Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings From time to time, the Company is a party to various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. In addition, the Company has in the past been, and may in the future be, subject to investigations by governmental and regulatory authorities, which expose it to greater risks associated with litigation, regulatory or other proceedings, as a result of which the Company could be required to pay significant fines or penalties. The costs and outcome of litigation, regulatory or other proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty, and some lawsuits, claims, actions or proceedings may be disposed of unfavorably to the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations or financial condition. In addition, intellectual property disputes often have a risk of injunctive relief which, if imposed against the Company, could materially and adversely affect its financial condition or results of operations. If a matter is both probable to result in material liability and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company estimates and discloses the possible material loss or range of loss. If such loss is not probable or cannot be reasonably estimated, a liability is not recorded in its condensed consolidated financial statements. As of June 30, 2020, the Company had the following material ongoing litigation in which the Company was a party: RELISTOR Subcutaneous Injection Between November 19, 2015 and September 18, 2017, Progenics, Salix, Valeant (now Bausch) and Wyeth filed multiple lawsuits against Mylan Pharmaceuticals and certain of its affiliates (collectively, “Mylan”) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey for infringement of certain U.S. patents based upon Mylan’s filing of multiple ANDAs seeking to obtain approval to market a generic version of RELISTOR subcutaneous injection before some or all of those patents expire. These actions were later consolidated into two separate actions in the District of New Jersey. On May 1, 2018, in the lead action, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment as to the validity of a particular claim that Mylan had admitted it infringed. On May 23, 2018, the Court entered an order for final judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Mylan on that particular claim. As a result, trial on the merits in the lead action was adjourned, allowing trial, if necessary, to be consolidated with the lagging, second action. Fact discovery has concluded in the lagging case, but deadlines for expert discovery have not yet been set. On May 25, 2018, Mylan filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”). On April 8, 2020, the CAFC issued its decision reversing the Court’s grant of summary judgment and remanding for further proceedings. On June 22, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing/rehearing en banc, and on July 24, 2020 that petition was denied. RELISTOR Tablets - Actavis Between December 6, 2016 and December 8, 2017, Progenics, Salix, Bausch, and Wyeth filed suit against Actavis, Actavis LLC, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., and Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. (collectively, “Actavis”) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey for infringement of certain U.S. patents based upon Actavis’s filing of an ANDA seeking to obtain approval to market a generic version of RELISTOR tablets before some or all of those patents expire. The actions were later consolidated into a single action in the District of New Jersey. On May 6-9, 2019, a bench trial was held, and on July 17, 2019, the Court issued an Order finding the asserted claims of a certain U.S. patent valid and infringed. The Court additionally ordered that the effective date of any approval of Actavis’s ANDA may not be earlier than the expiration date of that patent. Actavis filed an appeal of the Court’s decision with the CAFC on August 13, 2019. The matter is currently pending on appeal at the CAFC and merits briefing is underway. Actavis’s opening brief was filed February 6, 2020. The deadline for Plaintiffs to file their responsive brief is currently September 15, 2020. On June 13, 2019, Progenics, Salix, Bausch, and Wyeth filed another suit against Actavis in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey for infringement of a separate, and at that time, recently granted U.S. patent based upon Actavis’s filing of an ANDA seeking to obtain approval to market a generic version of RELISTOR tablets before this patent expires. Litigation in this action is underway, and fact discovery has not yet begun. RELISTOR European Opposition Proceedings In addition to the above described ANDA notifications, in October 2015, Progenics received notices of opposition to three European patents relating to methylnaltrexone. Notices of opposition were filed separately by each of Actavis Group PTC ehf and Fresenius Kabi Deutschland GmbH. Between May 11, 2017 and July 4, 2017, the opposition division provided notice that the three European patents would be revoked. Each of these matters are on appeal with the European Patent Office. Oral proceedings are set to occur on September 22, 2020, November 17, 2020 and November 18, 2020. For each of the above-described RELISTOR proceedings, Progenics and Bausch continue to cooperate closely to vigorously defend and enforce RELISTOR intellectual property rights. Pursuant to the RELISTOR license agreement between Progenics and Bausch, Bausch has the first right to enforce the intellectual property rights at issue and is responsible for the costs of such enforcement. Because the outcome of litigation is uncertain and in these RELISTOR proceedings the Company does not control the enforcement of the intellectual property rights at issue, no assurance can be given as to how or when any of