Details for Patent: 9,295,642

« Back to Dashboard

Which drugs does patent 9,295,642 protect, and when does it expire?

Patent 9,295,642 protects QUILLICHEW ER and is included in one NDA.

This patent has eight patent family members in eight countries.

Summary for Patent: 9,295,642

Title:	Methylphenidate extended release chewable tablet
Abstract:	An oral methylphenidate extended release tablet is described, which can be scored and still retain its extended release profile. The tablet contains a combination of an uncoated methylphenidate-ion exchange resin complex, a barrier coated methylphenidate-ion exchange resin complex-matrix, and an uncomplexed methylphenidate active component. Following administration of a single dose of the extended release methylphenidate chewable tablet, a therapeutically effective amount of methylphenidate is reached in less than about 20 minutes and the composition provides a twelve-hour extended release profile.
Inventor(s):	Yu-Hsing Tu, Ashok Perumal, Kalyan Kathala
Assignee:	Tris Pharma Inc
Application Number:	US14/872,226
Patent Litigation and PTAB cases:	See patent lawsuits and PTAB cases for patent 9,295,642
Patent Claim Types: see list of patent claims	Use; Composition; Dosage form;

US Patent 9,295,642: Scope, Claims, Exclusivity and Patent Landscape for Extended-Release Methylphenidate Chewable Tablets

US Patent 9,295,642 protects a multipart extended-release racemic methylphenidate chewable tablet based on three release fractions: a coated sustained-release methylphenidate-ion exchange resin complex, a slower immediate-release resin complex, and a faster immediate-release uncomplexed methylphenidate salt. The patent is directed to the formulation architecture, release sequence, tablet divisibility, coating chemistry and defined pharmacokinetic performance.

The patent is most commercially relevant to QuilliChew ER, Tris Pharma's extended-release methylphenidate chewable tablet. Its strongest limitations are structural and functional requirements that collectively narrow the claim. A generic product using the same three-part release design, comparable coating system and substantially similar pharmacokinetics would face meaningful infringement risk.

What drug and product does US Patent 9,295,642 protect?

US 9,295,642 protects an extended-release chewable dosage form containing racemic methylphenidate, generally corresponding to QuilliChew ER. The FDA-approved product contains methylphenidate hydrochloride in 20 mg, 30 mg and 40 mg strengths and is indicated for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. The tablet is intended to be chewed and may be divided along its score without changing the extended-release function.[1]

The patent does not broadly cover every extended-release methylphenidate product. Its independent product claim requires the combination of:

1. A sustained-release racemic methylphenidate-ion exchange resin complex.
2. A water-insoluble, water-permeable and pH-independent barrier coating over the resin-complex matrix.
3. A first immediate-release fraction consisting of an uncoated methylphenidate-ion exchange resin complex.
4. A second, faster immediate-release fraction consisting of uncomplexed methylphenidate or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt.
5. A sustained-release fraction representing approximately 50% to 90% of total methylphenidate.
6. A divided-tablet capability.
7. Defined pharmacokinetic performance following administration of a 40 mg racemic methylphenidate HCl equivalent.

These limitations distinguish the patent from products based solely on polymer matrices, coated drug crystals, osmotic systems, multiparticulate capsules or single-phase ion-exchange resin systems.

What is the patent status and expiration date of US 9,295,642?

Item	Data
Patent	US 9,295,642 B2
Title	Extended release methylphenidate chewable tablets
Patent holder / assignee	Tris Pharma, Inc.
Filing history	National-stage pharmaceutical formulation patent family
Grant date	March 29, 2016
Relevant product	QuilliChew ER
Active ingredient	Racemic methylphenidate hydrochloride
Dosage form	Extended-release chewable tablet
FDA product approval	QuilliChew ER approved in 2015
Standard patent-term endpoint	Approximately May 2033, subject to applicable patent-term adjustment
Regulatory exclusivity	Separate from patent term and dependent on FDA exclusivity records

The ordinary 20-year term is measured from the earliest effective nonprovisional or international filing date, subject to patent-term adjustment and any applicable terminal disclaimer. Public patent records identify the relevant priority chain as beginning in 2012. The practical term therefore runs into 2033, rather than ending in 2036 based solely on the grant date.[2]

A definitive commercial launch date for an ANDA depends on FDA approval, patent certifications, litigation outcomes and any settlement restrictions. Patent expiration alone does not establish the first lawful generic launch date.

