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 did not recognize any liabilities relating to these obligations as of December 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020. 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. Other Commitments As of December 31, 2021, we had $73.2 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 Class Action From June 2020 to October 2021, a number of lawsuits were filed on behalf of purported direct and indirect Xyrem purchasers, alleging that the patent litigation settlement agreements we entered with generic drug manufacturers who had filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications, or ANDA, violate state and federal antitrust and consumer protection laws, as follows: On June 17, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, or BCBS, against Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Jazz Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited, or, collectively, the Company Defendants (hereinafter referred to as the BCBS Lawsuit). The BCBS Lawsuit also names Roxane Laboratories, Inc., Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Eurohealth (USA), Inc., Hikma Pharmaceuticals plc, Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Par Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lupin Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Lupin Inc., or, collectively, the BCBS Defendants. On June 18 and June 23, 2020, respectively, two additional class action lawsuits were filed against the Company Defendants and the BCBS Defendants: one by the New York State Teamsters Council Health and Hospital Fund in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and another by the Government Employees Health Association Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (hereinafter referred to as the GEHA Lawsuit). On June 18, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by the City of Providence, Rhode Island, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, against Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc, and Roxane Laboratories, Inc., West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp., Hikma Labs Inc., Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., and Hikma Pharmaceuticals plc, or, collectively, the City of Providence Defendants. On June 30, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, against Jazz Pharmaceuticals Ireland Ltd., Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Roxane Laboratories, Inc., Hikma Pharmaceuticals plc, Eurohealth (USA), Inc. and West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp., or collectively the UFCW Defendants (hereinafter referred to as the UFCW Lawsuit). On July 13, 2020, the plaintiffs in the BCBS Lawsuit and the GEHA Lawsuit dismissed their complaints in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and refiled their respective lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On July 14, 2020, the plaintiffs in the UFCW Lawsuit dismissed their complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and on July 15, 2020, refiled their lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On July 31, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by the A.F. of L.-A.G.C. Building Trades Welfare Plan on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, against Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc (hereinafter referred to as the AFL Plan Lawsuit). The AFL Plan Lawsuit also names Roxane Laboratories Inc., West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp., Hikma Labs Inc., Hikma Pharmaceuticals plc, Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Par Pharmaceuticals Inc., Lupin Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Lupin Inc. On August 14, 2020, an additional class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by the Self-Insured Schools of California on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, against the Company Defendants, as well as Hikma Pharmaceuticals plc, Eurohealth (USA) Inc., Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp., Roxane Laboratories, Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Endo International, plc, Endo Pharmaceuticals LLC, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Lupin Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc., Lupin Inc., Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Sun Pharmaceutical Holdings USA, Inc., Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Watson Laboratories, Inc., Wockhardt Ltd., Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Wockhardt USA LLC, Mallinckrodt plc, and Mallinckrodt LLC (hereinafter referred to as the Self-Insured Schools Lawsuit). On September 16, 2020, an additional class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, by Ruth Hollman on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, against the same defendants named in the Self-Insured Schools Lawsuit. In December 2020, the above cases were centralized and transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, where the multidistrict litigation will proceed for the purpose of discovery and pre-trial proceedings. On March 18, 2021, United Healthcare Services, Inc. filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against the Company Defendants, Hikma Pharmaceuticals plc, Roxane Laboratories, Inc., Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Eurohealth (USA) Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Par Pharmaceutical Inc., Lupin Ltd., and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., raising similar allegations, or the UHS Lawsuit. On March 24, 2021, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation conditionally transferred