| COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 12. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
Lease Commitments
In March 2017, the Company entered into a lease agreement to lease approximately 65,000 square feet of office space in Waltham, Massachusetts (the “Building”). Beginning March 1, 2017, the Company began leasing approximately 43,290 square feet (“Premises A”) of the Building, and, on January 1, 2018, the Company will gain access to the additional 21,645 square feet (“Premises B”). The lease on both Premises A and Premises B ends on September 30, 2020 and will result in rental expense of approximately $1.2 million in 2017 and $2.2 million from 2018 through 2020.
Litigation
From time to time, the Company may be subject to legal proceedings and claims in the ordinary course of business. On a quarterly basis, the Company reviews the status of each significant matter and assesses its potential financial exposure. If the potential loss from any claim, asserted or unasserted, or legal proceeding is considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated, the Company would accrue a liability for the estimated loss. Because of uncertainties related to claims and litigation, accruals are based on the Company’s best estimates using the latest available information. On a periodic basis, as additional information becomes available, or based on specific events such as the outcome of litigation or settlement of claims, the Company may reassess the potential liability related to these matters and may revise these estimates, which could result in material adverse adjustments to the Company’s operating results. At June 30, 2017, there were no potential material losses from claims, asserted or unasserted, or legal proceedings the Company determined were probable of occurring.
ARISTADA
On July 13, 2015, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization, Inc. (“Otsuka PD&C”) filed a Citizen Petition with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) which requested that the FDA refuse to approve the NDA for ARISTADA or delay approval of such NDA until the exclusivity rights covering long-acting aripiprazole expire in December 2017. The FDA approved ARISTADA on October 5, 2015 and, concurrent with such approval, denied Otsuka PD&C’s Citizen Petition.
On October 15, 2015, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Otsuka PD&C, and Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc. (collectively, “Otsuka”) filed an action for declaratory and injunctive relief with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (the “DC Court”) against Sylvia Mathews Burwell, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Dr. Stephen Ostroff, Acting Commissioner, FDA; and the FDA, requesting that the DC Court: (a) expedite the legal proceedings; (b) declare that the FDA’s denial of Otsuka’s claimed exclusivity rights and approval of the ARISTADA NDA were arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with law; (c) vacate the FDA’s approval of the ARISTADA NDA and vacate any FDA decisions or actions underlying or supporting or predicated upon that approval; (d) declare that Otsuka’s claimed exclusivity rights preclude the FDA from granting approval of the Alkermes NDA until the expiration of such exclusivity rights in December 2017; and (e) grant any and all other, further, and additional relief, including all necessary and appropriate protective preliminary, interim, or permanent relief, as the nature of the cause may require, including all necessary and appropriate declarations of rights and injunctive relief. The Company successfully intervened in, and received the DC Court’s approval to become a party to, this action.
On July 28, 2016, the DC Court issued an opinion in favor of the Company and the FDA, affirming in all respects the FDA’s decision to approve ARISTADA for the treatment of schizophrenia, and denying the action filed by Otsuka for declaratory and injunctive relief. Otsuka filed an appeal of the DC Court’s decision with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“DC Circuit”) asking the DC Circuit to reverse the DC Court’s decision, vacate the FDA’s approval of the ARISTADA NDA and remand the case to the DC Court for consideration of any appropriate equitable remedy for Otsuka’s lost exclusivity. The DC Circuit’s appellate hearing for this matter occurred on December 12, 2016. The Company believes Otsuka’s action is without merit and will continue to vigorously defend ARISTADA against such action. For information about risks relating to this action, see “Part I, Item 1A—Risk Factors” of the Annual Report and specifically the section entitled “Citizen Petitions and other actions filed with, or litigation against, the FDA or other regulatory agencies or litigation against Alkermes may negatively impact the approval of our products and our business.”
