| Commitments and Contingencies | NOTE 20 – Commitments & Contingencies The Company and its affiliates are involved in various disputes, governmental and/or regulatory inspections, inquires, investigations and proceedings, and litigation matters that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of business. The process of resolving matters through litigation or other means is inherently uncertain and it is possible that an unfavorable resolution of these matters will adversely affect the Company, its results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. The Company’s general practice is to expense legal fees as services are rendered in connection with legal matters, and to accrue for liabilities when losses are probable and reasonably estimable. The Company evaluates, on a quarterly basis, developments in legal proceedings and other matters that could cause an increase or decrease in the amount of the liability that is accrued. As of June 30, 2016, the Company’s consolidated balance sheet includes accrued loss contingencies of approximately $240.0 million, which includes approximately $130.0 million which were assumed by Teva as part of the closing of the Teva Transaction on August 2, 2016. The Company’s legal proceedings range from cases brought by a single plaintiff to mass tort actions and class actions with thousands of putative class members. These legal proceedings, as well as other matters, involve various aspects of our business and a variety of claims (including, but not limited to, qui tam actions, antitrust, product liability, breach of contract, securities, patent infringement and trade practices), some of which present novel factual allegations and/or unique legal theories. In addition, a number of the matters pending against us are at very early stages of the legal process (which in complex proceedings of the sort faced by us often extend for several years). As a result, some matters have not yet progressed sufficiently through discovery and/or development of important factual information and legal issues to enable us to estimate a range of possible loss. In those proceedings in which plaintiffs do request publicly quantified amounts of relief, the Company does not believe that the quantified amounts are meaningful because they are merely stated jurisdictional limits, exaggerated and/or unsupported by the evidence or applicable burdens of proof. As noted above, on August 2, 2016, the Company completed the closing of the Teva Transaction. At closing Teva assumed certain liabilities and claims of the Company described below under “Teva Assumed Liabilities”. At June 30, 2016 such assumed liabilities remained liabilities of the Company. Antitrust Litigation Asacol ® On June 22, 2015, two class action complaints were filed in federal court in Massachusetts on behalf of a putative class of indirect purchasers. In each complaint plaintiffs allege that they paid higher prices for Warner Chilcott’s Asacol ® ® ® A hearing was held on the motion to dismiss on May 11, 2016. O n July 20, 2016, the court issued a decision granting the motion in part, dismissing the indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ claims based on purported reverse payments and dismissed several of plaintiffs’ claims based on state laws. A complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of direct purchasers of Asacol ® On April 26, 2016, a direct purchaser, Meijer, Inc., filed a complaint in federal court in New York. The direct purchaser complaint makes similar allegations to the complaints filed by the indirect purchaser plaintiffs. On May 25, 2016, defendants filed a motion to transfer the direct purchaser action to the federal court in Massachusetts where it could be consolidated with the indirect purchaser cases. Defendants do not have to respond to this direct purchaser complaint until the motion to transfer is decided. Two additional direct purchaser putative class action complaints were filed in federal court in New York on June 29, 2016. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Botox ® . On February 24, 2015, a class action complaint was filed in federal court in California. The complaint alleges unlawful market allocation in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §1, agreement in restraint of trade in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1 of the Sherman Act, unlawful maintenance of monopoly market power in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §2 of the Sherman Act, violations of California’s Cartwright Act, Section 16700 et seq. of Calif. Bus. and Prof. Code., and violations of California’s unfair competition law, Section 17200 et seq. of Calif. Bus. and Prof. Code. