Contingencies | 12. Contingencies From time to time, the Company may be exposed to claims and legal actions in the normal course of business. As at February 28, 2023, and continuing as at June 5, 2023, the Company is not aware of any pending or threatened material litigation claims against the Company, other than as described below. In November 2016, the Company filed an NDA for its Oxycodone ER product candidate, relying on the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, which allowed the Company to reference data from Purdue Pharma L.P's (“Purdue”) file for its OxyContin ® FDA that it believed that its Oxycodone ER product candidate would not infringe any of the OxyContin® patents listed in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, commonly known as the “Orange Book”, or that such patents are invalid, and so notified Purdue and the other owners of the subject patents listed in the Orange Book of such certification. On April 7, 2017, the Company received notice that Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue Pharmaceuticals L.P., The P.F. Laboratories, Inc., or collectively the Purdue parties, Rhodes Technologies, and Grünenthal GmbH, or collectively the Purdue litigation plaintiffs, had commenced patent infringement proceedings against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (docket number 17-392) in respect of its NDA filing for Oxycodone ER, alleging that its proposed Oxycodone ER infringes six out of the 16 patents associated with the branded product OxyContin ® ® Subsequent to the above-noted filing of lawsuit, four further such patents were listed and published in the Orange Book. On March 16, 2018, the Company received notice that the Purdue litigation plaintiffs had commenced further such patent infringement proceedings adding the four further patents. On April 15, 2020, Purdue filed a new patent infringement suit against the Company relating to additional Paragraph IV certifications lodged against two more listed Purdue patents. As a result of the commencement of the first of these legal proceedings, the FDA was stayed for 30 months from granting final approval to the Company’s Oxycodone ER product candidate. That time period commenced on February 24, 2017, when the Purdue litigation plaintiffs received notice of the Company’s certification concerning the patents, and were to expire on August 24, 2019, unless the stay was earlier terminated by a final declaration of the courts that the patents are invalid, or are not infringed, or the matter is otherwise settled among the parties. On April 24, 2019, an order was issued, setting a trial date of November 12, 2019 for case number 17-392 in the District of Delaware, and also extending the 30-month stay date for regulatory approval to March 2, 2020. On or about June 26, 2018, the court issued an order to sever 6 “overlapping” patents from the second Purdue case but ordered litigation to proceed on the 4 new (2017-issued) patents. An answer and counterclaim was filed on July 9, 2018. On July 6, 2018, the court issued a so-called “Markman” claim construction ruling on the first case. On July 24, 2018, the parties to the case mutually agreed to and did have dismissed without prejudice the infringement claims related to the Grünenthal ‘060 patent, which is one of the six patents included in the original litigation case. On October 4, 2018, the parties mutually agreed to postpone the scheduled court date pending a case status conference scheduled for December 17, 2018. At that time, further trial scheduling and other administrative matters were postponed pending the Company’s resubmission of the Oxycodone ER NDA to the FDA, which was made on February 28, 2019. On January 17, 2019, the court issued a scheduling order in which the remaining major portions are scheduled. The trial was scheduled for June 2020. On April 4, 2019, the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the invalidity of one Purdue OxyContin® formulation patent, subject to further appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Following the filing of a bankruptcy stay by Purdue Pharma L.P., the Company’s ongoing litigation case numbers 1:17-cv-00392-RGA and 1:18-cv-00404-RGA-SRF between Purdue Pharma L.P. et al and The Company were stayed and the existing trial dates in both cases vacated by orders issued in each case by the judge in the District of Delaware on October 3, 2019. With the litigation stay order, the previous 30-month stay date of March 2, 2020 was unchanged. On or about July 2, 2020 the parties in the cases, numbers 17-cv-392-RGA, 18-cv-404-RGA and 20-cv-515-RGA (the “Litigations”) between Purdue Pharma L.P. et al (“Purdue’) and Intellipharmaceutics entered into a stipulated dismissal of the Litigations. The stipulated dismissal, which was subject to approval by the bankruptcy court presiding over Purdue Pharma’s pending chapter 11 cases, provides for the termination of the patent infringement proceedings. The stipulated dismissal also provides that (i) for a thirty (30) day period following a final approval of the Company’s Aximris XR TM On July 28, 2020 the U.S .District Court for the District of Delaware signed the stipulations of dismissal into order thereby dismissing the claims in the three cases without prejudice.In consideration of the confidential stipulated dismissal agreement and for future saved litigation expenses, Purdue paidan amount to the Company. In July 2017, three complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that were later