DCT

1:25-cv-00808

Supernus Pharma Inc v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00808, D. Del., 07/01/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant Aurobindo USA is a Delaware corporation and because Defendants conduct substantial business in the state, with the intent to market and sell the accused generic products within the district upon FDA approval.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) to market generic viloxazine extended-release capsules constitutes an act of infringement of six patents covering formulations of viloxazine and its use in treating Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on extended-release pharmaceutical formulations designed to provide once-daily treatment for ADHD, a significant neurological condition affecting both children and adults.
  • Key Procedural History: This action was initiated under the Hatch-Waxman Act following Defendants' submission of ANDA No. 220487 and issuance of a corresponding "Notice Letter" to Plaintiff. The complaint notes that Plaintiff previously filed a related action in the District of New Jersey based on the same ANDA and patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2008-09-05 Earliest Priority Date for ’753, ’143, ’523 Patents
2012-02-08 Earliest Priority Date for ’204, ’853, ’338 Patents
2016-06-07 U.S. Patent No. 9,358,204 Issues
2017-03-28 U.S. Patent No. 9,603,853 Issues
2017-05-30 U.S. Patent No. 9,662,338 Issues
2022-05-10 U.S. Patent No. 11,324,753 Issues
2022-10-04 U.S. Patent No. 11,458,143 Issues
2024-10-22 U.S. Patent No. 12,121,523 Issues
2025-05-29 Defendants send Notice Letter to Plaintiff
2025-06-26 Plaintiff files prior action in D.N.J.
2025-07-01 Complaint Filing Date (D. Del.)

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 9,358,204 - "Formulations of Viloxazine"

  • Issued: June 7, 2016

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge that viloxazine, a drug used to treat major depressive disorder, has a short elimination half-life of approximately 4.3 hours, which typically requires multiple daily doses for therapeutic effect (’204 Patent, col. 1:30-41). This dosing regimen can present challenges for patient compliance.
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides modified-release oral formulations of viloxazine that extend the drug's therapeutic effect over a longer period. The solution involves combining different drug release components, such as an immediate release (IR) component with an extended release (XR) component, to achieve a desired pharmacokinetic profile suitable for once- or twice-daily administration (’204 Patent, col. 2:1-4, 50-67).
  • Technical Importance: Developing an effective extended-release formulation for a drug with a short half-life enables less frequent dosing, which can significantly improve patient adherence to a treatment regimen (’204 Patent, col. 3:12-23).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims of the ’204 Patent are asserted, alleging infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶65). Independent claim 1 is representative of the formulation technology:

  • A pharmaceutical formulation, comprising:
  • (a) an immediate release (IR) component comprising an inert core and a layer comprising viloxazine... surrounding the core, and
  • (b) an extended release (XR) component comprising: (i) an inert core, (ii) a first layer comprising viloxazine... surrounding the core, and (iii) a second layer comprising a release rate controlling compound and a pore former... surrounding the first layer,
  • wherein the release rate controlling compound is selected from a specified group of polymers,
  • wherein the formulation comprises from 25% (w/w) to 75% (w/w) viloxazine,
  • and wherein at least 80% of the viloxazine is released from the formulation over a period of at least 2 hours in vitro.

U.S. Patent No. 9,603,853 - "Formulations of Viloxazine"

  • Issued: March 28, 2017

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’204 Patent, this patent addresses the need for an improved dosing regimen for viloxazine, particularly for the treatment of ADHD, given the drug's short biological half-life (’853 Patent, col. 1:41-49).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims a method of treating ADHD by administering a specific modified-release formulation of viloxazine. The claimed method requires using a formulation that combines an immediate-release component with an extended-release component, thereby providing both a rapid onset and a sustained therapeutic effect suitable for managing ADHD symptoms throughout the day with once-daily dosing (’853 Patent, col. 27:27-44).
  • Technical Importance: This patent directly links the technical solution of an extended-release formulation to a specific clinical application—the treatment of ADHD—thereby creating a method-of-use protection layer in addition to the composition-of-matter claims in related patents (’853 Patent, col. 27:27-28).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims of the ’853 Patent are asserted (Compl. ¶87). Independent claim 1 is representative of the method-of-treatment invention:

  • A method of treating ADHD or major depressive disorder in a mammalian subject in need thereof, the method comprising administration to the subject of a formulation comprising:
  • (a) an immediate release (IR) component... and
  • (b) an extended release (XR) component comprising... a release rate controlling compound and a pore former...
  • wherein the formulation comprises from 25% (w/w) to 75% (w/w) viloxazine...

