| Commitments & Contingencies | NOTE 20 — 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, 2017, the Company’s consolidated balance sheet includes accrued loss contingencies of approximately $55.0 million. 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 In matters involving the assertion or defense of the Company’s intellectual property, the Company believes it has meritorious claims and intends to vigorously assert or defend the patents or other intellectual property at issue in such litigation. Similarly, in matters where the Company is a defendant, the Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to defend itself vigorously. However, the Company can offer no assurances that it will be successful in a litigation or, in the case of patent enforcement matters, that a generic version of the product at issue will not be launched or enjoined. Failing to prevail in a litigation 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. Antitrust Litigation Asacol ® Two class action complaints were filed on June 22, 2015, and three more on September 21, 2015, 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 ® ® ® ® The Company has reached a tentative agreement with the direct purchaser plaintiffs to settle their claims. Botox ® . A class action complaint was filed in federal court in California on February 24, 2015, and amended May 29, 2015, alleging 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. In the complaint, plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of treble damages. On July 19, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On October 14, 2016, the Company filed an opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Oral argument on the class certification motion was heard on January 13, 2017. On June 13, 2017, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for class certification. 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 ® . Mylan declined to file a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court by the due date of April 28, 2017. The company has reversed all accruals in connection with this matter and considers the matter closed. Loestrin ® On April 5, 2013, two putative class actions were filed in the federal district court against Warner Chilcott and certain affiliates alleging that Warner Chilcott’s 2009 patent lawsuit settlements with Watson Laboratories and Lupin related to Loestrin ® ® ® 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 was 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. 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 Inc.’s ZYMAR ® ® On June 6, 2014, a separate antitrust class action complaint was filed in the federal district court in Delaware against the same defendants as in the Apotex case. The complaint alleges that defendants unlawfully excluded or delayed generic competition in the gatifloxacin ophthalmic formulations market (generic versions of ZYMAR ® ® Commercial Litigation Celexa ® ® . Forest and certain of its affiliates have been named as defendants in multiple federal court actions relating to the promotion of Celexa ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® On August 28, 2014, an action was filed in the federal district court in Washington seeking to certify a nationwide class of consumers and subclasses of Washington and Massachusetts consumers that purchased Celexa ® ® ® ® Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation. 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 Telephone Consumer Protection Act (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., now known as Allergan Finance LLC, 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 the wake of the Court of Appeals decision on the Petition discussed below, the parties reached an agreement to settle the action against Warner Chilcott. In a related matter, 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. Warner Chilcott filed a similar petition with the FCC. On January 31, 2014, the FCC issued a Public Notice seeking comment on Forest’s and several other similar petitions. On October 30, 2014, the FCC issued a final order on the FCC Petition granting 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. Forest and other petitioners intervened 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. Oral argument before the appellate court took place on November 8, 2016. On March 31, 2017, the Court of Appeals issued a decision which held that the FCC regulation at issue was not properly promulgated under the TCPA. Prescription Opioid Drug Abuse Litigation . The Company has been named as a defendant in eleven matters relating to the promotion and sale of prescription opioid pain relievers and additional suits may be filed. 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. The California complaint alleges that the manufacturer defendants engaged in a deceptive campaign to promote their products in violation of state laws. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, penalties and injunctive relief. 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 co-defendants 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 October 19, 2016, the court in the California litigation lifted the stay in part permitting defendants to challenge the third amended complaint and for the parties to discuss settlement and maintaining the stay in all other respects. On July 6, 2017, Santa Clara and Orange Counties filed a fourth amended complaint. 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. The Chicago complaint contains similar allegations as the California complaint and also seeks unspecified monetary damages, penalties and injunctive relief. Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaints in each action. On May 8, 2015, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint. On August 26, 2015, the City of Chicago filed a second amended complaint. On September 29, 2016, the court in the Chicago litigation granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On October 25, 2016, Chicago filed a third amended complaint. On December 15, 2016, the Company moved to dismiss the third amended complaint and filed an answer to the 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. On February 13, 2017, the defendants’ motion to transfer venue was denied. On March 6, 2017, the defendants filed a petition for permission to appeal interlocutory order denying defendants’ motion to transfer venue with the Mississippi Supreme Court. On May 31, 2017, the State of Ohio filed a lawsuit in Ohio state court against several pharmaceutical manufacturers. The Ohio action parallels the allegations in the Chicago matter and seeks monetary and equitable relief. On June 5, 2017, the City of Dayton, Ohio filed a lawsuit in Ohio state court against several pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors. The Dayton action parallels the allegations in the Chicago matter and seeks monetary and equitable relief. On June 12, 2017, Nassau County, New York filed a lawsuit in New York state court against several pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors. The Nassau County action parallels the allegations in the Chicago matter and seeks monetary and equitable relief. The Nassau County action was recently consolidated with actions filed by other counties in New York state. Allergan was not named as a defendant in any of the other New York county actions. On June 26, 2017, Union County, Illinois filed a lawsuit in Illinois state court against several pharmaceutical manufacturers. The Union County action parallels the allegations in the Chicago matter and seeks monetary and equitable relief. On June 26, 2017, Jersey County, Illinois filed a lawsuit in Illinois state court against several pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors. The Jersey County action parallels the allegations in the Chicago matter and seeks monetary and equitable relief. On June 29, 2017, the City of Lorain, Ohio filed a lawsuit in Ohio state court against several pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors. The Lorain action parallels the allegations in the Chicago matter and seeks monetary and equitable relief. On June 29, 2017, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas on behalf of Arkansas residents who were prescribed an opioid product or were prescribed an opioid product and were treated for an overdose or addiction against several pharmaceutical manufacturers. The complaint parallels the allegations in the Chicago matter and seeks monetary and equitable relief. On June 30, 2017, the State of Oklahoma filed a lawsuit in Oklahoma state court against several pharmaceutical manufacturers. The Oklahoma action parallels the allegations in the Chicago matter and seeks monetary and equitable relief. The Company is aware that other states and political subdivisions are considering filing comparable actions against, among others, manufacturers and parties that promoted prescription opioid pain relievers. 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 RICO statute 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 ® TNS Products Litigation . On March 19, 2014, a class action complaint was filed in the federal district court in California on behalf of a putative class of consumers. 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 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. Xaleron Dispute. On February 5, 2016, Xaleron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Allergan, Inc. and Actavis, Inc., now known as Allergan Finance, LLC, in state court in New York. The complaint, filed on February 26, 2016, alleges the defendants 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. On September 13, 2016, the court issued a decision denying the Company’s motion. Defendants filed an answer to the complaint and the parties are now engaged in discovery. Zeltiq Shareholder Litigation. On March 14, 2017, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was filed against Zeltiq Aesthetics, Inc. and various directors as well as Allergan entities in Delaware federal court. Plaintiffs allege that Zeltiq’s proxy statement misrepresents material information that is preventing Zeltiq’s shareholders from making a fully informed decision on the proposed sale to Allergan, including failure to disclose GAAP reconciliation of Zeltiq’s non-GAAP projections. The Allergan entities were named under a supervisory role theory. On March 29, 2017, a similar putative shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court against Zeltiq Aesthetics, Inc. and various directors seeking a preliminary injunction. Allergan was not named as a defendant. Zeltiq filed an amendment to its Definitive Proxy Statement on April 11, 2017, which includes supplemental disclosures that address plaintiffs’ claims. On the same date, plaintiffs in the California action withdrew their motion for a preliminary injunction. On May 23, 2017, plaintiffs in the California action voluntarily dismissed their complaint, with prejudice as to the named plaintiff and without prejudice as to the class members. The parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle this dispute pursuant to which plaintiffs will voluntarily dismiss this action. Zeltiq Advertising Litigation . On April 26, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Zeltiq Aesthetics, Inc. in state court in California alleging that Zeltiq misled customers regarding the promotion of its CoolSculpting product and the product’s premarket notification clearance status. Plaintiffs recently served Zeltiq with the Complaint. On May 30, 2017, the case was removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On July 20, 2017, an amended complaint was filed. Employment Litigation In July 2012, Forest was 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. On April 3, 2017, the parties agreed to settle this matter. Patent Litigation Patent Enforcement Matters Aczone ® Gel, 7.5%. In June and July 2017, Allergan, Inc. brought actions for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,517,219 (the “‘219 patent”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Taro Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, “Taro”). Taro had notified Allergan in April and July 2017, that it filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking to obtain approval to market