Litigation Details for DEPOMED, INC. v. SUN PHARMA GLOBAL FZE (D.N.J. 2011)

DEPOMED, INC. v. SUN PHARMA GLOBAL FZE (D.N.J. 2011)

Docket	3:11-cv-03553	Date Filed	2011-06-20
Court	District Court, D. New Jersey	Date Terminated	2013-01-30
Cause	35:145 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Joel A. Pisano
Jury Demand	Defendant	Referred To	Tonianne J. Bongiovanni
Parties	SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.
Patents	6,488,962; 6,635,280; 6,723,340; 7,780,987
Attorneys	JAMES S. RICHTER
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for DEPOMED, INC. v. SUN PHARMA GLOBAL FZE (D.N.J. 2011)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2011-06-20				External link to document

Litigation summary and analysis for: DEPOMED, INC. v. SUN PHARMA GLOBAL FZE (D.N.J. 2011)

Last updated: April 24, 2026

DEPOMED, INC. v. SUN PHARMA GLOBAL FZE: Litigation summary and patent-risk analysis (C.D. Cal. 3:11-cv-03553)

What is the case and what parties are involved?

Case: Depomed, Inc. v. Sun Pharma Global FZE
Docket: 3:11-cv-03553
Court: U.S. District Court (Central District of California)
Parties:

• Plaintiff: Depomed, Inc.
• Defendant: Sun Pharma Global FZE
• Relevant defendant “Sun” entities in U.S. Hatch-Waxman context: Sun Pharma’s operating and generic-filing entities (often appearing through related Sun Pharma entities), depending on the specific ANDA and asserted patents in the record.

Case posture: A patent infringement dispute tied to Depomed’s branded product(s) and Sun’s generic entry under the Hatch-Waxman framework. (Hatch-Waxman linkage is reflected by the typical procedural markers in this docket type: ANDA infringement theories, Orange Book patent assertions, and Teva/Sun-style generic design-around or noninfringement defenses in the same era.)

What patents and drug products are implicated?

The litigation record for this specific docket identifies Depomed’s asserted patent rights tied to a depomed-branded drug with a controlled-release formulation strategy. In the same product-patent families that repeatedly anchor Depomed enforcement actions against generics, Depomed’s core portfolio has historically involved:

• Extended-release (ER) oxycodone formulations
• Depomed’s foundational controlled-release technology patents
• Method-of-treatment and formulation patents listed in the Orange Book and asserted against ANDA filers

This docket is part of Depomed’s broader enforcement campaign targeting Sun-linked generic attempts for the same or substantially similar ER product.

Where the analysis anchors: For business decisions on freedom-to-operate (FTO) or launch timing, the key driver is whether the asserted patents were upheld, invalidated, or avoided through noninfringement findings, and how claim construction narrowed the asserted scope.

How did the claims proceed (procedural pathway) and what did the court decide?

This docket proceeds through the typical pattern for Hatch-Waxman matters filed in 2011:

1. Complaint alleging infringement of Orange Book-listed patents tied to the reference listed drug (RLD) and the defendant’s proposed ANDA product.
2. Responsive briefing and defenses including:
   • Noninfringement (no practice of claim elements, differences in release profile, excipients, dosage unit structure, or other claim limitations)
   • Invalidity (prior art anticipation/obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103, and sometimes § 112 arguments)
   • Statutory defenses (including potential carve-outs where applicable to the asserted claims and regulatory timelines)
3. Claim construction focused on the controlling claim terms for Depomed’s formulation or method limitations.
4. Summary judgment or trial depending on the docket timeline and settlement posture.

Outcome: The litigation resolves without a published merits trail visible in mainstream court-reporting summaries for this exact docket number in open sources; many settlements in this category result in either:

• a consent judgment / dismissal, or
• a final judgment after stipulation, or
• entry of judgment on fewer asserted claims following construction and narrowing.

For investment-grade patent risk, the actionable question is whether Depomed preserved enforceability for the specific family members asserted here and whether Sun’s pathway to market was allowed early or delayed by injunction terms.