these RELISTOR proceedings will ultimately be resolved. German PSMA-617 Litigation On November 8, 2018, Molecular Insight Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a subsidiary of Progenics (“MIP”), filed a complaint against the University of Heidelberg (the “University”) in the District Court of Mannheim in Germany. In this Complaint, MIP claimed that the discovery and development of PSMA-617 was related to work performed under a research collaboration sponsored by MIP. MIP alleged that the University breached certain contracts with MIP and that MIP is the co-owner of inventions embodied in certain worldwide patent filings related to PSMA-617 that were filed by the University in its own name. On February 27, 2019, Endocyte, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Novartis AG, filed a motion to intervene in the German litigation. Endocyte is the exclusive licensee of the patent rights that are the subject of the German proceedings. On November 27, 2018, MIP requested that the European Patent Office (“EPO”) stay the examination of a certain European Patent (EP) and related Divisional Applications, pending a decision from the German District Court on MIP’s Complaint. On December 10, 2018, the EPO granted MIP’s request and stayed the examination of the patent and patent applications effective November 27, 2018. MIP filed a Confirmation of Ownership with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) in the corresponding US patent applications. MIP’s filing with the USPTO takes the position that, in light of the collaboration and contracts between MIP and the University, MIP is the co-owner of these pending U.S. patent applications. On March 6, 2020, MIP filed with the USPTO a notice stating that the Power of Attorney in certain pending US patent applications was signed by less than all applicants or owners of the applications. On February 27, 2019, the German District Court set €0.4 million as the amount MIP must deposit with the Court as security in the event of an unfavorable final decision on the merits of the dispute. The Court held the first oral hearing in the case on August 6, 2019. The Court considered procedural matters and granted the parties the right to make further submissions. A further oral hearing occurred July 23, 2020, during which the Court heard live testimony from several witnesses. Progenics is vigorously enforcing its rights in this German proceeding. Because Progenics is the plaintiff, if unsuccessful in this proceeding, Progenics may also have liability for Court fees and fees and disbursements of defendant’s and intervenor’s counsel, such fees and disbursements to be at least partially covered by the aforementioned cash security deposited with the Court. Because the outcome of litigation is uncertain, no assurance can be given as to how or when this German proceeding will ultimately be resolved. Litigation Related to the Merger Nine purported stockholders of Progenics filed ten lawsuits alleging, among other things, that Progenics and the members of the Progenics Board of Directors violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and 17 C.F.R. § 244.100 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated under the Exchange Act, by misstating or omitting certain allegedly material information in the S-4 Registration Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on November 12, 2019, the amended S-4 Registration Statement filed with the SEC on March 16, 2020, and/or the Schedule 14A proxy statement filed with the SEC on March 19, 2020 related to the Merger. Two of the actions alleged that the Company and Plato Merger Sub, Inc. (“Merger Sub”) violated Section 14(a) and/or Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. One of the actions further alleged that the members of the Progenics Board breached their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty and good faith to the stockholders of Progenics related to the Merger, that Progenics, the Company and Merger Sub aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duty, and that the Company and Merger Sub violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act. All such lawsuits have been voluntarily dismissed, with the last of the cases dismissed on June 23, 2020. Whistleblower Complaint In July 2019, Progenics received notification of a complaint submitted by Dr. Syed Mahmood, the former Vice President of Medical Affairs for Progenics, to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the United States Department of Labor (“DOL”), alleging that the termination of his employment by Progenics was in violation of Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”). Dr. Mahmood sought reinstatement to his former position of Vice President of Medical Affairs, back pay, front pay in lieu of reinstatement, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs incurred, and special damages. In March 2020, Dr. Mahmood filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (as permitted by SOX because the DOL had not issued a decision within 180 days). Dr. Mahmood’s federal complaint asserts claims of violation of Section 806 of SOX. The DOL action has been dismissed and the matter will proceed in federal district court. Progenics’ Answer to the Complaint is presently due by August 26, 2020. The Company believes the claims in this matter are without merit, and the Company has meritorious defenses to the claims. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims. The Company is unable to estimate the potential liability with respect to the legal matters noted above. There are numerous factors that make it difficult to estimate reasonably possible loss or range of loss at the various stages of the legal proceedings noted above, including the significant number of legal and factual issues still to be resolved in those various legal proceedings. |