From time to time and in the ordinary course of business, Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the "Company") and any of its subsidiaries may be subject to various claims, charges and litigation. The Company and any of its subsidiaries may be required to file infringement claims against third parties for the infringement of our patents. 45 Table of Contents I.Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Appco Pharma LLC and Somerset Therapeutics LLC, No. 2:25-cv-12183 (MEF)(MAH) (D.N.J.), re-captioned as In re Viloxazine, C.A. No. 25-cv-12183 (MEF) (MAH) (Consolidated) The Company received Paragraph IV Notice Letters from generic drug makers Appco Pharma LLC (Appco) and Somerset Therapeutics LLC (Somerset) dated May 21, 2025, and June 9, 2025, directed to six of its Qelbree® Orange Book patents. Supernus’s U.S. Patent Nos. 9,358,204; 9,603,853; 9,662,338; 11,324,753; 11,458,143; and 12,121,523 generally cover viloxazine formulations and methods of using those formulations. The FDA Orange Book currently lists United States Patent Nos. 9,358,204 and 9,603,853 as expiring on February 7, 2033; United States Patent No. 9,662,338 as expiring on April 2, 2035; and United States Patent Nos. 11,324,753; 11,458,143; and 12,121,523 as expiring on September 4, 2029. On June 26, 2025, the Company filed a lawsuit against Appco and Somerset alleging infringement of the Company’s Qelbree® Orange Book patents. The Complaint—filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey—alleges, inter alia, that Appco and Somerset infringed the Company’s Qelbree® patents by submitting to the FDA an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) seeking to market a generic version of Qelbree® prior to the expiration of the Company’s patents. Filing its June 26, 2025, Complaint within 45 days of receiving Appco and Somerset’s Paragraph IV certification notice entitles Supernus to an automatic stay preventing the FDA from approving Appco and Somerset’s ANDA until October 2, 2028. On September 22, 2025, Appco and Somerset answered the Complaint and denied the substantive allegations of the Complaint, asserting affirmative defenses that include non-infringement and invalidity. Appco and Somerset also asserted Counterclaims that include requests for declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity. On October 28, 2025, the Company filed its reply, denying the substantive allegations of Appco’s and Somerset’s Counterclaims. On December 23, 2025, the Court issued an order consolidating this lawsuit for all pretrial purposes with the lawsuits against (i) Apotex, discussed in Section II, below; (ii) Aurobindo, discussed in Section III, below; (iii) Zydus, discussed in Section IV, below; (iv) Creekwood, discussed in Section V, below; (v) MSN, discussed in Section VI, below; (vi) Zenara and Biophore, discussed in Section VII, below; and (vii) Macleods, discussed in Sections VIII and IX, below. The Court’s December 23, 2025, consolidation order recaptioned the consolidated lawsuits as In re Viloxazine, C.A. No. 25-cv-12183 (MEF)(MAH) (Consolidated). On December 18, 2025, the Court issued a scheduling order for the consolidated cases that provides for a close of discovery on November 17, 2027. The Court has not set a date for a final pretrial conference or trial. Pretrial discovery is currently ongoing. II. Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Apotex Inc., No. 2:25-cv-12184 (MEF)(MAH) (D.N.J.) The Company received a Paragraph IV Notice Letter from generic drug maker Apotex Inc. (Apotex) dated May 22, 2025, directed to six of its Qelbree® Orange Book patents. Supernus’s U.S. Patent Nos. 9,358,204; 9,603,853; 9,662,338; 11,324,753; 11,458,143; and 12,121,523 generally cover viloxazine formulations and methods of using those formulations. The FDA Orange Book currently lists United States Patent Nos. 9,358,204 and 9,603,853 as expiring on February 7, 2033; United States Patent No. 9,662,338 as expiring on April 2, 2035; and United States Patent Nos. 11,324,753; 11,458,143; and 12,121,523 as expiring on September 4, 2029. On June 26, 2025, the Company filed a lawsuit against Apotex alleging infringement of the Company’s Qelbree® Orange Book patents. The Complaint—filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey—alleges, inter alia, that Apotex infringed the Company’s Qelbree® patents by submitting to the FDA an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) seeking to market a generic version of Qelbree® prior to the expiration of the Company’s patents. Filing its June 26, 2025, Complaint within 45 days of receiving Apotex’s Paragraph IV certification notice entitles Supernus to an automatic stay preventing the FDA from approving Apotex’s ANDA until October 2, 2028. On September 19, 2025, Apotex answered the Complaint and denied the substantive allegations of the Complaint, asserting affirmative defenses that include non-infringement and invalidity. Apotex also asserted Counterclaims that include requests for declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity. On