Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Indemnification In the normal course of business, we enter into agreements that contain a variety of representations and warranties and provide for general indemnification, including indemnification associated with product liability or infringement of intellectual property rights. Our exposure under these agreements is unknown because it involves future claims that may be made but have not yet been made against us. To date, we have not paid any claims or been required to defend any action related to these indemnification obligations. We have agreed to indemnify our executive officers, directors and certain other employees for losses and costs incurred in connection with certain events or occurrences, including advancing money to cover certain costs, subject to certain limitations. The maximum potential amount of future payments we could be required to make under the indemnification obligations is unlimited; however, we maintain insurance policies that may limit our exposure and may enable us to recover a portion of any future amounts paid. Assuming the applicability of coverage, the willingness of the insurer to assume coverage, and subject to certain retention, loss limits and other policy provisions, we believe the fair value of these indemnification obligations is not significant. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liabilities relating to these obligations as of December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016 . No assurances can be given that the covering insurers will not attempt to dispute the validity, applicability, or amount of coverage without expensive litigation against these insurers, in which case we may incur substantial liabilities as a result of these indemnification obligations. Lease and Other Commitments Facility Leases. In January 2015, we entered into an agreement to lease office space located in Palo Alto, California in a building subsequently constructed by the landlord. The term of this lease is 12 years from the commencement date as defined in the lease agreement and we have an option to extend the term twice for a period of five years each. We concluded we were the deemed owner of the building during the construction period, based on applicable accounting guidance for build-to-suit leases. Accordingly, the landlord’s costs of constructing the building during the construction period were capitalized, offset by a corresponding financing obligation in our consolidated balance sheets. We began to occupy this office space in October 2017. As such, we evaluated the lease to determine whether it had met the requirements for sale-leaseback accounting, including evaluating whether all risks of ownership have been transferred back to the landlord, as evidenced by a lack of continuing involvement in the build-to-suit lease property. We determined that the construction project did not qualify for sale-leaseback accounting and will instead be accounted for as a financing, given our continuing involvement after the conclusion of the construction period. As a result, the build-to-suit lease property remains on our consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2017 and is being depreciated over its estimated useful life starting in the fourth quarter of 2017. As of December 31, 2017 , the total amount of the related financing obligation was $62.9 million , which is classified within current liabilities and non-current liabilities in our consolidated balance sheets. In September 2017, we entered into an agreement to lease office space located in Palo Alto, California in a second building to be constructed by the same landlord. We expect to occupy this office space by the end of 2019. This lease has a term of 12 years from the commencement date as defined in the lease agreement and we have an option to extend the term of the lease twice for a period of five years each. In connection with this lease, the landlord is providing a tenant improvement allowance for the costs associated with the design, development and construction of tenant improvements for the leased facilities. We are obligated to fund all costs incurred in excess of the tenant improvement allowance. The scope of the planned tenant improvements do not qualify as “normal tenant improvements” under the lease accounting guidance. Accordingly, for accounting purposes, we have concluded we are the deemed owner of the building during the construction period. As of December 31, 2017 , we recorded project construction costs of $17.4 million incurred by the landlord as construction-in-progress in property and equipment, net and a corresponding financing obligation in other non-current liabilities in our consolidated balance sheets. We will increase the asset and financing obligation as additional building costs are incurred by the landlord during the construction period. For the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, we recorded rent expense associated with the ground lease on our facility leases of $2.4 million , $1.9 million and $1.8 million , respectively, in our consolidated statements of income. Future minimum lease payments under our noncancelable facility leases as of December 31, 2017 , were as follows (in thousands): Year Ending December 31, Lease Payments 2018 $ 6,297 2019 9,142 2020 14,392 2021 14,824 2022 15,269 Thereafter 135,473 Total $ 195,397 Operating Leases. We have noncancelable operating leases for our office buildings and we are obligated to make payments under noncancelable operating leases for automobiles used by our sales force. Lease expense under our operating leases was as follows (in thousands): Year Ended December 31, 2017 2016 2015 Lease expense $ 14,982 $ 11,600 $ 10,479 Future minimum lease payments under our noncancelable operating leases as of December 31, 2017 , were as follows (in thousands): Year ending December 31, Lease Payments 2018 $ 9,102 2019 8,166 2020 6,111 2021 5,212 2022 5,007 Thereafter 12,753 Total $ 46,351 In August 2016, we entered into an operating lease