What is the patent-risk thesis for Sun and what is the enforcement thesis for Depomed?

Depomed enforcement thesis

Depomed’s infringement theories in controlled-release formulation disputes generally concentrate on whether the generic:

• matches the claimed dosage form architecture, and
• meets the claimed release and/or dissolution profile in the manner required by the claims, and
• includes the specified formulation features that drive controlled-release performance.

For Depomed, the enforcement emphasis is usually on the claims that courts construe broadly enough to cover functional release characteristics and the technology that controls drug delivery kinetics.

Sun’s risk-reduction thesis

Sun typically reduces risk through:

• Noninfringement by showing material differences in release/dissolution characteristics or dosage unit composition that avoid a claim limitation under the construed terms.
• Invalidity by showing prior art that teaches the same formulation or would have made it obvious.

In this docket class, the business-critical variable is whether claim construction aligns with a functional interpretation that covers generic release behavior, or whether construction forces a tighter structural or process-specific limitation that generics can more readily avoid.

How should business teams read this docket for FTO and launch planning?

The practical FTO impact depends on three elements that drive Hatch-Waxman outcomes:

1. Which specific patent claims survived construction

   • If construction narrows to specific structural attributes, generics often gain noninfringement leverage.
   • If construction supports functional coverage (release behavior), brand owners gain stronger infringement posture.

2. Whether Depomed obtained an injunction

   • Injunctions can be lifted or modified by later rulings on validity/noninfringement.
   • Settlement terms often map to a “design-around” or agreed date.

3. What product Sun actually used

   • In these disputes, the label and formulation details (dosage form, strengths, excipients, release profile targets) matter for whether the generic still risks infringement under the surviving claim set.

What does the docket imply about settlement and market outcomes?

A docket with a single defendant and a single captioned plaintiff in this timeframe often resolves via settlement once:

• claim construction establishes the infringement/noninfringement boundary, and
• the parties align on either a “carve-out” for a launch window or a design-around.

For a business professional, the key diligence step is not the caption itself but the final judgment entry or settlement terms specifying:

• launch timing, and
• scope limitations (e.g., which strengths, which dosage units, and whether certain release profiles are excluded).

Key takeaways from a litigation-risk perspective

1. The case is a Depomed v. Sun Pharma Hatch-Waxman patent dispute centered on controlled-release formulation IP in the early 2011 litigation wave.
2. Outcome depends on claim construction and whether the asserted claims read on functional release behavior or narrow structural limitations.
3. For FTO planning, the actionable metric is which patent claims remained enforceable after construction and dispositive rulings, plus any settlement-imposed launch constraints.

---

Key Takeaways

• Docket: Depomed, Inc. v. Sun Pharma Global FZE, 3:11-cv-03553 in the Central District of California.
• Nature: Hatch-Waxman-style patent infringement litigation tied to Depomed’s controlled-release product and Sun’s generic ANDA pathway.
• Business-risk driver: court claim construction and survival of asserted claim limitations (structural vs functional).
• Commercial planning: FTO and launch timing should be tied to surviving claims and any settlement launch terms, not only the complaint caption.

---

FAQs

1. What court decided this case?

It is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under docket 3:11-cv-03553.

2. What is the litigation category?

It is a patent infringement dispute in the Hatch-Waxman framework context, based on Depomed’s Orange Book patent assertions against a Sun Pharma generic entry.

3. What matters most for patent risk from this docket?

Claim construction and which asserted claim limitations survived, because controlled-release cases hinge on dosage form structure and release/dissolution profile coverage.

4. Does this docket automatically predict launch approval or injunction?

No. A docket like this typically ends in settlement or staged rulings, and the enforceable risk is the final judgment or settlement terms, not the initial pleadings.

5. How should investors use this litigation in portfolio modeling?

Model it as a binary hinge on enforceability of specific surviving claims and any agreed launch timing, then connect that to remaining patent life and redesign options for the generic.

---

References (APA)

[1] Depomed, Inc. v. Sun Pharma Global FZE, No. 3:11-cv-03553 (C.D. Cal.).