Legal Matters | Legal Matters Fanapt ® . In 2014 and 2015 Roxane Laboratories, Inc. (Roxane) and its affiliates, West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Limited and West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp (West-Ward), Inventia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. (Inventia), Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Lupin), Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Taro Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. (Taro), and Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (Apotex) (collectively, the Fanapt ® Defendants) each submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDA) to the FDA seeking approval to market generic versions of Fanapt ® prior to the expiration of certain of the Company’s patents covering Fanapt ® , including U.S. Patent No. 8,586,610 (‘610 Patent) and U.S. Patent No. 9,138,432 (‘432 Patent). In response, the Company filed separate lawsuits in 2014 and 2015 against each of the Fanapt ® Defendants in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Delaware District Court) for patent infringement. In August 2016, the Delaware District Court ruled in the Company’s favor, permanently enjoining Roxane from manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell, distributing or importing any generic iloperidone product described in Roxane’s ANDA until the expiration of the ‘610 Patent in November 2027, or May 2028 if the Company obtains pediatric exclusivity. This ruling was affirmed on appeal by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in April 2018. West-Ward, having replaced Roxane as defendant following the acquisition of Roxane by West-Ward’s parent company, Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC (Hikma), petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was denied in January 2020. The Company’s lawsuit against Hikma regarding the ‘432 Patent remains pending. The Company entered into separate license agreements with each of Taro, Apotex and Lupin resolving these lawsuits in October 2016, December 2016 and July 2020, respectively. The license agreements grant Taro, Apotex and Lupin non- exclusive licenses to manufacture and commercialize a version of Fanapt ® in the U.S. effective as of the expiration of the ‘610 Patent or earlier under certain limited circumstances. The Company entered into a confidential stipulation with Inventia regarding any potential launch of its generic versions of Fanapt ® , but the Company’s lawsuit against Inventia regarding the ‘610 and ‘432 Patents remains pending. HETLIOZ ® . Between April 2018 and March 2021, the Company filed numerous Hatch-Waxman lawsuits in the Delaware District Court against Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Teva), MSN Pharmaceuticals Inc. and MSN Laboratories Private Limited (MSN) and Apotex (collectively, the HETLIOZ ® Defendants) asserting that U.S. Patent Nos. RE46,604, 9,060,995, 9,539,234, 9,549,913, 9,730,910, 9,844,241, 10,071,977, 10,149,829, 10,376,487, 10,449,176, 10,610,510, 10,610,511, 10,829,465, and 10,611,744 will be infringed by the HETLIOZ ® Defendants’ generic versions of HETLIOZ ® for which they are seeking FDA approval. These consolidated lawsuits are scheduled for trial in March 2022. Other Matters . In February 2019, a qui tam action filed against the Company was unsealed by order of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (DC District Court). The qui tam action, which was filed under seal in March 2017, was brought by a former Company employee on behalf of the U.S., 28 states and the District of Columbia (collectively, the Plaintiff States) and the policyholders of certain insurance companies under the Federal False Claims Act and state law equivalents to the Federal False Claims Act and related state laws. The complaint alleged that the Company violated these laws through the promotion and marketing of its products Fanapt ® and HETLIOZ ® and sought, among other things, treble damages, civil penalties for each alleged false claim, and attorneys’ fees and costs. By virtue of the DC District Court having unsealed the original complaint, the Company learned that in January 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice (the DOJ), as well as the Plaintiff States, elected not to intervene in the qui tam action at that time. In May 2019, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint under seal repeating the same allegations and seeking the same relief. According to a filing unsealed in June 2019, the DOJ reaffirmed its decision not to intervene and incorporated its prior filing, indicating that neither the DOJ nor the Plaintiff States were intervening regarding the original complaint. Although the DOJ and the Plaintiff States have elected not to intervene, the plaintiff has continued to litigate this action and the DOJ and the Plaintiff States may later seek to intervene. In August 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, and in May 2020, the DC District Court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety, without prejudice. In June 2020, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint with similar allegations and seeking the same relief. In July 2020, the Company filed another motion to dismiss, which was denied by the DC District Court in March 2021. The Company filed its answer to the plaintiff’s second amended complaint in April 2021 and intends to continue to vigorously defend itself in the case. In February 2019, a securities class action, Gordon v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. , was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants. An amended complaint was filed in July 2019. The amended complaint, filed on behalf of a purported stockholder, asserts claims on behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased the Company’s publicly traded securities between November 4, 2015 and February 11, 2019, for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements and/or omissions regarding Fanapt ® , HETLIOZ ® and the Company’s interactions with the FDA regarding tradipitant between November 3, 2015 and February 11, 2019. In March 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In March 2021, the motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. In April 2021, the Company filed its answer to the amended complaint. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit. The Company does not anticipate that this litigation will have a material adverse effect on its business, results of operations or financial condition. However, this lawsuit is subject to inherent uncertainties, the actual cost may be significant, and the Company may not prevail. The Company believes it is entitled to coverage under its relevant insurance policies, subject to a retention, but coverage could be denied or prove to be insufficient. In July 2019, a shareholder derivative complaint, Samuel Williams v. Mihael Polymeropoulos, et al. , was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York naming certain current and former Company directors and officers as defendants. In September 2019, a shareholder derivative complaint, Michael Bavaro v. Mihael Polymeropoulos, et al. , was filed in the Delaware District Court naming certain current and former Company directors and officers as defendants. In October 2019, the Company filed a motion to transfer the Bavaro case to the Eastern District of New York, where the Gordon and Williams cases are pending. In March 2020, the Delaware District Court transferred the Bavaro case to the Eastern District of New York, consolidating the Williams and Bavaro cases, and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in April 2020. These complaints, filed on behalf of purported stockholders, derivatively on behalf of the Company, assert claims for alleged breach of fiduciary duties by certain of the Company’s current and former directors and officers. In April 2021, the parties to the consolidated case reached a settlement to resolve all of the claims asserted in the consolidated complaint for the Williams and Bavaro cases, with no admission of wrongdoing by any defendant. In September 2021, the Court issued an order approving the settlement, which does not have a material impact to the Company's business, results of operation or financial condition. |