not set the date for oral argument.
V. Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Ascent Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al., C.A. No. 23-cv-4015 (GC)(DEA) (D.N.J.)
The Company received a Paragraph IV Notice Letter from generic drug maker Ascent Pharmaceuticals Inc. dated June 15, 2023, directed to ten of its Trokendi XR® Orange Book patents. Supernus’s U.S. Patent Nos. 8,298,576; 8,298,580; 8,663,683; 8,877,248; 8,889,191; 8,992,989; 9,549,940; 9,555,004; 9,622,983; and 10,314,790 generally cover once-a-day topiramate formulations and methods of treating or preventing seizures and migraines using those formulations. The FDA Orange Book currently lists United States Patent No. 8,298,576 as expiring on April 4, 2028, and United States Patent Nos. 8,298,580; 8,663,683; 8,877,248; 8,889,191; 8,992,989; 9,549,940; 9,555,004; 9,622,983; and 10,314,790 as expiring on November 16, 2027. On July 26, 2023, the Company filed a lawsuit against Ascent Pharmaceuticals Inc., ("Ascent Pharma") Camber Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Hetero Labs Ltd. (collectively, “Ascent”) alleging infringement of the Company’s Trokendi XR® Orange Book patents. The Complaint—filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey—alleges, among other things, that Ascent infringed the Company’s Trokendi XR® patents by submitting to the FDA an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) seeking to market a generic version of Trokendi XR® prior to the expiration of the Company’s patents. Filing its July 26, 2023 Complaint within 45 days of receiving Ascent’s Paragraph IV certification notice entitles Supernus to an automatic stay preventing the FDA from approving Ascent’s ANDA for 30 months from the date of the Company’s receipt of the Paragraph IV Notice Letter. On September 28, 2023, the Court entered a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice as to only defendants Camber and Hetero, which included stipulations that, among other things: (i) Ascent Pharma will not contest personal jurisdiction or venue in this District for this Action; (ii) Camber and Hetero will be bound by any injunction in this Action to the extent it concerns the Ascent ANDA; and (iii) Ascent Pharma will collect and produce any relevant discovery that is in the possession, custody, or control of Camber and Hetero. On October 11, 2023, Ascent Pharma answered the Complaint and denied the substantive allegations of the Complaint, asserting affirmative defenses that include non-infringement and invalidity. The Company entered into a settlement agreement with Ascent Pharma, and on May 2, 2024, a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice was entered by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The agreement has been submitted to the applicable governmental agencies.
VI. Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Micro Labs Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 24-cv-9338 (ZNQ)(JTQ) (D.N.J.)
The Company received a Paragraph IV Notice Letter from generic drug maker Micro Labs Ltd. dated August 13, 2024, directed to ten of its Trokendi XR® Orange Book patents. Supernus’s U.S. Patent Nos. 8,298,576; 8,298,580; 8,663,683; 8,877,248; 8,889,191; 8,992,989; 9,549,940; 9,555,004; 9,622,983; and 10,314,790 generally cover once-a-day topiramate formulations and methods of treating or preventing seizures and migraines using those formulations. The FDA Orange Book currently lists U.S. Patent No. 8,298,576 as expiring on April 4, 2028, and U.S. Patent Nos. 8,298,580; 8,663,683; 8,877,248; 8,889,191; 8,992,989; 9,549,940; 9,555,004; 9,622,983; and 10,314,790 as expiring on November 16, 2027. On September 20, 2024, the Company filed a lawsuit against Micro Labs Ltd. and Micro Labs USA, Inc. (collectively, “Micro Labs”) alleging infringement of the Company’s Trokendi XR® Orange Book patents. The Complaint—filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey—alleges, among other things, that Micro Labs infringed the Company’s Trokendi XR® patents by submitting to the FDA an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) seeking to market a generic version of Trokendi XR®
70
Table of Contents
prior to the expiration of the Company’s patents. Filing its September 20, 2024, Complaint within 45 days of receiving Micro Labs’ Paragraph IV certification notice entitles Supernus to an automatic stay preventing the FDA from approving Micro Labs’ ANDA for 30 months from the date of the Company’s receipt of the Paragraph IV Notice Letter. The Company entered into a settlement agreement with Micro Labs, and on December 31, 2024, a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice was entered by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The agreement has been submitted to the applicable governmental agencies.
