On May 20, 2019, the Company and the Plaintiffs entered into a Settlement Agreement to fully settle the patent litigation and antitrust litigation. The Settlement Agreement was contingent upon the District Court’s granting a Joint Motion to Vacate the Patent Judgment and thereafter, the Plaintiffs’ payment of $59.9 million to the Company. On June 18, 2019, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Vacate the Patent Judgment with the District Court, and on the same day, the District Court granted such motion. Accordingly, on June 19, 2019, the parties filed Joint Stipulations with the District Court to dismiss the patent litigation and the antitrust litigation, each of which is self-executing and effective upon filing pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Furthermore, on June 26, 2019, the Federal Circuit issued an Order and a Mandate dismissing the appeal of the patent litigation. On June 27, 2019, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Plaintiffs paid the Company $59.9 million. The Company is not entitled to future rights or royalties related to this settlement.
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.
On May 11, 2017, the Company’s lawsuit against Aventis was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 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 February 12, 2019, 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 held a hearing on the Application on May 8, 2019, and indicated that a written opinion on this Application for Fees and Expenses would be forthcoming. The Magistrate Judge’s written opinion on this Application for Fees and Expenses has not been issued yet. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against any imposition of attorneys’ fees and expenses in this case.
Epinephrine (0.1 mg/mL) Patent Litigation
On June 28, 2018, Belcher Pharmaceuticals, LLC, or Belcher initiated a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware by filing a complaint against IMS for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,283,197 (the “197 Patent”) 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 3, 2019, Parties filed a Joint Stipulation to stay the litigation pending the Court’s ruling on the outcome of Belcher’s trial with Hospira. On August 19, 2019, the judge signed the order staying the litigation pending the Court’s ruling on the outcome of Belcher’s trial with Hospira because it involves the same ‘197 Patent as the Company’s litigation. On March 31, 2020, the Court in Belcher’s trial with Hospira issued its ruling in favor of Hospira and invalidated the ‘197 Patent based on obviousness and the ‘197 Patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, and accordingly, the Court entered Final Judgment in favor of Hospira on April 3, 2020. Belcher filed a notice of appeal on only the inequitable conduct rulings from Final Judgment in favor of Hospira on May 4, 2020, and therefore, the ‘197 Patent is still invalid based on obviousness. On May 21, 2020, the Court entered an Order dismissing, with prejudice, the Company’s patent lawsuit with Belcher.
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 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware 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