October 24, 2025, the Company filed its reply, denying the substantive allegations of Apotex’s Counterclaims. On December 23, 2025, the Court issued an order consolidating this lawsuit for all pretrial purposes with the lawsuits against (i) Appco and Somerset, discussed in Section I, above; (ii) Aurobindo, discussed in Section III, below; (iii) Zydus, discussed in Section IV, below; (iv) Creekwood, discussed in Section V, below; (v) MSN, discussed in Section VI, below; (vi) Zenara and Biophore, discussed in Section VII, below; and (vii) Macleods, discussed in Sections VIII and IX, below. The Court’s December 23, 2025, consolidation order recaptioned the consolidated lawsuits as In re Viloxazine, C.A. No. 25-cv-12183 (MEF)(MAH) (Consolidated), and administratively terminated the C.A. No. 25-cv-12184 (MEF)(MAH) (D.N.J.) action. III. Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Aurobindo Pharma Limited and Aurobindo Pharma U.S.A., Inc., No. 2:25 cv-12186 (MEF)(MAH) (D.N.J.) The Company received a Paragraph IV Notice Letter from generic drug makers Aurobindo Pharma Limited and Aurobindo Pharma U.S.A., Inc. (collectively, Aurobindo) dated May 29, 2025, directed to six of its Qelbree® Orange Book patents. Supernus’s U.S. Patent Nos. 9,358,204; 9,603,853; 9,662,338; 11,324,753; 11,458,143; and 12,121,523 generally cover viloxazine formulations and methods of using those formulations. The FDA Orange Book currently lists United States Patent Nos. 9,358,204 and 9,603,853 as expiring on February 7, 2033; United States Patent No. 9,662,338 as expiring on April 2, 2035; and United States Patent Nos. 11,324,753; 11,458,143; and 12,121,523 as expiring on September 4, 2029. On June 26, 2025, the 46 Table of Contents Company filed a lawsuit against Aurobindo alleging infringement of the Company’s Qelbree® Orange Book patents. The Complaint—filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey—alleges, inter alia, that Aurobindo infringed the Company’s Qelbree® patents by submitting to the FDA an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) seeking to market a generic version of Qelbree® prior to the expiration of the Company’s patents. Filing its June 26, 2025, Complaint within 45 days of receiving Aurobindo’s Paragraph IV certification notice entitles Supernus to an automatic stay preventing the FDA from approving Aurobindo’s ANDA until October 2, 2028. On August 29, 2025, Aurobindo answered the Complaint and denied the substantive allegations of the Complaint, asserting affirmative defenses that include non-infringement and invalidity. On December 23, 2025, the Court issued an order consolidating this lawsuit for all pretrial purposes with the lawsuits against (i) Appco and Somerset, discussed in Section I, above; (ii) Apotex, discussed in Section II, above; (iii) Zydus, discussed in Section IV, below; (iv) Creekwood, discussed in Section V, below; (v) MSN, discussed in Section VI, below; (vi) Zenara and Biophore, discussed in Section VII, below; and (vii) Macleods, discussed in Sections VIII and IX, below. The Court’s December 23, 2025, consolidation order recaptioned the consolidated lawsuits as In re Viloxazine, C.A. No. 25-cv-12183 (MEF)(MAH) (Consolidated), and administratively terminated the C.A. No. 25-cv-12186 (MEF)(MAH) (D.N.J.) action. IV. Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Zydus Lifesciences Global FZE, Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc., and Zydus Lifesciences Limited, No. 2:25-cv-12188 (MEF)(MAH) (D.N.J.) The Company received a Paragraph IV Notice Letter from generic drug maker Zydus Lifesciences Global FZE (Zydus FZE) dated May 27, 2025, directed to three of its Qelbree® Orange Book patents. Supernus’s U.S. Patent Nos. 9,358,204; 9,603,853; and 9,662,338 generally cover viloxazine formulations and methods of using those formulations. The FDA Orange Book currently lists United States Patent Nos. 9,358,204 and 9,603,853 as expiring on February 7, 2033, and United States Patent No. 9,662,338 as expiring on April 2, 2035. On June 26, 2025, the Company filed a lawsuit against Zydus FZE, Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc., and Zydus Lifesciences Limited (collectively, Zydus) alleging infringement of the Company’s Qelbree® Orange Book patents. The Complaint—filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey—alleges, inter alia, that Zydus infringed the Company’s Qelbree® patents by submitting to the FDA an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) seeking to market a generic version of Qelbree® prior to the expiration of the Company’s patents. Filing its June 26, 2025, Complaint within 45 days of receiving Zydus FZE’s Paragraph IV certification notice entitles Supernus to an automatic stay preventing the FDA from approving Zydus’s ANDA until October 2, 2028. On September 22, 2025, Zydus answered the Complaint and denied the substantive allegations of the Complaint, asserting affirmative defenses that include non-infringement and invalidity. Zydus also asserted Counterclaims that include