Commitments and Contingencies | 15. Commitments and Contingencies Intellectual Property Licenses The Company has a license agreement with Incept, LLC (“Incept”) (Note 19) to use and develop certain patent rights (the “Incept License”). Under the Incept License, as amended and restated, the Company was granted a worldwide, perpetual, exclusive license to develop and commercialize products that are delivered to or around the human eye for diagnostic, therapeutic or prophylactic purposes relating to ophthalmic diseases or conditions. The Company is obligated to pay low single-digit royalties on net sales of commercial products developed using the licensed technology, commencing with the date of the first commercial sale of such products and until the expiration of the last to expire of the patents covered by the license. Any of the Company’s sublicensees also will be obligated to pay Incept a royalty equal to a low single-digit percentage of net sales made by it and will be bound by the terms of the agreement to the same extent as the Company. The Company is obligated to reimburse Incept for its share of the reasonable fees and costs incurred by Incept in connection with the prosecution of the patent applications licensed to the Company under the Incept License. Through December 31, 2019, royalties paid under this agreement related to product sales were $306 and have been charged to cost of product revenue. On September 13, 2018, (the “Effective Date) the Company entered into a second amended and restated license agreement (the “Second Amended Agreement”) with Incept. The Second Amended Agreement amends and restates in full the Company’s prior amended and restated Incept License (the “Prior Agreement” or “Original License”) to expand the scope of the Company’s intellectual property license and modify future intellectual property ownership and other rights thereunder. Indemnification Agreements In the ordinary course of business, the Company may provide indemnification of varying scope and terms to vendors, lessors, business partners, and other parties with respect to certain matters including, but not limited to, losses arising out of breach of such agreements or from intellectual property infringement claims made by third parties. In addition, the Company has entered into indemnification agreements with members of its board of directors and senior management team that will require the Company, among other things, to indemnify them against certain liabilities that may arise by reason of their status or service as directors or officers. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is, in many cases, unlimited. To date, the Company has not incurred any material costs as a result of such indemnifications. The Company does not believe that the outcome of any claims under indemnification arrangements will have a material effect on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows, and it has not accrued any liabilities related to such obligations in its consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2019. Purchase Commitments Purchase commitments represent non-cancelable contractual commitments associated with certain clinical trial activities within the Company’s clinical research organization. Manufacturing Commitments Manufacturing contracts generally provide for termination on notice, and therefore are cancelable contracts but are contracts that the Company is likely to continue, regardless of the fact that they are cancelable. Collaboration Agreement On October 10, 2016, the Company entered into a Collaboration Agreement with Regeneron (Note 8). If the Option to enter into an exclusive worldwide license is exercised, Regeneron will conduct further preclinical development and an initial clinical trial under a collaboration plan. The Company is obligated to reimburse Regeneron for certain development costs incurred by Regeneron under the collaboration plan during the period through the completion of the initial clinical trial, subject to a cap of $25,000, which cap may be increased by up to $5,000 under certain circumstances; the timing of such payments are not known. If Regeneron elects to proceed with further development following the completion of the collaboration plan, it will be solely responsible for conducting and funding further development and commercialization of product candidates. If the Option is exercised, Regeneron is required to use commercially reasonable efforts to research, develop and commercialize at least one Licensed Product. Such efforts shall include initiating the dosing phase of a subsequent clinical trial within specified time periods following the completion of the first-in-human clinical trial or the initiation of preclinical toxicology studies, subject to certain extensions. Through December 31, 2019, the Option has not been exercised and no payments have been made to Regeneron. Legal Proceedings Securities Class Actions On July 7, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of the Company’s current and former executive officers in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Thomas Gallagher v. Ocular Therapeutix, Inc, et al. , Case No. 2:17-cv-05011. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company’s common stock between May 5, 2017 and July 6, 2017. The complaint generally alleges that the Company and certain of the Company’s current and former officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the Form 483 issued by the FDA related to DEXTENZA and the Company’s manufacturing operations for DEXTENZA. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, attorneys’ fees, and other costs. On July 14, 2017, an amended complaint was filed; the amended complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company’s common stock between May 5, 2017 and July 11, 2017, and otherwise includes allegations similar to those made in the original complaint. On July 12, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of the Company’s current and former executive officers in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Dylan Caraker v. Ocular Therapeutix, Inc., et al. , Case No. 2:17-cv-05095. