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

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

Docket	2:21-cv-12133-KM-MAH	Date Filed	2021-06-03
Court	District Court, D. New Jersey	Date Terminated
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Kevin McNulty
Jury Demand		Referred To	Michael A. Hammer
Patents	10,220,042; 7,722,898; 7,910,131; 8,821,930; 9,119,791; 9,351,975; 9,370,525; 9,855,278
Link to Docket	External link to docket

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

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	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

Litigation Summary and Analysis for SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. RICONPHARMA LLC, 2:21-cv-12133-KM-MAH

Last updated: February 20, 2026

What is the scope of the litigation?

Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against RiconPharma LLC in the District of New Jersey on December 9, 2021. The case number is 2:21-cv-12133-KM-MAH. The core issue concerns allegations that RiconPharma has infringed on Supernus’s patents related to formulations for neurological disorder treatments.

What patents are involved?

Supernus asserts patent rights over U.S. Patent Nos. 9,859,174 and 10,534,285. These patents cover specific formulations of extended-release formulations of topiramate and other neuroactive agents.

Patent Number	Filing Date	Issue Date	Key Claims	Term Expiry (Estimated)
9,859,174	April 19, 2016	Jan. 2, 2018	Extended-release formulations of topiramate	Jan 2036 (assuming 20-year term)
10,534,285	July 16, 2018	Jan. 14, 2020	Methods of synthesis and formulations	Jan 2038

What are the allegations?

Supernus claims that RiconPharma infringes these patents by manufacturing and selling its own extended-release neuroactive formulations. The complaint alleges direct infringement, induced infringement, and contributory infringement.

What procedural actions have occurred?

• December 9, 2021: Complaint filed.
• February 2022: RiconPharma filed a motion to dismiss claiming non-infringement and insufficient claims.
• July 2022: The court denied RiconPharma’s motion, allowing the case to proceed to discovery.
• October 2022: Disclosed claim constructions from the court.
• January 2023: RiconPharma filed an answer denying infringement and raising defenses including invalidity based on prior art.
• March 2023: Parties engaged in discovery; Supernus produced patent prosecution histories, RiconPharma conducted depositions.

What is the current status?

As of September 2023, the case remains in the pre-trial phase. No final judgment or settlement has been announced. Both parties have filed preliminary expert reports. The case is scheduled for a Markman hearing (claim construction) in Q4 2023.

What are the potential legal risks and implications?

• Infringement findings could lead to injunctions preventing RiconPharma from manufacturing or selling infringing formulations.
• Damages may be awarded based on past infringement, as well as potential treble damages if willfulness is proven.
• Invalidity defenses, if successful, could nullify the patents, eliminating Supernus’s case.
• Settlement negotiations could result in licensing agreements or cross-licenses, especially if RiconPharma’s formulations are competitive.

How does this compare to industry trends?

The case reflects the ongoing patent disputes within neuropharmaceuticals, especially for formulations seeking market exclusivity for complex drug delivery systems. Litigation often centers around claim scope, patent validity, and market position.

Key Takeaways

• The case centers on formulation and method patents for extended-release neuroactive drugs.
• RiconPharma’s defenses include non-infringement and patent invalidity based on prior art.
• The case’s outcome hinges on key claim constructions and validation of patent claims.
• The case remains unresolved; future proceedings will influence market competition and licensing strategies.

FAQs

1. What is the likely duration of the litigation?
Typically, patent infringement cases in this stage take 1-3 years to resolve, depending on motions, discovery, and trial schedule.

2. Could this case lead to a settlement?
Yes, patent disputes frequently settle through licensing agreements or cross-licensing, especially if the financial impact or infringement risks are high.

3. What is the significance of the patents in question?
They protect formulations and methods associated with extended-release neuroactive drugs, which are critical in treating epilepsy, migraine, and bipolar disorder.

4. How might invalidity claims impact the case?
If RiconPharma successfully invalidates the patents based on prior art, Supernus’s infringement claim could be defeated.

5. Are there broader implications for the neuropharmaceutical industry?
Yes, patent disputes in this space influence R&D investment, formulation development, and market exclusivity strategies.

---

References

[1] U.S. Federal Court Docket for Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. RiconPharma LLC. (2021). Retrieved from PACER. [2] U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. (2018). Patent No. 9,859,174; Patent No. 10,534,285. [3] LexisNexis Patent Litigation Tracker. (2023). Case updates on 2:21-cv-12133-KM-MAH.