a generic version of Aczone® Gel, 7.5% before the ‘219 patent expires in November 2033. These lawsuits triggered automatic stays of approval of Taro’s ANDA that expire no earlier than October 2019 and January 2020, respectively (unless there is a final court decision adverse to Plaintiff sooner). No trial schedule has been set. Amrix ® 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 ® On January 30, 2017, 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 Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc., Zydus Healthcare USA LLC and Cadila Healthcare Limited (collectively “Zydus”). Zydus has notified Aptalis that it has filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking to obtain approval to market generic versions of Canasa ® In June 2017, Aptalis received a Paragraph IV certification notice letter from Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC (“Amneal”) indicating that it had submitted to FDA an ANDA seeking approval to manufacture and sell a generic version 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 (the “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. A Markman Hearing was held on March 2, 2016. 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. On September 30, 2016, the court denied the parties’ motions for summary judgment. A bench trial concluded on October 27, 2016. On December 30, 2016, the court entered an opinion and final judgment in favor of Allergan and against Sandoz, that the asserted claims of the ‘149 Patent, and U.S. Patent Numbers 7,320,976 (“‘976 Patent”) and 8,748,425 (the “‘425 Patent”), were not invalid, and that Sandoz infringes the asserted claims of the ‘425 Patent. The court also held in favor of Sandoz and against Allergan, that Sandoz does not infringe the asserted claims of the ‘149 and ‘976 Patents. Sandoz filed a notice of appeal to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on January 17, 2017, and Allergan filed a notice of cross appeal on January 27, 2017. On March 1, 2017, Sandoz filed its opening brief, on April 10, 2017, Allergan filed its responsive brief, and on May 15, 2017, Sandoz filed its reply brief. Oral argument has not yet been scheduled. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ordered that oral argument be scheduled in October 2017. 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. On November 28, 2016, Plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement with Zydus. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Zydus may launch its generic version of Delzicol ® ® Delzicol ® On November 4, 2016, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Mylan”) filed a petition for Review (“IPR”) with the USPTO regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,649,180 (the “‘180 patent”). Qualicaps Co., Ltd.’s filed a patent owner preliminary response on February 17, 2017. On May 17, 2017, the USPTO granted Mylan’s petition to institute an IPR on certain grounds with respect to claims 1 and 4 of the ‘180 patent. On July 21, 2017, Qualicaps filed a patent owner response. 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 the claims of the ‘953 patent invalid as obvious and collaterally estopped Allergan from asserting the claims of the ‘953 patent against Apotex and Akorn or contesting the invalidity of the claims 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. Sandoz launched “at risk” a generic version of Latisse ® Latisse ® . In July 2017, Plaintiffs Allergan and Duke University filed a complaint for infringement of U.S. Patent Number 9,579,270 (“‘270 Patent”) against Defendants Sandoz Inc. and Alcon Laboratories, Inc. In December 2016, Sandoz announced the U.S. market launch of Defendants’ generic copy of LATISSE ® ® Linzess ® In October 2016, the Company and Ironwood received Paragraph IV certification notice letters from Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”) indicating that it had submitted to FDA an ANDA seeking approval to manufacture and sell a generic version of LINZESS® 145 mcg and 290 mcg capsules (“LINZESS”) before the expiration of the nine patents listed in the Orange Book, including U.S. Patent Nos. 7,304,036 (the “‘036 Patent”); 7,371,727 (the “‘727 Patent”); 7,704,947 (the “‘947 Patent”); 7,745,409 (the “‘409 Patent”); 8,080,526 (the “‘526 Patent”); 8,110,553 (the “‘553 Patent”); 8,748,573 (the “‘573 Patent”); 8,802,628 (the “‘628 Patent”); and 8,933,030 (the “‘030 Patent”). In October 2016, the Company and Ironwood also received Paragraph IV certification notice letters from Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. (“Aurobindo”) indicating that it had submitted to FDA an ANDA seeking approval to manufacture and sell a generic version of LINZESS before the expiration of the ‘573, ‘628 and ‘030 Patents. (The ‘727, ‘947, ‘409, ‘526 and ‘553 Patents expire in January 2024; the ‘036 Patent expires in August 2026; and the ‘573, ‘628 and ‘030 Patents expire in 2031.) Teva and Aurobindo claim that the patents discussed in their respective notice letters are invalid, unenforceable and/or would not be infringed. On November 30, 2016, Forest Laboratories, LLC, Forest Laboratories Holdings, Ltd., Allergan USA, Inc. and Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), brought an action for infringement of some or all of the ‘036, ‘727, ‘947, ‘409, ‘526, ‘553, ‘573, ‘628 and ‘030 Patents in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Sandoz, Inc., Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., and Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. This lawsuit triggered an automatic stay of approval of the applicable ANDAs that expires no earlier than February 2020 (unless there is a final court decision adverse to Plaintiffs sooner). Mylan filed its answer on December 22, 2016. Teva and Sandoz filed their respective answers and counterclaims on January 20 and January 30, 2017. Aurobindo filed its answer and counterclaims on April 6, 2017. On May 19, 2017, the district court entered a scheduling order. Trial is scheduled for June 2019. On July 13, 2017, Mylan filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue. 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 |