agreement for office space in Dublin, Ireland for a term of 20 years , with an option to terminate at the end of eight years with no less than one year ’s prior written notice and the payment of a termination fee, and a further option to terminate at the end of 15 years with no less than one year ’s prior written notice. We are obligated to make minimum lease payments totaling $19.8 million in connection with this lease. Other Commitments. As of December 31, 2017 , we had $46.3 million of noncancelable purchase commitments due within one year, primarily related to agreements with third party manufacturers. Legal Proceedings We are involved in legal proceedings, including the following matters: Xyrem ANDA Litigation. On December 10, 2012, we received a notice of Paragraph IV Patent Certification, or Paragraph IV Certification, from Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, or Amneal, that it had submitted an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, to the FDA requesting approval to market a generic version of Xyrem. On January 18, 2013, we filed a lawsuit against Amneal in the federal district court of New Jersey, or District Court, alleging that our patents covering Xyrem are infringed or will be infringed by Amneal’s ANDA and seeking a permanent injunction to prevent Amneal from introducing a generic version of Xyrem that would infringe these patents. On November 21, 2013, we received a notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., or Par, that it had submitted an ANDA to the FDA requesting approval to market a generic version of Xyrem. On December 27, 2013, we filed a lawsuit against Par in the District Court alleging that our patents covering Xyrem are infringed or will be infringed by Par’s ANDA and seeking a permanent injunction to prevent Par from introducing a generic version of Xyrem that would infringe these patents. In May 2014, the District Court granted a request by Amneal to consolidate its case with the Par case. Additional patents covering Xyrem have been issued since May 2014 and have been listed in the FDA’s publication “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” or the Orange Book, for Xyrem. Amneal and Par gave us additional notices of Paragraph IV Certifications regarding such patents, and we filed additional lawsuits against Amneal and Par in the District Court alleging that our patents covering Xyrem are infringed or will be infringed by Amneal’s and Par’s ANDAs and seeking a permanent injunction to prevent Amneal and Par from introducing a generic version of Xyrem that would infringe our patents. In August 2016, we and Par stipulated to dismiss claims relating to our patents covering the formulation of Xyrem on the grounds that Par had notified FDA that it had converted its Paragraph IV Certifications to Paragraph III Patent Certifications. In September 2017, we and Amneal stipulated to dismiss claims relating to certain of our patents covering the formulation of Xyrem on the grounds that Amneal had notified FDA that it had converted its Paragraph IV Certifications as to these patents to Paragraph III Patent Certifications. On October 30, 2014, we received a notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., formerly known as Watson Laboratories, Inc., or Teva, that it had submitted an ANDA to the FDA requesting approval to market a generic version of Xyrem. On December 11, 2014, we filed a lawsuit against Teva in the District Court alleging that our patents covering Xyrem are or will be infringed by Teva’s ANDA and seeking a permanent injunction to prevent Teva from introducing a generic version of Xyrem that would infringe these patents. In March 2015, Teva moved to dismiss the portion of the case based on our Orange Book-listed REMS patents on the grounds that these patents do not cover patentable subject matter. In November 2015, the District Court administratively terminated this motion to dismiss (without prejudice) pending the outcome of IPR proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, or PTAB, of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office relating to the patents that were the subject of Teva’s motion. Since March 2015, we received an additional notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Teva regarding newly issued patents for Xyrem listed in the Orange Book, and we filed an additional lawsuit against Teva in the District Court alleging that our patents covering Xyrem are or will be infringed by Teva’s ANDA and seeking a permanent injunction to prevent Teva from introducing a generic version of Xyrem that would infringe these patents. In April 2015, the District Court issued an order consolidating all then-pending lawsuits against Amneal, Par and Teva into one case. On July 23, 2015, we received a notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Lupin Inc., or Lupin, that it had submitted an ANDA to the FDA requesting approval to market a generic version of Xyrem. On September 2, 2015, we filed a lawsuit in the District Court alleging that our patents covering Xyrem are or will be infringed by Lupin’s ANDA and seeking a permanent injunction to prevent Lupin from introducing a generic version of Xyrem that would infringe our patents. In January, April and June 2016, the District Court issued orders consolidating all of the cases then pending against Amneal, Par, Teva and Lupin into a single case for all purposes. Although no trial date has been set for the consolidated case, discovery is scheduled to conclude in the third quarter of 2018, and the trial in this consolidated case could occur as early as the third quarter of 2018. As discussed in more detail below, in January 2018, we entered into a settlement agreement and related agreements resolving our patent infringement litigation against Par in the consolidated case, as well as related discovery proceedings and certain IPR proceedings currently on appeal to the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit, or the Federal Circuit. On November 21, 2017, we received a notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Mallinckrodt Inc., or Mallinckrodt, that it had submitted an ANDA to the FDA requesting approval to market a generic version of Xyrem. On January 2, 2018, we filed a lawsuit in the District Court alleging that our patents covering Xyrem are or will be infringed by Mallinckrodt’s ANDA and seeking a permanent injunction to prevent Mallinckrodt from introducing a generic version of Xyrem that would infringe our patents. We cannot predict whether additional generic manufacturers will file ANDAs and require new patent litigation, the specific timing or outcome of events with respect to the remaining defendants or the impact of developments involving any specific parties or patents on other ongoing proceedings with any ANDA filer. Xyrem ANDA Litigation Settlements. On April 5, 2017, we entered into a settlement agreement and related agreements resolving our patent infringement litigation against the first ANDA filer, Roxane Laboratories, Inc., which was acquired by West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp. (a wholly owned subsidiary of Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC), or West-Ward. In connection with the settlement, we granted West-Ward the right to sell an authorized generic version of Xyrem, the West-Ward AG Product, in the U.S. for an initial term of six months beginning on January 1, 2023, or earlier under certain circumstances. Such circumstances include events related to the licensing or market entry of another generic sodium oxybate product, a final decision that all unexpired claims of the Xyrem patents are invalid and/or unenforceable, or a substantial reduction in Xyrem net sales over specified periods of time. West-Ward has the right to extend the initial six -month term for the West-Ward AG Product, or the Initial Term, and continue to sell the West-Ward AG Product for up to a total of five years (the Initial Term, as it may be extended by West-Ward, is referred to as the West-Ward AG Sales Period). We are entitled to receive a meaningful royalty on net sales of the West-Ward AG Product, with the royalty rate increasing during the Initial Term based on increased net sales of the West-Ward AG Product. There will also be a substantial increase in the royalty rate should the West-Ward AG Sales Period be extended beyond one year . We will also receive payment for the supply of the West-Ward AG Product and reimbursement for a portion of the services costs associated with the operation of the Xyrem REMS and distribution of the West-Ward AG Product. We also granted West-Ward a non-exclusive license under the Xyrem patents to make, have made and market its own generic sodium oxybate product under the West-Ward ANDA in the U.S., effective at the end of the West-Ward AG Sales Period. On January 9, 2018, we entered into a settlement agreement and related agreements resolving our patent infringement litigation against Par in the District Court, as well as related discovery proceedings and certain IPR proceedings currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit. In connection with the settlement, we granted Par the right to sell a limited volume of an authorized generic version of Xyrem, or the Par AG Product, in the U.S. for a term beginning on July 1, 2023, or earlier under certain circumstances, and ending on December 31, 2025, or the Par AG Sales Period. Such circumstances include events related to acceleration of the West-Ward AG Product launch date, the earlier launch of another party’s authorized generic or generic sodium oxybate product, or a final decision that all unexpired claims of the Xyrem patents are not infringed, invalid and/or unenforceable. The volume of the Par AG Product is limited to an annual amount equal to a low single-digit percentage of Xyrem sales volume during the calendar year preceding the entry date of the Par AG Product. We also granted Par a non-exclusive license under the Xyrem patents to make, have made and market its own generic sodium oxybate product under Par’s ANDA (assuming FDA approval is obtained) effective December 31, 2025, or earlier under certain circumstances. Such circumstances include events related to launch of a generic sodium oxybate product by West-Ward or another party under its ANDA, or a final decision that all unexpired claims of the Xyrem patents are not infringed, invalid and/or unenforceable. If the Par license to market its own generic sodium oxybate product accelerates, then Par will have the option to elect to market the Par AG Product until December 31, 2025, but Par will not be entitled to market the Par AG Product and its own generic sodium oxybate product simultaneously. We are entitled to receive a meaningful royalty on net sales of the Par AG Product over the Par AG Sales Period, as well as payment for the supply of the Par AG Product and reimbursement for a portion of the services costs associated with the operation of the Xyrem REMS and distribution of the Par AG Product. In addition to our settlement agreements with West-Ward and Par, we have also entered into settlements with three other ANDA filers, granting each of those filers the right to manufacture, market and sell its own sodium oxybate product on or after December 31, 2025, or earlier depending on the occurrence of certain events. The specific terms of all of the settlement agreements are confidential. The settlements do not resolve the consolidated case against Amneal, Teva and Lupin, or the case against the most recent ANDA filer, Mallinckrodt, which remain pending. Xyrem Post-Grant Patent Review Matters . In January 2015, certain of the ANDA filers filed petitions for IPR with respect to the validity of six of our seven patents associated with the Xyrem REMS, or REMS patents. The PTAB instituted IPR trials with respect to certain of these petitions. In July 2016, the PTAB issued final decisions that the claims of the six REMS patents are unpatentable. In March 2016, the PTAB partially instituted an IPR on three claims of a seventh REMS patent, declining to