Litigation | Note 19. Litigation Enoxaparin Patent Litigation In September 2011, Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or Momenta, a Boston based pharmaceutical company, and Sandoz Inc., or Sandoz, the generic division of Novartis, initiated litigation against the Company for alleged patent infringement of two patents related to testing methods for batch release of enoxaparin, which the Company refers to as the “’886 patent” and the “’466 patent.” The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, or the Massachusetts District Court. In October 2011, the Massachusetts District Court issued a preliminary injunction barring the Company from selling its generic enoxaparin product and also requiring Momenta and Sandoz to post a $100.1 million bond. The preliminary injunction was stayed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, or the Federal Circuit, in January 2012, and reversed by the Federal Circuit in August 2012. In January 2013, the Company moved for summary judgment of non-infringement of both patents. Momenta and Sandoz withdrew their allegations as to the ’466 patent, and in July 2013, the Massachusetts District Court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of the ’886 patent and denied Momenta and Sandoz’s motion for leave to amend their infringement contentions. On January 24, 2014, the Massachusetts District Court judge entered final judgment in the Company’s favor on both patents. Momenta and Sandoz also filed a motion to collect attorneys’ fees and costs relating to a discovery motion, which the Massachusetts District Court granted. On May 9, 2016, the Massachusetts District Court issued an order imposing fees and costs of approximately $0.4 million in relation to this discovery motion. This amount has been accrued in the general and administrative expense for the quarter ended March 31, 2016 . On January 30, 2014, Momenta and Sandoz filed a notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit appealing the court’s final judgment including summary judgment denying Momenta and Sandoz’s motion for leave to amend their infringement contentions. Following appeal briefing filed by the parties, t he Federal Circuit held oral argument on May 4, 2015. On November 10, 2015, the Federal Circuit panel affirmed-in-part and vacated-in-part the decision of the Massachusetts District Court granting summary judgment of non-infringement as to the Company, and it remanded the case to the Massachusetts District Court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The Federal Circuit panel affirmed the Massachusetts District Court’s holding in the Company’s favor that the Company does not infringe under 35 U.S.C. 271(g), and the panel vacated the grant of summary judgment to the extent it was based on the determination that the Company’s activities fall within the 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(1) safe harbor. The Federal Circuit panel also left to the Massachusetts District Court’s discretion whether to reconsider on remand its denial of leave for Momenta and Sandoz to amend their infringement contentions. On January 11, 2016, the Company filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc with the Federal Circuit. On February 17, 2016, the Federal Circuit denied the Company’s Petition, and the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on February 24, 2016, whereby the case returned to the Massachusetts District Court for further proceedings. On March 18, 2016, the parties filed a joint status report with the Massachusetts District Court. On June 21, 2016, the Massachusetts District Court granted Momenta and Sandoz’s Motion for Leave to Amend its Infringement Contentions. In light of Momenta and Sandoz’s Amended Infringement Contentions and recent changes in Supreme Court precedent since the case was stayed in 2012, the Company sought to amend its Non-Infringement and Invalidity Contentions. On July 18, 2016, the Company submitted its Motion for Leave to Amend Its Non-Infringement and Invalidity Contentions and Momenta and Sandoz responded on July 25, 2016. In light of the new arguments made in their response, the Company further filed a Motion For Leave to Reply in Further Support of Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Amend Non-Infringement and Invalidity Contentions, which was granted. A hearing was held on August 23, 2016, where the Magistrate Judge ordered the Company to file its proposed amended contentions, which it filed on August 31, 2016. On February 4, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued an order denying the Company leave to amend its contentions. The Company filed objections to this order with the District Court on February 21, 2017. On April 13, 2017, the District Court rejected the determination of the Magistrate Judge with respect to the Company’s amended non-infringement contentions, and allowed the Company to amend its non-infringement contentions. With respect to the Company’s amended invalidity contentions, the District Court accepted the Magistrate Judge’s determination; however, the District Court specifically stated that the Company can argue changes in law at the summary judgment stage or at trial. In parallel with the Massachusetts District Court proceedings, the Company appealed the Federal Circuit’s decision to vacate the grant of the Company’s summary judgment to the extent it was based on the determination that the Company’s activities are protected under the Safe Harbor. The Company filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court on May 17, 2016. Momenta and Sandoz initially waived their right to respond to the petition; however, on May 31, 2016, the Supreme Court requested a response from Momenta and Sandoz. The