What are the core limitations of claim 1?

Claim 1 is a combination claim. Every material element must be present for literal infringement.

Three methylphenidate release components

The claim requires three distinct methylphenidate populations:

Component	Function	Required characteristics
Sustained-release component	Main extended-release fraction	Coated methylphenidate-ion exchange resin complex in a polymeric matrix
First immediate-release component	Intermediate onset	Uncoated methylphenidate-ion exchange resin complex
Second immediate-release component	Fastest onset	Uncomplexed methylphenidate or acceptable salt

The claim expressly requires the first immediate-release resin fraction to release more slowly than the uncomplexed methylphenidate fraction. A formulation with only one immediate-release fraction would not literally satisfy the full structure of claim 1.

Coated resin-complex matrix

The sustained-release fraction is not merely a coated methylphenidate particle. The claim requires:

• Methylphenidate bound to an ion-exchange resin.
• The resin complex incorporated in a polymeric matrix.
• A barrier coating positioned over the resin-complex matrix.
• A coating that is water-insoluble but water-permeable.
• A pH-independent release profile.

A product using a conventional hydrophilic matrix without an ion-exchange resin, or using a pH-dependent enteric coating, would present a stronger non-infringement position.

Release percentage

The sustained-release fraction must contribute approximately 50% to 90% of the total racemic methylphenidate. Dependent claim 4 narrows this range to approximately 60% to 80%.

The immediate-release fractions collectively account for approximately 20% to 40% of total methylphenidate under claim 5. Claim 11 identifies a formulation in which each immediate-release fraction contributes approximately 15%, producing a 70% sustained-release and 30% immediate-release distribution.

Pharmacokinetic limitations

Claim 1 requires a defined pharmacokinetic profile at a 40 mg racemic methylphenidate HCl equivalent dose:

• AUC0-∞ of approximately 110 to 140 ng-hour/mL.
• Cmax of approximately 10 to 15 ng/mL.
• Testing under both fasted and fed conditions.
• Adult subjects following a single oral administration.

Claims 2 and 3 narrow the ranges:

• Cmax of approximately 12 to 13 ng/mL.
• AUC0-∞ of approximately 113 to 138 ng-hour/mL.

Claims 22 and 23 add a single plasma concentration peak occurring approximately 4.0 to 5.25 hours after administration.

These limitations create a significant infringement issue for an ANDA applicant. A generic sponsor could challenge the structural elements, the pharmacokinetic limitations, or both. If the ANDA product reproduces the reference product's release design and bioequivalence profile, the PK limitations may be difficult to avoid in practice.

How do claims 2 through 29 narrow the patent?

Claims	Subject matter
2-3	Narrow Cmax and AUC ranges
4	60%-80% sustained-release methylphenidate
5	20%-40% combined immediate-release methylphenidate
6	Approximately 3:1 ratio of resin-complex immediate release to uncomplexed immediate release
7	5%-35% immediate-release resin-complex fraction
8-9	Uncomplexed methylphenidate in an acceptable salt, including methylphenidate HCl
10	5%-35% uncomplexed immediate-release fraction
11	Approximately 15% resin-complex immediate release and 15% uncomplexed immediate release
12	Tablet hardness of approximately 8-23 kp
13	Specified barrier-coating families
14-15	Polyvinyl acetate coating composition and 25%-35% coating weight
16-18	Polyvinylpyrrolidone matrix and specified acrylic coating blends
19	Nonfunctional outer topcoat
20	Pharmaceutical excipients
21	Method of administering the claimed chewable tablet
22-23	Single plasma peak and timing
24-26	Figure-based PK and concentration-curve limitations
27-28	40 mg and 20 mg strengths
29	Scored tablet

Claims 13 through 18 are particularly important for formulation analysis. They narrow the patent to specific coating technologies, including polyvinyl acetate, acrylic copolymers and ethylcellulose systems. A competing formulation may reduce risk by using a different release mechanism, although the broader claim 1 does not require one specific coating polymer.

