Company: SUPN
Filing Date: 2025-11-06
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0001356576-25-000071
Chunk: 335

Company: SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
Filing Date: 2025-11-06
Form: 10-Q
Item: Part I, Item 2
Chunk 335
---
ured through fraud on the United States Patent and Trademark Office and that these patents were asserted against potential generic manufacturers of NAMENDA XR and Namzaric to prevent the generic manufacturers from entering the market, thereby wrongfully excluding generic competition resulting in artificially high prices being charged to government payors.

Adamas's patents in question were licensed exclusively to Forest. The complaint includes a claim for damages of "potentially more than $2.5 billion dollars," treble damages and statutory penalties. To date the federal and state governments have declined to intervene in this action. This case is currently stayed pending Adamas's and Allergan's interlocutory appeal of the District Court's December 11, 2020 order denying Adamas's and Allergan's motions to dismiss the complaint. The appeal was heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Case No. 21-80005). Argument was held on January 10, 2022. On August 25, 2022, the Ninth Circuit sided with the defendants by reversing the District Court's public disclosure bar rulings and remanding the case back to the District Court to decide certain issues in the first instance. On October 11, 2022, the plaintiff filed 

59

a petition for rehearing with the Ninth Circuit, which was denied. On December 23, 2022, defendants filed renewed motions to dismiss directed to the remaining unresolved issue. On March 20, 2023, the District Court entered an order and final judgment dismissing with prejudice the FCA claim while declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state false claims act claims which were dismissed without prejudice. On April 19, 2023, the plaintiff appealed the District Court's dismissal of the Federal False Claims Act claim. On February 20, 2024, the plaintiff filed a motion for an indicative ruling and to set aside the judgment in the District Court, based on the same arguments raised in his appeal. That motion was fully briefed and the District Court determined that the motion for an indicative ruling was suitable for determination without a hearing. On May 7, 2024, the District Court denied the plaintiff's motion for an indicative ruling. The appeal is fully briefed, and the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on November 21, 2024. On January 29, 2025, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's order dismissing the litigation. On March 31, 2025, the plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing by the Ninth