requests for declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity. On October 28, 2025, the Company filed its reply, denying the substantive allegations of Zydus’s Counterclaims. On December 23, 2025, the Court issued an order consolidating this lawsuit for all pretrial purposes with the lawsuits against (i) Appco and Somerset, discussed in Section I, above; (ii) Apotex, discussed in Section II, above; (iii) Aurobindo, discussed in Section III, above; (iv) Creekwood, discussed in Section V, below; (v) MSN, discussed in Section VI, below; (vi) Zenara and Biophore, discussed in Section VII, below; and (vii) Macleods, discussed in Sections VIII and IX, below. The Court’s December 23, 2025, consolidation order recaptioned the consolidated lawsuits as In re Viloxazine, C.A. No. 25-cv-12183 (MEF)(MAH) (Consolidated), and administratively terminated the C.A. No. 25-cv-12188 (MEF)(MAH) (D.N.J.) action. V. Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Creekwood Pharmaceuticals, LLC, C.A. No. 25-cv-13201 (MEF)(MAH) (D.N.J.) The Company received a Paragraph IV Notice Letter from generic drug maker Creekwood Pharmaceuticals, LLC (Creekwood) dated June 4, 2025, directed to six of its Qelbree® Orange Book patents. Supernus’s U.S. Patent Nos. 9,358,204; 9,603,853; 9,662,338; 11,324,753; 11,458,143; and 12,121,523 generally cover viloxazine formulations and methods of using those formulations. The FDA Orange Book currently lists United States Patent Nos. 9,358,204 and 9,603,853 as expiring on February 7, 2033; United States Patent No. 9,662,338 as expiring on April 2, 2035; and United States Patent Nos. 11,324,753; 11,458,143; and 12,121,523 as expiring on September 4, 2029. On July 11, 2025, the Company filed a lawsuit against Creekwood alleging infringement of the Company’s Qelbree® Orange Book patents. The Complaint—filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey—alleges, inter alia, that Creekwood infringed the Company’s Qelbree® patents by submitting to the FDA an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) seeking to market a generic version of Qelbree® prior to the expiration of the Company’s patents. Filing its July 11, 2025, Complaint within 45 days of receiving Creekwood’s Paragraph IV certification notice entitles Supernus to an automatic stay preventing the FDA from approving Creekwood’s ANDA until October 2, 2028. On September 19, 2025, Creekwood answered the Complaint and denied the substantive allegations of the Complaint, asserting affirmative defenses that include non-infringement and invalidity. Creekwood also asserted Counterclaims that include requests for declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity. On October 24, 2025, the Company filed its reply, denying the substantive allegations of Creekwood’s Counterclaims. On December 23, 2025, the Court issued an order consolidating this lawsuit for all pretrial purposes with the lawsuits against (i) Appco and Somerset, discussed in Section I, above; (ii) Apotex, discussed in Section II, above; (iii) Aurobindo, discussed in Section III, above; (iv) Zydus, discussed in Section IV, above; (v) MSN, discussed in Section VI, below; (vi) Zenara and Biophore, discussed in Section VII, below; and (vii) Macleods, discussed in Sections VIII and IX, below. The Court’s December 23, 2025, consolidation order recaptioned the consolidated 47 Table of Contents lawsuits as In re Viloxazine, C.A. No. 25-cv-12183 (MEF)(MAH) (Consolidated), and administratively terminated the C.A. No. 25-cv-13201 (MEF)(MAH) (D.N.J.) action. VI. Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. MSN Pharmaceuticals Inc., C.A. No. 25-cv-13204 (MEF)(MAH) (D.N.J.) The Company received a Paragraph IV Notice Letter from generic drug maker MSN Pharmaceuticals Inc. (MSN) dated June 5, 2025, directed to six of its Qelbree® Orange Book patents. Supernus’s U.S. Patent Nos. 9,358,204; 9,603,853; 9,662,338; 11,324,753; 11,458,143; and 12,121,523 generally cover viloxazine formulations and methods of using those formulations. The FDA Orange Book currently lists United States Patent Nos. 9,358,204 and 9,603,853 as expiring on February 7, 2033; United States Patent No. 9,662,338 as expiring on April 2, 2035; and United States Patent Nos. 11,324,753; 11,458,143; and 12,121,523 as expiring on September 4, 2029. On July 11, 2025, the Company filed a lawsuit against MSN alleging infringement of the Company’s Qelbree® Orange Book patents. The Complaint—filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey—alleges, inter alia, that MSN infringed the Company’s Qelbree® patents by submitting to the FDA an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) seeking to market a generic version of Qelbree® prior to the expiration of the Company’s patents. Filing its July 11, 2025, Complaint within 45 days of receiving MSN’s Paragraph IV certification notice entitles Supernus to an automatic stay preventing the FDA from approving MSN’s ANDA until October 2, 2028. On September 22, 2025, MSN answered the Complaint and denied the substantive allegations