Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended |
Dec. 31, 2014 |
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies |
Contingent Value Rights: In connection with the acquisition of Abraxis in 2010, CVRs were issued under a Contingent Value Rights Agreement, or CVR Agreement, entered into between Celgene and American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, LLC, as trustee. The CVRs are registered for trading on the NASDAQ Global Market under the symbol "CELGZ." The fair value of the liability of the Company related to payments under the CVR Agreement are subject to fluctuation based on trading prices for the publicly traded CVRs. Subsequent to the Abraxis Acquisition Date, we measured the contingent consideration represented by the CVRs at fair value with changes in fair value recognized in operating earnings. The fair value of our liability related to the CVRs was $136.3 million at the end of 2014 compared to $118.1 million at the end of 2013. |
Each holder of a CVR is entitled to receive a pro rata portion, based on the number of CVRs then outstanding, of each of the following contingent cash payments: |
| | | |
• | Milestone Payment #1. $250.0 million upon FDA approval of ABRAXANE® for use in the treatment of NSCLC if such approval permits us to market ABRAXANE® with FDA approval that includes a progression-free survival, or PFS, claim, but only if this milestone is achieved no later than the fifth anniversary of the Merger. | | |
|
| | | |
• | Milestone Payment #2. $400.0 million (if achieved no later than April 1, 2013) or $300.0 million (if achieved after April 1, 2013 and before the fifth anniversary of the Merger) upon FDA approval of ABRAXANE® for use in the treatment of pancreatic cancer, if such approval permits us to market ABRAXANE® with FDA approval that includes an overall survival claim. | | |
|
| | | |
• | Net Sales Payments. For each full one-year period ending December 31 during the term of the CVR Agreement, which we refer to as a net sales measuring period (with the first net sales measuring period beginning January 1, 2011 and ending December 31, 2011): | | |
| | | |
◦ | 2.5% of the net sales of ABRAXANE® and the Abraxis pipeline products that exceed $1.000 billion but are less than or equal to $2.000 billion for such period, plus | | |
| | | |
◦ | an additional amount equal to 5% of the net sales of ABRAXANE® and the Abraxis pipeline products that exceed $2.000 billion but are less than or equal to $3.000 billion for such period, plus | | |
| | | |
◦ | an additional amount equal to 10% of the net sales of ABRAXANE® and the Abraxis pipeline products that exceed $3.000 billion for such period. | | |
No payments will be due under the CVR Agreement with respect to net sales of ABRAXANE® and the Abraxis pipeline products after December 31, 2025, which we refer to as the net sales payment termination date, unless net sales for the net sales measuring period ending on December 31, 2025 are equal to or greater than $1.000 billion, in which case the net sales payment termination date will be extended until the last day of the first net sales measuring period subsequent to December 31, 2025 during which net sales of ABRAXANE® and the Abraxis pipeline products are less than $1.000 billion or, if earlier, December 31, 2030. |
Milestone Payment #1 update: In October 2012, the FDA approved ABRAXANE® for the first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC, in combination with carboplatin, in patients who are not candidates for curative surgery or radiation therapy. The FDA approval was based on tumor response rates and did not result in the use of a marketing label that includes a progression-free survival claim, and accordingly, the CVR Milestone Payment #1, as described above, has not been achieved. This approval resulted in the related $1.172 billion intangible asset obtained from the Abraxis acquisition being reclassified in October 2012 from an acquired IPR&D intangible to an acquired developed product rights intangible asset and amortization commenced in October 2012. |
Milestone Payment #2 update: In September 2013, the FDA approved ABRAXANE® for use in the treatment of pancreatic cancer, permitting us to market ABRAXANE® with a label that includes an overall survival claim. This approval resulted in the achievement of milestone #2 and the subsequent payment of $300.0 million to CVR holders in October 2013. |
Leases: We lease offices and research facilities under various operating lease agreements in the United States and international markets. We also lease automobiles and certain equipment in these same markets. At December 31, 2014, the non-cancelable lease terms for the operating leases expire at various dates between 2015 and 2023 and include renewal options. In general, the Company is also required to reimburse the lessors for real estate taxes, insurance, utilities, maintenance and other operating costs associated with the leases. |