What formulations are protected by the coating claims?

Claim 13 covers three coating categories:

1. A cured, water-permeable, nonionic, pH-independent coating containing polyvinyl acetate, a stabilizer and a plasticizer.
2. An ionic, pH-independent acrylic coating containing ethyl acrylate and methyl methacrylate polymers or copolymers.
3. A solvent-based ethylcellulose coating, optionally containing a plasticizer.

Claim 14 focuses on a polyvinyl acetate coating containing approximately:

• 70% to 90% polyvinyl acetate.
• A stabilizer.
• 2% to 10% plasticizer.

Claim 15 requires the coating layer to represent approximately 25% to 35% of the coated resin-complex matrix by weight.

Claim 18 identifies an acrylic blend using copolymers containing ethyl acrylate, methyl methacrylate and trimethylammonioethyl methacrylate chloride in specified ratios. That claim presents a narrower but technically identifiable formulation target for product-development and reverse-engineering purposes.

How strong is the patent estate for QuilliChew ER?

The patent has a technically focused but relatively narrow claim set.

Strengths

The estate is stronger where a competing product:

• Uses methylphenidate bound to an ion-exchange resin.
• Places the resin complex in a polymeric matrix.
• Uses a pH-independent barrier coating.
• Combines two immediate-release fractions with different onset rates.
• Uses a chewable, scored tablet.
• Produces a similar single-peak PK profile.
• Uses the 20 mg or 40 mg product strengths.

The combination of structural and PK limitations also makes design-around analysis more complex. A competitor may avoid one structural limitation but still face substantial development work to achieve the same onset and exposure profile.

Vulnerabilities

The patent presents several potential validity and enforcement pressure points:

• The claim combines detailed formulation limitations with PK ranges that may be inherent in the reference product.
• The boundary between “about” ranges may generate claim-construction disputes.
• Claims 24 through 26 rely on figure-based or curve-based pharmacokinetic limitations.
• The claim requires a specific release sequence that may be difficult to prove from an issued-product label alone.
• The distinction between the sustained-release matrix and the coated resin-complex matrix may require confidential manufacturing information or analytical testing.
• Prior-art combinations involving ion-exchange resins, acrylic or ethylcellulose coatings, chewable tablets and multipart release systems could support obviousness challenges.

The strongest patentability position is likely the combined architecture and demonstrated PK profile, not any isolated element such as methylphenidate, chewability or ion-exchange resin use.

What is the Orange Book status of US 9,295,642?

US 9,295,642 is associated with the QuilliChew ER NDA and is the type of formulation patent that can be listed in the FDA Orange Book against the approved product.[3]

Orange Book relevance is product-specific:

• A listed patent can support a Paragraph IV certification.
• A Paragraph IV notice can trigger Hatch-Waxman litigation.
• A 30-month stay may apply if the NDA holder or patent owner brings a timely infringement action.
• The patent must be evaluated against the exact NDA product and listed claims.
• Orange Book listing does not establish that every claim will survive validity or infringement scrutiny.

The FDA Orange Book should be checked by NDA and strength because listed patent status, pediatric exclusivity, delisting and expiration information can change independently of the patent document.[3]

When does QuilliChew ER lose exclusivity?

QuilliChew ER has several distinct exclusivity concepts:

Exclusivity type	Effect
New-drug exclusivity	Restricts certain abbreviated approvals for the statutory period
Pediatric exclusivity	Can add six months to qualifying listed patents and regulatory exclusivity
Patent term	May prevent commercial generic launch until patent expiry or settlement date
30-month stay	Can delay FDA approval after a timely Paragraph IV lawsuit
Settlement restrictions	May establish an agreed generic entry date earlier than patent expiry

The practical loss of exclusivity is therefore controlled by the earliest enforceable generic-entry date, not simply the nominal patent expiration date. The patent's ordinary term reaches approximately 2033, but an authorized generic, settlement license or successful invalidity decision could change commercial entry before then.

