Patent Case Watch

Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc v. actavis Inc., No. 16-1619 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 12, 2016)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 16-1619
Decided
December 12, 2016
Judge
Per curiam (Rule 36)
Document
Rule 36 Judgment
Length
2 pages
Download Opinion (PDF)

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ACTAVIS INC., WATSON LABORATORIES, INC. -

FLORIDA, NKA ACTAVIS LABORATORIES FL,

INC., ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC., WATSON

LABORATORIES, INC., ANDA, INC.,

Defendants-Appellants

2016-1619

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in No. 1:13-cv-04740-RMB-JS, Judge Renee Marie Bumb.

JUDGMENT

NICHOLAS F. GIOVE, Frommer Lawrence & Haug LLP, New York, NY, argued for plaintiff-appellee. Also represented by EDGAR HAUG, KEVIN GEORGEK, JONATHAN HERSTOFF, ANDREW SCOTT ROPER; DAMON MARCUS LEWIS, Washington, DC; WILLIAM CHARLES BATON, CHARLES M. LIZZA, Saul Ewing, LLP, Newark NJ.

2CHARLES A. WEISS, Holland & Knight, LLP, New York, NY, argued for defendants-appellants. Also represented by NICHOLAS P. CHIARA, LESLIE JILL KUSHNER, HOWARD S. SUH, ERIC H. YECIES.

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

PER CURIAM (DYK, CLEVENGER, and STOLL, Circuit

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

December 12, 2016 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc v. actavis Inc., No. 16-1619 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 12, 2016).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-ca13-16-01619-0
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01619-0

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.

Source: govinfo.gov USCOURTS collection · retrieved July 25, 2026 · Report an error