|
|
|
Future minimum lease payments under non-cancelable operating leases as of December 31, 2014 are: |
|
| | | |
| Operating |
Leases |
2015 | $ | 57.1 | |
|
2016 | 47.2 | |
|
2017 | 37.1 | |
|
2018 | 25.1 | |
|
2019 | 16.2 | |
|
Thereafter | 36 | |
|
Total minimum lease payments | $ | 218.7 | |
|
Total rental expense under operating leases was approximately $62.2 million in 2014, $50.9 million in 2013 and $41.9 million in 2012. |
Lines of Credit: We maintain lines of credit with several banks to support our hedging programs and to facilitate the issuance of bank letters of credit and guarantees on behalf of our subsidiaries. Lines of credit supporting our hedging programs as of December 31, 2014 allowed us to enter into derivative contracts with settlement dates through 2017. As of December 31, 2014, we have entered into derivative contracts with net notional amounts totaling $8.231 billion. Lines of credit facilitating the issuance of bank letters of credit and guarantees as of December 31, 2014 allowed us to have letters of credit and guarantees issued on behalf of our subsidiaries totaling $130.3 million. |
Other Commitments: Our obligations related to product supply contracts totaled $177.5 million at December 31, 2014. We are also committed to pay the remaining $8.0 million balance due from our acquisition of a manufacturing facility in Switzerland. |
Collaboration Arrangements: We have entered into certain research and development collaboration agreements, as identified in Note 17 above, with third parties that include the funding of certain development, manufacturing and commercialization efforts with the potential for future milestone and royalty payments upon the achievement of pre-established developmental, regulatory and/or commercial targets. Our obligation to fund these efforts is contingent upon continued involvement in the programs and/or the lack of any adverse events which could cause the discontinuance of the programs. Due to the nature of these arrangements, the future potential payments are inherently uncertain, and accordingly no amounts have been recorded for the potential future achievement of these targets in our accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31, 2014 and 2013. |
Contingencies: We believe we maintain insurance coverage adequate for our current needs. Our operations are subject to environmental laws and regulations, which impose limitations on the discharge of pollutants into the air and water and establish standards for the treatment, storage and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes. We review the effects of such laws and regulations on our operations and modify our operations as appropriate. We believe we are in substantial compliance with all applicable environmental laws and regulations. |
We have ongoing customs, duties and VAT examinations in various countries that have yet to be settled. Based on our knowledge of the claims and facts and circumstances to date, none of these matters, individually or in the aggregate, are deemed to be material to our financial condition. |
Legal Proceedings: |
Like many companies in our industry, we have from time to time received inquiries and subpoenas and other types of information requests from government authorities and others and we have been subject to claims and other actions related to our business activities. While the ultimate outcome of investigations, inquires, information requests and legal proceedings is difficult to predict, adverse resolutions or settlements of those matters may result in, among other things, modification of our business practices, product recalls, costs and significant payments, which may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. |
|
Pending patent proceedings include challenges to the scope, validity and/or enforceability of our patents relating to certain of our products, uses of products or processes. Further, we are subject to claims of third parties that we infringe their patents covering products or processes. Although we believe we have substantial defenses to these challenges and claims, there can be no assurance as to the outcome of these matters and an adverse decision in these proceedings could result in one or more of the following: (i) a loss of patent protection, which could lead to a significant reduction of sales that could materially affect future results of operations, (ii) our inability to continue to engage in certain activities, and (iii) significant liabilities, including payment of damages, royalties and/or license fees to any such third party. |
Among the principal matters pending are the following: |
|