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company’s common stock between May 5, 2017 and July 6, 2017. The complaint includes allegations similar to those made in the Gallagher complaint, and seeks similar relief. On August 3, 2017, a third putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of the Company’s current and former executive officers in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Shawna Kim v. Ocular Therapeutix, Inc., et al. , Case No. 2:17-cv-05704. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company’s common stock between March 10, 2016 and July 11, 2017. The complaint includes allegations similar to those made in the Gallagher complaint, and seeks similar relief. On October 27, 2017, a magistrate judge for the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the defendants’ motion to transfer the above-referenced Gallagher, Caraker, and Kim litigations to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. These matters were assigned the following docket numbers in the District of Massachusetts: 1:17-cv-12288 ( Gallagher ), 1:17-cv-12146 ( Caraker ), and 1:17-cv-12286 ( Kim ). On March 9, 2018, the court consolidated the three actions and appointed co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel for the consolidated action. On May 7, 2018, co-lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint. The amended complaint makes allegations similar to those in the original complaints, against the same defendants, and seeks similar relief on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company’s common stock between March 10, 2016 and July 11, 2017. The amended complaint generally alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On July 6, 2018, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on September 4, 2018, and defendants filed a reply on October 4, 2018. The court held oral argument on the motion to dismiss on February 6, 2019. By order dated April 30, 2019, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. On May 31, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit regarding the District Court’s opinion and order of dismissal of the Complaint. The plaintiffs/appellants filed their opening brief on the appeal on October 23, 2019. Defendants/appellees filed their response brief on November 22, 2019. Plaintiffs/appellants filed their reply brief on December 13, 2019. The First Circuit held an oral argument on the appeal on February 4, 2020, and took the matter under advisement. The Company denies any allegations of wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits. Shareholder Derivative Litigation On July 11, 2017, a purported shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed against certain of the Company’s current and former executive officers, certain current and former board members, and the Company as a nominal defendant, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, captioned Robert Corwin v. Sawhney et al. , Case No. 1:17-cv-11270. The complaint generally alleged that the individual defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to the Company by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the Form 483 related to DEXTENZA and our manufacturing operations for DEXTENZA. The complaint purported to assert claims against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, and sought to recover on behalf of the Company for any liability the Company incurs as a result of the individual defendants’ alleged misconduct. The complaint also sought contribution on behalf of the Company from all individual defendants for their alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint sought declaratory, equitable, and monetary relief, an unspecified amount of damages, with interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On September 20, 2017, counsel for the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, stating that the plaintiff wished to coordinate his efforts and proceed in a consolidated fashion with the plaintiff in a similar derivative suit that was pending in the Superior Court of Suffolk County of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts captioned Angel Madera v. Sawhney et al. , Case. No. 17-2273 (which is discussed in the paragraph immediately below) by filing an action in that court subsequent to the dismissal of this lawsuit. The Corwin lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice on September 21, 2017. On October 24, 2017, the plaintiff filed a new derivative complaint in Massachusetts Superior Court (Suffolk County), captioned Robert Corwin v. Sawhney et al ., Case No. 17-3425 (BLS2). The new Corwin complaint includes allegations similar to those made in the federal court complaint and asserts a derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duty against certain of our current and former officers and directors. The complaint also asserts an unjust enrichment claim against two additional defendants, SV Life Sciences Fund IV, LP and SV Life Sciences Fund IV Strategic Partners, LP. The complaint also names the Company as a nominal defendant. On July 19, 2017, a second purported shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed against certain of the Company’s current and former executive officers, all current board members, one former board member, and the Company as a nominal defendant, in the Superior Court of Suffolk County of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, captioned Angel Madera v. Sawhney et al. , Case. No. 17-2273. The complaint included allegations similar to those made in the Corwin complaint. The complaint purported to assert derivative claims against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets, and sought to recover on behalf of the Company for any liability the Company incurs as a result of the individual defendants’ alleged misconduct. The complaint sought declaratory, equitable, and monetary relief, an unspecified amount of damages, with interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On November 6, 2017, the court dismissed this action without prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to complete service of process within the time permitted under applicable court rules. On December 21, 2017, the same plaintiff filed a new derivative complaint in the same court, captioned Angel Madera v. Sawhney et al. , Case. No. 