Contingencies | Note 19. Contingencies Litigation and Contingencies From time to time, we have been and may again become involved in legal proceedings arising in the course of our business, including product liability, intellectual property, commercial litigation, or environmental or other regulatory matters. Patent-Related Litigation Indivior Inc., Indivior UK Ltd., and Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs. S.A. and Dr. Reddy’s Labs., Inc. On February 7, 2018, we and Indivior Inc. and Indivior UK Ltd. (collectively, “Indivior”) initiated a lawsuit against Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories S.A. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. (collectively, “Dr. Reddy’s”) asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,855,221 (the “221 patent”). On April 3, 2018, we and Indivior initiated a separate lawsuit against Dr. Reddy’s asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,931,305 (the “’305 patent”). On May 29, 2018, the lawsuits regarding the ’221 and ’305 patents were consolidated which was originally initiated by Indivior against Dr. Reddy’s asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,687,454 (the “’454 patent”). On February 19, 2019, the Court granted the parties’ agreed stipulation to drop the ’221 patent from the case. On January 8, 2020, the Court entered a stipulated order of non-infringement of the ’305 patent based on the Court’s claim construction ruling, and we and Indivior preserved our rights to appeal the claim construction ruling. On November 22, 2019, Dr. Reddy’s filed an amended answer and counterclaims asserting conspiracy to monopolize against us and monopolization, attempted monopolization, and conspiracy to monopolize against Indivior under federal and New Jersey antitrust laws. The Court denied our motion to dismiss Dr. Reddy’s counterclaims on August 24, 2020. Fact discovery on Dr. Reddy’s antitrust counterclaims concluded on January 29, 2021. On March 11, 2021, the court entered a stipulated order dismissing Dr. Reddy’s counterclaims against Aquestive. We are not able to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of this proceeding or provide a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the possible outcome or losses, if any, in this matter. Indivior Inc., Indivior UK Ltd., and Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. On February 7, 2018, we and Indivior initiated a lawsuit against Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”) asserting infringement of the ’221 patent. On April 3, 2018, we and Indivior initiated a separate lawsuit against Teva asserting infringement of the ’305 patent. On May 29, 2018, the lawsuits regarding the ’221 and ’305 patents were consolidated which was originally initiated by Indivior against Teva asserting infringement of the ’454 patent. The parties agreed that the case would be governed by the final judgment against Dr. Reddy’s (described above). We are not able to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of this proceeding or provide a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the possible outcome or losses, if any, in this matter. Indivior Inc., Indivior UK Ltd., and Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. v. Alvogen Pine Brook LLC On September 14, 2017, Indivior initiated a lawsuit against Alvogen Pine Brook LLC (“Alvogen”) asserting infringement of the ’454 patent. On February 7, 2018, we and Indivior filed an Amended Complaint, adding us as a plaintiff and asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,855,221 (the “’221 patent”). On April 3, 2018, we and Indivior initiated a separate lawsuit against Alvogen asserting infringement of the ’305 patent. On May 29, 2018, the cases were consolidated. On February 26, 2019, the Court granted the parties’ agreed stipulation to drop the ’221 patent from the case. On January 9, 2020, the Court entered a stipulated order of non-infringement of the ’305 patent based on the Court’s claim construction ruling, and we and Indivior preserved our rights to appeal the claim construction ruling. On November 21, 2019, Alvogen filed an amended answer and counterclaims asserting monopolization, attempted monopolization, and conspiracy to monopolize against us and Indivior under federal and New Jersey antitrust laws. The court denied our motion to dismiss Alvogen’s counterclaims on August 24, 2020. On November 2, 2020, Alvogen filed a second amended answer and counterclaims, removing its allegations of monopolization and attempted monopolization against us and asserting only conspiracy to monopolize against us. Fact discovery on Alvogen’s antitrust counterclaims concluded on January 29, 2021. Expert discovery is ongoing and is scheduled to continue through the beginning of August 2021. Dispositive motions are currently due August 27, 2021. There is no trial date set. We are not able to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of this proceeding or provide a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the possible outcome or losses, if any, in this matter. BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. v. Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals, Inc., RB Pharmaceuticals Limited and MonoSol Rx, LLC On September 20, 2014, BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. (“BDSI”) initiated a lawsuit against us and RB seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 8,475,832 (the “’832 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,897,080 (the “’080 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 8,652,378 (the “’378 patent”). On December 12, 2014, BDSI voluntarily dismissed the ’378 patent from the case. On December 12, 2015, the parties jointly moved the Court for a stay of the case pending inter partes Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and MonoSol Rx, LLC v. BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. and Quintiles Commercials US, Inc. On September 22, 2014, we and RB initiated a lawsuit against BDSI and Quintiles Commercial US, Inc. (“Quintiles”) asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,765,167 (the “’167 patent”) in the District of New Jersey (Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-5892). On July 22, 2015, the case was transferred to the Eastern District of North Carolina. BDSI filed requests for inter partes en banc Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. v. BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. On November 11, 2019, we initiated a lawsuit against BDSI asserting infringement of the ’167 patent in the Eastern District of North Carolina. On April 1, 2020, the Court denied BDSI’s motion to stay and its motion to dismiss the complaint. On April 16, 2020, BDSI filed its Answer and Counterclaims to the complaint, including counterclaims for non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of the ’167 patent. On May 7, 2020, we filed a Motion to Dismiss BDSI’s unenforceability counterclaim and a Motion to Strike BDSI’s corresponding affirmative defenses. 