Litigation Details for SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. PAR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC. (D.N.J. 2015)

SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. PAR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC. (D.N.J. 2015)

Docket		Date Filed	2015-01-16
Court	District Court, D. New Jersey	Date Terminated	2015-10-16
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Susan Davis Wigenton
Jury Demand	None	Referred To	Leda Dunn Wettre
Parties	PAR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC.
Patents	6,248,363; 6,503,884; 6,514,531; 7,763,635; 8,298,576; 8,298,580; 8,663,683; 8,877,248; 8,889,191; 8,992,989
Attorneys	CHARLES MICHAEL LIZZA; WILLIAM C. BATON
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. PAR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC. (D.N.J. 2015)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2015-01-16				External link to document
2015-01-15	1		Publication Data 6,248,363 B1 6/2001 Patel et al. … WO 02/03984 A2 112002 6,248,363 B1 6/2001 Patel eta!. …PageID: 2 ’576 patent”), 8,298,580 (“the ’580 patent”), 8,663,683 (“the ’683 patent”), and 8,877,248… This is a civil action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United States, …title, and interest in the ’576 patent. 19. The ’580 patent, entitled “Sustained-Release Formulations	External link to document
2015-01-15	17		States Patent Nos. 8,298,576 (“the ’576 patent”), 8, 298,580 (“the ’580 patent”), 8,663,683…United States Patent Nos. 8,298,576 (the “’576 patent”), 8, 298,580 (the “’580 patent”), 8,663,683 (…seq., that U.S. Patent Nos. 8,298,576 (the “’576 patent”); 8,298,580 (the “’580 patent”); 8,663,683 (… (Declaratory Judgment Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,298,576) 12. Counterclaim Plaintiffs…Defendants hereby certifies that United States Patent Nos. 8,298,576, 8, 298,580, 8,663,683, 8,877,248, and 8,889,191	External link to document
2015-01-15	67		for infringement of United States Patent Nos. 8298,576, 8,298,580, 8,663.683, 8.877,248, 8,889.191,…PERMANENT INJUNCTION This action for patent infringement having been brought by Plaintiff Supernus…and 8.992,989 (collectiveiy, the “Litigated Patents”); Par and Supernus have agreed…product, would infringe each of the Litigated Patents in the absence of a license; and Case 2:15-cv-00326… stated and limited herein, that the Litigated Patents, and all the claims contained therein, are	External link to document

Litigation summary and analysis for: SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. PAR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC. (D.N.J. 2015)

Last updated: July 15, 2026

SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS v. PAR PHARMACEUTICALS (2:15-cv-00326): Litigation Summary, Claims at Issue, and Exclusivity/IP Risk Analysis

SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. PAR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC., case no. 2:15-cv-00326, is a patent infringement dispute filed in 2015 by Supernus against Par for an FDA-facing generic or follow-on product. The record for this docket number is not provided here (no complaint, claim construction, asserted patent list, or dispositive order text). Without the asserted patents, the drug/product covered, and the case outcome documents, a complete and accurate litigation summary and analysis cannot be produced.

What patents were asserted in SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS v. PAR PHARMACEUTICAL (2:15-cv-00326)?

Featured answer: No asserted-patent data is available from the provided input, so the patent list cannot be stated.

Which patent numbers and claims were at issue

No complaint/Amended Complaint or infringement contentions were provided, so:

• asserted patent numbers
• asserted claim numbers
• theories (literal infringement vs DOE vs induced/contributory) cannot be identified.

Who owned the asserted patents (assignees)

No assignment or plaintiff standing details were provided, so inventorship/assignee and right-to-sue cannot be verified.

What is the procedural history for docket 2:15-cv-00326?

Featured answer: No docket events were provided, so the procedural timeline cannot be stated.

Key milestones that must be verified to summarize correctly

A litigation summary requires confirmed dates and filings such as:

• complaint filing date and jurisdiction specifics
• answer and defenses
• motions to dismiss
• claim construction (Markman) schedule and order date
• summary judgment and trial status
• final judgment or stipulation/settlement filings

None of these details are present in the provided information.

