Litigation Details for SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. AUROBINDO PHARMA LTD. (D.N.J. 2024)

SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. AUROBINDO PHARMA LTD. (D.N.J. 2024)

Docket		Date Filed	2024-09-23
Court	District Court, D. New Jersey	Date Terminated	2024-12-09
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Karen M. Williams
Jury Demand	None	Referred To	Matthew J. Skahill
Parties	AUROBINDO PHARMA USA, INC.
Patents	10,220,042; 11,166,960; 11,896,599; 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	WILLIAM C. BATON
Firms	Saul Ewing LLP
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. AUROBINDO PHARMA LTD. (D.N.J. 2024)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2024-09-23				External link to document

Litigation Summary and Analysis: Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., Case No. 1:24-cv-09380 (D.N.J.)

Last updated: July 16, 2026

Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. (1:24-cv-09380) is a patent infringement dispute filed in the District of New Jersey in 2024. The case centers on Aurobindo’s FDA pathway/ANDA activity that Supernus alleges infringes one or more Orange Book-listed patents for a Supernus product. The infringement theory typically follows an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) Paragraph IV structure: Supernus asserts that Aurobindo’s proposed generic product falls within the scope of one or more claimed inventions and that Aurobindo’s submission was not carved out by any non-infringement or invalidity positions.

What is missing for a complete, accurate case-level litigation summary: the docket’s operative details for asserted patents (patent numbers), claims, product name(s), representative ANDA number(s), the specific Paragraph IV certifications at issue, and the current procedural posture (motions to dismiss, Markman schedule, claim construction rulings, settlement status). Without those hard facts from the docket filings and orders, the litigation analysis would be generic and risks being wrong about the asserted IP and the court’s rulings.

No response is provided.