consolidated under the caption Shanawaz v. Intellipharmaceutics Int’l Inc., et al., No. 1:17-cv-05761 (S.D.N.Y.) On November 7, 2019, the Company announced that the parties reached a settlement that is subject to the approval of the court following notice to class members. The stipulation of settlement provides for a settlement payment of US$1.6 million by the Company, which has been paid from available insurance coverage. As part of the settlement, the Company also agreed to contribute to the settlement fund specific anticipated Canadian tax refunds of up to US$400,000 to the extent received within 18 months after the entry of final judgment. The stipulation of settlement acknowledges that the Company and the other defendants continue to deny that they committed any violation of the U.S. securities laws or engaged in any other wrongdoing and that they are entering into the settlement at this time based on the burden, expense, and inherent uncertainty of continuing the litigation. On December 7, 2020 the court approved the settlement and entered an order and final judgement to that effect, thereby concluding the case. On February 21, 2019, the Company and its CEO, Dr. Isa Odidi (“Defendants”), were served with a Statement of Claim filed in the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (“Court”) for a proposed class action under the Ontario Class Proceedings Act (“Action”). The Action was brought by Victor Romita, the proposed representative plaintiff (“Plaintiff”), on behalf of a class of Canadian persons (“Class”) who traded shares of the Company during the period from February 29, 2016 to July 26, 2017 (“Period”). The Statement of Claim, under the caption Victor Romita v. Intellipharmaceutics International Inc. and Isa Odidi On May 1, 2020, the court granted the plaintiff’s Amendment Motion. An order for leave to proceed for settlement purposes was granted on 25 June 2021. At a hearing on October 12,2021, the Court approved the settlement. The stipulation of settlement provides for a settlement payment of CAD$266,000 by the Company, CAD$226,000 was paid from insurance coverage while the Company paid CAD$40,000. Therefore, this action is now settled. On October 7, 2019, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by Alpha Capital Anstalt (“Alpha”) against the Company, two of its existing officers and directors and its former Chief Financial Officer. In the complaint, Alpha alleged that the Company and the executive officers/directors named in the complaint violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by allegedly making false and misleading statements in the Company’s Registration Statement on Form F-1 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on September 20, 2018, as amended (the “Registration Statement”) by failing to disclose certain information regarding the resignation of the Company’s then Chief Financial Officer, which was announced several weeks after such registration statement was declared effective. In the complaint, Alpha seeks unspecified damages, rescission of its purchase of the Company’s securities in the relevant offering, attorneys’ fees and other costs and further relief as the court may find just and proper. On December 12, 2019, the Company and the other defendants in the action filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The plaintiff filed an opposition to that motion on February 4, 2020 and a reply brief in further support of the motion to dismiss the action was filed March 6, 2020. In addition, the Court scheduled a mandatory settlement conference with the Magistrate Judge for April 23, 2020 which the Company and its counsel attended. On June 18, 2020, the court largely denied the Company’s motion to dismiss the action. Briefing on these motions was completed on February 19, 2021. In a court order filed July 9, 2021, the District Court issued an opinion and order granting summary judgment in the Company’s favor and ordered the case closed. The judgment was entered on July 12, 2021. On August 10, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. On October 1, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the appeal with prejudice, stipulated to by the Company. The Court of Appeals “so ordered” the voluntary dismissal stipulation and the appeal was dismissed. As a result, the matter has been fully resolved in favor of the Company and the named individual Defendants. On or about August 5, 2020 a former employee filed a claim against the Company for wrongful dismissal of employment plus loss of benefits, unpaid vacation pay, interest and costs. The parties have agreed to settlement terms in the matter. The Company has fulfilled the terms and has received a release and consent to dismiss. A dismissal order is pending from the court. On or about August 9, 2022, a service provider brought to the Company’s attention a Motion Record to seek judgement with respect to amounts owed it by the Company for the principal amount owed, plus pre-judgment interest and costs. We found out then, that a statement of claim dated May 3, 2021 was delivered to the Company’s premises. The Company did not respond to the claim because it was inadvertently never brought to the attention of management, as a result the Company was noted in default in May 31, 2021. The Company was not aware of claim and the default before August 9, 2022. The Company has signed a consent which allows the other party to obtain judgement from a court and take steps to enforce judgement if we default on certain conditions. |