Commitments and Contingencies | 15. Commitments and Contingencies Leases The Company’s contractual obligations and commitments were reported in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016, as filed with the SEC on March 2, 2017. The Company leases its Boston, Massachusetts and King of Prussia, Pennsylvania office spaces under non-cancelable operating leases expiring in 2021 and 2024, respectively. The Company executed the third amendment to the lease agreement on its King of Prussia office space in October 2016. The lease agreement, as amended, is for 19,708 rentable square feet of office space, for a total commitment of $3.3 million with respect to which lease payments became due beginning once Paratek took control of such office space during the first quarter of 2017. The total lease commitment is over a seven-year and seven-month lease term. The lease contains rent escalation and a partial rent abatement period, which is being accounted for as rent expense under the straight-line method. The Company is required to make additional payments under the operating leases for taxes, insurance, and other operating expenses incurred during the operating lease periods. As of March 31, 2017, future minimum lease payments under operating leases are as follows: Fiscal Year Remainder of 2017 $ 528 2018 1,084 2019 1,156 2020 1,178 2021 964 2022 and thereafter 1,422 Total $ 6,332 Intermezzo Patent Litigation In July 2012, the Company received notifications from three companies, Actavis Elizabeth LLC, or Actavis Elizabeth, Watson Laboratories, Inc.—Florida, or Watson, and Novel Laboratories, Inc., or Novel, in September 2012, from each of Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. and Par Formulations Private Ltd., together, the Par Entities, in February 2013 from Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd., together, Dr. Reddy’s, and in July 2013 from TWi Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or Twi, stating that each has filed with the FDA an ANDA, that references Intermezzo. Refer to Item 3, Legal Proceedings The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, or the New Jersey District Court, held a consolidated trial between December 1, 2014 and December 15, 2014 involving Paratek, Purdue Pharma, and their patent infringement claims against Actavis Elizabeth, Novel, and Dr. Reddy’s. The New Jersey District Court then received post-trial briefing and held a February 13, 2015 post-trial hearing. On March 27, 2015, the New Jersey District Court issued an order and accompanying opinion finding that: (a) the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,682,628, 8,242,131, and 8,252,809, are invalid as obvious; (b) Actavis Elizabeth, Novel, and Dr. Reddy’s infringe the ‘131 patent; (c) Novel infringes the ‘628 patent; and (d) Novel and Dr. Reddy’s infringe the ‘809 patent. On April 9, 2015, the New Jersey District Court entered final judgment consistent with the March 27, 2015 opinion and order referenced above. As a result of the New Jersey District Court’s findings, the intangible assets representing Intermezzo product rights were impaired and the related contingent obligation was reduced in light of an expected decline in Intermezzo sales for the three months ended March 31, 2015. The Company and Purdue Pharma jointly appealed the New Jersey District Court’s final judgment as to the '131 patent to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 6, 2015. On January 8, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the New Jersey District Court, and no opinion accompanied the judgment. On September 14, 2016, the defendants filed a warrant of satisfaction of judgment in the New Jersey District Court for the costs having been fully paid to the defendants. Patent Term Adjustment Suit In January 2013, the Company filed suit in the Eastern District of Virginia against the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or the USPTO, seeking recalculation of the patent term adjustment of the ’131 Patent. Purdue Pharma has agreed to bear the costs and expenses associated with this litigation. In June 2013, the judge granted a joint motion to stay the proceedings pending a remand to the USPTO, in which the USPTO is expected to reconsider its patent term adjustment award in light of decisions in a number of appeals to the Federal Circuit, including Novartis AG v. Lee 740 F.3d 593 (Fed. Cir. 2014), or the Novartis decision. Since having issued final rules implementing the Novartis decision, the USPTO has been working through the civil action cases and issuing remand decisions. The Company’s case was on remand until the USPTO made its decision on the recalculation of the patent term adjustment. On September 28, 2016, the USPTO issued a decision that the patent term adjustment is 1,038 days, from which the ‘131 Patent expiration would be March 26, 2029. Other Legal Proceedings In the ordinary course of business, the Company is from time to time involved in lawsuits, claims, investigations, proceedings, and threats of litigation relating to intellectual property, commercial arrangements, employment and other matters. While the outcome of these proceedings and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, as of March 31, 2017, the Company was not party to any other legal or arbitration proceedings that may have, or have had in the recent past, significant effects on the Company’s financial position. No governmental proceedings are pending or, to the Company’s knowledge, contemplated against the Company. The Company is not a party to any material proceedings in which any director, member of executive management or affiliate of the Company is either a party adverse to the Company or the Company’s subsidiaries or has a material interest adverse to the Company or the Company’s subsidiaries. |