AMPYRA
AMPYRA ANDA Litigation
Ten separate Paragraph IV Certification Notices have been received by the Company and/or its partner Acorda from: Accord Healthcare, Inc. (“Accord”); Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. (“Actavis”); Alkem Laboratories Ltd. (“Alkem”); Apotex Corporation and Apotex, Inc. (collectively, “Apotex”); Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. (“Aurobindo”); Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Mylan”); Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (“Par”); Roxane Laboratories, Inc. (“Roxane”); Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited and Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Inc. (collectively, “Sun”); and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva,” and collectively with Accord, Actavis, Alkem, Apotex, Aurobindo, Mylan, Par, Roxane and Sun, the “ANDA Filers”) advising that each of the ANDA Filers had submitted an abbreviated NDA (“ANDA”) to the FDA seeking marketing approval for generic versions of AMPYRA (dalfampridine) Extended-Release Tablets, 10 mg. The ANDA Filers challenged the validity of the Orange Book-listed patents for AMPYRA, and they also asserted that their generic versions do not infringe certain claims of these patents. In response, the Company and/or Acorda filed lawsuits against the ANDA Filers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Delaware Court”) asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,540,938 (the “‘938 Patent”), which the Company owns, and U.S. Patent Nos. 8,007,826; 8,354,437; 8,440,703; and 8,663,685, which are owned by Acorda. Requested judicial remedies included recovery of litigation costs and injunctive relief.
All lawsuits were filed within 45 days from the date of receipt of each of the Paragraph IV Certification Notices from the ANDA Filers. As a result, a 30-month statutory stay of approval period applied to each of the ANDA Filers’ ANDAs under the U.S. Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (the “Hatch-Waxman Act”). The 30-month stay started on January 22, 2015, and restricted the FDA from approving the ANDA Filers’ ANDAs until July 2017 at the earliest, unless a Federal district court issued a decision adverse to all of the asserted Orange Book-listed patents prior to that date. Lawsuits with eight of the ANDA Filers have been consolidated into a single case.
The Company and/or Acorda entered into a settlement agreement with each of Accord, Actavis, Alkem, Apotex, Aurobindo, Par and Sun (collectively, the “Settling ANDA Filers”) to resolve the patent litigation that the Company and/or Acorda brought against the Settling ANDA Filers in the Delaware Court. As a result of the settlement agreements, the Settling ANDA Filers will be permitted to market generic versions of AMPYRA in the U.S. at a specified date in the future. The parties submitted their respective settlement agreements to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice, as required by federal law. The settlements with the Settling ANDA Filers did not impact the patent litigation that the Company and Acorda brought against the remaining ANDA Filers (the “Non-Settling ANDA Filers”), as described in this Form 10-Q.
On March 31, 2017, after a bench trial, the Delaware Court issued an opinion (the “Delaware Court Decision”), upholding the validity of the ‘938 Patent, which pertains to the formulation of AMPYRA and is set to expire in July 2018, and finding that Apotex, Mylan, Roxane and Teva stipulated that their proposed generic forms of AMPYRA infringed the ‘938 Patent. The Delaware Court also invalidated U.S. Patent Nos. 8,007,826; 8,354,437; 8,440,703; and 8,663,685. In May 2017, Acorda filed its appeal of the Delaware Court Decision with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Federal Circuit”) with respect to the findings on U.S. Patent Nos. 8,007,826; 8,354,437; 8,440,703; and 8,663,685. In June 2017, the Non-Settling ANDA Filers filed their cross-appeal of the Delaware Court Decision with the Federal Circuit with respect to the validity of the ‘ 938 Patent.