Which companies are challenging the patent?

A complete current list of ANDA applicants, Paragraph IV challengers, litigation defendants and settlement counterparties requires a live review of FDA Orange Book records, Abbreviated New Drug Application certifications, PACER filings and district-court dockets.

The public patent record identifies Tris Pharma as the principal patent holder associated with the QuilliChew ER formulation. The relevant competitive threat is expected to come from generic methylphenidate manufacturers pursuing an ANDA for an extended-release chewable tablet, rather than from biosimilar developers.

Because methylphenidate is a small molecule, biosimilar pathways do not apply. The relevant regulatory pathway is an ANDA under section 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

What Paragraph IV challenges could target US 9,295,642?

A Paragraph IV challenge could assert that the patent is invalid, unenforceable or not infringed. The principal theories would likely involve the following claim features.

Anticipation and obviousness

Potential prior-art combinations could target:

• Ion-exchange resin complexes for modified release.
• Polyvinyl acetate, acrylic or ethylcellulose barrier coatings.
• Chewable methylphenidate formulations.
• Multipart immediate-release and sustained-release dosage forms.
• Scored or divisible extended-release tablets.
• PK optimization through routine formulation adjustment.

The most difficult invalidity argument would be a single-reference anticipation case because claim 1 requires a specific combination of structural, release-order and PK features. An obviousness case could combine separate references, but it would need a credible reason to select the claimed three-component design and expected success in achieving the claimed PK profile.

Indefiniteness

Potential indefiniteness issues include:

• The meaning of “about” for AUC, Cmax and component percentages.
• The boundary of “slower onset of release.”
• The measurable meaning of “capable of being divided” while retaining the release profile.
• The scope of “equivalent to the plasma concentration curve of FIG. 1.”
• The definition of “tensile strength” expressed as a percentage in claim 13.

Written description and enablement

A challenge could focus on the breadth of claim 1 relative to the examples. The claim covers multiple coating systems, multiple polymeric matrices, broad component ratios, multiple strengths and a defined PK profile. The question would be whether the specification supports and enables the full breadth without undue experimentation.

What infringement evidence would be most important?

For a formulation patent, public labeling is unlikely to resolve all limitations. The most probative evidence would include:

• ANDA formulation composition.
• Resin identity and methylphenidate loading.
• Coating composition and weight gain.
• Polymer-matrix composition.
• Dissolution profiles across pH conditions.
• Immediate-release fraction ratios.
• Tablet hardness and scoring data.
• Fed and fasted bioequivalence reports.
• Plasma concentration-time curves.
• Manufacturing batch records.

An ANDA applicant's Paragraph IV notice and product-development documents would be central to assessing whether the accused product contains the claimed three-part methylphenidate distribution.

How does US 9,295,642 compare with competing methylphenidate patent estates?

Product	Company	Dosage form	Primary differentiation	Relevance to US 9,295,642
QuilliChew ER	Tris Pharma	Extended-release chewable tablet	Resin-based multipart release	Directly implicated
Quillivant XR	Tris Pharma	Extended-release oral suspension	Liquid extended-release formulation	Related methylphenidate estate, different dosage form
Concerta	Janssen	Osmotic extended-release tablet	Osmotic delivery system	Generally outside the claimed resin architecture
Ritalin LA	Novartis or authorized-generic suppliers	Modified-release capsule	Biphasic bead system	Different dosage form and release technology
Aptensio XR	Rhodes Pharmaceuticals	Extended-release capsule	Multiparticulate bead delivery	Potentially relevant only at broad formulation level
Dyanavel XR	Tris Pharma	Extended-release oral suspension	Liquid methylphenidate formulation	No direct chewable-tablet match
Jornay PM	Ironshore	Delayed and extended-release capsule	Evening dosing and delayed onset	Different PK objective and dosage form

QuilliChew ER is the closest commercial comparator because it uses a chewable extended-release methylphenidate dosage form. Other products may compete therapeutically but generally do not replicate the claimed product architecture.

