| Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and contingencies: The Company is involved from time to time in routine legal matters incidental to our business. Based upon available information, the Company believes that the resolution of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on its condensed consolidated financial position or results of operations. Except as discussed below, the Company is not the subject of any pending legal proceedings and, to the knowledge of management, no proceedings are presently contemplated against the Company by any federal, state or local governmental agency. Indivior (formerly RB Pharmaceuticals Ltd.) and Aquestive Therapeutics (formerly MonoSol Rx) The following disclosure regarding the Company’s ongoing litigations with Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. (formerly MonoSol Rx, “Aquestive”) and Indivior PLC (formerly RB Pharmaceuticals Limited, “Indivior”) is intended to provide some background and an update on the matter as per disclosure requirements of the SEC. Additional details regarding the past procedural history of the matter can be found in the Company’s previously filed periodic filings with the SEC. Litigation related to BUNAVAIL On October 29, 2013, Reckitt Benckiser, Inc., Indivior, and Aquestive (collectively, the “RB Plaintiffs”) filed an action against the Company relating to its BUNAVAIL product in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina (“EDNC”) for alleged patent infringement. BUNAVAIL is a drug approved for the maintenance treatment of opioid dependence. The RB Plaintiffs claim that the formulation for BUNAVAIL, which has never been disclosed publicly, infringes its US Patent No. 8,475,832 (the “‘832 Patent”). On May 21, 2014, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss. On January 22, 2014, Aquestive initiated an inter partes review (“IPR”) on U.S. Patent No. 7,579,019, the (“‘019 Patent”). The PTAB upheld all claims of the Company’s ‘019 Patent in 2015 and this decision was not appealed by Aquestive. On September 20, 2014, the Company proactively filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the EDNC requesting the Court to make a determination that the Company’s BUNAVAIL product does not infringe the ‘832 Patent, US Patent No. 7,897,080 (the “‘080 Patent”) and US Patent No. 8,652,378 (the “‘378 Patent”). The Company invalidated the “‘080 Patent” in its entirety in an inter partes reexamination proceeding. The Company invalidated all relevant claims of the ‘832 Patent in an IPR proceeding. And, in an IPR proceeding for the ‘378 Patent, in its decision not to institute the IPR proceeding, the PTAB construed the claims of the ‘378 Patent narrowly. Shortly thereafter, by joint motion of the parties, the ‘378 Patent was subsequently removed from the action. On June 6, 2016, in an unrelated case in which Indivior and Aquestive asserted the ‘832 Patent against other parties, the Delaware District Court entered an order invalidating other claims in the ‘832 Patent. Indivior and Aquestive did not appeal the Delaware Court’s holding that other claims of the ‘832 Patent are invalid. On February 10, 2021, the parties in our EDNC declaratory judgment action filed a covenant by Indivior and Aquestive not to sue us for infringement of the ‘832 Patent. In view of that covenant and the prior invalidation of the ‘080 patent, we filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the Company’s EDNC declaratory judgement action. On September 22, 2014, the RB Plaintiffs filed an action against the Company (and the Company’s commercial partner) relating to the Company’s BUNAVAIL product in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey for alleged patent infringement. The RB Plaintiffs claim that BUNAVAIL, whose formulation and manufacturing processes have never been disclosed publicly, infringes its patent U.S. Patent No. 8,765,167 (the “‘167 Patent”). The Company believes this is an anticompetitive attempt by the RB Plaintiffs to distract the Company’s efforts from commercializing BUNAVAIL. On December 12, 2014, the Company filed a motion to transfer the case from New Jersey to North Carolina and a motion to dismiss the case against its commercial partner. On October 28, 2014, the Company filed multiple IPR petitions on certain claims of the ‘167 Patent. The USPTO instituted three of the four IPR petitions. The PTAB upheld the claims and denied collateral estoppel applied to the PTAB decisions in March 2016. The Company appealed to Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The USPTO intervened with respect to whether collateral estoppel applied to the PTAB. On June 19, 2018, the Company filed a motion to remand the case for further consideration by the PTAB in view of intervening authority. On July 31, 2018, the Federal Circuit vacated the decisions, and remanded the ‘167 Patent IPRs for further consideration on the merits. On February 7, 2019, the PTAB issued three decisions on remand purporting to deny institution of the three previously instituted IPRs of the ‘167 patent. On March 11, 2019, the Company timely appealed the PTAB decisions on remand to U.S. Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit. On March 20, 2019, Aquestive and Indivior moved to dismiss the appeal, and the Company opposed that motion. On August 29, 2019, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted the motion and dismissed the Company’s appeal. On September 30, 2019, the Company filed a petition for an en banc rehearing of the order dismissing the Company’s appeal by the full Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. On January 13, 2020, by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied BDSI’s petition for en banc rehearing of the dismissal of BDSI’s appeal relating to inter partes review proceedings on the ’167 patent. On June 11, 2020, BDSI filed a petition for certiorari seeking U.S. Supreme Court review of the Federal Circuit’s decision. On October 5, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the Company’s petition for certiorari. The Company strongly refutes as without merit the Plaintiffs’ assertion of patent infringement and will vigorously defend the lawsuit. Litigation related to BELBUCA On January 13, 2017, Aquestive filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging BELBUCA infringes the ‘167 Patent. In lieu of answering the complaint, the Company filed motions to dismiss the complaint and, in the alternative, to transfer the case to the EDNC. On July 25, 2017, the New Jersey Court administratively terminated the case pending the parties submission of a joint stipulation of transfer because the District of New Jersey was an inappropriate venue. This case was later transferred to the Delaware District Court. On October 31, 2017, the Company filed motions to dismiss the complaint and, in the alternative, to transfer the case to the EDNC. On October 16, 2018, denying the motion to dismiss as moot, the Delaware District Court granted the Company’s motion to transfer the case to the EDNC. On November 20, 2018, the Company moved the EDNC to dismiss the complaint for patent infringement for failure to state a claim for relief. On August 6, 2019, the EDNC granted the Company’s motion to dismiss, and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. On or about November 11, 2019, Aquestive refiled a complaint in the EDNC against the Company alleging that BELBUCA infringes the ‘167 Patent. On January 13, 2020, in lieu of answering the complaint, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. After the two motions were denied, on April 16, 2020, we answered the complaint. Aquestive moved to dismiss our counter-claim of unenforceability, but the court denied that motion. The Company strongly refutes as without merit Aquestive’s assertion of patent infringement and will vigorously defend the lawsuit. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA (formerly Actavis) On February 8, 2016, the Company received a notice relating to a Paragraph IV certification from Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, or (formerly Actavis, “Teva”) seeking to find invalid three Orange Book listed patents relating specifically to BUNAVAIL. The Paragraph IV certification related to an ANDA filed by Teva with the FDA for a generic formulation of BUNAVAIL. The patents subject to Teva’s certification were the ‘019 Patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,147,866 (the “‘866 Patent”) and 8,703,177 (the “‘177 Patent”). On March 18, 2016, the Company asserted three different patents against Teva, the ‘019 Patent, the ‘866 Patent, and the ‘177 Patent. Teva did not raise non-infringement positions about the ‘019 and the ‘866 Patents in its Paragraph IV certification. Teva did raise a non-infringement position on the ‘177 Patent but the Company asserted in its complaint that Teva infringed the ‘177 Patent either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. On December 20, 2016 the USPTO issued U.S. Patent No. 9,522,188 (the “‘188 Patent””), and this patent was properly listed in the Orange Book as covering the BUNAVAIL product. On February 23, 2017 Teva sent a Paragraph IV certification adding the 9,522,188 to its ANDA. An amended