Litigation Details for SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. APOTEX INC. (D.N.J. 2020)

« Back to Dashboard

SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. APOTEX INC. (D.N.J. 2020)

Docket		Date Filed	2020-06-26
Court	District Court, D. New Jersey	Date Terminated	2023-06-27
Cause	15:1126 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Michael Andre Shipp
Jury Demand	None	Referred To	Tonianne J. Bongiovanni
Parties	APOTEX INC.
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
Attorneys	ALEXANDER LEE CALLO
Firms	Saiber, LLC
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. APOTEX INC. (D.N.J. 2020)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2020-06-26				External link to document
2020-06-26	1	Complaint	9,855,278 (“the ’278 patent”), and United States Patent No. 10,220,042 (“the ’042 patent”), attached hereto…’898 patent, the ’131 patent, the ’600 patent, the ’930 patent, the ’791 patent, the ’975 patent, the…the ’131 patent”), United States Patent No. 8,617,600 (“the ’600 patent”), United States Patent No. 8,821,930…the ’930 patent”), United States Patent No. 9,119,791 (“the ’791 patent”), United States Patent No. 9,351,975…PageID: 2 patent”), United States Patent No. 9,370,525 (“the ’525 patent), United States Patent No. 9,855,278	External link to document

Litigation summary and analysis for: SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. APOTEX INC. (D.N.J. 2020)

Last updated: July 8, 2026

SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS v. APOTEX (3:20-cv-07870): Litigation Summary, Claims at Issue, and Likely Impacts on Generic Entry

No litigation summary and analysis can be produced from the information provided. The case caption alone (SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. APOTEX INC. | 3:20-cv-07870) does not include the court, drug(s), asserted patents, claims/construction, procedural history, settlement terms, or outcome. Without those facts, any “summary” would risk being incorrect and would not meet an actionable, business-grade patent litigation standard.

What court handled SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS v. APOTEX 3:20-cv-07870 and what procedural stage is it at?

Which patents did SUPERNUS assert against APOTEX in 3:20-cv-07870?

What patent numbers and expiration dates were the focus of the case?

Were method-of-use, formulation, or manufacturing patents asserted?

What did APOTEX challenge via Paragraph IV in 3:20-cv-07870?

What were APOTEX’s invalidity and non-infringement theories?

What claim constructions did the court issue in SUPERNUS v. APOTEX 3:20-cv-07870?

How does the outcome of 3:20-cv-07870 affect Orange Book exclusivity and generic launch risk?

Did the parties settle, and what settlement terms matter for competition?

Did settlement trigger design-around work, market entry dates, or non-launch covenants?

What is the commercial impact on the branded product if APOTEX launched or is blocked?

How strong is the patent estate for SUPERNUS’s drug based on this litigation record?

What generic entry scenarios are most likely after this case?

Key Takeaways

FAQs

1. What is the expected effect of this case on FDA tentative approval timelines for APOTEX’s ANDA?
2. Which parties typically control enforcement posture in SUPERNUS v. APOTEX-type ANDA litigation?
3. How do claim construction outcomes usually shift settlement leverage in pharma patent cases?
4. What patents most commonly drive “walk-away” launch dates for generics in Orange Book disputes?
5. How does a partial invalidity or non-infringement ruling change the remaining infringement exposure?

References

(None provided because the case-specific facts needed for citation are not included in the prompt.)