Axsome Malta v. Aurobindo Pharma: Solriamfetol Patent Case Dismissed Without Prejudice
Axsome Malta sued Aurobindo Pharma in the District of New Jersey alleging infringement of US12384743B2, a patent covering Sunosi® (solriamfetol) oral tablets used to treat excessive daytime sleepiness. All claims and counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice by stipulation after just 106 days, with no costs awarded to either party.
Axsome and Aurobindo reach early stipulated exit in Sunosi® ANDA battle
On February 18, 2026, Axsome Malta, Ltd. filed suit against Aurobindo Pharma, Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, asserting infringement of US12384743B2 in connection with Aurobindo's filing of an ANDA seeking approval for generic versions of Sunosi® (solriamfetol) oral tablets at the 75 mg and 150 mg base equivalents. Sunosi® is approved for treatment of excessive daytime sleepiness associated with narcolepsy and obstructive sleep apnea.
The recorded Basis of Termination is Dismissed without Prejudice. The docket order states that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the parties filed a stipulation dismissing all claims, counterclaims, and affirmative defenses without prejudice and without costs or attorneys' fees to any party. The court expressly retained jurisdiction to enforce and resolve disputes relating to the subject matter of the actions. The specific terms underlying the parties' agreement are not disclosed in the available record.
Resolution after just 106 days is notably swift for pharmaceutical ANDA patent litigation, which frequently runs for several years. The dismissal without prejudice means Axsome is not foreclosed from re-asserting the patent against Aurobindo if circumstances change. What drove the parties to this early exit — whether a licensing arrangement, a commercial agreement, or another development — is not disclosed in the public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 106 days
Case resolved in 106 days — well under the typical ANDA patent litigation timeline
US12384743B2 — Solriamfetol oral tablet formulations (Sunosi®)
Any company developing, filing an ANDA for, or commercialising a generic solriamfetol oral tablet product should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against US12384743B2. The patent remains unadjudicated after this case, and the without-prejudice dismissal means Axsome retains full enforcement rights. R&D teams formulating solriamfetol products at comparable dose strengths face direct exposure.
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulated dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) terminates all claims and counterclaims without a merits ruling on US12384743B2. The without-prejudice characterisation means neither party is bound by any adjudication on validity or infringement. The court's express retention of jurisdiction is a notable feature that goes beyond a standard Rule 41 exit and may indicate the parties anticipate future proceedings or have obligations tied to this forum.
Dismissed without prejudice: what the stipulated exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal without prejudice
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal is filed by joint stipulation of all appearing parties, requiring no court order. Without-prejudice status means the action is terminated but the underlying claims are not adjudicated on the merits — Axsome retains the right to refile the same patent claims against Aurobindo in a future action. The court separately retained jurisdiction over the subject matter.
No merits adjudicationAxsome exits with patent intact and no adverse ruling
Because the dismissal is without prejudice, US12384743B2 has not been adjudicated, invalidated, or held unenforceable. Axsome is not precluded from reasserting the patent against Aurobindo or enforcing it against other ANDA filers. The patent remains a live commercial asset. The specific terms of any agreement between the parties are not disclosed in the available record.
Patent validity untestedAurobindo's ANDA path remains unresolved by this ruling
The dismissal does not grant Aurobindo a judgment of non-infringement or invalidity. Its ANDA regulatory position is unaffected by the court outcome alone. The stipulation expressly notes the dismissal as to Aurobindo does not affect claims against any other defendant in related actions, suggesting a multi-defendant ANDA litigation environment. No costs were awarded against Aurobindo.
No invalidity findingEarly exit signals active management of Sunosi® generic entry risk
A 106-day resolution in ANDA litigation, with court-retained jurisdiction and a without-prejudice dismissal, is consistent with parties managing ongoing discussions outside the public record. Generic manufacturers and other ANDA filers in the solriamfetol space should note that US12384743B2 remains unadjudicated and actively held. The litigation landscape around Sunosi® generics may continue to evolve.