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 29, 2015. On June 29, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On October 20, 2015, the Court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint. On December 18, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, for partial summary judgment or adjudication. The Company filed a response to the motion for judgment on the pleadings on February 11, 2016. The court held oral argument on plaintiff’s motion on March 4, 2016 and took the matter under submission. On May 31, 2016, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, for partial summary judgment or adjudication. On June 14, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s denial of the motion. On July 19, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Doryx ® . In July 2012, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Mylan”) filed a complaint against Warner Chilcott and Mayne Pharma International Pty. Ltd. (“Mayne”) in federal court in Pennsylvania alleging that Warner Chilcott and Mayne prevented or delayed Mylan’s generic competition to Warner Chilcott’s Doryx ® ® ® Warner Chilcott and Mayne’s motion to dismiss was denied without prejudice by the court in June 2013. Thereafter, Warner Chilcott and Mayne reached agreements to settle the claims of the Direct Purchaser Plaintiff class representatives, the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiff class representatives and each of the individual retailer plaintiffs. Warner Chilcott and Mylan filed motions for summary judgment on March 10, 2014. On April 16, 2015, the court issued an order granting Warner Chilcott and Mayne’s motion for summary judgment, denying Mylan’s summary judgment motion and entering judgment in favor of Warner Chilcott and Mayne on all counts. Mylan is appealing the district court’s decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and the appeal is fully briefed and an oral argument was held on July 14, 2016. The Company intends to vigorously defend its rights in the litigations. However, it is impossible to predict with certainty the outcome of any litigation and whether any additional similar suits will be filed. Loestrin ® On April 5, 2013, two putative class actions were filed in the federal district court against Actavis, Inc. and certain affiliates alleging that Watson’s 2009 patent lawsuit settlement with Warner Chilcott related to Loestrin ® ® ® ® On June 11, 2016, defendants filed an omnibus motion to dismiss the claims of the direct purchaser class plaintiffs, end-payor class plaintiffs and individual direct purchaser plaintiffs. Namenda ® . On September 15, 2014, the State of New York, through the Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that Forest is acting to prevent or delay generic competition to Forest’s immediate-release product Namenda ® ® ® ® Zymar ® ® . On February 16, 2012, Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. filed a complaint in the federal district court in Delaware against Senju Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. (“Senju”), Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (“Kyorin”), and Allergan, Inc. (“Allergan”) alleging monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, conspiracy to monopolize, and unreasonable restraint of trade in the market for gatifloxacin ophthalmic formulations, which includes Allergan’s ZYMAR ® ® ® ® The Third Circuit oral argument was held on June 13, 2016. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Commercial Litigation Celexa ® ® . Forest and certain of its affiliates are defendants in three federal court actions filed on behalf of individuals who purchased Celexa ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® Additional actions relating to the promotion of Celexa ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® A motion for class certification was filed in February, 2016, and denied on June 2, 2016. ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® On June 9, 2016, Forest and certain of its affiliates are also named as defendants in two actions filed on behalf of entities or individuals who purchased or reimbursed certain purchases of Celexa ® ® ® ® ® ® The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against these actions. At this time, the Company does not believe losses, if any, would have a material effect on the results of operations or financial position taken as a whole. Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation. A putative class action complaint against Anda, Inc. (“Anda”), a subsidiary of the Company, was filed in Missouri state court alleging claims for conversion and alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) and Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. An amended complaint alleges that by sending unsolicited facsimile advertisements, Anda misappropriated the class members’ paper, toner, ink and employee time when they received the alleged unsolicited faxes, and that the alleged unsolicited facsimile advertisements were sent to the plaintiff in violation of the TCPA and Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The complaint seeks to assert class action claims on behalf of the plaintiff and other similarly situated third parties. On May 19, 2011, the plaintiff’s filed a motion seeking certification of a class of entities with Missouri telephone numbers who were sent Anda faxes for the period January 2004 through January 2008 but the court vacated the class certification hearing until the FCC Petition, described in more detail below, was addressed. On May 1, 2012, a separate action was filed in federal court in Florida, purportedly on behalf of the “end users of the fax numbers in the United States but outside Missouri to which faxes advertising pharmaceutical products for sale by Anda