the UHS Lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, where it was consolidated for discovery and pre-trial proceedings with the other cases. On August 13, 2021, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part the Company Defendants motion to dismiss the complaints in the cases referenced above. On October 8, 2021, Humana Inc. filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company Defendants, Hikma Pharmaceuticals plc, Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Hikma Labs, Inc., Eurohealth (USA), Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Lupin Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Lupin Inc, raising similar allegations. On October 8, 2021, Molina Healthcare Inc. filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company Defendants, Hikma Pharmaceuticals plc, Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Hikma Labs, Inc., Eurohealth (USA), Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Lupin Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Lupin Inc, raising similar allegations. On February 17, 2022, Health Care Service Corporation filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company Defendants, Hikma Pharmaceuticals plc, Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Hikma Labs, Inc., Eurohealth (USA), Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Lupin Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Lupin Inc, raising similar allegations. The parties have submitted a proposed case schedule through briefing on class certification. A trial date will be set following a ruling on class certification. The plaintiffs in certain of these lawsuits are seeking to represent a class of direct purchasers of Xyrem, and the plaintiffs in the remaining lawsuits are seeking to represent a class of indirect purchasers of Xyrem. Each of the lawsuits generally alleges violations of U.S. federal and state antitrust, consumer protection, and unfair competition laws in connection with the Company Defendants’ conduct related to Xyrem, including actions leading up to, and entering into, patent litigation settlement agreements with each of the other named defendants. Each of the lawsuits seeks monetary damages, exemplary damages, equitable relief against the alleged unlawful conduct, including disgorgement of profits and restitution, and injunctive relief. It is possible that additional lawsuits will be filed against the Company Defendants making similar or related allegations. If the plaintiffs were to be successful in their claims, they may be entitled to injunctive relief or we may be required to pay significant monetary damages, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects. GW Acquisition Litigation On March 15, 2021, GW filed a definitive proxy statement, or Proxy Statement, with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the GW Acquisition. Since the filing of the Proxy Statement, Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc has been named in two lawsuits filed in state and federal courts in New York on March 17, 2021 by purported GW shareholders in connection with the GW Acquisition. The first was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by James Farrell (hereinafter referred to as the Farrell Lawsuit) and an additional suit was filed in New York state court by Brian Levy (hereinafter referred to as the Levy Lawsuit). In addition to Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc, Jazz Pharmaceuticals U.K. Holdings Ltd., GW Pharmaceuticals plc, and the GW Board of Directors are named as defendants in the Farrell Lawsuit. In the Levy Lawsuit, GW Pharmaceuticals plc, the GW Board of Directors, Centerview Partners LLC, and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC are named as defendants. In addition to the Farrell Lawsuit and the Levy Lawsuit, ten additional suits have been filed in New York, California, and Pennsylvania federal courts by purported GW shareholders against GW Pharmaceuticals plc and its Board of Directors, but which do not name any Jazz Pharmaceuticals parties (hereinafter referred to as the GW Litigation, and collectively with the Farrell Lawsuit and the Levy Lawsuit, as the Transaction Litigation). In the Transaction Litigation, the plaintiffs allege that the Proxy Statement omitted material information and contained misrepresentations, and that the individual members of the GW Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties, in violation of state and federal laws, including the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiffs in the Transaction Litigation sought various remedies, including injunctive relief to prevent the consummation of the GW Acquisition unless certain allegedly material information was disclosed, or in the alternative, rescission or damages. On April 14, 2021, GW filed a Form 8-K containing supplemental disclosures related to the GW Acquisition. Pursuant to a memorandum of understanding between the parties, the Levy Lawsuit was dismissed on April 14, 2021. On May 27, 2021, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California by plaintiff Kurt Ziegler against GW and its former Directors asserting claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, referred to as the Ziegler Lawsuit. The allegations in the Ziegler Lawsuit are similar to those in the previously dismissed Transaction Litigation. Patent Infringement Litigation Avadel Patent Litigation On May 13, 2021, we filed a patent infringement suit against Avadel Pharmaceuticals plc, or Avadel, and several of its corporate affiliates in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The suit alleges that Avadel’s product candidate FT-218 will infringe five