Contingencies | Note 18. Contingencies Litigation and Contingencies From time to time, the Company has been and may again become involved in legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business, including product liability, intellectual property, commercial litigation, or environmental or other regulatory matters. Except as described below, Aquestive is not presently a party to any litigation or other legal proceeding that is believed to be material to its financial condition. Patent-Related Litigation Beginning in August 2013, the Company was informed of abbreviated new drug application (“ANDA”) filings in the United States by Watson Laboratories, Inc. (now Actavis Laboratories, Inc., or “Actavis”), Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (“Par”), Alvogen Pine Brook, Inc. (“Alvogen”), Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”), Sandoz Inc. (“Sandoz”), and Mylan Technologies Inc. (“Mylan”), for the approval by the FDA of generic versions of Suboxone Sublingual Film in the United States. Aquestive filed patent infringement lawsuits against all six generic companies in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Delaware District Court”). After the commencement of the ANDA patent litigation against Teva, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (“DRL”) acquired the ANDA filings for Teva’s buprenorphine and naloxone sublingual film that are at issue in these trials. Of these, cases against three of the six generic companies have been resolved. • Mylan Sandoz • All cases against Par • Actavis • DRL Alvogen Teva Subsequent to the above, all potential generic competitors without a settlement agreement were also sued for infringement of two additional new patents that contain new claims not adjudicated in the original Delaware District Court case against DRL and Alvogen. On July 12, 2019, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decisions from the previously decided cases. The remaining case against Actavis was dismissed in light of the infringement ruling above, which prevents Actavis from entering the market until 2024. The case(s) against the remaining defendants regarding the additional asserted patents have not been finally resolved. A Markman Markman On August 24, 2020, Judge McNulty issued an Opinion and Order denying both the appeal of the Magistrate’s decision and Aquestive’s Motion to Dismiss. On June 3, 2020, the court issued an order setting a schedule for ongoing fact discovery, expert discovery, and dispositive motions. The schedule currently sets the close of fact discovery for October 20, 2020, with expert discovery continuing through the end of April 2021. The schedule also sets the deadline for filing dispositive motions for May 18, 2021. On February 19, 2019, the Federal Circuit issued its mandate reversing the New Jersey District Court’s preliminary injunction against Dr. Reddy’s. Following issuance of the mandate, the New Jersey District Court vacated preliminary injunctions against both Dr. Reddy’s and Alvogen. Dr. Reddy’s, Alvogen, and Mylan all launched generic versions of Suboxone Sublingual Film, and the launches by Dr. Reddy’s and Alvogen are “at risk” because the products are the subject of the ongoing patent infringement litigations. On March 22, 2019, Aquestive and Indivior brought suit against Aveva Drug Delivery Systems, Inc., Apotex Corp., and Apotex Inc.in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the “Southern District of Florida Court”) for infringement of the Company’s U. S. Patent Nos. 8,017,150, 9,687,454, the ’514 patent and ’305 patent, seeking an injunction and potential monetary damages. Following a negotiated settlement between all parties, on December 3, 2019, the parties submitted a Notice of Settlement and a Joint Motion to Approve Consent Judgment. The Southern District of Florida Court entered an order dismissing the suit on December 18, 2019. The Company is also seeking to enforce its patent rights in multiple cases against BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. (“BDSI”). Three cases are currently pending but stayed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina (the “Eastern District of North Carolina Court”): • The first, a declaratory judgment action brought by BDSI against Indivior and Aquestive, seeks declarations of invalidity and non-infringement of U.S. Patents Nos. 7,897,080, 8,652,378 and 8,475,832. This case is stayed. • The second was filed by Aquestive and Indivior related to BDSI’s infringing Bunavail product, and alleges infringement of Aquestive’s patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,765,167, or the ’167 patent, and seeks an injunction and potential monetary damages. Shortly after the case was filed, BDSI filed four (4) IPR’s challenging the asserted ’167 patent. On March 24, 2016, the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), issued a final written decision finding that all claims of the ’167 patent were valid. The case was stayed in May 2016 pending the final determination of the appeals on those decisions. Following the PTAB’s February 7, 2019 decisions on remand denying institution, Aquestive and Indivior submitted a notice to the Court on February 15, 2019 notifying the Court that the stay should be lifted as a result of the PTAB’s decisions. The parties in this matter are awaiting further action from the Court. • On January 13, 2017, the Company also sued BDSI asserting infringement of the ’167 patent by BDSI’s Belbuca product and seeking an injunction and potential monetary damages. On August 7, 2019, the Eastern District of North Carolina Court granted BDSI’s motion to dismiss the Complaint without prejudice and denied BDSI’s motion to stay as moot. On November 11, 2019, Aquestive filed a new Complaint against BDSI in the Eastern District of North Carolina Court. On November 27, 2019, BDSI filed a motion to stay the case pending BDSI’s appeal of the PTAB’s remand decisions, and the Company opposed this motion. The Eastern District of North Carolina Court denied BDSI’s motion to stay on April 1, 2020. BDSI’s appeal of the PTAB’s remand decisions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was