were sent.” On July 10, 2012, Anda filed its answer and affirmative defenses. The parties filed a joint motion to stay the action pending the resolution of the FCC Petition which the court granted. In addition, in October 2012, Forest and certain of its affiliates were named as defendants, in a putative class action in federal court in Missouri. This suit alleges that Forest and another defendant violated the TCPA and was filed on behalf of a proposed class that includes all persons who, from four years prior to the filing of the action, were sent telephone facsimile messages of material advertising the commercial availability of any property, goods, or services by or on behalf of defendants, which did not display an opt-out notice compliant with a certain regulation promulgated by the FCC. On July 17, 2013, the district court granted Forest’s motion to stay the action pending the administrative proceeding initiated by the pending FCC Petition and a separate petition Forest filed. On October 31, 2015, another class action complaint was filed in Missouri state court against Allergan USA, Inc., Warner Chilcott Corporation and Actavis, Inc. alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Missouri Consumer Fraud and Protection Act and conversion on behalf of a putative nationwide class of plaintiffs to who defendant Warner Chilcott Corporation sent unsolicited facsimile advertisements. Defendants removed this action to the federal district court for the Western District of Missouri on December 10, 2015 and responded to the complaint on February 8, 2016. On February 17, 2016, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed defendants Allergan USA, Inc. and Actavis, Inc. from the litigation. In a related matter, in November 2010 Anda filed a petition with the FCC, asking the FCC to clarify the statutory basis for its regulation requiring “opt-out” language on faxes sent with express permission of the recipient (the “FCC Petition”). On May 2, 2012, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau of the FCC dismissed the FCC Petition. On May 14, 2012, Anda filed an application for review of the Bureau’s dismissal by the full Commission, requesting the FCC to vacate the dismissal and grant the relief sought in the FCC Petition. The FCC did not rule on the application for review. On June 27, 2013, Forest filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling with the FCC requesting that the FCC find that (1) the faxes at issue in the action complied, or substantially complied with the FCC regulation, and thus did not violate it, or (2) the FCC regulation was not properly promulgated under the TCPA. On January 31, 2014, the FCC issued a Public Notice seeking comment on several other recently-filed petitions, all similar to the one Anda filed in 2010. On October 30, 2014, the FCC issued a final order on the FCC Petition granting Anda, Forest and several other petitioners a retroactive waiver of the opt-out notice requirement for all faxes sent with express consent. The litigation plaintiffs, who had filed comments on the January 2014 Public Notice, have appealed the final order to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Anda, Forest and other petitioners have moved to intervene in the appeal seeking review of that portion of the FCC final order addressing the statutory basis for the opt out/express consent portion of the regulation. Anda and Forest believe they have substantial meritorious defenses to the putative class actions brought under the TCPA, and intend to defend the actions vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Prescription Drug Abuse Litigation . On May 21, 2014, the California counties Santa Clara and Orange filed a lawsuit in California state court on behalf of the State of California against several pharmaceutical manufacturers. Plaintiffs named Actavis plc in the suit. The California plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 9, 2014. On June 2, 2014, the City of Chicago also filed a complaint in Illinois state court against the same set of defendants, including Actavis plc, that were sued in the California Action. Co-defendants in the action removed the matter to the federal court in Illinois. Both the California and Chicago complaints allege that the manufacturer defendants engaged in a deceptive campaign to promote their products in violation of state and local laws. Each of the complaints seeks unspecified monetary damages, penalties and injunctive relief. Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaints in each action. On May 8, 2015, the court in the Chicago litigation granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint. On August 26, 2015, the City of Chicago filed a second amended complaint. In the California action, on August 27, 2015, the court stayed the action based on primary jurisdiction arguments raised in the motions to dismiss. On June 3, 2016, the California plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay and a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. On July 1, 2016, the Company and codefendants filed joint oppositions to the California plaintiffs’ motion to lift the stay and motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. On July 27, 2016, the court ordered the California plaintiffs to file another motion for leave to file an amended complaint along with a proposed amended complaint. On December 15, 2015, the State of Mississippi filed a lawsuit in Mississippi state court against several pharmaceutical manufacturers. The Mississippi action parallels the allegations in the California and Chicago matters and seeks monetary and equitable relief. In March and April 2016, the defendants filed motions to dismiss, stay, and transfer venue in the Mississippi action. The Company anticipates that additional suits will be filed. The Company believes it has several meritorious defenses to the claims alleged. However, an adverse determination in these actions could have an adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Testosterone Replacement Therapy Class Action . On November 24, 2014, the Company was served with a putative class action complaint filed on behalf a class of third party payers in federal court in Illinois. The suit alleges that the Company and other named pharmaceutical defendants violated various laws including the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and state consumer protection laws in connection with the sale and marketing of certain testosterone replacement therapy pharmaceutical products (“TRT Products”), including the Company’s Androderm ® Defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint on May 5, 2016, plaintiffs filed opposition to same on June 20, 2016 and defendants jointly filed a reply on July 7, 2016. On August 2, 2016, the court dismissed all claims in the Third Amended Complaint against the Company except Count XXIV alleging conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) . The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims alleged and intends to vigorously defend the action. However, an adverse determination in the case could have an adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. TNS Products Litigation . On March 19, 2014, a complaint was filed in the federal district court in California. The complaint alleges violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and the False Advertising Law, and deceit. On June 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. On June 23, 2014, Allergan filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. On September 5, 2014, the court granted-in-part and denied-in-part Allergan’s motion to dismiss. On September 8, 2014, the court set trial for September 1, 2015. On November 4, 2014, Allergan and SkinMedica filed a motion to dismiss. On January 7, 2015, Allergan and SkinMedica’s motion to dismiss was denied. On January 15, 2015, the court set a trial date of February 16, 2016. On February 19, 2015 Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. On May 27, 2015, the case was stayed pending the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in another matter involving similar legal issues. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. West Virginia Prescription Drug Abuse Litigation . On June 26, 2012, the State of West Virginia filed a lawsuit against multiple distributors of prescription drugs, including Anda. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants distributed prescription drugs in West Virginia in violation of state statutes, regulation and common law. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and unspecified damages and penalties. On January 3, 2014, plaintiff filed an amended complaint which the defendants moved to dismiss. On December 16, 2014, the court issued an order denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss. On January 27, 2015, the State filed a second amended complaint which the Company moved to dismiss. On September 8, 2015, the court issued a ruling denying the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On October 23, 2015, defendants filed a writ of prohibition in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia seeking review of the court’s denial of the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On January 5, 2016, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia declined to issue an order to show cause on defendants’ writ of prohibition. On June 20, 2016, the parties executed a settlement agreement and the parties have submitted a dismissal with prejudice for order by the court. On July 6, 2016, the court entered the agreed order of dismissal with prejudice. Xaleron Dispute. On February 5, 2016, Xaleron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Allergan, Inc. and Actavis, Inc. in state court in New York. The complaint, filed on February 26, 2016, alleges Allergan misappropriated Xaleron’s confidential business information and asserts claims for unfair competition, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage and unjust enrichment. The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on April 15, 2016. A hearing on the motion to dismiss is scheduled for September 9, 2016. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this action. However, this action, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Employment Litigation In July 2012, Forest and certain of its affiliates were named as defendants in an action brought by certain former company sales representatives and specialty sales representatives in the federal district court in New York. The action is a putative class and collective action, and alleges class claims under Title VII for gender discrimination with respect to pay and promotions, as well as discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, and a collective action claim under the Equal Pay Act. The proposed Title VII gender class includes all current and former female sales representatives employed by the Company throughout the U.S. from 2008 to the date of judgment, and the proposed Title VII pregnancy sub-class includes all current and former female sales representatives who have been, are, or will become pregnant while employed by the Company throughout the U.S. from 2008 to the date of judgment. The proposed Equal Pay Act collective action class includes current, former, and future female sales representatives who were not compensated equally to similarly-situated male employees during the applicable liability period. The Second Amended Complaint also includes non-class claims on behalf of certain of the named Plaintiffs for sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII, and for violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act. On August 14, 2014, the court issued a decision on the Company’s motion to dismiss, granting it in part and denying it in part, striking the plaintiffs’ proposed class definition and instead limiting the proposed class to a smaller set of potential class members and dismissing certain of the individual plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of an Equal Pay Act collective action on May 22, 2015 which the Company has opposed. On September 2, 2015, the court granted plaintiffs motion to conditionally certify a collective action. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against this action. At this time, the Company does not believe losses, if any, would have a material effect on the results of operations or financial position taken as a whole. Patent Litigation Patent Enforcement Matters Amrix ® Bystolic ® . On December 23, 2015, Forest Laboratories Holdings Limited (“Forest”) received a notification letter that an Inter Partes Review of the USPTO (“IPR”) petition was filed by Lower Drug Prices for Consumers, LLC (“LDPC”) regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,545,040, expiring on December 17, 2021 (the “’040 Patent”). LDPC filed the IPR petition on December 22, 2015, and refiled a corrected petition on January 20, 2016. Forest filed a Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response on April 22, 2016. On July 1, 2016, the USPTO Patent and Trial Appeal Board filed their decision denying institution of the IPR. Canasa ® ® ® on December 15, 2018, or earlier under certain circumstances. On March 22, 2016, Aptalis entered into a settlement agreement with Sandoz. On December 14, 2015, Aptalis brought an action for infringement of the ’083, ’051, and ’384 patents in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Pharmaceutical Sourcing Partners, Inc. (“PSP”). PSP had notified Aptalis that it had filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking to obtain approval to market generic versions of Canasa ® ® Combigan ® . In 2012, Allergan filed a complaint against Sandoz, Alcon, Apotex and Watson in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, alleging that their proposed products infringe U.S. Patent Number 8,133,890 (“890 Patent”), and subsequently amended their complaint to assert infringement of U.S. Patent Number 8,354,409. In March 2013, Allergan received a Paragraph IV invalidity and non-infringement certification from Sandoz, contending that the ‘890 Patent is invalid and not infringed by the proposed generic product. In October 2013, Allergan filed a motion to stay and administratively close the Combigan II matter, which was granted. In April 2015, Allergan filed a stipulation of dismissal and the U.S. District Court granted the Order with respect to the Watson defendants. In October 2015, the U.S. District Court entered an order consolidating the ® matter into this matter , as lead case and subsequently, set the bench trial for October 25, 2016. A Markman Hearing was held on March 2, 2016. On May 19, 2016, Sandoz filed an amended answer and counterclaims. On May 19, 2016, Sandoz filed an opposed motion for leave to amend its answer and counterclaim seeking to add a count for declaratory judgment of invalidity of the ‘149 Patent. On July 20, 2016, Alcon and Sandoz filed motions for summary judgment of invalidity and non-infringement of claim 4 of the ‘149 Patent, and Allergan filed a motion for summary judgment of infringement of claim 4 of the ‘149 Patent and to preclude Sandoz from re-challenging the validity of that claim. The Court set oral argument for August 25, 2016 on the parties’ pending motions. While the Company intends to vigorously defend the patents at issue in this litigation, Allergan can offer no assurance as to whether the lawsuit will be successful and that a generic version will not be launched. Delzicol ® On August 28, 2015, Warner Chilcott Company, LLC, Warner Chilcott (US), LLC, and Qualicaps Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) brought an action