Complaint was filed, adding the ‘188 Patent to the litigation. On January 31, 2017, the Company received a notice relating to a Paragraph IV certification from Teva relating to Teva’s ANDA on additional strengths of BUNAVAIL and on March 16, 2017, the Company brought suit against Teva and its parent company on these additional strengths. On June 20, 2017, the Court entered orders staying both BUNAVAIL suits at the request of the parties. On May 23, 2017, the USPTO issued U.S. Patent 9,655,843 (the “‘843 Patent”) relating to the BEMA technology, and this patent was properly listed in the Orange Book as covering the BUNAVAIL product. Finally, on October 12, 2017, the Company announced that it had entered into a settlement agreement with Teva that resolved the Company’s BUNAVAIL patent litigation against Teva pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. As part of the Settlement Agreement, which is subject to review by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice, the Company has entered into a non-exclusive license agreement with Teva that permits Teva to first begin selling its generic version of BUNAVAIL in the U.S. on July 23, 2028 or earlier under certain circumstances. Other terms of the agreement are confidential. The Company received notices regarding Paragraph IV certifications from Teva on November 8, 2016, November 10, 2016, and December 22, 2016, seeking to find invalid two Orange Book listed patents relating specifically to BELBUCA. The Paragraph IV certifications relate to three ANDAs filed by Teva with the FDA for a generic formulation of BELBUCA. The patents subject to Teva’s certification were the ‘019 Patent and the ‘866 Patent. The Company filed complaints in Delaware against Teva on December 22, 2016 and February 3, 2017 in which it asserted against Teva the ‘019 Patent and the ‘866 Patent. Teva did not contest infringement of the claims of the ‘019 Patent and did not contest infringement of the claims of the ‘866 Patent. The ‘019 Patent had already been the subject of an unrelated IPR before the USPTO under which the Company prevailed, and all claims of the ‘019 Patent survived. Aquestive’s request for rehearing of the final IPR decision regarding the ‘019 Patent was denied by the USPTO on December 19, 2016. Aquestive did not file a timely appeal at the Federal Circuit. On May 23, 2017, the USPTO issued U.S. Patent 9,655,843 (the “‘843 Patent”) relating to the BEMA technology, and this patent was properly listed in the Orange Book as covering the BELBUCA product. On August 28, 2017, the Court entered orders staying both BELBUCA suits at the request of the parties. In February 2018, the Company announced that it had entered into a settlement agreement with Teva that resolved the Company’s BELBUCA patent litigation against Teva pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. As part of the settlement agreement, which is subject to review by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice, the Company has granted Teva a non-exclusive license (for which the Company will receive no current or future payments) that permits Teva to first begin selling the generic version of the Company’s BELBUCA product in the U.S. on January 23, 2027 or earlier under certain circumstances (including, for example, upon (i) the delisting of the patents-in-suit from the U.S. FDA Orange Book, (ii) the granting of a license by us to a third party to launch another generic form of BELBUCA at a date prior to January 23, 2027, or (iii) the occurrence of certain conditions regarding BELBUCA market share). Other terms of the Agreement are confidential. Alvogen On September 7, 2018, the Company filed a complaint for patent infringement in Delaware against Alvogen Pb Research & Development LLC, Alvogen Malta Operations Ltd., Alvogen Pine Brook LLC, Alvogen, Incorporated, and Alvogen Group, Incorporated (collectively, “Alvogen”), asserting that Alvogen infringes the Company’s Orange Book listed patents for BELBUCA, including U.S. Patent Nos. 8,147,866 and 9,655,843, both expiring in July of 2027, and U.S. Patent No. 9,901,539, expiring in December of 2032. This complaint follows receipt by the Company on July 30, 2018 of a Paragraph IV Patent Certification from Alvogen stating that Alvogen had filed an ANDA with the FDA for a generic version of BELBUCA Buccal Film (75 mcg, 150 mcg, 300 mcg, 450 mcg, 600 mcg, 750 mcg and 900 mcg). Because the Company initiated a patent infringement suit to defend the patents identified in the Paragraph IV notice within 45 days after receipt of the Paragraph IV Certification, the FDA is prevented from approving