Patent Related Proceedings: |
|
REVLIMID®: We received Notice Letters, dated August 30, 2010 and June 12, 2012 from Natco Pharma Limited of India (Natco) notifying us of Natco’s Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA), which contain Paragraph IV certifications against certain of Celgene’s patents that are listed in the FDA Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (the “Orange Book”) for REVLIMID® (lenalidomide). Natco’s Notice Letters were sent in connection with its filing of an ANDA seeking permission from the FDA to market a generic version of 25mg, 15mg, 10mg and 5mg REVLIMID® capsules. We filed separate infringement actions (which were subsequently consolidated) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Natco, Natco’s U.S. partner, Arrow International Limited (Arrow), and Arrow’s parent company, Watson Laboratories, Inc. (Watson, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Actavis, Inc. and formerly known as Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) (Natco, Arrow and Watson are collectively referred to hereinafter as “Natco”). In its answer and counterclaim, Natco asserts that our patents are invalid, unenforceable and/or not infringed by Natco’s proposed generic products. |
|
The patents in dispute include United States Patent Nos. 5,635,517; 6,045,501; 6,315,720; 6,555,554; 6,561,976; 6,561,977; 6,755,784; 7,119,106; 7,465,800; 6,281,230; 7,189,740; 7,968,569; 8,288,415; 8,315,886 and 8,404,717, plus three non-Orange Book listed patents, United States Patent Nos. 7,977,357; 8,193,219 and 8,431,598. |
|
A claim construction decision was issued on May 27, 2014. Fact discovery closed on August 4, 2014. On October 23, 2014, the court denied: (i) Natco’s motion to limit the patent claims asserted by us and (ii) Natco’s motion to dismiss its inequitable-conduct claims and strike our unclean-hands defense. In addition, the court granted our motion to bifurcate and stay expert discovery pertaining to the REMS patents. On November 18, 2014, the court granted-in-part Natco’s motion to amend its invalidity contentions. We appealed that decision on December 2, 2014 and briefing on the appeal was completed on January 20, 2015. A hearing has not yet been set for the appeal. Expert discovery is set to close on July 21, 2015. No trial date has been set. |
|
We believe that Natco’s defenses and counterclaims are unlikely to be sustained and we intend to vigorously assert our patent rights. Although there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of this proceeding, we currently expect that it will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations. However, if Natco is successful in challenging all the patents in dispute or if the court rules that certain of our key patent claims are invalid or not infringed, such events could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. |
|
We received a third Notice Letter from Natco dated April 3, 2014, notifying us of Natco’s Paragraph IV certifications against five patents, including United States Patent Nos. 8,404,717 (already in suit), 8,530,498; 8,589,188; 8,626,531; and 8,648,095. On May 15, 2014, we filed an infringement action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Natco, Arrow and Watson. Natco filed its answer and counterclaim on June 13, 2014, and asserts that our patents are invalid, unenforceable and/or not infringed by Natco’s proposed generic products. A scheduling order has yet to be issued. |
|
ABRAXANE®: On December 14, 2011, Cephalon, Inc. and Acusphere, Inc. filed a complaint against us in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging, among other things, that the making, using, selling, offering to sell and importing of ABRAXANE® brand drug infringes claims of United States Patent No. RE40,493. The plaintiffs are seeking damages and injunctive relief. On December 3, 2013, the court issued an order construing certain claim terms. Based on that order, on March 18, 2014, the parties agreed to a judgment of noninfringement in Celgene’s favor. On April 15, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit seeking a review of the lower court’s construction of certain claim terms. On April 22, 2014 we filed a Notice of Cross-Appeal seeking review of certain terms defined in the lower court’s order. |
|
On May 23, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss our cross-appeal, which motion was denied on June 30, 2014. Briefing on the appeal was completed on November 24, 2014. The Court has yet to schedule a hearing on the appeal and cross-appeal. |
|