for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,649,180 (the “‘180 patent”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (collectively, “Teva”). Teva notified Plaintiffs that it has filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking to obtain approval to market generic versions of Delzicol ® ® ) with the Teva litigation ( ) matter as the lead case. On April 1, 2016, Warner Chilcott Company, LLC, Warner Chilcott (US), LLC, Allergan Pharmaceuticals International Ltd., Allergan USA, LLC and Qualicaps Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) brought an action for infringement of the ‘180 patent in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Zydus International Pvt. Ltd., Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. and Cadila Healthcare Ltd. (collectively, “Zydus”). Zydus notified the Company that it has filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking to obtain approval to market generic versions of Delzicol ® On July 21, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed an answer to Teva’s counterclaim and to Zydus’s counterclaim. While the Company intends to vigorously defend the patent at issue in these litigations, Warner Chilcott can offer no assurance as to whether the lawsuits will be successful and that a generic version will not be launched. Gelnique ® In October 2015, Actavis Laboratories, UT, Inc. (“Actavis”) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,029,694 (“’694 Patent”), 7,179,483 (“’483 Patent”), 8,241,662 (“’662 Patent”), and 8,920,392 (“’392 Patent”) against Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (“Par”). Par notified Plaintiff that it has filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking to obtain approval to market generic versions of Gelnique ® Lastacaft ® . In May 2016, Allergan, Inc. (“Allergan”) and Vistakon Pharmaceuticals, LLC (“Vistakon”) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,664,215 (“’215 Patent”) against Somerset Therapeutics, LLC (“Somerset”). Somerset notified Allergan and Vistakon that it has filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking to obtain approval to market generic versions of Lastacaft ® Latisse ® . In December 2014, Allergan and Duke University filed a complaint for declaratory judgment of infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,906,962 (“‘962 Patent”) against Apotex. In January 2015, Allergan and Duke subsequently filed an amended complaint against Apotex to assert infringement of U.S. Patent Number 8,926,953 (“‘953 Patent”). In March 2015, Allergan and Duke filed a second amended complaint asserting only the ‘953 Patent. Apotex filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim with respect to the ‘953 Patent. On August 31, 2015, the court issued an order and judgment dismissing the case with prejudice in favor of Apotex, Sandoz and Akorn on all of Allergan’s claims alleging infringement of the ‘953 patent. In the Sandoz and Akorn matters, the court also declared and adjudged the ‘953 patent invalid as obvious, and collaterally estopped Allergan from asserting the ‘953 patent against Sandoz or Akorn or contesting the invalidity of the ‘953 patent. In late September, the court entered a final judgment that declared and adjudged claims 8, 23 and 26 of the ‘953 patent invalid as obvious and collaterally estopped Allergan from asserting claims 8, 23 and 26 of the ‘953 patent against Apotex and Akorn or contesting the invalidity of claims 8, 23 and 26 of the ‘953 patent. On September 30, 2015, Allergan filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On October 19, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docketed the appeal filed by Allergan. In March 2016, Allergan filed its opening brief. In June 2016, Akorn, Apotex, Hi-Tech and Sandoz filed their response brief. In July 2016, Allergan filed its reply brief. While the Company intends to vigorously defend the patents at issue in this litigation, Allergan can offer no assurance as to whether the lawsuit will be successful and that a generic version will not be launched. Namenda XR ® ® (all collectively, “Plaintiffs”), brought actions for infringement of some or all of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,061,703 (the “‘703 patent”), 8,039,009 (the “’009 patent”), 8,168,209 (the “‘209 patent”), 8,173,708 (the “‘708 patent”), 8,283,379 (the “‘379 patent”), 8,329,752 (the “‘752 patent”), 8,362,085 (the “‘085 patent”), and 8,598,233 (the “‘233 patent”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Wockhardt, Teva, Sun, Apotex, Anchen, Zydus, Watson, Par, Mylan, Amneal, Ranbaxy, and Amerigen, and related subsidiaries and affiliates thereof. These companies have notified Plaintiffs that they have filed ANDAs with the FDA seeking to obtain approval to market generic versions of Namenda XR ® before these certain patents expire. Including a 6-month pediatric extension of regulatory exclusivity, the ‘703 patent expires in October 2015, the ‘009 patent expires in September 2029, and the ‘209, ‘708, ‘379, ‘752, ‘085, and ‘233 patents expire in May 2026. These lawsuits triggered an automatic stay of approval of the applicable ANDAs that expires no earlier than June 2016 (unless there is a final court decision adverse to Pla |