APOKYN®
VII. Sage Chemical, Inc., et al. v. Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 22-cv-1302 (CJB) (D. Del.)
On October 3, 2022, Sage Chemical, Inc. and TruPharma, LLC filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Britannia Pharmaceuticals Limited (“Britannia”), and US WorldMeds Partners, LLC (“US WorldMeds”) violated state and federal antitrust law in connection with APOKYN® (apomorphine HCl). On October 16, 2022, Plaintiffs amended their complaint to add additional defendants MDD US Enterprises, LLC, MDD US Operations, LLC (each a subsidiary of Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.), USWM, LLC (“USWM”), and individual defendants Paul Breckinridge Jones, Sr., Herbert Lee Warren, Jr., Henry Van Den Berg, and Kristin L. Gullo. On January 10, 2023, Defendants filed an Omnibus Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint seeking dismissal of each of Plaintiffs’ claims and the lawsuit in its entirety and US WorldMeds with USWM, Britannia, and the group of individual defendants each filed separate motions to dismiss. On May 9, 2024, and May 28, 2024, respectively, the Court denied the Defendants’ omnibus motion and the Britannia motion to dismiss. On May 31, 2024, and June 4, 2024, respectively, the Court granted the individual defendants’ motion to dismiss and the US WorldMeds and USWM motion to dismiss. On December 6, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which added back to the case US WorldMeds and USWM. On November 4, 2024, the Court issued a scheduling order that provides for a Pretrial Conference on December 10, 2025, and a jury trial beginning on January 5, 2026. Pretrial discovery is ongoing as of the date of this submission. On January 3, 2025, the Court issued an Oral Order requiring the parties to “engage in in-person mediation in good faith” and jointly select an agreed-upon mediator. The parties are working to schedule the mediation to occur in late April 2025 in compliance with Court’s Oral Order that the mediation conference “occur no later than May 2, 2025 (unless the parties stipulate to a later date and such date is approved by the Court)."
VIII. US WorldMeds Partners, LLC v. Federal Insurance Company, et al, Case Nos. 24-CI-2529; 24-CI-4195; 24-CI-4631; and 24-CI-6988) (D.Del)
Alleged competitors of Supernus filed a lawsuit against the Company, MDD US Enterprises, LLC, and MDD Operations, LLC (collectively "Enterprises") and others in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Underlying Action”). After a dispute over coverage under certain insurance policies arose, Enterprises commenced a declaratory judgment action against Federal Insurance Company, RSUI Indemnity Company, and StarStone Specialty Insurance Company and others to recover insurance benefits. US WorldMeds Partners, LLC, RSUI and StarStone commenced similar declaratory judgment actions in connection with the Underlying Action. These related actions were recently consolidated. This case is in its early stages. Supernus awaits responsive pleadings to its Complaint. Discovery has not yet commenced in the consolidated action. An initial post consolidation court conference is scheduled for February 12, 2025.
IX. Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Old Republic Insurance Company, 8:24-cv-03733-PJM) (D.Maryland)
The action seeks recovery of insurance benefits in connection with the Underlying Action in the US WorldMeds Partners, LLC v Federal Insurance Company case. This case is in its early stages. Supernus awaits a responsive pleading to its Complaint. Discovery has not yet commenced.
Adamas Litigation
In November 2012, Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Adamas) granted Forest Laboratories Holdings Limited, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Allergan plc (Forest), an exclusive license to certain of Adamas's intellectual property rights relating to human therapeutics containing memantine in the United States. Under the terms of that license agreement, Forest has the right to enforce such intellectual property rights which are related to its right to market and sell Namzaric and NAMENDA XR for the treatment of moderate to severe dementia related to Alzheimer's disease. Adamas has a right to participate in, but not control, such enforcement actions by Forest.
Since 2018 multiple generic companies have launched generic versions of NAMENDA XR. A number of companies have submitted ANDAs including one or more certifications to the FDA, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(2)(A)(vii)(iv), requesting approval to manufacture and market generic versions of Namzaric, on which Adamas became entitled to receive royalties from Forest beginning in May 2020.
