Litigation Details for Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Lee (E.D. Va. 2016)

« Back to Dashboard

Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Lee (E.D. Va. 2016)

Docket		Date Filed	2016-03-28
Court	District Court, E.D. Virginia	Date Terminated	2019-04-10
Cause	35:154 AIA Appeal of Patent Term Adjustment Determination	Assigned To	Rossie David Alston Jr.
Jury Demand	None	Referred To	Ivan D. Davis
Parties	SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
Patents	8,747,897
Attorneys	Shaun Robert Snader
Firms	Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC (DC)
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Lee (E.D. Va. 2016)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2016-03-28				External link to document
2016-03-28	26	Order on Motion for Summary Judgment	Therapeutic Corporation’s patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,747,897 (“the ‘897 patent”). The issue before the Court…owner and assignee of United States Patent No. 8,747,897 (“the ‘897 patent”), titled “OSMOTIC DRUG DELIVERY…‘897 patent, reflecting a patent term adjustment (“PTA”) of 1,260 days on the face of the patent, Id. …of the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (“PTO”) determination of patent term adjustment (“PTA…2011, the European Patent Office (“EPO”) published its decision to grant European patent number EP2010189	External link to document

Litigation summary and analysis for: Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Lee (E.D. Va. 2016)

Last updated: June 27, 2026

Supernus Pharmaceuticals v. Lee (1:16-cv-00342): Litigation Summary, Claims at Issue, and Where the Case Lands for Generic Launch Risk

Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Lee, No. 1:16-cv-00342 (filed 2016) is a Supernus patent enforcement case against defendants identified as “Lee.” The publicly available record is not sufficient in the material provided here to determine the asserted patents, the product link (drug, NDA/ANDA, or Orange Book listing), the procedural posture through resolution, or the substantive infringement/validity findings.

No complete, accurate litigation summary or analysis can be produced from the information supplied.

---

What is Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Lee, 1:16-cv-00342 about?

Answered only with available information: The case is titled Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Lee with docket number 1:16-cv-00342, filed in 2016.

What cannot be supported from the provided record:

• which Supernus product (active ingredient and dosage form) the case targets
• which patents were asserted
• whether the litigation involves Hatch-Waxman (ANDA/Paragraph IV), a patent injunction, or another IP theory
• what defenses were raised (invalidity, non-infringement, prosecution history estoppel, inequitable conduct, patent exhaustion)

---

Which patents were asserted in Supernus v. Lee (1:16-cv-00342)?

Cannot be determined from the provided information.
A litigation-grade answer requires the asserted patent numbers, filing history, claim charts or allegations, and the court’s construction or disposition. None are present in the prompt’s content.

---

What claims did Supernus allege and what infringement theory was used?

Cannot be determined from the provided information.
A substantive infringement analysis requires:

• the asserted claims
• the accused product(s) and dosage forms
• the alleged acts of infringement (manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, importation)
• the specific claim elements tied to the accused features

---

How did the court rule in Supernus v. Lee (1:16-cv-00342)?

Cannot be determined from the provided information.
A litigation summary requires the outcome and procedural events such as:

• dismissal vs. summary judgment vs. trial verdict
• claim construction orders
• preliminary injunction rulings
• settlement terms (if disclosed)

---

Did Supernus file a Paragraph IV challenge in the 1:16-cv-00342 case?

Cannot be determined from the provided information.
A Paragraph IV question turns on Orange Book listings, ANDA references, and the filing of a notice letter and related amendments. None of that detail is present.

---

What is the FDA and Orange Book linkage for Supernus’s 1:16-cv-00342 enforcement?

Cannot be determined from the provided information.
An Orange Book linkage requires identifying:

• the relevant NDA/ANDA
• listed patents and their expiration dates
• exclusivity status (NCE, pediatric, 5-year/3-year)
• the specific patent numbers asserted

---

How does Supernus v. Lee affect generic entry risk for the accused product?

Cannot be determined from the provided information.
Generic entry risk depends on:

• which patents were asserted and their remaining term
• whether the case resulted in an injunction
• whether settlement triggers “carve-outs,” launch stays, or stipulated damages

---

What settlement or licensing outcomes came out of Supernus v. Lee?

Cannot be determined from the provided information.
Settlement impact requires:

• settlement date
• terms such as launch dates, design-arounds, royalty structures
• dismissal with prejudice vs. without prejudice
• any consent judgment

---

Key Takeaways

• The only supported facts from the provided prompt are the case title and docket number: Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Lee, 1:16-cv-00342 (2016).
• The prompt does not contain the asserted patents, the accused product, or the court’s rulings, so no litigation-grade summary or IP analysis can be provided.

---

FAQs

1. What court heard Supernus Pharmaceuticals v. Lee 1:16-cv-00342?
2. Which Supernus drug is implicated in 1:16-cv-00342?
3. What is the Orange Book status tied to the patents asserted in this case?
4. Did the case involve an injunction or only damages?
5. Were any Paragraph IV or ANDA-related facts part of the docket?

---

References

No sources were provided in the prompt content, and no citations can be generated without access to the underlying docket filings or opinions.