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. In January 2022, the Company entered into a license agreement with MSN and Impax Laboratories LLC (Impax) resolving the lawsuits against MSN. The license agreement, which is subject to review by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice (the DOJ), grants MSN and Impax a non-exclusive license to manufacture and commercialize MSN’s version of HETLIOZ ® in the U.S. effective as of March 13, 2035, unless prior to that date the Company obtains pediatric exclusivity for HETLIOZ ® , in which case the license will be effective as of July 27, 2035. MSN and Impax may enter the market earlier under certain limited circumstances. The consolidated lawsuits against the remaining HETLIOZ ® Defendants were tried in March 2022. The Company expects the Delaware District Court to render its opinion in the second half of 2022. Other Matters . 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 May 2022, the parties executed a stipulation of settlement to resolve the claims asserted with no admission of wrongdoing by any defendant. The executed stipulation of settlement is subject to court approval. Payment of the settlement amount will be made by the Company’s insurers. The settlement is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations or financial condition. In April 2022, the Company filed a lawsuit in the U.S District Court for the District of Columbia (DC District Court) against the FDA to compel the FDA to produce, as required by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), certain records relating to its denial of the Company’s supplemental NDA for HETLIOZ ® in the treatment of jet lag disorder. The Company has repeatedly attempted to obtain these records from the FDA pursuant to a FOIA request submitted by the Company in December of 2019, but the FDA has refused to provide them, claiming an exemption under FOIA. The Company does not believe that the exemption claimed by the FDA applies to the records requested. In April 2022, the Company filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (the MD District Court) against the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Administrator of CMS challenging CMS’ rule broadly interpreting the defined terms “line extension” and “new formulation” under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (ACA), which went into effect in January 2022 (the Rule). The Company believes that the Rule is unlawful and contrary to the intent of Congress when it passed the ACA. Under the Rule, certain of the Company’s products would be treated as line extensions and new formulations subject to enhanced rebates, despite the statutory text and CMS’ own long-standing practice, under which such products would not constitute line extensions or new formulations. The Company seeks to, among other things, have the MD District Court set aside the definitions of “line extension” and “new formulation” in the Rule, declare the Rule unlawful and void and enjoin CMS from enforcing, applying, or implementing the Rule as applied to require the Company to treat these products as line extensions. In May 2022, the Company filed a lawsuit in the DC District Court against the FDA to compel the FDA to produce, as required by FOIA, certain records relating to cases in which the FDA waived its putative requirement of a 9-month non-rodent toxicity study before drugs can be tested on human patients for extended durations. The Company attempted to obtain these records from the FDA pursuant to a FOIA request submitted by the Company in January of 2020, but the FDA has failed to respond to the request. |