of the Complaint, asserting affirmative defenses that include non-infringement and invalidity. MSN also asserted Counterclaims that include requests for declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity. On October 28, 2025, the Company filed its reply, denying the substantive allegations of MSN’s Counterclaims. On December 23, 2025, the Court issued an order consolidating this lawsuit for all pretrial purposes with the lawsuits against (i) Appco and Somerset, discussed in Section I, above; (ii) Apotex, discussed in Section II, above; (iii) Aurobindo, discussed in Section III, above; (iv) Zydus, discussed in Section IV, above; (v) Creekwood, discussed in Section V, above; (vi) Zenara and Biophore, discussed in Section VII, below; and (vii) Macleods, discussed in Sections VIII and IX, below. The Court’s December 23, 2025, consolidation order recaptioned the consolidated lawsuits as In re Viloxazine, C.A. No. 25-cv-12183 (MEF)(MAH) (Consolidated), and administratively terminated the C.A. No. 25-cv-13204 (MEF)(MAH) (D.N.J.) action. VII. Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Zenara Pharma Private Ltd., et al. , C.A. No. 25-cv-13207 (MEF)(MAH) (D.N.J.) The Company received a Paragraph IV Notice Letter from generic drug maker Zenara Pharma Private Limited (Zenara) dated June 9, 2025, directed to six of its Qelbree® Orange Book patents. Supernus’s U.S. Patent Nos. 9,358,204; 9,603,853; 9,662,338; 11,324,753; 11,458,143; and 12,121,523 generally cover viloxazine formulations and methods of using those formulations. The FDA Orange Book currently lists United States Patent Nos. 9,358,204 and 9,603,853 as expiring on February 7, 2033; United States Patent No. 9,662,338 as expiring on April 2, 2035; and United States Patent Nos. 11,324,753; 11,458,143; and 12,121,523 as expiring on September 4, 2029. On July 11, 2025, the Company filed a lawsuit against Zenara and Biophore Pharma Inc. (Biophore, and collectively with Zenara, Defendants) alleging infringement of the Company’s Qelbree® Orange Book patents. The Complaint—filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey—alleges, inter alia, that Defendants infringed the Company’s Qelbree® patents by submitting to the FDA an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) seeking to market a generic version of Qelbree® prior to the expiration of the Company’s patents. Filing its July 11, 2025, Complaint within 45 days of receiving Defendants’ Paragraph IV certification notice entitles Supernus to an automatic stay preventing the FDA from approving Defendants’ ANDA until October 2, 2028. On September 16, 2025, Defendants answered the Complaint and denied the substantive allegations of the Complaint, asserting affirmative defenses that include non-infringement and invalidity. On December 23, 2025, the Court issued an order consolidating this lawsuit for all pretrial purposes with the lawsuits against (i) Appco and Somerset, discussed in Section I, above; (ii) Apotex, discussed in Section II, above; (iii) Aurobindo, discussed in Section III, above; (iv) Zydus, discussed in Section IV, above; (v) Creekwood, discussed in Section V, above; (vi) MSN, discussed in Section VI, above; and (vii) Macleods, discussed in Sections VIII, and IX below. The Court’s December 23, 2025, consolidation order recaptioned the consolidated lawsuits as In re Viloxazine, C.A. No. 25-cv-12183 (MEF)(MAH) (Consolidated), and administratively terminated the C.A. No. 25-cv-13207 (MEF)(MAH) (D.N.J.) action. VIII. Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 25-cv-15399 (MEF)(MAH) (D.N.J.) The Company received a Paragraph IV Notice Letter from generic drug maker Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Macleods Ltd.) dated August 1, 2025, directed to six of its Qelbree® Orange Book patents. Supernus’s U.S. Patent Nos. 9,358,204; 9,603,853; 9,662,338; 11,324,753; 11,458,143; and 12,121,523 generally cover viloxazine formulations and methods of using those formulations. The FDA Orange Book currently lists United States Patent Nos. 9,358,204 and 9,603,853 as expiring on February 7, 2033; United States Patent No. 9,662,338 as expiring on April 2, 2035; and United States Patent Nos. 11,324,753; 11,458,143; and 12,121,523 as expiring on September 4, 2029. On September 9, 2025, the Company filed a lawsuit against Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Macleods Pharma USA, Inc. (Macleods USA and collectively with Macleods Ltd., 48 Table of Contents Defendants) alleging infringement of the Company’s Qelbree® Orange Book patents. The Complaint—filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey—alleges, inter alia, that Defendants infringed the Company’s Qelbree® patents by submitting to the FDA an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) seeking to market a generic version of Qelbree® prior to the expiration of the Company’s patents. Filing its September 9, 2025, Complaint within 45 days of receiving Defendants’ Paragraph IV certification notice entitles Supernus to an automatic stay preventing the FDA from