Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Lupin Limited
Infringement action filed 10 Sep 2021 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and closed 13 Nov 2023, with 10 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed without prejudice.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US8298576B2US9622983B2US8663683B2US8877248B1US8889191B2US10314790B2US8298580B2US8992989B2US9555004B2US9549940B2
- Case no.
- 1:21-cv-01293
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- D. Del.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Delaware
- Chief judge
- Maryellen Noreika
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 10 Sep 2021 – 13 Nov 2023
- Duration
- 794 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed without Prejudice
- Products & marks
- Topiramate extended-release capsules, containing 25 mg, 50 mg, 100 mg, and 200 mg of topiramate · albuterol sulfate aerosol, metered (90 mcg per actuation) · famotidine powder, for suspension (40 mg/5 mL), lisinopril tablets (2.5 mg, 5 mg, 10 mg, 20 mg, 30 mg, 40 mg · levothyroxine sodium tablets (25 mcg, 50 mcg, 75 mcg, 88 mcg, 100 mcg, 112 mcg, 125 mcg, 137 mcg, 150 mcg, 175 mcg, 200 mcg, and 300 mcg)
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
Sustained-release formulations of topiramate
Pharmaceutical compositions of topiramate for once-a-day oral administration are provided. The formulations comprise a sustained-release component and an optional immediate-release component, the compositions of which can be selectively adjusted, respectively, to release the active ingredient along a pre-determined release profile. Method of treating or preventing pathological disorders in mammalian subjects comprising the administration of the novel formulations disclosed herein is also provided.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 30 Oct 2012
- Earliest priority
- 17 Nov 2006
- Est. expiry
- 4 Apr 2028
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- LIANG, LIKAN · WANG, HUA · BHATT, PADMANABH P. · VIEIRA, MICHAEL L.
- Classification
- A61K31/357A61K9/54A61K9/24A61K9/14
- Prosecution counsel
- FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
- Examiner
- ZISKA, SUZANNE
Sustained-release formulations of topiramate
Pharmaceutical compositions of topiramate for once-a-day oral administration are provided. The formulations comprise a sustained-release component and an optional immediate-release component, the compositions of which can be selectively adjusted, respectively, to release the active ingredient along a pre-determined release profile. Method of treating or preventing pathological disorders in mammalian subjects comprising the administration of the novel formulations disclosed herein is also provided.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 18 Apr 2017
- Earliest priority
- 17 Nov 2006
- Est. expiry
- 16 Nov 2027
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- LIANG, LIKAN · WANG, HUA · BHATT, PADMANABH P. · VIEIRA, MICHAEL L.
- Classification
- A61K9/14A61K45/06A61K31/357B82Y5/00A61K31/7048A61K9/16A61K9/50A61K9/24
- Prosecution counsel
- FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
- Examiner
- ZISKA, SUZANNE
Also asserted in this case
8 moreThe docket lists 10 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 8 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
- US8663683B2Sustained-release formulations of topiramate
- US8877248B1Sustained-release formulations of topiramate
- US8889191B2Sustained-release formulations of topiramate
- US10314790B2Sustained-release formulations of topiramate
- US8298580B2Sustained-release formulations of topiramate
- US8992989B2Sustained-release formulations of topiramate
- US9555004B2Sustained-release formulations of topiramate
- US9549940B2Sustained-release formulations of topiramate
Parties of record
Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
- Core tech
- A61K31/357A61K9/54A61K9/24A61K9/14
- Counsel
- Camille Y. Turner · Edgar H. Haug · Francis DiGiovanni · Jason A. Kanter · Nicholas F. Giove · Richard F. Kurz · Thatcher A. Rahmeier
- Firm
- Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
Lupin Limited
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Andrew E. Morrell · Carol M. Pitzel Cruz · David A. Bilson · Jeremiah S. Helm · John C. Phillips Jr. · William R. Zimmerman
- Firm
- Phillips, Goldman, McLaughlin & Hall PA, Phillips, McLaughlin & Hall PA
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Camille Y. Turner | Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Edgar H. Haug | Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Francis DiGiovanni | Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Jason A. Kanter | Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Nicholas F. Giove | Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Richard F. Kurz | Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Thatcher A. Rahmeier | Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Andrew E. Morrell | Lupin Limited | Defendant |
| Carol M. Pitzel Cruz | Lupin Limited | Defendant |
| David A. Bilson | Lupin Limited | Defendant |
| Jeremiah S. Helm | Lupin Limited | Defendant |
| John C. Phillips Jr. | Lupin Limited | Defendant |
| William R. Zimmerman | Lupin Limited | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“This action for patent infringement having been brought by Plaintiff Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Supernus”) against Defendants Lupin Limited and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, “Lupin”). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41, Supernus and Lupin, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate, that: 1. All claims, counterclaims, and defenses asserted by Supernus and Lupin are dismissed without prejudice; and 2. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees with respect to the matters dismissed hereby.”
Case 1:21-cv-01293 · D. Del. · closed 13 November 2023
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 1:21-cv-01293?
1:21-cv-01293 is a patent infringement action brought by Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. against Lupin Limited, filed on 10 Sep 2021 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case closed on 13 November 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 1:21-cv-01293?
US8298576B2 (“Sustained-release formulations of topiramate”), assigned to SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., currently active; US9622983B2 (“Sustained-release formulations of topiramate”), assigned to SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTCALS, INC., currently active; US8663683B2 (“Sustained-release formulations of topiramate”), assigned to SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; US8877248B1 (“Sustained-release formulations of topiramate”), assigned to SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; US8889191B2 (“Sustained-release formulations of topiramate”), assigned to SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; US10314790B2 (“Sustained-release formulations of topiramate”), assigned to SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; US8298580B2 (“Sustained-release formulations of topiramate”), assigned to SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; US8992989B2 (“Sustained-release formulations of topiramate”), assigned to SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; US9555004B2 (“Sustained-release formulations of topiramate”), assigned to SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; US9549940B2 (“Sustained-release formulations of topiramate”), assigned to SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.. The record also lists Topiramate extended-release capsules, containing 25 mg, 50 mg, 100 mg, and 200 mg of topiramate, albuterol sulfate aerosol, metered (90 mcg per actuation), famotidine powder, for suspension (40 mg/5 mL), lisinopril tablets (2.5 mg, 5 mg, 10 mg, 20 mg, 30 mg, 40 mg and levothyroxine sodium tablets (25 mcg, 50 mcg, 75 mcg, 88 mcg, 100 mcg, 112 mcg, 125 mcg, 137 mcg, 150 mcg, 175 mcg, 200 mcg, and 300 mcg).
How was case 1:21-cv-01293 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed without prejudice. The termination text reads: “This action for patent infringement having been brought by Plaintiff Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Supernus”) against Defendants Lupin Limited and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, “Lupin”). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41, Supernus and Lupin, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate, that: 1. All claims, counterclaims, and defenses asserted by Supernus and Lupin are dismissed without prejudice; and 2. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees with respect to the matters dismissed hereby.”
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 1:21-cv-01293 take?
794 calendar days, from filing on 10 Sep 2021 to closure on 13 November 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:21-cv-01293?
Chief Judge Maryellen Noreika presided. Camille Y. Turner, Edgar H. Haug, Francis DiGiovanni, Jason A. Kanter, Nicholas F. Giove, Richard F. Kurz and Thatcher A. Rahmeier are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Supernus Pharmaceuticals. Andrew E. Morrell, Carol M. Pitzel Cruz, David A. Bilson, Jeremiah S. Helm, John C. Phillips Jr. and William R. Zimmerman appear for defendant Lupin.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:21-cv-01293 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.