response from Momenta and Sandoz was initially due on June 30, 2016, but they requested an extension. Momenta and Sandoz filed their response on August 1, 2016. On October 3, 2016, the Supreme Court declined the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. Fact discovery in the Massachusetts District Court proceedings closed on November 22, 2016, and the parties proceeded with expert discovery and exchanged opening and rebuttal expert reports. Expert discovery closed on March 24, 2017. On April 14, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking to dismiss the Company’s equitable defenses. On April 14, 2017, the Company filed Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity and Noninfringement. In the Motion, the Company moved for the District Court to grant summary judgment in favor of the Company on the following issues: (1) the ’886 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as claiming non-patentable subject matter; (2) the ’886 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 because the claims are indefinite; and (3) the Company’s tests do not infringe the claims of the ’886 patent. Oppositions to the motions for summary judgment were filed on May 5, 2017. Replies in support of the motions for summary judgment were filed on May 19, 2017. On June 16, 2017, the District Court issued an order denying the summary judgment motions. The District Court also denied Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the Company’s defenses of implied waiver and equitable estoppel, and denied Plaintiffs’ alternative request for a separate hearing on the implied waiver and equitable estoppel defenses holding that the defenses would be submitted to the jury for an advisory verdict. Trial in the Massachusetts District Court on all claims and defenses began on July 10, 2017. On July 21, 2017, the jury returned a unanimous verdict finding that although the Company’s tests infringed the asserted patent, the patent was invalid for lack of enablement and lack of written description and the jury further found that Plaintiffs are entitled to zero ($0) damages. As for the Company’s defenses of implied waiver and equitable estoppel, the jury found that Plaintiffs waived their right to recover for infringement of the asserted patent and that Plaintiffs are estopped from enforcing the asserted patent against the Company. The verdict on these equitable defenses was briefed by the parties and submitted to the Court. In the post-trial briefing, the Company requested the Court to adopt the findings of the jury on the equitable defenses, and to set aside the jury’s finding of infringement. In Plaintiffs’ post-trial briefing, Plaintiffs requested a new trial, and requested the Court to set aside the jury’s finding that the asserted patent was invalid for lack of enablement and lack of written description. In a February 7, 2018 Memorandum and Order and with respect to the equitable defenses, the Court found that Plaintiffs waived their right to enforce the ’ 866 patent against the Company for its use of one of its test, and are equitably estopped from enforcing the ’ 866 patent against the Company for its use of that same test. The Court also found that Plaintiffs have not waived their right to enforce the ’ 866 patent against the Company for its use of a second test, and are not equitable estopped from enforcing the ’ 866 patent against the Company for its use of that same second test. On February 7, 2018, the Court also denied all other post-trial motions. On March 20, 2018, the Court entered final judgment in this matter reflecting the jury’s verdict and the Court’s February 7, 2018 Memorandum and Order. On March 23, 2018, the Company filed a motion to enforce liability on the bonds related to the preliminary injunction issued in October 2011, stayed in January 2012, and reversed by the Federal Circuit in August 2012. On March 27, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Federal Circuit. On April 3, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion with the District Court to defer decision on the Company’s motion to enforce liability on the bonds pending their appeal. On July 13, 2018, the District Court allowed Plaintiffs motion to defer consideration of the Company’s motion to enforce liability on the bonds until the appeal is resolved. The Plaintiffs filed their Opening Brief on July 30, 2018, the Company filed its Response Brief on September 21, 2018, and Plaintiffs filed their Reply Brief on November 19, 2018. The briefing in the appeal has concluded and the parties are waiting for the Federal Circuit to set a date for oral arguments. On February 28, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to stay this appeal, and the Company’s opposition to their motion to stay is due March 21, 2019. Plaintiffs filed a motion for sanctions on January 14, 2019. The Company filed its opposition brief to the motion for sanctions on February 4, 2019. Plaintiffs filed a reply on February 14, 2019 and the Company filed a sur-reply on February 22, 2019. The Company’s opposition to the motion for relief from the final judgment is currently due on March 20, 2019. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these motions and will continue to vigorously defend the jury’s verdict, including against any appeal by the Plaintiffs . The Company intends to continue to pursue its attempt to collect the $100.1 million bond posted by Momenta and Sandoz. False Claims Act Litigation In January 2009, the Company filed a qui tam complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, or the California District Court, alleging that Aventis Pharma S.A., or Aventis, through its acquisition of a patent through false and misleading statements to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, as well as through false and misleading statements to the FDA, overcharged the federal and state governments for its Lovenox ® product. If the Company is successful in this litigation, it could be entitled to a portion of any damage award that the government ultimately may recover from Aventis. In October 2011, the California District Court unsealed the Company’s complaint. On February 28, 2014, Aventis filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of the adequacy of the Company’s notice letter to the government, and the California District Court denied Aventis’ motion for summary judgment in a final order it issued on May 12, 2014. On June 9, 2014, at Aventis’ request, the California District Court issued an order certifying for appeal its order denying Aventis’ motion for summary judgment. On June 9, 2014, Aventis filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, or the Ninth Circuit, a petition for permission to appeal the California District Court’s denial of Aventis’ motion for summary judgment, and the Company filed an opposition to Aventis’ petition on June 19, 2014. On August 22, 2014, the Ninth Circuit granted Aventis’ petition. The parties filed their respective appeal briefs with the Ninth Circuit. On November 10, 2016, the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on the appeal. The California District Court set an evidentiary hearing for July 7, 2014 on the “original source” issue, a key element under the False Claims Act. The evidentiary hearing was conducted as scheduled, from July 7, 2014 through July 10, 2014. On July 13, 2015, the California District Court issued a ruling concluding that the Company is not an original source under the False Claims Act, and entered final judgment dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On July 20, 2015, the Company filed with the Ninth Circuit a notice of appeal of the California District Court’s dismissal of the case, and Aventis filed a notice of cross-appeal on August 5, 2015. On November 12, 2015, Aventis filed a pleading asking that the California District Court impose various monetary penalties and fines against the Company, including disgorgement of enoxaparin revenues and attorneys’ fees expended by Aventis in this action, based on Aventis’ allegations that the Company engaged in sanctionable conduct. On November 23, 2015, the California District Court issued an order setting forth a procedure for sanctions proceedings as to the Company as well as its outside counsel. On December 24, 2015, the Company filed a pleading with the California District Court opposing the imposition of sanctions, and on January 20, 2016, Aventis filed a response pleading further pressing for the imposition of sanctions. On May 4, 2016, the California District Court issued three orders requesting that the Company and its outside counsel file a document showing cause as to why sanctions should not be imposed and to set up a conference call with the parties and the Court to discuss whether any discovery and/or a hearing is necessary. On June 13, 2016, the Company and its outside counsel each filed responses to the Court’s order to show cause as to why sanctions should not be imposed. On July 21, 2016, Aventis filed a response contending that the Court should impose sanctions. On February 10, 2017, the Court held a show cause hearing regarding the potential imposition of sanctions and took the matter under submission. On September 18, 2017, the District Court issued its decision that no sanctions will be imposed on either the Company or its counsel. On March 28, 2016, the Company filed its opening brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals setting forth detailed arguments as to why the False Claims Act litigation should not have been dismissed by the California District Court. On June 20, 2016, Aventis filed its principal brief in the appeal, responding to the Company’s arguments regarding dismissal of the False Claims Act litigation, and setting forth Aventis’ argument that it should be awarded attorneys’ fees and expenses. On September 19, 2016, the Company filed its reply brief to Aventis’s principal brief. On October 3, 2016, Aventis filed its reply brief in support of its cross-appeal of the District Court’s denial of attorneys’ fees. On November 10, 2016, the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on the appeals. On May 11, 2017, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion affirming the California District Court’s dismissal of the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; dismissing as moot Aventis’ appeal of the District Court’s denial of its motion for summary judgment on the issue of the adequacy of the Company’s notice letter to the government; reversing the District Court’s denial of Aventis’ motion for attorneys’ fees; and remanding the case to the District Court for resolution of the attorneys’ fees issue. On July 14, 2017, Aventis filed an application with the District Court for entitlement to attorneys’ fees and expenses. On November 20, 2017, the District Court issued its order granting Aventis’ application for fees, stating that it would refer the matter to a magistrate judge for a report and recommendation regarding the amount of the award to be made. On November 21, 2017, the District Court referred the matter to a magistrate judge. On August 7, 2018, Aventis filed its Application for Fees and Expenses. On November 26, 2018, the Company filed Opposition to Aventis’s Application for Fees and Expenses. On February 12, 2019, following further briefing on the attorneys’ fee issue, the District Court approved of the parties’ consent for the Magistrate Judge to conduct all further proceedings in this matter at the district court level, including determining the amount of attorneys’ fees to be awarded and entering a final judgment. The Magistrate Judge set a hearing on the application, for May 8, 2019. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against any imposition of attorneys’ fees and expenses in this case. Momenta/Sandoz Antitrust Litigation On September 17, 2015, the Company initiated a lawsuit by filing a complaint in the California District Court against Momenta and Sandoz, or the Defendants. The Company’s complaint generally asserts that Defendants have engaged in certain types of illegal, monopolistic, and anticompetitive conduct giving rise to various causes of action against them. On December 9, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to transfer the case to the District of Massachusetts. On January 4, 2016, the Company filed oppositions to both motions. On January 26, 2016, the California District Court granted Defendants’ motion to transfer and did not rule on Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the case was transferred to the District of Massachusetts. On February 9, 2016, the Company filed a writ of mandamus with the Ninth Circuit to attempt to appeal the California District Court’s granting of Defendants’ motion to transfer to the District of Massachusetts. The Ninth Circuit denied this petition on May 20, 2016, and as such the case will remain before the District of Massachusetts. On July 27, 2016, the Massachusetts District Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on antitrust immunity doctrine, without addressing the substantive merits of the claims. On August 25, 2016, the Company filed with the First Circuit Court of Appeals a notice of appeal of the Massachusetts District Court’s dismissal of the antitrust case. On April 20, 2017, Defendants filed their supplemental motion to dismiss and the Company filed its opposition on May 4, 2017. On March 19, 2018, the District Court entirely denied the Defendants’ motion to dismiss. On April 19, 2018, the Defendants filed a motion to seek interlocutory appeal of the District Court’s motion to dismiss opinion. The Company filed its opposition to interlocutory appeal on May 1, 2018. On June 1, 2018, the District Court denied Defendants’ motion seeking interlocutory appeal. On August 23, 2018, the Massachusetts District Court granted the parties’ joint motion to extend the schedule as to fact and expert discovery and accepted their proposed dates. Fact discovery closed on November 30, 2018 and expert discovery will close on April 12, 2019. On February 19, 2019, the Company filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Issues Previously Litigated in the Patent Action. Defendants’ opposition is due on April 9, 2019, and the Company’s reply is due on May 3, 2019. Any additional summary judgment motions are due on April 26, 2019, oppositions are due on June 14, 2019, and replies are due on July 10, 2019. Additionally, Momenta and Sandoz filed motions for sanctions on January 14, 2019 and January 22, 2019, respectively. The Company filed its opposition briefs to both motions on February 4, 2019 and February 5, 2019, respectively. Momenta and Sandoz filed replies to both motions on February 14, 2019. The Company filed sur-replies to both motions on February 22, 2019. The Company intends to vigorously defend against both motions as it prepares for trial. Trial is scheduled for September 9, 2019. Epinephrine Injection, 0.1 mg/mL Litigation On June 28, 2018, Belcher Pharmaceuticals, LLC, or Belcher initiated a lawsuit by filing a complaint against IMS for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,283,197 with regard to IMS’s New Drug Application No. 211363, filed under 21 U.S.C. § 355(b)(2) of the Hatch-Waxman Act, for FDA approval to manufacture and sell 0.1 mg/mL epinephrine injections. On July 20, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss Belcher’s complaint for patent infringement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The briefing concluded on October 2, 2018. The District Court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss. The Company intends to vigorously defend this patent lawsuit. Vasopressin (20 units/mL) Patent Litigation On December 20, 2018, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Par Sterile Products, LLC and Endo Par Innovation Company (collectively, “Par”) initiated a patent lawsuit by filing a Complaint against the Company for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,375,478 (“the ‘478 Patent”), 9,687,526 (“the ‘526 Patent”), 9,744,209 (“the ‘209 Patent”), 9,744,239 (“the ‘239 Patent”), 9,750,785 (“the ‘785 Patent”) and 9,937,223 (“the ‘223 Patent”) (collectively, “Par Patents”) with regard to the Company’s Abbreviated New Drug Application No. 211,857 for FDA approval to manufacture and sell Vasopressin (20 units/ mL). The Company filed its Answer to this Complaint on February 19, 2019. The Company intends to vigorously defend this patent lawsuit. Other Litigation The Company is also subject to various other claims and lawsuits from time to time arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company records a provision for contingent losses when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. In the opinion of management, the ultimate resolution of any such matters is not expected to have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows; however, the results of litigation and claims are inherently unpredictable and the Company’s view of these matters may change in the future. Regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on the Company because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources, and other factors. |