THALOMID® and REVLIMID®: On October 2, 2013, Andrulis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (Andrulis) filed a lawsuit against us in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware claiming infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,140,346 (“the ‘346 patent”). Andrulis alleges that we are liable for infringement of one or more claims of the ‘346 patent, which covers the use of THALOMID® (and, as asserted by Andrulis, REVLIMID®) in combination with an alkylating agent (e.g., melphalan) to treat cancers. Andrulis is seeking an unspecified amount of damages, attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief. We disagree with Andrulis’ allegations and intend to vigorously defend against this infringement suit. On November 25, 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss Andrulis’ complaint. Andrulis’ motion seeking leave to file an amended complaint was granted on December 30, 2013. We filed a motion to dismiss Andrulis’ amended complaint on January 30, 2014. On April 11, 2014, the court denied our motion in part and granted our motion in part, dismissing two of Andrulis' four infringement claims without leave to amend. We filed an answer to the remaining claims on April 25, 2014. On December 23, 2014 we requested from the court leave to file a partial summary judgment motion and on February 6, 2015 the court granted our request. |
|
Fact discovery is set to close on June 16, 2015. A joint claim construction brief is due on March 30, 2015. A claim construction hearing is scheduled for April 30, 2015. Expert discovery is set to close on December 21, 2015. Trial is scheduled to begin on June 6, 2016. We do not expect the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations. |
|
ISTODAX® (romidepsin): We received a Notice Letter dated March 17, 2014 from Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC (Fresenius) notifying us of Fresenius’s ANDA that seeks approval from the FDA to market a generic version of romidepsin for injection. The Notice Letter contains Paragraph IV certifications against U.S. Patent Nos. 7,608,280 and 7,611,724 (the ‘280 and ‘724 patents) that are listed in the Orange Book for ISTODAX®. |
|
On April 30, 2014, Celgene and Astellas Pharma Inc., filed an infringement action in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Fresenius. In its answer and counterclaim, Fresenius asserts that the ‘280 and ‘724 patents are invalid and/or not infringed by its proposed generic products. As a result of the filing of our action, the FDA cannot grant final approval of Fresenius’s ANDA until the earlier of (i) a final decision that each of the patents is invalid and/or not infringed; or (ii) May 5, 2017. |
|
On August 4, 2014, we received a Notice Letter from InnoPharma, Inc. (InnoPharma) notifying us of Innopharma's ANDA that seeks approval from the FDA to market a generic version of romidepsin for injection. The Notice Letter contains Paragraph IV certifications against U.S. Patent Nos. 7,608,280 and 7,611,724 (the '280 and '724 patents) that are listed in the Orange Book for ISTODAX®. |
|
On September 12, 2014, we and Astellas Pharma Inc., filed an infringement action in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against InnoPharma. In its answer and counterclaim, InnoPharma asserts that the ‘280 and ‘724 patents are invalid and/or not infringed by its proposed generic products. As a result of the filing of our action, the FDA cannot grant final approval of InnoPharma's ANDA until the earlier of (i) a final decision that each of the patents is invalid and/or not infringed; or (ii) May 5, 2017. |
|
These two cases were consolidated in December 2014. Fact discovery is set to close in the consolidated cases on November 6, 2015. A claim construction hearing is scheduled for October 16, 2015. Expert discovery in the consolidated cases is set to close on July 13, 2016 and trial is scheduled to begin on September 19, 2016. |
|
THALOMID® (thalidomide): We received a Notice Letter dated December 18, 2014 from Lannett Holdings, Inc. (Lannett) notifying us of Lannett’s ANDA which contains Paragraph IV certifications against U.S. Patent Nos. 5,629,327; 6,045,501; 6,315,720; 6,561,976; 6,561,977; 6,755,784; 6,869,399; 6,908,432; 7,141,018; 7,230,012; 7,435,745; 7,874,984; 7,959,566; 8,204,763; 8,315,886; 8,589,188; and 8,626,531 that are listed in the Orange Book for THALOMID® (thalidomide). Lannett is seeking to market a generic version of 50mg, 100mg, 150mg and 200mg of THALOMID® capsules. On January 30, 2015, we filed an infringement action against Lannett in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. |
|
Other Proceedings: |
|
In 2009, we received a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) seeking documents and other information relating to requests by manufacturers of generic drugs to purchase our patented REVLIMID® and THALOMID® brand drugs in order for the FTC to evaluate whether there may be reason to believe that we have engaged in unfair methods of competition. In 2010, the State of Connecticut issued a subpoena referring to the same issues raised by the 2009 CID. Also in 2010, we received a second CID from the FTC relating to this matter. We continue to cooperate with the FTC and State of Connecticut investigations. |