What generic launch risks exist?

Low-risk design-around

A generic developer could reduce direct infringement risk by using:

• A non-resin extended-release matrix.
• A capsule or suspension rather than a chewable tablet.
• A single immediate-release fraction.
• A pH-dependent release coating.
• An osmotic or lipid-based delivery system.
• A different methylphenidate stereochemical or salt approach, subject to FDA requirements.

These approaches may avoid claim 1 but could require a new bioequivalence strategy and may not qualify as a straightforward pharmaceutical-equivalent product.

Higher-risk ANDA design

Risk increases if the ANDA product:

• Is a scored chewable tablet.
• Contains 20 mg, 30 mg or 40 mg methylphenidate HCl equivalents.
• Uses a methylphenidate-ion exchange resin complex.
• Uses a polymeric matrix and pH-independent coating.
• Includes both resin-bound and uncomplexed immediate-release methylphenidate.
• Produces the same single-peak profile at approximately four to five hours.
• Matches the reference product's AUC and Cmax.

The most likely litigation focus would be claims 1, 4, 5, 11, 13, 22, 23 and 27 or 28, depending on the proposed generic's formulation and strength.

What manufacturing and intellectual-property barriers apply?

The principal manufacturing barrier is process control over the resin complex and coating. Small changes in resin loading, coating weight, plasticizer level, curing conditions or matrix composition can alter the early-release fraction and overall exposure.

Key know-how includes:

• Ion-exchange resin selection and particle-size distribution.
• Methylphenidate loading and complexation conditions.
• Matrix granulation and polymer selection.
• Barrier-coating uniformity.
• Coating curing and plasticizer migration.
• Segregation control among the three methylphenidate fractions.
• Compression force and tablet hardness.
• Scoring performance without dose-content failure.
• Dissolution consistency after chewing or tablet division.

These process variables may create trade-secret barriers separate from the issued patent. A competitor could avoid literal infringement yet still face substantial development risk in reproducing the reference product's PK profile.

What is the commercial exposure?

The commercial exposure is concentrated in the pediatric ADHD extended-release methylphenidate market. QuilliChew ER competes with liquid, capsule and tablet formulations, but its chewable format addresses patients who have difficulty swallowing conventional tablets or capsules.

Revenue exposure depends on:

• QuilliChew ER net sales and market share.
• The number and timing of ANDA approvals.
• Whether an authorized generic launches.
• Any Paragraph IV settlement.
• Payer substitution and formulary placement.
• The availability of competing liquid methylphenidate products.
• Whether generic substitution is permitted for the approved chewable formulation.

Without verified current sales data and a current ANDA docket review, product revenue cannot be quantified accurately.

Key Takeaways

• US 9,295,642 is a formulation patent directed to an extended-release racemic methylphenidate chewable tablet.
• Claim 1 requires three release fractions, including two immediate-release components with different onset rates.
• The sustained-release fraction must use a coated methylphenidate-ion exchange resin complex in a polymeric matrix.
• The claim includes AUC, Cmax, single-peak and fed/fasted pharmacokinetic limitations.
• Claims 13 through 18 protect specific polyvinyl acetate, acrylic and ethylcellulose coating systems.
• The patent is closely associated with QuilliChew ER and has an ordinary term reaching approximately 2033, subject to patent-term adjustment and any applicable exclusivity.
• The product is a small-molecule drug, so biosimilar risk does not apply. Generic entry would proceed through the ANDA pathway.
• The principal Paragraph IV targets are claim construction, obviousness, indefiniteness, written description, enablement and non-infringement.
• A generic using the same resin-based three-fraction chewable architecture would face the highest risk.
• A non-resin, non-chewable or single-fraction design would offer a stronger design-around position but might require a different bioequivalence strategy.