approving Defendants’ ANDA until October 2, 2028. On September 29, 2025, Defendants answered the Complaint and denied the substantive allegations of the Complaint, asserting affirmative defenses that include non-infringement and invalidity. Defendants also asserted Counterclaims that include requests for declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity. On November 3, 2025, the Company filed its reply, denying the substantive allegations of Defendants’ Counterclaims. On December 23, 2025, the Court issued an order consolidating this lawsuit for all pretrial purposes with the lawsuits against (i) Appco and Somerset, discussed in Section I, above; (ii) Apotex, discussed in Section II, above; (iii) Aurobindo, discussed in Section III, above; (iv) Zydus, discussed in Section IV, above; (v) Creekwood, discussed in Section V, above; (vi) MSN, discussed in Section VI, above; (vii) Zenara and Biophore, discussed in Section VII, above; and (viii) Macleods, discussed in Section IX, below. The Court’s December 23, 2025, consolidation order recaptioned the consolidated lawsuits as In re Viloxazine, C.A. No. 25-cv-12183 (MEF)(MAH) (Consolidated), and administratively terminated the C.A. No. 25-cv-15399 (MEF)(MAH) (D.N.J.) action. IX. Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd., et al. , C.A. No. 25-cv-18683 (MEF)(MAH) (D.N.J.) The Company received a Paragraph IV Notice Letter from generic drug maker Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Macleods Ltd.) dated November 20, 2025, directed to six of its Qelbree® Orange Book patents. Supernus’s U.S. Patent Nos. 9,358,204; 9,603,853; 9,662,338; 11,324,753; 11,458,143; and 12,121,523 generally cover viloxazine formulations and methods of using those formulations. The FDA Orange Book currently lists United States Patent Nos. 9,358,204 and 9,603,853 as expiring on February 7, 2033; United States Patent No. 9,662,338 as expiring on April 2, 2035; and United States Patent Nos. 11,324,753; 11,458,143; and 12,121,523 as expiring on September 4, 2029. On December 16, 2025, the Company filed a lawsuit against Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Macleods Pharma USA, Inc. (Macleods USA and collectively with Macleods Ltd., Defendants) alleging infringement of the Company’s Qelbree® Orange Book patents. The Complaint—filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware—alleges, inter alia, that Defendants infringed the Company’s Qelbree® patents by submitting to the FDA an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) seeking to market a generic version of Qelbree® prior to the expiration of the Company’s patents. Filing its December 16, 2025, Complaint within 45 days of receiving Defendants’ Paragraph IV certification notice entitles Supernus to an automatic stay preventing the FDA from approving Defendants’ ANDA until October 2, 2028. On December 23, 2025, the Court issued an order consolidating this lawsuit for all pretrial purposes with the lawsuits against (i) Appco and Somerset, discussed in Section I, above; (ii) Apotex, discussed in Section II, above; (iii) Aurobindo, discussed in Section III, above; (iv) Zydus, discussed in Section IV, above; (v) Creekwood, discussed in Section V, above; (vi) MSN, discussed in Section VI, above; (vii) Zenara and Biophore, discussed in Section VII, above; and (viii) Macleods, discussed in Section VIII, above. The Court’s December 23, 2025, consolidation order recaptioned the consolidated lawsuits as In re Viloxazine, C.A. No. 25-cv-12183 (MEF)(MAH) (Consolidated), and administratively terminated the C.A. No. 25-cv-18683 (MEF)(MAH) (D.N.J.) action. On January 23, 2026, Defendants answered the Complaint and denied the substantive allegations of the Complaint, asserting affirmative defenses that include non-infringement and invalidity. Defendants also asserted Counterclaims that include requests for declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity. On February 27, 2026, the Company filed its reply, denying the substantive allegations of Defendants' Counterclaims. X. Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Zydus Lifesciences Global FZE, et al., C.A. No. 26-cv-3543 (MEF)(MAH) (D.N.J.) The Company received a Paragraph IV Notice Letter from generic drug maker Zydus Lifesciences Global FZE ("Zydus FZE") dated March 25, 2026 directed to three of its Qelbree® Orange Book patents. Supernus's U.S. Patent Nos. 11 ,324,753; 11,458,143; and 12,121,523 generally cover viloxazine formulations and methods of using those formulations. The FDA Orange Book currently lists United States Patent Nos. 11,324,753; 11 ,458,143; and 12,121,523 as expiring on September 4, 2029. On April 2, 2026, the Company filed a lawsuit against Zydus FZE, Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc., and Zydus Lifesciences Limited (collectively, "Zydus") alleging infringement of the Company's Qelbree® Orange Book patents. The Complaint-filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey- alleges, inter alia, that Zydus infringed the Company's Qelbree® patents by