docketed on March 13, 2019, and on March 20, 2019, and a motion was made to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. On August 29, 2019, the Federal Circuit granted the motion to dismiss BDSI’s appeal. On September 30, 2019, BDSI filed a petition for rehearing in the Federal Circuit en banc , which the Company opposed. The Federal Circuit denied BDSI’s petition for rehearing en banc on January 13, 2020. On June 11, 2020, BDSI filed a petition for writ of certiorari at the Supreme Court of the United States. At the request of the Supreme Court, Aquestive filed an opposition to BDSI’s petition on August 17, 2020, and BDSI filed a reply on August 27, 2010. On October 5, 2020, the Supreme Court issued an order denying BDSI’s petition. After the Federal Circuit denied BDSI’s petition, on January 13, 2020, BDSI filed with the Eastern District of North Carolina Court a motion to dismiss the Complaint, and Aquestive opposed on February 2, 2020. The Eastern District of North Carolina Court denied BDSI’s motion to dismiss and its motion to stay on April 1, 2020. On April 16, 2020, BDSI filed an Answer to the Complaint, including counterclaims for non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of the ’167 patent. On May 7, 2020, Aquestive filed a motion to dismiss BDSI’s unenforceability counterclaim and a motion to strike BDSI’s corresponding affirmative defenses for failure to state a claim for inequitable conduct under the heightened pleading standard applicable to such claims and defenses. Rather than oppose Aquestive’s Motion to Dismiss, on May 28, 2020, BDSI amended its counterclaims and filed an Answer and Amended Counterclaims, which included additional allegations in support of BDSI’s unenforceability counterclaim. On June 25, 2020, Aquestive filed a Motion to Dismiss BDSI’s Amended Counterclaim for unenforceability and a Motion to Strike BDSI’s corresponding affirmative defense of unenforceability again for failure to state a claim under the applicable heightened pleading standard. BDSI’s filed its opposition to Aquestive’s Motion to Dismiss and Strike on July 16, 2020. Aquestive filed its Reply to BDSI’s Opposition on July 30, 2020. The parties are awaiting further action from the court on Aquestive’s motion. Antitrust Litigation On September 22, 2016, forty-one states and the District of Columbia, or the States, brought suit against Indivior and the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging violations of federal and state antitrust statutes and state unfair trade and consumer protection laws relating to Indivior’s launch of Suboxone Sublingual Film in 2010 and seeking an injunction, civil penalties, and disgorgement. After filing the suit, the case was consolidated for pre-trial purposes with the In re Suboxone (Buprenorphine Hydrochloride and Naloxone) Antitrust Litigation Daubert Daubert Humana and Centene Actions On September 18, 2020, Humana, Inc., a health insurance payer, filed a suit against Aquestive and Indivior in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania relating to Suboxone. The Humana action, which alleges facts similar to those at issue in the Antitrust Case and the Suboxone MDL described above, was assigned to the same judge that is presiding over those actions. Humana’s Complaint alleges five causes of action against Aquestive, including conspiracy to violate the RICO Act, fraud under state law, unfair and deceptive trade practices under state law, insurance fraud, and unjust enrichment. On September 21, 2020, Centene Corporation and other related insurance payers filed a similar suit against Aquestive and Indivior in the Eastern District of Missouri. The counsel representing Humana is also representing Centene. On September 21, 2020, the Centene action was provisionally transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. No other proceedings have occurred and the schedule is not yet known. Management is not able to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of this proceeding or provide a reasonable estimate, or range of estimate, of the possible outcome or loss, if any, in this matter. California Complaint On December 5, 2019, Neurelis Inc. (“Neurelis”) filed a complaint against Aquestive in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego alleging Unfair Competition, Defamation, and Malicious Prosecution related to the Company’s pursuit of FDA approval for Libervant™. Neurelis filed a First Amended Complaint on December 9, 2019, alleging the same three causes of action. The Company filed a Motion to Strike Neurelis’s Complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP (“strategic lawsuit against public participation”) statute on Friday, January 31, 2020, which Neurelis is expected to oppose. Neurelis filed a motion for leave to file a Supplemental Complaint on February 5, 2020, which will be opposed. On February 5, 2020, Neurelis filed a Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Complaint (“Motion”). On June 5, 2020, Neurelis filed a Motion for Limited Discovery related to Aquestive’s anti-SLAPP motion. The court previously scheduled a hearing on both Aquestive’s anti-SLAPP Motion and on Neurelis’s Motion for April 24, 2020. However, on April 3, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the court issued an order continuing all hearings scheduled through April 30, 2020. The court ultimately held a telephonic status conference on June 25, 2020 to determine a schedule for hearing the pending motions. During that status conference, the court set Aquestive’s anti-SLAPP motion for hearing on July 24, 2020. The court also declined Neurelis’s request to hear its Motion and its Motion for Limited Discovery. Neurelis filed its response to Aquestive’s anti-SLAPP Motion on July 13, 2020, and we filed our reply on July 17, 2020. The court held a telephonic hearing on Aquestive’s anti-SLAPP motion on July 24, 2020. On August 6, 2020, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Aquestive’s anti-SLAPP motion. Aquestive filed a notice of appeal to the California Court of Appeal on September 1, 2020, and Neurelis filed a notice of cross-appeal on October 5, 2020. |