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, we filed a Motion to Dismiss BDSI’s Amended Counterclaim for unenforceability and a Motion to Strike BDSI’s corresponding affirmative defense of unenforceability. BDSI filed its opposition to our Motion to Dismiss and Strike on July 16, 2020, and we filed our Reply on July 30, 2020. On March 16, 2021, the court issued an order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Aquestive’s motion to dismiss BDSI’s counterclaims asserting unenforceability of the ’167 patent. Aquestive filed its answer to the remaining portions of BDSI’s counterclaims on April 6, 2021. Also, on April 6, 2021, the court issued an order requiring the parties to conduct a Rule 26(f) conference by May 6, 2021, and to submit a joint discovery plan by May 20, 2021. BDSI also filed on April 6, 2021 a renewed motion to dismiss Aquestive’s complaint. Aquestive’s opposition to BDSI’s renewed motion to dismiss is currently due April 27, 2021. We are not able to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of this proceeding or provide a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the possible outcome or losses, if any, in this matter. Antitrust Litigation State of Wisconsin, et al. v. Indivior Inc., Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (UK) Ltd., Indivior PLC, and MonoSol Rx, LLC On September 22, 2016, forty-one states and the District of Columbia, or the States, brought a lawsuit against Indivior and us 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 lawsuit, the case was consolidated for pre-trial purposes with the In re Suboxone (Buprenorphine Hydrochloride and Naloxone) Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2445, or the Suboxone MDL, a multidistrict litigation relating to putative class actions on behalf of various private plaintiffs against Indivior relating to its launch of Suboxone Sublingual Film. While we were not named as a defendant in the original Suboxone MDL cases, the action brought by the States alleges that we participated in an antitrust conspiracy with Indivior in connection with Indivior’s launch of Suboxone Sublingual Film and engaged in related conduct in violation of federal and state antitrust law. We moved to dismiss the States’ conspiracy claims, but by order dated October 30, 2017, the Court denied our motion to dismiss. We filed an answer denying the States’ claims on November 20, 2017. Daubert motions were filed on September 28, 2020, and oppositions were filed on October 19, 2020. On February 19, 2021, the court issued an order denying all Daubert motions. On March 8, 2021, Aquestive filed a motion for summary judgment. The States’ response to Aquestive’s summary judgment motion is due April 15, 2021, and Aquestive’s reply is due May 11, 2021. No trial date has yet been set. We are not able to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of this proceeding or provide a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the possible outcome or loss, if any, in this matter. Humana and Centene Action Humana Inc. v. Indivior Inc, Indivior Solutions Inc., Indivior PLC, Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (UK) Ltd., and Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. Centene Corporation, Wellcare Health Plans, Inc., New York Quality Healthcare Corporation d/b/a Fidelis Care, and Health Net, LLC v. Indivior Inc, Indivior Solutions Inc., Indivior PLC, Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (UK) Ltd., and Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. On September 18, 2020, Humana, Inc. (“Humana”), a health insurance payor, filed a lawsuit against us and Indivior in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging facts similar to those at issue in the Antitrust Case and the Suboxone MDL described above, which lawsuit was assigned to the same judge that is presiding over Antitrust Case and Suboxone MDL. Humana’s Complaint alleges five causes of action against us, 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 (“Centene”) and other related insurance payors filed a similar lawsuit against us 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. On January 15, 2021, we filed a motion to dismiss the Centene and Humana complaints. The other defendants in the actions also filed motions to dismiss on the same date. Centene and Humana filed their oppositions to the motions to dismiss on February 22, 2021, and Aquestive and the other defendants filed reply briefs on March 16, 2021. There is currently no hearing set on the motions to dismiss and the parties are awaiting action from the court on the motions to dismiss. We are not able to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of this proceeding or provide a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the possible outcome or loss, if any, in this matter. California Litigation Neurelis, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. On December 5, 2019, Neurelis filed a lawsuit against us in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego alleging the following three causes of action: (1) Unfair Competition under California Business and Professional Code § 17200; (2) Defamation; and (3) Malicious Prosecution. Neurelis filed a First Amended Complaint on December 9, 2019, alleging the same three causes of action. We filed a Motion to Strike Neurelis’s Complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP (“strategic lawsuit against public participation”) statute on January 31, 2020, which Neurelis opposed. On August 6, 2020, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part our anti-SLAPP motion. We 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. We filed our opening appeal brief on January 27, 2021, and Neurelis filed its combined opening and responsive appeal brief on March 30, 2021. Aquestive’s combined response and reply brief is due June 1, 2021 and briefing on the appeal is anticipated to end in July 2021. There is no date yet set for a hearing on the appeal. The trial court proceedings remain stayed while the appeal is pending. We are not able to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of this proceeding or provide a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the possible outcome or loss, if any, in this matter. Stockholder Class Action On March 1, 2021, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court of the District of New Jersey alleging that the Company and certain of its officers engaged in violations of the federal securities laws relating to public statements made by the Company relating to the approval of Libervant. We are not able to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of this proceeding or provide a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the possible outcome or loss, if any, in this matter. |