| COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 13. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
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 based on 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 September 30, 2016, there are no potential losses from claims, asserted or unasserted, or legal proceedings the Company feels are 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 Pharm. Co., Otsuka PD&C, and Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc. (collectively, “Otsuka”) filed an action for declaratory and injunctive relief with the United States 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 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 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 unambiguous opinion in favor of Alkermes and the FDA, affirming in all respects FDA’s decision to approve ARISTADA for the treatment of schizophrenia, and denying the action filed by Otsuka for declaratory and injunctive relief. Otsuka has 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 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 has scheduled this appellate hearing for 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” in the Company’s 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 submitted to us and/or the Company’s licensee Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. (“Acorda”) from Accord Healthcare, Inc. (“Accord”); Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. (“Actavis”); Alkem Laboratories Ltd. (“Alkem”); Apotex, Inc.; Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. (“Aurobindo”); Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Mylan”); Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (“Par”); Roxane Laboratories, Inc.; Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited and Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Inc. (collectively, “Sun”); and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., advising that each of these companies had submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) to the FDA seeking marketing approval for generic versions of AMPYRA (dalfampridine) Extended Release Tablets, 10 mg. The ANDA filers have challenged the validity of the Orange Book-listed patents for AMPYRA, and they have 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 Nos. 5,540,938 (which the Company owns), 8,663,685; 8,440,703; 8,354,437 and 8,007,826 (which are owned by Acorda). Requested judicial remedies include recovery of litigation costs and injunctive relief. Lawsuits with eight of the ANDA filers have been consolidated into a single case. The Delaware Court held a bench trial that concluded on September 23, 2016. Mylan is challenging the jurisdiction of the Delaware Court with respect to the Delaware action. Due to Mylan’s motion to dismiss, the Company, together 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 March 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Federal Circuit”) upheld the Delaware Court’s ruling that the litigation against Mylan can continue in the Delaware Court. In June 2016, the Federal Circuit denied Mylan’s request for a rehearing to reconsider its previous ruling. Mylan has appealed the Federal Circuit’s decision to the Supreme Court of the U.S. All lawsuits were filed within 45 days from the date of receipt of each of the Paragraph IV Certification Notices. As a result, a 30-month statutory stay of approval period applies to each of the ANDAs under the U.S. Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (the “Hatch-Waxman Act”). The 30-month stay starts from January 22, 2015, which is the end of the new chemical entity exclusivity period for AMPYRA. This stay restricts the FDA from approving the ANDAs until July 2017 at the earliest, unless a Federal district court issues a decision adverse to all of the asserted Orange Book-listed patents prior to that date. Such FDA approval would permit the ANDA filers to market generic versions of AMPYRA (dalfampridine) Extended Release Tablets, 10 mg.
The Company and/or Acorda has entered into a settlement agreement with each of Accord, Actavis, Alkem, 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 described above. As a result of the settlement agreements, the Settling ANDA Filers will be permitted to market a generic version of AMPYRA in the U.S. at a specified date in 2027, or potentially earlier under certain circumstances. The parties have submitted their respective settlement agreements to the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice, as required by federal law. The settlements with the Settling ANDA Filers do not resolve pending patent litigation that the Company and Acorda brought against the other ANDA filers, as described above.
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 I, Item 1A—Risk Factors” in the Company’s Annual Report and specifically the section entitled “We face claims against our intellectual property rights and competition from generic drug manufacturers.”
AMPYRA IPR Proceedings
A hedge fund (acting with affiliated entities and individuals and proceeding under the name of the Coalition for Affordable Drugs) has filed inter partes review (“IPR”) petitions with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”), challenging U.S. Patent Nos. 8,663,685; 8,440,703; 8,354,437 and 8,007,826 (which are owned by Acorda). In March 2016, the USPTO’s Patent Trials and Appeal Board instituted the IPR. A ruling on the IPR petitions is expected within one year of the IPR’s institution. The challenged patents are four of the five AMPYRA Orange-Book listed patents. The 30-month statutory stay period based on patent infringement suits filed by us and Acorda against ANDA filers is not impacted by these filings, and remains in effect.
BYDUREON, RISPERDAL CONSTA AND VIVITROL IPR Proceedings
On June 3, 2016, the USPTO accepted two separate IPR petitions filed by Luye Pharma Group Ltd., Luye Pharma (USA) Ltd., Shandong Luye Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and Nanjing Luye Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Luye”) challenging U.S. Patent Number 6,667,061 (the “‘061 Patent”), which is an Orange Book-listed patent for each of BYDUREON, RISPERDAL CONSTA and VIVITROL. On September 1, 2016, the Company filed a response to Luye’s IPR petitions with the USPTO, following which the USPTO has a further three-month period to decide whether or not to institute a review of the challenged claims of the ‘061 Patent. If such review is instituted, a decision on the matter would be expected, pursuant to the statutory time frame, within one year of the USPTO’s decision to institute such review.
The Company opposed Luye’s requests to institute the IPRs against the ‘061 Patent. If the USPTO institutes such challenge, the Company will vigorously defend the ‘061 Patent. 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”. |