submitting to the FDA an Abbreviated New Drug Application ("ANDA") seeking to market a generic version of Qelbree® prior to the expiration of the Company's patents. Filing its April 2, 2026 Complaint within 45 days of receiving Zydus FZE's Paragraph IV certification notice entitles Supernus to an automatic stay preventing the FDA from approving Zydus's ANDA until October 2, 2028. On April 14, 2026, Defendants answered the Complaint and denied the substantive allegations of the Complaint, asserting affirmative defenses that include non-infringement and invalidity. Defendants also asserted Counterclaims that include requests for declaratory judgments of noninfringement and invalidity. On April 23, 2026, the Company filed its reply, denying the substantive allegations of Defendants' Counterclaims. On May 5, 2026, the Court issued an order consolidating this lawsuit for all 49 Table of Contents pretrial purposes with the lawsuits against (i) Appco and Somerset, discussed in Section I, above; (ii) Apotex, discussed in Section II, above; (iii) Aurobindo, discussed in Section III, above; (iv) Zydus, discussed in Section IV, above; (v) Creekwood, discussed in Section V, above; (vi) MSN, discussed in Section VI, above; (vii) Zenara and Biophore, discussed in Section VII, above; and (viii) Macleods, discussed in Section VIII and IX, above. The Court’s May 5, 2026 consolidation order administratively terminated the C.A. No. 26-cv-3543 (MEF)(MAH) (D.N.J.) action. XI. Sage Chemical, Inc., et al. v. Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 22-cv-1302 (CJB) (D. Del.) On October 3, 2022, Sage Chemical, Inc. and TruPharma, LLC filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Britannia Pharmaceuticals Limited (Britannia), and US WorldMeds Partners, LLC (US WorldMeds) violated state and federal antitrust law in connection with APOKYN® (apomorphine HCl). On October 16, 2022, Plaintiffs amended their complaint to add additional defendants MDD US Enterprises, LLC, MDD US Operations, LLC (each a subsidiary of Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.), USWM, LLC (USWM), and individual defendants Paul Breckinridge Jones, Sr., Herbert Lee Warren, Jr., Henry Van Den Berg, and Kristin L. Gullo. On January 10, 2023, Defendants filed an Omnibus Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint seeking dismissal of each of Plaintiffs’ claims and the lawsuit in its entirety and US WorldMeds with USWM, Britannia, and the group of individual defendants each filed separate motions to dismiss. On May 9, 2024, and May 28, 2024, respectively, the Court denied the Defendants’ omnibus motion and the Britannia motion to dismiss. On May 31, 2024, and June 4, 2024, respectively, the Court granted the individual defendants’ motion to dismiss and the US WorldMeds and USWM motion to dismiss. On December 6, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which added US WorldMeds and USWM back to the case. On February 9, 2026, the Court issued a scheduling order that provided for the close of expert discovery on May 8, 2026, and the submission of dispositive motions by June 9, 2026, with briefing to be completed on September 2, 2026. On June 9, 2026, each side submitted both dispositive motions and motions to exclude certain expert opinions, which are currently being briefed. The scheduling order also sets a pretrial conference on January 15, 2027, and a jury trial beginning on January 25, 2027. XII. US WorldMeds Partners, LLC v. Federal Insurance Company, et al, Case Nos. 24-CI-2529; 24-CI-4195; 24-CI-4631; and 24-CI-6988 (D.Del) Alleged competitors of Supernus filed a lawsuit against the Company, MDD US Enterprises, LLC, and MDD Operations, LLC (collectively Enterprises) and others in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the Underlying Action). After a dispute over coverage under certain insurance policies arose, Enterprises commenced a declaratory judgment action against Federal Insurance Company, RSUI Indemnity Company, and StarStone Specialty Insurance Company and others to recover insurance benefits. US WorldMeds Partners, LLC, RSUI and StarStone commenced similar declaratory judgment actions in connection with the Underlying Action. These related actions were recently consolidated. This case is in its early stages. Supernus awaits responsive pleadings to its Complaint. Discovery has not yet commenced in the consolidated action. A court conference was held on May 14, 2025, and the next conference was scheduled for August 4, 2025. On August 4, 2025, after discussing the issues in the case, the judge ordered the parties to submit a joint proposed scheduling order outlining deadlines for the amendment of pleadings and completion of discovery on the coverage issues by August 22, 2025. A virtual status conference was held on January 28, 2026. Thereafter, the Court entered a Scheduling Order, which allows the parties to realign the pleadings and proceed with discovery. A court conference was held on May 6, 2026, and the next conference is scheduled for September 9, 2026. Trial is scheduled for October 2027. XIII. Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Old Republic Insurance Company, 8:24-cv-03733-PJM (D.Maryland) The action seeks recovery of insurance benefits in connection with the Underlying Action in the US WorldMeds Partners, LLC v. Federal Insurance Company case. On March 24, 2026, the court granted the defendant insurer’s pre-answer motion to dismiss, and the case was dismissed with prejudice. Supernus is appealing this decision. Court ordered mediation occurred on June 24, 2026 ,but did not produce a settlement. Following the session, the parties agreed to submit a revised briefing schedule to the Court, which was subsequently approved. The current deadlines are as follows: (1) Supernus’ brief due September 11, 2026; (2) Old Republic’s responsive brief due October 30, 2026; and (3) any reply brief due 21 days from service of response brief. XIV. US WorldMeds Partners, LLC v. Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., (N25C-07-121-KMM) (Delaware Superior Court) On April 30, 2025, the Company informed US WorldMeds Partners, LLC (“Partners”), the seller of US WorldMeds Enterprises, LLC n/k/a MDD US Enterprises, LLC that it would be withholding $27.7 million of a $30.0 million milestone payment pursuant to the set-off provision of the Sale and Purchase Agreement between the parties. On May 21, 2025, Partners filed a one-count complaint for specific performance in the Delaware Court of Chancery, seeking payment of the withheld 50 Table of Contents amount, plus interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs. On June 16, 2025, the Company filed a motion to dismiss Partners’ complaint on the grounds that the Court of Chancery lacked subject matter jurisdiction. On July 15, 2025, Partners dismissed its complaint and re-filed in the Delaware Superior Court with a companion motion to seal, seeking identical relief. The Company timely filed an Answer under seal on August 6, 2025. On October 3, 2025, Partners filed a motion for summary judgment and related briefing. The parties reached agreement on a stipulated briefing schedule, which the Court entered as an order. The Company’s opposition and cross motion for summary judgment was timely filed December 5, 2025; Partners filed a reply and opposition to the cross motion January 16, 2026; the Company filed a reply on February 9, 2026. Oral argument took place on March 4, 2026. On June 5, 2026, the Court entered a memorandum opinion awarding full summary judgment in favor of Partners and denied the Company’s cross motion. On June 22, 2026, Partners submitted an application for attorneys’ fees and costs, which the Company opposed on July 15, 2026. Partners is entitled to file a Reply on or before July 28, 2026. The principal balance due to Partners, interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs, remain a matter of dispute and are due to be decided by the court. On August 8, 2025, the Company made an additional partial holdback payment of approximately $1.9 million based on its then-current understanding of its obligations under the set-off provision. Sage Litigation On August 28, 2024, named plaintiff Darren Korver filed a purported federal securities class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against Sage Therapuetics, Inc. and individuals, Barry E. Greene and Kimi Iguchi (the “Securities Class Action”), both of whom are former officers of Sage. Pursuant to a statutorily prescribed process, the court appointed two new class representatives, Steamfitters Local 449 Pension & Retirement Security Funds and Trust of the Retirement System of the UPR, who filed an amended complaint on March 3, 2025, against the original defendants and five additional former officers of Sage. The amended complaint in the Securities Class Action alleges violations of U.S. securities laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks an as-yet unspecified amount of damages allegedly sustained by parties who purchased the Sage Therapeutic’s stock between April 12, 2021 and July 23, 2024, as well as applicable attorneys’ fees and costs. On April 17, 2025, Sage Therapeutics, along with all of the individual defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the Securities Class Action in the Southern District of New York. On February 18, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a letter with the Court seeking leave to amend their complaint and asking the Court to refrain from deciding the motion to dismiss pending the Court’s decision on the request to file an amended complaint. On March 10, 2026, Defendants submitted a letter to the Court joining Plaintiffs’ request of February 18, 2026. On April 3, 2026, the parties filed a stipulation, which the Court so ordered on April 9, 2026, permitting Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by July 15, 2026. On April 30, 2026, Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint. On July 15, 2026, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Lead Plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion to dismiss is due by August 31, 2026, and Defendants’ reply in further support of their motion is due by September 22, 2026. Related derivative actions remain stayed pending the resolution of this motion. Sage denies any allegations of wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend against the Securities Class Action. On October 16, 2024, Sage Therapeutics received a subpoena from the Enforcement Division of the SEC requesting documents and information related to Sage's NDA for zuranolone for the treatment of MDD, including communications with the FDA and any communications containing material nonpublic information. Sage Therapeutics is cooperating with the SEC and intends to continue to provide information responsive to the SEC’s requests. On March 26, 2025, plaintiff shareholder Qingping Zhu commenced derivative litigation in the Southern District of New York, purportedly on behalf of Sage, against sixteen current and former officers and directors of Sage (the “Zhu Derivative Litigation”). Based significantly on the allegations underlying the Securities Class Action, the Zhu Derivative Litigation alleges violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets, and seeks unspecified damages and various equitable relief. On April 14, 2025, the Southern District of New York granted a stay of the Zhu Derivative Litigation pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the Securities Class Action. On May 13, 2025, plaintiff shareholder Jurgen Matton commenced derivative litigation in the Southern District of New York, purportedly on behalf of Sage Therapeutics, against sixteen current and former officers and directors of Sage Therapeutics (the “Matton Derivative Litigation”). Based significantly on the allegations underlying the Securities Class Action, the Matton Derivative Litigation alleges violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets, and seeks unspecified damages and various equitable relief. On May 22, 2025, plaintiff shareholder Joseph Pizzelanti commenced derivative litigation in the Southern District of New York, purportedly on behalf of Sage Therapeutics, against sixteen current and former officers and directors of the Company (the “Pizzelanti Derivative Litigation”). Based significantly on the allegations underlying the Securities Class Action, the 51 Table of Contents Pizzelanti Derivative Litigation alleges violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets, and seeks unspecified damages and various equitable relief. On June 20, 2025, Sage, along with other relevant parties, submitted for the Southern District of New York’s approval of a consolidation of the Zhu Derivative Litigation with the Matton Derivative Litigation and the Pizzelanti Derivative Litigation (the “Consolidated Derivative Litigation”). During 2025, two complaints were filed in state court by purported stockholders of Sage regarding the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the Merger Agreement), dated as of June 13, 2025, by and among Sage, Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Saphire, Inc., a Delaware corporation. On July 8, 2025, a purported stockholder of Sage Therapeutics filed a complaint against Sage Therapeutics and each member of the Board in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, captioned Taylor v. Sage Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Index No. 654060/2025 (the “Taylor Complaint”). On July 9, 2025, a purported stockholder of Sage Therapeutics filed a complaint against Sage Therapeutics and each member of the Board in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, captioned Morgan v. Sage Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Index No. 654094/2025 (together with the Taylor Complaint, the “Merger Complaints”). The Merger Complaints assert, among other things, claims for negligent misrepresentation and concealment and negligence under New York common law against all defendants. The Merger Complaints allege that Sage Therapeutic’s Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC on July 2, 2025, together with the exhibits and annexes thereto (the “Schedule 14D-9”), omitted certain purportedly material information. Among other relief, the Merger Complaints seek (i) an injunction prohibiting consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement (the “Transactions”), (ii) rescission or actual and punitive damages if the Transactions are consummated, and (iii) an award of the plaintiffs’ fees and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ and experts’ fees and expenses. Sage Therapeutics has also received certain demand letters from purported stockholders making allegations similar to those contained in the Merger Complaints. Additional lawsuits arising out of or relating to the Merger Agreement may be filed in the future. At this time, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of the Securities Class Action, the SEC investigation, the Consolidated Derivative Litigation, or the Merger Complaints, or reasonably estimate a range of possible losses.