of our patents related to controlled release formulations of oxybate and the safe and effective distribution of oxybate. The suit seeks an injunction to prevent Avadel from launching a product that would infringe these patents, and an award of monetary damages if Avadel does launch an infringing product. Avadel filed an answer to the complaint and counterclaims asserting that the patents are invalid or not enforceable, and that its product, if approved, will not infringe our patents. On August 4, 2021, we filed an additional patent infringement suit against Avadel in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The second suit alleges that Avadel’s product candidate FT-218 will infringe a newly-issued patent related to sustained-release formulations of oxybate. The suit seeks an injunction to prevent Avadel from launching a product that would infringe this patent, and an award of monetary damages if Avadel does launch an infringing product. Avadel filed an answer to the complaint and counterclaims asserting that the patents are invalid or not enforceable, and that its product, if approved, will not infringe our patent s. On November 10, 2021, we filed an additional patent infringement suit against Avadel in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The third suit alleges that Avadel’s product candidate FT-218 will infringe a newly-issued patent related to sustained-release formulations of oxybate. The suit seeks an injunction to prevent Avadel from launching a product that would infringe this patent, and an award of monetary damages if Avadel does launch an infringing product. Avadel filed an answer to the complaint and counterclaims asserting that the patents are invalid or not enforceable, and that its product, if approved, will not infringe our patents. Canopy Patent Litigation In December 2020, Canopy Growth Corporation filed a complaint against our subsidiary, GW, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleging infringement of its patent, U.S. Patent No. 10,870,632. Canopy claims that our extraction process used to produce material used to produce Epidiolex infringes its patent. Canopy seeks a judgment that we have infringed their patent and an award of monetary damages. In July 2021, we filed an answer to the amended complaint, and counterclaims seeking judgment that the ‘632 patent is invalid and that we have not infringed the patent. In October 2021, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas held a claim construction hearing regarding the disputed term of the ‘632 patent. In November 2021, the Court issued a claim construction order, which the Company views as generally favorable. On February 23, 2022, the parties filed a Joint Motion and Stipulation to Enter Final Judgment in favor of GW. Pursuant to the stipulation, Canopy has the right to appeal the Court’s ruling on the disputed term. On February 25, 2022, the Court granted the parties’ motion and entered final judgment in favor of GW. Lupin Patent Litigation In June 2021, we received notice from Lupin Inc., or Lupin, that it has filed with FDA an ANDA, for a generic version of Xywav. The notice from Lupin included a “paragraph IV certification” with respect to ten of our patents listed in FDA’s Orange Book for Xywav on the date of our receipt of the notice. The asserted patents relate generally to the composition and method of use of Xywav, and methods of treatment when Xywav is administered concomitantly with certain other medications. A paragraph IV certification is a certification by a generic applicant that alleges that patents covering the branded product are invalid, unenforceable, and/or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use or sale of the generic product. In July 2021, we filed a patent infringement suit against Lupin in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges that by filing its ANDA, Lupin has infringed ten of our Orange Book listed patents. We are seeking a permanent injunction to prevent Lupin from introducing a generic version of Xywav that would infringe our patents. As a result of this lawsuit, we expect that a stay of approval of up to 30 months will be imposed by FDA on Lupin's ANDA. In June 2021, FDA recognized seven years of Orphan Drug Exclusivity for Xywav through July 21, 2027. On October 4, 2021, Lupin filed an answer to the complaint and counterclaims asserting that the patents are invalid or not enforceable, and that its product, if approved, will not infringe our patents. Otsuka Patent Litigation In October 2021, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., or Otsuka, filed claims against GW Pharma Limited and GW Pharmaceuticals Limited, or collectively, the GW Parties, in the English High Court, Patents Court. Otsuka alleges that under a now-expired Research Collaboration and License Agreement between Otsuka and the GW Parties, Otsuka and the GW Parties jointly own certain patents and other intellectual property, that Epidiolex is covered by that intellectual property, and that Otsuka is therefore due a royalty on net sales of Epidiolex. In December 2021, we filed an application for an order declaring that the English High Court, Patents Court has no jurisdiction over the dispute with Otsuka, or should not exercise its jurisdiction. In January 2022, we filed a lawsuit against Otsuka in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, seeking a declaration that Otsuka is not entitled to any royalties on sales of Epidiolex under the Research Collaboration and License Agreement. The Company vigorously enforces its intellectual property rights, but cannot predict the outcome of these matters. 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. |