71
Table of Contents
Adamas and Forest have settled with all such Namzaric ANDA filers, including all first filers on all the available dosage forms of Namzaric. Subject to those agreements, the earliest date on which any of these agreements grant a license to market a Namzaric ANDA filer's generic version of Namzaric is January 1, 2025 (or earlier in certain circumstances). Alternatively, the Namzaric ANDA filers with the earliest date have the option to launch an authorized generic version of Namzaric beginning on January 1, 2026 instead of launching their own generic version of Namzaric on January 1, 2025. Adamas and Forest intend to continue to enforce the patents associated with Namzaric.
On April 1, 2019, Adamas was served with a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:18-cv-03018-JCS) against it and several Forest and Allergan entities alleging violations of federal and state false claims acts (FCA) in connection with the commercialization of NAMENDA XR and Namzaric by Allergan. The lawsuit is a qui tam complaint brought by a named individual, Zachary Silbersher, asserting rights of the Federal government and various state governments. The lawsuit was originally filed in May 2018 under seal, and Adamas became aware of the lawsuit when it was served. The complaint alleges that patents held by Allergan and Adamas covering NAMENDA XR and Namzaric were procured through fraud on the United States Patent and Trademark Office and that these patents were asserted against potential generic manufacturers of NAMENDA XR and Namzaric to prevent the generic manufacturers from entering the market, thereby wrongfully excluding generic competition resulting in artificially high prices being charged to government payors.
Adamas's patents in question were licensed exclusively to Forest. The complaint includes a claim for damages of “potentially more than $2.5 billion dollars,” treble damages and statutory penalties. To date the federal and state governments have declined to intervene in this action. This case is currently stayed pending Adamas's and Allergan's interlocutory appeal of the District Court's December 11, 2020 order denying Adamas's and Allergan's motions to dismiss the complaint. The appeal was heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Case No. 21-80005). Argument was held on January 10, 2022. On August 25, 2022, the Ninth Circuit sided with the defendants by reversing the District Court’s public disclosure bar rulings and remanding the case back to the District Court to decide certain issues in the first instance. On October 11, 2022, the plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing with the Ninth Circuit, which was denied. On December 23, 2022, defendants filed renewed motions to dismiss directed to the remaining unresolved issue. On March 20, 2023, the District Court entered an order and final judgment dismissing with prejudice the FCA claim while declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state false claims act claims which were dismissed without prejudice. On April 19, 2023, the plaintiff appealed the District Court's dismissal of the Federal False Claims Act claim. On February 20, 2024, the plaintiff filed a motion for an indicative ruling and to set aside the judgment in the District Court, based on the same arguments raised in his appeal. That motion was fully briefed and the District Court determined that the motion for an indicative ruling was suitable for determination without a hearing. On May 7, 2024, the District Court denied the plaintiff’s motion for an indicative ruling. The appeal is fully briefed, and the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on November 21, 2024. On January 29, 2025, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order dismissing the litigation. The plaintiff intends to file a Petition for Panel and En Banc Rehearing and has asked the Ninth Circuit to extend his filing deadline until March 31, 2025.
On December 10, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the federal securities laws was filed by Ali Zaidi against Adamas and certain of Adamas's former directors and officers in federal court in the Northern District of California (Case No. 4:19-cv-08051). This lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by Adamas and certain of Adamas's former directors and officers. On October 8, 2021, the presiding judge dismissed the litigation, and granted Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. On November 5, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their second amended class action complaint. On December 10, 2021, Adamas filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs opposed the motion to dismiss. On January 13, 2023, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. All claims against Adamas have been dismissed with prejudice, but claims against one of the individual defendants, who may have certain rights to indemnification, remain. On February 27, 2023, Plaintiffs advised the Court that Plaintiffs would proceed only on the remaining claim against one of the individual defendants. The individual defendant filed an answer denying the claim on April 28, 2023. On September 21, 2023, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the Zaidi litigation, subject to court approval. On October 31, 2023, the Court granted the parties' stipulation staying all proceedings and vacating all existing deadlines. On April 2, 2024, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement of the case, including a $4.7 million payment from insurers, subject to further consideration at a settlement hearing to be held in September 2024. On September 27, 2024, the Court granted final approval of the class action settlement, dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, and final judgment was entered.
Adamas believes it has strong factual and legal defenses to all actions and intends to defend itself vigorously.
ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES.
Not applicable.
72
Table of Contents
PART II