the ANDA until the earlier of 30 months or a decision in the case that each of the patents is not infringed or invalid. Alvogen’s notice letter also does not provide any information on the timing or approval status of its ANDA. In its Paragraph IV Certification, Alvogen does not contest infringement of at least several independent claims of each of the ’866, ’843, and ’539 patents. Rather, Alvogen advances only invalidly arguments for these independent claims. The Company believes that it will be able to prevail on its claims of infringement of these patents, particularly as Alvogen does not contest infringement of certain claims of each patent. Additionally, as the Company has done in the past, it intends to vigorously defend its intellectual property against assertions of invalidity. Each of the three patents carry a presumption of validity, which can only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence. The Court scheduled a bench trial to commence on November 9, 2020 to adjudicate issues concerning the validity of the Orange Book patents listed for BELBUCA. On October 6, 2020, the Court rescheduled the bench trial with Alvogen to commence on March 1, 2021. A three day bench trial against Alvogen was conducted commencing on March 1, 2021. At the conclusion of trial, the Court ordered the parties to submit post-trial briefs. Post-trial briefing was completed on May 26, 2021. The Company subsequently moved the Court to strike (i.e., remove from the Court’s consideration) three patent invalidity defenses raised for the first time in Alvogen’s post-trial briefs and two documents improperly cited in Alvogen’s post-trial briefs. On June 28, 2021, the Court granted the Company’s motion to strike in its entirety. In addition, on June 28, 2021, the Court enjoined Alvogen from launching its generic product until the Court issues its final decision on the merits. The Company remains confident in the validity of its Orange Book patents listed for BELBUCA. 2018 Arkansas Opioid Litigation On March 15, 2018, the State of Arkansas, and certain counties and cities in that State, filed an action in the Circuit Court of Arkansas, Crittenden County against multiple manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and prescribers of opioid analgesics, including the Company. The Company was served with the complaint on April 27, 2018. The complaint specifically alleged that it licensed its branded fentanyl buccal soluble film ONSOLIS to Collegium, and Collegium is also named as a defendant in the lawsuit. ONSOLIS is not presently sold in the United States and the license agreement with Collegium was terminated prior to Collegium launching ONSOLIS in the United States. Therefore, on June 28, 2018, the Company moved to dismiss the case against it and most recently, on July 6, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a notice to voluntarily dismiss us from the Arkansas case, without prejudice. Chemo Research, S.L On March 1, 2019, the Company filed a complaint for patent infringement in Delaware against Chemo Research, S.L., Insud Pharma S.L., IntelGenx Corp., and IntelGenx Technologies Corp. (collectively, the “Chemo Defendants”), asserting that the Chemo Defendants infringe its Orange Book listed patents for BELBUCA, including U.S. Patent Nos. 8,147,866 and 9,655,843, both expiring in July of 2027, and U.S. Patent No. 9,901,539 expiring December of 2032. This complaint follows a receipt by the Company on January 31, 2019, of a Notice Letter from Chemo Research S.L. stating that it has filed with the FDA an ANDA containing a Paragraph IV Patent Certification, for a generic version of BELBUCA Buccal Film in strengths 75 mcg, 150 mcg, 300 mcg, 450 mcg, and 900 mcg. Because the Company initiated a patent infringement suit to defend the patents identified in the Notice Letter within 45 days after receipt, the FDA is prevented from approving the ANDA until the earlier of 30 months or a decision in the case that each of the patents is not infringed or invalid. Chemo Research S.L.’s Notice Letter also does not provide any information on the timing or approval status of its ANDA. On March 15, 2019, the Company filed a complaint against the Defendants in New Jersey asserting the same claims for patent infringement made in the Delaware lawsuit. On April 19, 2019, Defendants filed an answer to the Delaware complaint wherein they denied infringement of the ‘866, ‘843 and ‘539 patents and asserted counterclaims seeking declaratory relief concerning the alleged invalidity and non-infringement of such patents. On April 25, 2019, the Company voluntarily dismissed the