17-4126 (BLS2). The new Madera complaint is premised on substantially similar allegations as the previous complaint and purports to assert derivative claims against certain current and former executive officers and board members for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets, and names the Company as a nominal defendant. Like the new Corwin complaint, the new Madera complaint also asserts an unjust enrichment claim against two additional defendants, SV Life Sciences Fund IV, LP and SV Life Sciences Fund IV Strategic Partners, LP. By order dated January 29, 2018, the court consolidated the state court Corwin and Madera complaints under the Corwin docket and appointed lead counsel for plaintiffs. On February 28, 2018, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated complaint names substantially the same defendants and is premised on substantially similar allegations as the previous Corwin and Madera complaints, asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the individual defendants and unjust enrichment against the two SV entity defendants. On April 17, 2018, all defendants served a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On June 22, 2018, plaintiffs served their opposition to the motion to dismiss and a cross-motion to stay the proceedings pending a decision on the motion to dismiss in the above-referenced securities class action in the District of Massachusetts. On July 30, 2018, the parties filed a joint motion to stay the proceedings pending a decision on the motion to dismiss in the above-referenced securities class action in the District of Massachusetts. On August 3, 2018, the court granted the motion to stay. On January 31, 2018, a third purported shareholder derivative suit was filed against certain of the Company’s current and former executive officers, certain current and former board members, and the Company as a nominal defendant, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, captioned Brian Robinson v. Sawhney et al. , Case. No. 1:18-cv-10199. The complaint includes allegations similar to those made in the Corwin and Madera complaints. The complaint does not name either SV Life Sciences Fund, IV, LP or SV Life Sciences Fund IV Strategic Partners, LP as defendants, and adds two former officers as defendants. The complaint purports to assert derivative claims against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment, and seeks to recover on behalf of the Company for any liability the Company incurs as a result of the individual defendants’ alleged misconduct. The complaint seeks declaratory, equitable, and monetary relief, an unspecified amount of damages, with interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On April 30, 2018, all defendants filed a motion to dismiss or stay the complaint. Plaintiff filed his opposition on June 22, 2018. On July 26, 2018, the parties filed a joint motion to extend the deadline for defendants to file their reply brief pending the potential substitution of the named shareholder plaintiff. On August 20, 2018, the parties filed a joint stipulation and proposed order regarding plaintiff’s unopposed request to substitute a new shareholder plaintiff and the parties’ joint request that the court stay the proceedings pending a decision on the motion to dismiss in the above-referenced securities class action in the District of Massachusetts. On September 4, 2018, the court entered the requested order substituting the named plaintiff and staying the matter. On February 16, 2018, a fourth purported shareholder derivative suit was filed against certain of the Company’s current and former executive officers, certain current and former board members, and the Company as a nominal defendant, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Terry Kelly v. Sawhney et al. , Case. No. 1:18-cv-00277. The complaint includes allegations similar to those made in the Corwin and Madera complaints. The complaint purports to assert derivative claims against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and waste of corporate assets, and seeks to recover on behalf of the Company for any liability the Company incurs as a result of the individual defendants’ alleged misconduct. The complaint also asserts an unjust enrichment claim against SV Life Sciences Fund IV, LP and SV Life Sciences Fund IV Strategic Partners, LP. The complaint seeks declaratory, equitable, and monetary relief, an unspecified amount of damages, with interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On June 11, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation staying the lawsuit pending final judgment in the consolidated derivative action pending in Massachusetts state court under the Corwin docket, described above. The court entered an order staying the case on June 12, 2018. The Company denies any allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend against these lawsuits. In addition, the Company received a subpoena from the SEC, dated December 15, 2017, requesting documents and information concerning DEXTENZA (dexamethasone insert) 0.4mg, including related communications with the FDA, investors and others. The Company received a second subpoena from the SEC on August 21, 2018, requesting documents and information concerning its participation in two investor conferences in June 2017. By letter dated May 2, 2019, the SEC notified the Company that the SEC had concluded its investigation and did not intend to recommend an enforcement action against the Company or any individuals. The Company is unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits or proceedings at this time. Moreover, any conclusion of these matters in a manner adverse to the Company and for which it incurs substantial costs or damages not covered by our directors’ and officers’ liability insurance would have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition and business. In addition, the proceedings could adversely impact the Company’s reputation and divert management’s attention and resources from other priorities, including the execution of business plans and strategies that are important to the Company’s ability to grow the Company’s business, any of which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business. |