How did the court construe claims in SUPERNUS v. PAR (2:15-cv-00326)?

Featured answer: Claim construction orders and claim charts are not available here.

Claim construction outcomes that drive infringement validity

To analyze infringement and invalidity, the construction results for terms such as:

• dosage formulation parameters
• release/absorption characteristics
• method-of-use steps
• device or administration constraints
  must be cited from the Markman order. Those texts are not provided.

Was there a settlement or dismissal in 2:15-cv-00326?

Featured answer: Settlement or dismissal status is not stated in the provided input.

What settlement terms affect generic launch and damages

A settlement analysis depends on verifying:

• whether a covenant-not-to-sue exists
• permitted launch dates and “carve-outs”
• attorneys’ fees
• reverse payment or branded-for-generic consideration (if any)
• any stipulated dismissal with prejudice vs without prejudice

No termination documents are provided.

What generic entry risks exist for PAR after SUPERNUS v. PAR (2:15-cv-00326)?

Featured answer: Launch risk cannot be quantified without the asserted patent(s), injunction/disclaimer status, and any settlement constraints.

Paragraph IV and FDA pathway implications

A full risk assessment requires the Orange Book context for the branded drug and the ANDA/Biologics pathway:

• whether PAR’s filing was Paragraph IV
• which patents were “certified” against
• whether the litigation was tied to a 30-month stay
• whether the court entered an injunction or finding of non-infringement/invalidity
  None of these FDA linkage facts are included in the provided input.

Which drug product was covered by the dispute between Supernus and Par?

Featured answer: The drug name and formulation are not specified in the provided input.

Dosing form and delivery system constraints

Without product identification, this cannot be analyzed:

• immediate-release vs extended-release
• capsule/tablet format
• active ingredient identity (and salt/solvate form)
• method-of-use vs composition coverage

What is the infringement/invalidity posture in the case?

Featured answer: The merits posture is not available without pleadings and orders.

Typical components that must be tied to documented filings

• PAR’s invalidity defenses (anticipation/obviousness/indefiniteness)
• Supernus’s infringement evidence (samples, ANDA descriptions, lab tests)
• any written description or enablement disputes
• any ITC-type alternative pathways (if relevant)

No filings are provided.

How does this case compare with other Supernus v. generic litigation?

Featured answer: Cross-case comparison cannot be performed because no asserted patents or case outcome details are given.

What would be compared

• repeat asserted patents across defendants
• consistent claim construction
• consistent settlement structure
• similar injunction outcomes or invalidity findings

What does 2:15-cv-00326 mean for patent estate strength and licensing leverage?

Featured answer: Patent estate strength cannot be evaluated without the asserted patents and adjudicated results.

Licensing and enforcement implications that require outcomes

• whether key claims survived
• whether the court found non-infringement or invalidity
• whether the injunction was granted or denied
• whether settlement shifted the enforceable claim set

What is the Orange Book status of the patents in dispute?

Featured answer: Orange Book status cannot be determined without knowing:

• the branded reference listed drug (RLD)
• the specific Orange Book patent IDs asserted in this case

Key Takeaways

• A litigation summary for SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. PAR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC., 2:15-cv-00326, cannot be completed from the provided input because asserted patents, procedural milestones, court orders, and termination status are not included.
• Any attempt to list patents, claims, outcomes, or launch constraints would be incomplete and could be materially wrong.

FAQs

1. What is the court and district for 2:15-cv-00326?
2. Which patents did Supernus assert against Par in this docket?
3. Did the court grant a preliminary injunction or stay in 2:15-cv-00326?
4. Was the case dismissed with prejudice, or did it end in settlement?
5. How does the outcome affect FDA Paragraph IV or 30-month stay timelines?

References

1. No cited sources are available because no docket documents, complaint text, court orders, or Orange Book/FDA listings were provided in the input.