FAQs

Is US 9,295,642 limited to QuilliChew ER?

No. The claims are not limited by brand name, but their formulation and PK requirements closely correspond to the QuilliChew ER product. Another product can infringe if it satisfies all claim limitations.

Does a methylphenidate chewable tablet automatically infringe US 9,295,642?

No. Chewability alone is insufficient. The product must also contain the claimed resin-complex, polymeric-matrix, barrier-coating and immediate-release components, together with the applicable release and PK limitations.

Can a generic avoid the patent by using dexmethylphenidate?

Potentially, because the claims require racemic methylphenidate. Dexmethylphenidate is the d-enantiomer and is chemically distinct from racemic methylphenidate. Regulatory equivalence and other patent rights would still require separate analysis.

Are the pharmacokinetic limitations enforceable against an ANDA product?

They can be. If the claim properly defines a measurable PK property, an ANDA product that reproduces the claimed profile may satisfy the limitation even if the label does not disclose every formulation detail. The evidentiary record would likely include the ANDA, bioequivalence data and laboratory testing.

Does patent expiration guarantee immediate generic launch?

No. FDA approval timing, Paragraph IV litigation, patent-term adjustment, pediatric exclusivity, settlement terms, other listed patents and regulatory requirements can affect the first commercial launch date.

References

1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2015). QuilliChew ER prescribing information.
2. United States Patent and Trademark Office. (2016). U.S. Patent No. 9,295,642: Extended release methylphenidate chewable tablets.
3. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.). Approved drug products with therapeutic equivalence evaluations: Orange Book. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/ob/
4. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2024). Approved drug products with therapeutic equivalence evaluations. FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

Drugs Protected by US Patent 9,295,642

Applicant	Tradename	Generic Name	Dosage	NDA	Approval Date	TE	Type	RLD	RS	Patent No.	Patent Expiration	Product	Substance	Delist Req.	Patented / Exclusive Use	Submissiondate
Nextwave Pharms	QUILLICHEW ER	methylphenidate hydrochloride	TABLET, EXTENDED RELEASE, CHEWABLE;ORAL	207960-001	Dec 4, 2015		RX	Yes	No			Y			A METHOD OF PROVIDING A SUBJECT WITH THERAPEUTICALLY EFFECTIVE AMOUNT OF RACEMIC METHYLPHENIDATE BY ORALLY ADMINISTERING TO SAID SUBJECT A SINGLE METHYLPHENIDATE EXTENDED RELEASE CHEWABLE TABLET ACCORDING TO CLAIM 1
Nextwave Pharms	QUILLICHEW ER	methylphenidate hydrochloride	TABLET, EXTENDED RELEASE, CHEWABLE;ORAL	207960-002	Dec 4, 2015		RX	Yes	No			Y			A METHOD OF PROVIDING A SUBJECT WITH THERAPEUTICALLY EFFECTIVE AMOUNT OF RACEMIC METHYLPHENIDATE BY ORALLY ADMINISTERING TO SAID SUBJECT A SINGLE METHYLPHENIDATE EXTENDED RELEASE CHEWABLE TABLET ACCORDING TO CLAIM 1
Nextwave Pharms	QUILLICHEW ER	methylphenidate hydrochloride	TABLET, EXTENDED RELEASE, CHEWABLE;ORAL	207960-003	Dec 4, 2015		RX	Yes	Yes			Y			A METHOD OF PROVIDING A SUBJECT WITH THERAPEUTICALLY EFFECTIVE AMOUNT OF RACEMIC METHYLPHENIDATE BY ORALLY ADMINISTERING TO SAID SUBJECT A SINGLE METHYLPHENIDATE EXTENDED RELEASE CHEWABLE TABLET ACCORDING TO CLAIM 1

International Family Members for US Patent 9,295,642

Country	Patent Number	Estimated Expiration	Supplementary Protection Certificate	SPC Country	SPC Expiration
Australia	2013302657
Brazil	112015003120
Canada	2880456
Denmark	2884961
European Patent Office	2884961