Patent risk persists for genericsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Axsome Malta, Ltd. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Aurobindo Pharma, Ltd. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alexander Lee Callo | Attorney | Counsel for Axsome Malta, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Charles Michael Lizza | Attorney | Counsel for Axsome Malta, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sarah Ann Sullvian | Attorney | Counsel for Axsome Malta, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Saul Ewing LLP | Law Firm | Representing Axsome Malta, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | WILLIAM HARE | Attorney | Counsel for Aurobindo Pharma, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | McNeely, Hare & War LLP | Law Firm | Representing Aurobindo Pharma, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | New Jersey District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the solriamfetol and CNS wake-promoting drug space
Forward-looking patent and R&D intelligence derived from Axsome Malta's enforcement of US12384743B2 and the competitive landscape for solriamfetol oral formulations.
Axsome's solriamfetol patent portfolio: continuations and coverage gaps
US12384743B2 (application US18/066000) is one node in what may be a broader family. Axsome and Axsome Therapeutics have been active in CNS drug IP. Mapping continuation and divisional filings around solriamfetol formulations reveals the true breadth of exclusivity and where claim scope may be expanding or narrowing — critical intelligence for any ANDA filer.
Axsome IP portfolioFiling trends in dopamine/norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor formulations
Solriamfetol belongs to the DNRI class used in wake-promoting therapy. Patent filing activity across DNRI oral formulations — including modified release, dose optimisation, and combination approaches — is a leading indicator of where competitors and innovators are directing R&D resources and where white space may exist for next-generation products.
DNRI formulation trendsAurobindo's CNS generics pipeline and patent challenge history
Aurobindo Pharma is a major ANDA filer with an extensive CNS generics pipeline. Reviewing its Paragraph IV certification history and patent challenge filings in the CNS and sleep disorder space reveals its strategic appetite for early generic entry and the technical arguments it has previously deployed against branded drug patents.
Aurobindo ANDA pipelineAdjacent formulation innovation beyond current Sunosi® claims
The asserted patent covers specific solriamfetol oral tablet formulations. Adjacent R&D opportunities — including alternative delivery routes, extended-release profiles, paediatric formulations, or combination therapies — may fall outside the current claim scope and represent open innovation space for both generic and branded developers.
Solriamfetol white spaceSimilar ANDA patent infringement cases in the CNS and sleep disorder drug space
Explore comparable ANDA patent infringement actions in the District of New Jersey involving CNS and wake-promoting pharmaceutical formulations, including solriamfetol and related compounds.
What this case signals for the solriamfetol and CNS drug IP landscape
A rapid without-prejudice exit in ANDA litigation typically signals active IP management — and an unadjudicated patent is a continuing risk for generic entrants.
US12384743B2 remains unadjudicated — ongoing risk for ANDA filers
The dismissal without prejudice leaves the validity and enforceability of US12384743B2 entirely open. Any generic manufacturer pursuing an ANDA for solriamfetol should treat this patent as a live enforcement risk. Axsome retains full standing to refile infringement claims against Aurobindo or any other filer.
Court-retained jurisdiction is a signal worth monitoring
The stipulation expressly preserves the New Jersey District Court's jurisdiction to enforce and resolve disputes relating to the subject matter. This is an unusual feature of a without-prejudice dismissal and suggests the parties' relationship — and this court's involvement — may not be concluded. IP teams should track any further docket activity in this matter.
Axsome v Aurobindo — key questions answered
The case was dismissed without prejudice. All claims, counterclaims, and affirmative defenses were dismissed by stipulation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with no costs or attorneys' fees awarded to either party. The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey retained jurisdiction over the subject matter.
The patent asserted is US12384743B2 (application number US18/066000), relating to Sunosi® (solriamfetol) oral tablets at the 75 mg and 150 mg base-equivalent doses. The case arose from Aurobindo's ANDA filing seeking approval for generic versions of these products.
Dismissal without prejudice means the patent was not adjudicated on the merits — its validity, enforceability, and infringement scope remain legally untested in this proceeding. Axsome retains the right to refile claims against Aurobindo or enforce the patent against other ANDA filers. There is no finding of non-infringement or invalidity that a generic competitor can rely on.
The public record does not disclose the reason for the early resolution. The stipulation was filed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) by agreement of all parties and does not state a commercial or legal rationale. The specific terms driving the parties' agreement are not disclosed in the available record.
Yes. The stipulation expressly provides 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 captioned actions. This is an express retention of jurisdiction, which is an notable feature beyond a standard without-prejudice dismissal.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.