New Jersey lawsuit given Defendants’ consent to jurisdiction in Delaware. The Court scheduled a bench trial to commence on November 9, 2020 (jointly with Alvogen) to adjudicate issues concerning the validity of the Orange Book patents listed for BELBUCA. On October 6, 2020, the Court rescheduled the bench trial with Chemo and Alvogen to adjudicate issues concerning the validity of the Orange Book patents listed for BELBUCA to commence on March 1, 2021. Chemo did not participate in the bench trial that commenced on March 1, 2021. Instead, on February 26, 2021, Chemo agreed to be bound by the decision of the Court with respect to the validity of the BEMA patents from the March 1, 2021 trial with Alvogen. The Court had scheduled a bench trial to commence on May 3, 2021 to adjudicate issues concerning the Chemo Defendants’ infringement of the Orange Book patents. On December 1, 2020, the Court rescheduled the bench trial to adjudicate issues concerning the Chemo Defendants’ infringement of the Orange Book patents to commence on November 15, 2021. On July 15, 2021, the Court rescheduled the bench trial to adjudicate issues concerning the Chemo Defendants’ infringement of the Orange Book patents to commence on April 25, 2022. The Company believes that it will be able to prevail in this lawsuit. As it has done in the past, the Company intends to vigorously defend its intellectual property against assertions of invalidity. Derivative Litigation On July 2, 2018, the Company filed a Schedule 14A Proxy Statement (the “Proxy”) with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) in connection with its 2018 Annual Meeting. Proposals 1 and 2 of the Proxy sought stockholder approval to amend the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation by deleting Article TWELFTH of the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation in its entirety and replacing it with a new Article TWELFTH that, among other things (i) provided for the declassification of the Company’s Board in phases, with the full declassification to be achieved in 2020 (the “Declassification Amendment”) and (ii) changed the voting standard for the uncontested election of directors to the Board from a plurality standard to the majority of votes cast standard as set forth in the bylaws of the Company (the “Election Amendment” and together with the “Declassification Amendment”, the “Amendments”). On August 2, 2018, the Company held the 2018 Annual Meeting, at which time the stockholders voted on the Amendments. Following the 2018 Annual Meeting, based on consultation with the Company’s advisors, the Company determined that the Amendments had been adopted by the requisite vote of stockholders and effected the Amendments by filing a Certificate of Amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on August 6, 2018. On September 11, 2019, two purported stockholders of the Company filed a putative class action against the Company and our directors in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Drachman v. BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2019-0728-AGB (Del. Ch.) (the “Complaint”). The Complaint alleged that the Amendments did not receive the requisite vote of stockholders at the 2018 Annual Meeting and asserted claims for violation of the Delaware General Corporation Law, breach of fiduciary duties, and declaratory judgment. The Complaint sought, inter alia, a declaration that the Amendments were not validly approved and invalidation of the Amendments, including altering the one-year terms of all directors duly elected at the 2018 and 2019 Annual Meetings to three-year terms. The Complaint also sought costs and disbursements, including attorneys’ fees. On July 1, 2020, the Company filed their response to the Complaint and denied the claims asserted therein. On November 5, 2019, the Board determined that ratifying the declassification of the Board and the change in the voting standard as set forth in the Amendments, as well as ratifying the filing and effectiveness of the Amendments, is in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders. The Board thus approved resolutions ratifying such acts and the filing and effectiveness of the Amendments under Section 204 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. On July 23, 2020, the stockholders of the Company approved the ratification of the declassification of the Board and the change in the voting standard as set forth in the Amendments as well as the filing and effectiveness of the Amendments. On July 23, 2020, the Company filed a Certificate of Validation with the Delaware Secretary of State. |
