Axsome Malta, Ltd. v. Aurobindo Pharma, Ltd.
Infringement action filed 18 Feb 2026 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and closed 4 Jun 2026, with US12384743B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed without prejudice.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US12384743B2
- Application no.
- US18/066000
- Case no.
- 2:26-cv-01580
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- D.N.J.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- New Jersey
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 18 Feb 2026 – 4 Jun 2026
- Duration
- 106 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed without Prejudice
- Products & marks
- Generic versions of Axsome’s solriamfetol oral tablets drug products · Sunosi® (solriamfetol) oral tablets, Eq. 75 mg base and Eq. 150 mg base
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Compositions comprising (R)-2-amino-3-phenylpropyl carbamate and uses thereof
The present invention relates to a newly identified solvate form of (R)-2-amino-3-phenylpropyl carbamate (APC) hydrochloride, a method of preparing APC hydrochloride, and methods of using the same to treat disorders. The invention further relates to methods of producing APC hydrochloride with increased purity.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 12 Aug 2025
- Earliest priority
- 6 Sep 2016
- Est. expiry
- 1 Nov 2038
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- HURLEY, FIONN
- Classification
- C07C271/12A61K45/06A61P3/04A61P25/24C07C269/08
- Prosecution counsel
- HUESCHEN AND SAGE
- Examiner
- COUGHLIN, MATTHEW P
Parties of record
Axsome Malta, Ltd.
- Core tech
- C07C271/12A61K45/06A61P3/04A61P25/24
- Counsel
- Alexander Lee Callo · Charles Michael Lizza · Sarah Ann Sullvian
- Firm
- Saul Ewing LLP
Aurobindo Pharma, Ltd.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- William Hare
- Firm
- McNeely, Hare & War LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Alexander Lee Callo | Axsome Malta, Ltd. | Plaintiff |
| Charles Michael Lizza | Axsome Malta, Ltd. | Plaintiff |
| Sarah Ann Sullvian | Axsome Malta, Ltd. | Plaintiff |
| William Hare | Aurobindo Pharma, Ltd. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), and by agreement between Plaintiffs Axsome Malta Ltd. and Axsome Therapeutics, Inc. (collectively, “Axsome”), and Defendants Aurobindo Pharma USA Inc. and Aurobindo Pharma Limited (collectively, “Aurobindo,” and together with Axsome, the “Parties”), the Parties stipulate and agree that all claims, counterclaims, and affirmative defenses asserted by the Parties against each other in the above-captioned actions are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and without costs or attorneys’ fees to any party. The dismissal of these matters with respect to Aurobindo shall not result in the dismissal of any claims, defenses, and/or counterclaims with respect to any other defendant. The Parties stipulate that the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey retains jurisdiction to enforce and resolve any disputes relating to the subject matter of the abovecaptioned actions.”
Case 2:26-cv-01580 · D.N.J. · closed 4 June 2026
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 2:26-cv-01580?
2:26-cv-01580 is a patent infringement action brought by Axsome Malta, Ltd. against Aurobindo Pharma, Ltd., filed on 18 Feb 2026 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The case closed on 4 June 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 2:26-cv-01580?
US12384743B2 (“Compositions comprising (R)-2-amino-3-phenylpropyl carbamate and uses thereof”), assigned to AXSOME MALTA LTD., currently active. The record also lists Generic versions of Axsome’s solriamfetol oral tablets drug products and Sunosi® (solriamfetol) oral tablets, Eq. 75 mg base and Eq. 150 mg base.
How was case 2:26-cv-01580 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed without prejudice. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), and by agreement between Plaintiffs Axsome Malta Ltd. and Axsome Therapeutics, Inc. (collectively, “Axsome”), and Defendants Aurobindo Pharma USA Inc. and Aurobindo Pharma Limited (collectively, “Aurobindo,” and together with Axsome, the “Parties”), the Parties stipulate and agree that all claims, counterclaims, and affirmative defenses asserted by the Parties against each other in the above-captioned actions are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and without costs or attorneys’ fees to any party. The dismissal of these matters wi
What does dismissal without prejudice mean?
A dismissal without prejudice ends this action but leaves the claims alive — the plaintiff may file them again later, subject to the limitation period.
How long did case 2:26-cv-01580 take?
106 calendar days, from filing on 18 Feb 2026 to closure on 4 June 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:26-cv-01580?
Alexander Lee Callo, Charles Michael Lizza and Sarah Ann Sullvian are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Axsome Malta. William Hare appears for defendant Aurobindo Pharma.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:26-cv-01580 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.