Mylan challenged the jurisdiction of the Delaware Court with respect to the Delaware action. In January 2015, the Delaware Court denied Mylan’s motion to dismiss. Subsequently, in January 2015, the Delaware Court granted Mylan’s request for an interlocutory appeal of its jurisdictional decision to the Federal Circuit . In March 2016, the Federal Circuit denied Mylan’s appeal, and the case remains in the Delaware Court. Mylan requested the Federal Circuit to reconsider its decision. However, on June 20, 2016, the Federal Circuit denied Mylan’s request. Mylan filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied. Due to Mylan’s motion to dismiss, the Company, along with Acorda, also filed another patent infringement suit against Mylan in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia asserting the same U.S. Patents and requesting the same judicial relief as in the Delaware action. In December 2014, the Company, along with Acorda, filed a motion in the Northern District of West Virginia to stay that action in deference to the Delaware action. In February 2015, the District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia granted the motion to stay the proceeding, and, in May 2017, dismissed the proceeding in view of the Delaware Court Decision. The patent infringement case against Mylan, however, was part of the consolidated Delaware action.
In addition to the Paragraph IV Certification Notices received from the ANDA Filers, in April 2017, Acorda received an additional Paragraph IV Certification Notice from Micro Labs, Ltd. (“Micro Labs”), contending that U.S. Patent Nos. 8,007,826; 8,354,437; 8,440,703; and 8,663,685 are invalid and not infringed by Micro Labs’ proposed generic version of AMPYRA (dalfampridine) Extended-Release Tablets, 10 mg . On May 24, 2017, Acorda filed a lawsuit against Micro Labs and Micro Labs USA, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey asserting infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,007,826; 8,354,437; 8,440,703; and 8,663,685. Requested judicial remedies included recovery of litigation costs and injunctive relief. The lawsuit was brought within 45 days from receipt of such Paragraph IV Certification Notice ; therefore, the FDA cannot approve Micro Labs’ ANDA for 30 months (unless a Federal district court issues a decision adverse to all of the asserted Orange Book-listed patents prior to that date ) .
The Company intends to vigorously enforce its intellectual property rights. For information about risks relating to the AMPYRA Paragraph IV litigations and other proceedings see “Part II, Item 1A—Risk Factors” in this Form 10-Q and in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2017 and “Part I, Item 1A—Risk Factors” of the Company’s Annual Report.
AMPYRA IPR Proceedings
A hedge fund (acting with affiliated entities and individuals and proceeding under the name of the Coalition for Affordable Drugs) filed inter partes review (“IPR”) petitions with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”), challenging U.S. Patent Nos. 8,007,826; 8,354,437; 8,440,703; and 8,663,685, which are owned by Acorda, representing four of the five AMPYRA Orange Book-listed patents. In March 2016, the USPTO’s Patent Trials and Appeal Board (the “PTAB”) instituted the IPR, and oral argument for the IPR was held on January 19, 2017. On March 9, 2017, the PTAB upheld the challenged claims. This decision does not affect the litigation discussed in the “AMPYRA ANDA Litigation” section above.
BYDUREON, RISPERDAL CONSTA AND VIVITROL
Government Matters
On June 22, 2017, the Company received a subpoena from an Office of the U.S. Attorney for documents related to VIVITROL. The Company is cooperating with the government.
IPR Proceedings
On June 3, 2016, Luye Pharma Group Ltd., Luye Pharma (USA) Ltd., Shandong Luye Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and Nanjing Luye Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Luye”) filed two separate IPR petitions challenging U.S. Patent No. 6,667,061 (the “‘061 Patent”), which is an Orange Book-listed patent for each of BYDUREON, RISPERDAL CONSTA and VIVITROL. The Company opposed the institution of these IPR petitions. On November 30, 2016, the USPTO’s PTAB instituted one of Luye’s IPR petitions and denied instituting Luye’s other IPR petition. Oral argument for the instituted IPR is currently scheduled for August 28, 2017. A decision on the instituted IPR would be expected, pursuant to the statutory time frame, by November 30, 2017.
The Company will vigorously defend the ‘061 Patent in the IPR proceedings. For information about risks relating to the ‘061 Patent IPR proceedings see “Part I, Item 1A—Risk Factors” in the Company’s Annual Report and specifically the sections entitled “Patent protection for our products is important and uncertain” and “Uncertainty over intellectual property in the pharmaceutical industry has been the source of litigation, which is inherently costly and unpredictable.” |