review 25 of 28 claims, and in March 2017, the PTAB issued a final decision that the three claims they reviewed are unpatentable. The July 2016 and March 2017 PTAB decisions are part of a consolidated appeal currently pending before the Federal Circuit. If the Federal Circuit upholds the PTAB decisions on appeal, we will not be able to enforce claims the PTAB found unpatentable. We cannot predict whether additional post-grant patent review challenges will be filed by any of the ANDA filers or any other entity, the outcome of any future IPR or other proceeding, the outcome of the appeal of the July 2016 and March 2017 PTAB decisions with respect to the REMS patents or the impact any IPR or other proceeding might have on ongoing ANDA litigation proceedings or other aspects of our Xyrem business. Shareholder Litigation Matters Relating to Celator Acquisition. On June 21, 2016, a putative class-action lawsuit challenging our Celator Acquisition, captioned Dunbar v. Celator Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or the Dunbar action, was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey. The complaint was filed against Celator, each member of the Celator board of directors, Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc and our wholly owned subsidiary Plex Merger Sub, Inc., or Plex. The complaint generally alleges that the Celator directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Celator Acquisition, and that Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc and Plex aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint also generally asserts that the Celator directors breached their fiduciary duties to Celator’s public stockholders by, among other things, (i) agreeing to sell Celator to us at an inadequate price, (ii) implementing an unfair process, (iii) agreeing to certain provisions of the merger agreement for the Celator Acquisition that allegedly favored us and deterred alternative bids, and (iv) failing to disclose purportedly material information in Celator’s Schedule 14D-9 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC. The plaintiff sought, among other things, an injunction against the consummation of the Celator Acquisition and an award of costs and expenses, including a reasonable allowance for attorneys’ and experts’ fees. Between June 27, 2016 and June 29, 2016, two putative class-action lawsuits challenging the Celator Acquisition, captioned Palmisciano v. Celator Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or the Palmisciano action, and Barreto v. Celator Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , or the Barreto action , were filed in the District Court. The complaints were filed against Celator and each member of the Celator board of directors. The complaints assert causes of action under sections 14 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, predicated on Celator’s and the Celator directors’ alleged failure to disclose purportedly material information in Celator’s Schedule 14D-9 filing with the SEC. The plaintiffs sought, among other things, an injunction against the consummation of the Celator Acquisition and an award of costs and expenses, including a reasonable allowance for attorneys’ and experts’ fees. Neither Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc nor Plex were named defendants in these actions. On July 6, 2016, the defendants to the Dunbar action, the Palmisciano action and the Barreto action entered into a memorandum of understanding, or MOU, regarding settlement of these actions with the plaintiffs. The MOU outlines the terms of the parties’ agreement in principle to settle and release all claims which were or could have been asserted in these actions. In consideration for such settlement and release, the parties to these actions agreed, among other things, that Celator would amend its Schedule 14D-9 to include certain supplemental disclosures. The Schedule 14D-9 was amended by Celator on July 6, 2016, and the Celator Acquisition was completed on July 12, 2016. In June 2017, the parties to the MOU agreed to terminate the MOU, and the plaintiffs agreed to voluntarily dismiss the remaining actions. Thereafter, the parties negotiated and ultimately agreed, in October 2017, on a mootness fee paid to plaintiffs’ counsel. The Dunbar, Palmisciano and Barreto actions have each been dismissed with prejudice. From time to time we are involved in legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. We believe there is no other litigation pending that could have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition. Other Contingencies In May and October 2016 and in February 2017, we received subpoenas from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts requesting documents related to our support of 501(c)(3) organizations that provide financial assistance to Medicare patients, and, for Xyrem, documents concerning the provision of financial assistance to Medicare patients. Other companies have disclosed similar subpoenas and continuing inquiries. We are cooperating with the government’s investigation of our support of charitable organizations, and the outcome of this investigation could include an enforcement action or a settlement with the federal government. We are unable to predict how long this investigation will continue, whether we will receive additional subpoenas in connection with this investigation, or its outcome, but we expect that we will continue to incur significant costs in connection with the investigation, regardless of the outcome. If the federal government were to file an enforcement action against us as a result of the investigation and could establish the elements of a violation of relevant laws, we could be subject to damages, fines and penalties, which could be substantial, along with other criminal, civil or administrative sanctions. Any settlement with the federal government could result in substantial payments and entry into a corporate integrity agreement, which would impose costs and burdens on the operation of our business. |