Commitments and Contingent Liabilities | 14. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES 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, utilizing all 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 March 31, 2019, there were no potential material losses from claims, asserted or unasserted, or legal proceedings the Company determined were probable of occurring. INVEGA SUSTENNA ANDA Litigation In January 2018, Janssen Pharmaceuticals NV and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. initiated a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”), who filed an abbreviated new drug application (“ANDA”) seeking approval to market a generic version of INVEGA SUSTENNA before the expiration of U.S. Patent No. 9,439,906. Requested judicial remedies included recovery of litigation costs and injunctive relief. The Company is not a party to these proceedings. For information about risks relating to the INVEGA SUSTENNA Paragraph IV litigation, see “Part I, Item 1A—Risk Factors” of the Company’s Annual Report, including the section entitled “—We or our licensees may face claims against intellectual property rights covering our products and competition from generic drug manufacturers.” AMPYRA ANDA Litigation Eleven 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”); MicroLabs Limited (“MicroLabs”); 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 (collectively with Accord, Actavis, Alkem, Apotex, Aurobindo, MicroLabs, Mylan, Par, Roxane and Sun, the “ANDA Filers”) advising that each of the ANDA Filers had submitted an 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 one or more 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 asserting infringement of one or more of the Orange Book-listed patents for AMPYRA. 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 first 30-month stay 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 were consolidated into a single case. The Company and/or Acorda entered into a settlement agreement with each of Accord, Actavis, Alkem, Apotex, Aurobindo, MicroLabs, Par and Sun to resolve the patent litigation that the Company and/or Acorda brought against these settling ANDA Filers. The settlements with these settling ANDA Filers did not impact the patent litigation that the Company and Acorda brought against the remaining ANDA Filers, including as described below. In March 2017, after a bench trial, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Delaware Court”) issued an opinion (the “Delaware Court Decision”), which, among other things, invalidated U.S. Patent Nos. 8,007,826; 8,354,437; 8,440,703; and 8,663,685. The Delaware Court also upheld the validity of the U.S. Patent No. 5,540,938 which pertained to the formulation of AMPYRA, but that patent expired on July 30, 2018. In May 2017, Acorda filed an appeal with the Federal Circuit of the Delaware Court Decision with respect to the findings on U.S. Patent Nos. 8,007,826; 8,354,437; 8,440,703; and 8,663,685. On July 27, 2018, Acorda and the Company entered into a settlement agreement with Mylan, pursuant to which, among other things, Mylan was permitted to market an authorized generic version of AMPYRA in the U.S. in the event of an affirmance by the Federal Circuit of the Delaware Court Decision. On September 10, 2018, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Delaware Court Decision, which invalidated U.S. Patent Nos. 8,007,826; 8,354,437; 8,440,703; and 8,663,685. On October 24, 2018, Acorda filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc of the Federal Circuit’s decision. On January 4, 2019, the Federal Circuit denied Acorda’s petition. On April 4, 2019, Acorda filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States. For information about risks relating to the AMPYRA Paragraph IV litigations and other proceedings see “Part I, Item 1A—Risk Factors” of the Company’s Annual Report, including the section entitled “—We or our licensees may face claims against intellectual property rights covering our products and competition from generic drug manufacturers.” VIVITROL IPR Proceeding On April 20, 2018, Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC filed a petition with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “PTAB”) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office seeking an inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent Number 7,919,499 (the “ ‘499 Patent”), which is an Orange Book-listed patent for VIVITROL, seeking cancellation of claims 1-13 of the ’499 Patent. On November 7, 2018, the PTAB issued an order instituting an IPR of all challenged claims. On February 7, 2019, the Company filed its patent owner’s response. Amneal’s reply is due on May 7, 2019. A decision on the matter is expected by November 7, 2019. The Company will vigorously defend the ’499 Patent in the IPR proceedings. For information about risks relating to the ’499 Patent IPR proceedings see “Part I, Item 1A—Risk Factors” in the Company’s Annual Report, including the sections entitled “— Patent protection for our products is important and uncertain” and “— Uncertainty over intellectual property in the biopharmaceutical industry has been the source of litigation, which is inherently costly and unpredictable, could significantly delay or prevent approval or commercialization of our products, and could adversely affect our business.” RISPERDAL CONSTA European Opposition Proceedings In December 2016, Nanjing Luye Pharmaceutical Co Ltd, Pharmathen SA, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd and Dehns Ltd (a law firm representing an unidentified opponent) filed notices of opposition with the European Patent Office (the “EPO”) in respect of EP 2 269 577 B (the “EP ’577” Patent), which is a patent directed to certain risperidone microsphere compositions, including RISPERDAL CONSTA. Following a hearing on the matter on January 23, 2019, on April 8, 2019, the EPO issued a written decision revoking the EP’577 Patent. The Company has approximately two months from the date of the decision to appeal the decision to the EPO’s Technical Boards of Appeal. The Company will continue to vigorously defend the EP ’577 Patent. For information about risks relating to the EP ’577 Patent opposition proceedings see “Part I, Item 1A—Risk Factors” of the Company’s Annual Report , including the sections entitled “— Patent protection for our products is important and uncertain” and “— Uncertainty over intellectual property in the biopharmaceutical industry has been the source of litigation, which is inherently costly and unpredictable, could significantly delay or prevent approval or commercialization of our products, and could adversely affect our business.” Government Matters On June 22, 2017 and January 17, 2019, the Company received a subpoena and a civil investigative demand, respectively, each from an Office of the U.S. Attorney for documents related to VIVITROL. The Company is cooperating with the government. Securities Litigation On November 22, 2017, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action against the Company and certain of its officers (collectively, “Defendants”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned Gagnon v. Alkermes plc, et al., No. 1:17-cv-09178. This complaint was amended twice since its initial filing. The second amended complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Alkermes securities during the period of February 24, 2015 through November 14, 2017 and alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, based on allegedly false or misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company’s marketing practices related to VIVITROL. The lawsuit sought, among other things, unspecified damages for alleged inflation in the price of securities, and reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees. On June 29, 2018, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On March 28, 2019, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissing the case in its entirety and with prejudice. On April 11, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. Briefing on the motion for reconsideration will be completed on May 2, 2019. For information about risks relating to this action, see “Part I, Item 1A—Risk Factors” of the Company’s Annual Report, including the section entitled “—Litigation or arbitration against Alkermes, including securities litigation, or citizen petitions filed with the FDA, may result in financial losses, harm our reputation, divert management resources, negatively impact the approval of our products, or otherwise negatively impact our business.” On December 27, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action against the Company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York captioned Karimian v. Alkermes plc, et al., No. 1:18-cv-07410. On January 31, 2019, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a similar putative class action against the Company and the same officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York captioned McDermott v. Alkermes plc, et al., No. 1:19-cv-00624. These complaints were filed on behalf of putative classes of purchasers of Alkermes securities during the period of February 17, 2017 through November 1, 2018 and allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, based on allegedly false or misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company’s regulatory submission for ALKS 5461 and the FDA’s review and consideration of that submission. The lawsuits seek, among other things, unspecified money damages, prejudgment and postjudgment interest, reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert fees and other costs. On March 12, 2019, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York consolidated the two cases and appointed a lead plaintiff. For information about risks relating to these actions, see “Part I, Item 1A—Risk Factors” of the Company’s Annual Report, including the section entitled “—Litigation or arbitration against Alkermes, including securities litigation, or citizen petitions filed with the FDA, may result in financial losses, harm our reputation, divert management resources, negatively impact the approval of our products, or otherwise negatively impact our business.” |