U.S. Patent No. 9,662,338 - "Formulations of Viloxazine"

  • Issued: May 30, 2017

Technology Synopsis

This patent, part of the same family as the ’204 and ’853 patents, claims pharmaceutical formulations of viloxazine comprising an extended-release component. The claims are directed to the specific composition of the formulation, including the release rate controlling compound and pore former, designed to achieve sustained drug delivery (’338 Patent, col. 25:1-26:38).

  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶109).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are the Defendants' generic viloxazine extended-release oral capsules, which allegedly meet the compositional limitations of the patent’s claims (Compl. ¶¶106, 115).

U.S. Patent No. 11,324,753 - "Method of Treatment of Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)"

  • Issued: May 10, 2022

Technology Synopsis

This patent claims a method of treating ADHD by administering viloxazine. The inventive concept is based on the discovery that viloxazine acts as an antagonist for both the 5-HT7 and 5HT1B serotonin receptors, a mechanism of action purported to be effective for ADHD treatment (’753 Patent, col. 1:28-32, col. 7:13-16).

  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶131).
  • Accused Features: The accused feature is the act of administering the ANDA product according to its proposed label for the treatment of ADHD, which Plaintiff alleges will induce infringement of the claimed method (Compl. ¶¶139-141).

U.S. Patent No. 11,458,143 - "Method of Treatment of Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)"

  • Issued: October 4, 2022

Technology Synopsis

A continuation of the ’753 patent family, this patent claims a method for treating ADHD by administering a formulation of viloxazine. The claims focus on the administration of a formulation to achieve a therapeutic effect for ADHD (’143 Patent, col. 8:1-10).

  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, though it alleges the Defendants' Notice Letter did not provide noninfringement contentions for claims 1-7 (Compl. ¶¶37, 153).
  • Accused Features: The proposed use of the ANDA product as directed by its label for treating ADHD is the basis for the infringement allegation (Compl. ¶¶161-163).

U.S. Patent No. 12,121,523 - "Method of Treatment of Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)"

  • Issued: October 22, 2024

Technology Synopsis

This patent, also in the ’753 family, claims methods of treating ADHD or co-morbid mood and affective disorders by administering viloxazine. The claims cover treatment for disorders such as anxiety, depression, and bipolar disorder when co-morbid with ADHD (’523 Patent, col. 7:35-40).

  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, but alleges that Defendants' Notice Letter acknowledged the validity of claims 1-6 and 8-14 (Compl. ¶¶36, 175).
  • Accused Features: Infringement is alleged based on the proposed labeling for the ANDA product, which indicates the treatment of ADHD (Compl. ¶¶183-185).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are Defendants' generic viloxazine extended-release oral capsules in 100 mg, 150 mg, and 200 mg dosages, for which Defendants have filed ANDA No. 220487 with the FDA (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the accused ANDA Products are generic versions of Plaintiff's own FDA-approved product, Qelbree®, which is used as the reference listed drug for the ANDA (Compl. ¶49).
  • The proposed prescribing information for the ANDA Products allegedly indicates them for the "treatment of Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in adults and pediatric patients 6 years and older" (Compl. ¶54). The complaint further alleges the proposed labeling recommends specific daily dosages and titration schedules that mirror those for Qelbree® (Compl. ¶55).
  • As a generic product submitted via an ANDA, the accused product is intended to be a lower-cost, bioequivalent alternative to the branded drug, positioning it to compete directly with Plaintiff's Qelbree® in the market for ADHD treatments upon receiving final FDA approval (Compl. ¶¶11, 49, 51).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide claim charts or detailed, element-by-element infringement allegations. The infringement theory is based on the nature of the ANDA filing process under the Hatch-Waxman Act.

For the formulation patents (’204, ’853, and ’338), the central allegation is that by filing an ANDA for a product that is a bioequivalent copy of the reference drug Qelbree®, Defendants are seeking approval to market a formulation that will necessarily fall within the scope of the patent claims covering that product (Compl. ¶¶69, 91, 113). The act of filing the ANDA itself is asserted as the act of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2).

For the method of treatment patents (’753, ’143, and ’523), the infringement theory is one of inducement. The complaint alleges that Defendants' proposed product label will instruct physicians and patients to administer the generic drug for the treatment of ADHD (Compl. ¶¶54-55). It is alleged that following these instructions will result in direct infringement of the patented methods by the end-users, and that Defendants, by providing the product with such a label, will actively induce that infringement (Compl. ¶¶74, 96, 140, 162, 184).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions (Formulation Patents): The complaint provides insufficient detail for analysis of specific points of contention. A central question for the court will be whether the precise composition of Defendants' generic formulation—including the specific release-controlling polymers, excipients, and their relative amounts—is covered by the asserted patent claims. This analysis will depend on the details of the ANDA, which are not public.
    • Scope Questions (Method Patents): A potential dispute may arise over whether the act of administering the generic drug as instructed on its label meets every limitation of the asserted method claims. This could raise questions about whether Defendants can "carve out" the patented method of use from their proposed label to avoid infringement while still obtaining FDA approval for other indications. The complaint suggests this is not intended, alleging the label will "substantially copy" the Qelbree® label (Compl. ¶73, 95).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"extended release component" (from claim 1 of the ’204 Patent)

  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is central to determining the scope of the formulation patents. The infringement analysis will depend on whether Defendants' specific formulation technology, once disclosed, qualifies as an "extended release component" as that term is understood in the context of the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because it defines the core technical feature of the invention.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a broad definition, listing numerous hydrophilic and hydrophobic compounds that can serve as release rate controlling compounds, suggesting the term is not limited to a single type of technology (’204 Patent, col. 2:32-51).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendants may argue that the term should be interpreted more narrowly in light of the specific embodiments detailed in the patent, such as the use of coated pellets with particular polymers like Surelease® or matrix tablets with polymers like METHOCEL™ (’204 Patent, Examples 1, 5-11).

"method of antagonizing 5-HT7 and 5HT1B receptor activity" (from claim 1 of the ’753 Patent)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the mechanism of action that underpins the method-of-treatment patents. The dispute may turn on whether administering the accused product for ADHD, as instructed by the label, inherently performs this claimed method of receptor antagonism.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent presents the discovery of this dual antagonist activity as a key feature of viloxazine's effectiveness for ADHD, suggesting that any administration of the drug for this purpose would practice the method (’753 Patent, col. 1:28-32, Abstract).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendants may argue that infringement requires proof that their product, when used as directed, actually produces the claimed antagonist effect in a patient, potentially raising evidentiary questions about the link between the label's instructions and the patented biological mechanism. The patent describes specific functional assays used to determine this activity, which could be argued to limit the claim's scope (’753 Patent, col. 4:6-col. 5:12).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants will induce infringement of the method-of-treatment patents by providing a product with a label that instructs users to administer the drug for the treatment of ADHD (Compl. ¶¶74, 96, 118, 140, 162, 184). Contributory infringement is also alleged on the basis that the ANDA products are a material part of the patented methods and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing uses (Compl. ¶¶78, 100, 122, 144, 166, 188).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all asserted patents. The complaint bases this allegation on Defendants' knowledge of the patents-in-suit, as evidenced by their filing of a Paragraph IV certification that specifically identified each patent, and their continued intent to market the ANDA Products prior to patent expiration (Compl. ¶¶79, 101, 123, 145, 167, 189).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A core issue will be one of formulation scope: once the composition of Defendants’ generic product is disclosed, the case for the formulation patents will turn on whether its specific combination of polymers, excipients, and release mechanisms falls within the boundaries of the asserted claims, or if it represents a non-infringing alternative design.
  • A key question for the method-of-treatment patents will be one of induced infringement and labeling: can Supernus demonstrate that Aurobindo’s proposed product label will inevitably lead physicians and patients to practice the patented methods of treating ADHD, and can Aurobindo successfully argue for a label "carve-out" to avoid infringement while maintaining a commercially viable generic product?
  • A third central question will involve claim construction: the outcome will likely depend on the court's interpretation of key terms such as "extended release component" and the functional language in the method claims (e.g., "antagonizing... receptor activity"), which will define the scope of Supernus's patent protection.