|
On April 3, 2014, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Mylan) filed a lawsuit against us in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that we violated various federal and state antitrust and unfair competition laws by allegedly refusing to sell samples of our THALOMID® and REVLIMID® brand drugs so that Mylan can conduct the bioequivalence testing needed to submit ANDAs to the FDA for approval to market generic versions of these products. Mylan is seeking injunctive relief, damages and declaratory judgment. We filed a motion to dismiss Mylan’s complaint on May 25, 2014. Mylan filed its opposition to our motion to dismiss on June 16, 2014. The Federal Trade Commission filed an amicus curiae brief in opposition to our motion to dismiss on June 17, 2014. Oral arguments on our motion to dismiss were heard on December 9, 2014. On December 22, 2014, the court granted (i) Celgene’s motion to dismiss Mylan’s claims based on Section 1 of the Sherman Act without prejudice, and (ii) the claims arising under the New Jersey Antitrust Act. The court denied our motion to dismiss the rest of the claims which primarily relate to Section 2 of the Sherman Act and to the statute of limitations with respect to THALOMID®. On January 6, 2015 we filed a motion to certify for interlocutory appeal the order denying our motion to dismiss with respect to the claims relating to Section 2 of the Sherman Act and on January 20, 2015 we filed an answer to the Complaint. On January 30, 2015 the District Court granted our motion allowing us to file a Petition for permission to appeal to the United State Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Petition was filed with United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on February 9, 2015. A scheduling order has not yet been issued in this case. We intend to vigorously defend against Mylan’s claims. |
|
In 2011, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California informed us that they were investigating possible off-label marketing and improper payments to physicians in connection with the sales of THALOMID® and REVLIMID®. In 2012, we learned that two other United States Attorneys’ offices (the Northern District of Alabama and the Eastern District of Texas) and various state Attorneys General were conducting related investigations. In February 2014, three civil qui tam actions related to those investigations brought by three former Celgene employees on behalf of the federal and various state governments under the federal false claims act and similar state laws were unsealed after the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) declined to intervene in any of these actions. The DOJ retains the right to intervene in these actions at any time. Additionally, while several states have similarly declined to intervene in some of these actions, they also retain the right to intervene in the future. The plaintiffs in the Northern District of Alabama and Eastern District of Texas actions have voluntarily dismissed their cases. On April 25, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in the remaining (Central District of California) action, United States of America ex. rel. Beverly Brown V. Celgene Corp., unsealed February 5, 2014 (the Brown Action). The plaintiff filed an opposition to our motion to dismiss on May 23, 2014. The DOJ as well as several state Attorneys General filed Statements of Interest opposing certain arguments made in our motion to dismiss. The judge issued an order on July 10, 2014 largely denying our motion to dismiss, but granting in part our motion with respect to certain state claims. We filed our answer to the complaint on August 28, 2014. Fact discovery is set to close on July 24, 2015. Expert discovery is set to close on September 25, 2015. Summary judgment motions are due November 16, 2015. We intend to vigorously defend against the remaining claims in the Brown Action. |
|
In a related matter, in July 2014, we received a letter purportedly on behalf of two stockholders that demands, primarily on the basis of the allegations in the Brown Action, that our board of directors take action on the Company’s behalf to correct alleged deficiencies in the Company’s internal controls and to recover from current and past directors and officers damages those stockholders allege to have resulted from breaches of fiduciary duties related to the matters alleged in the Brown Action. Our Board has formed a Demand Investigation Committee, and with the assistance of independent counsel retained by it, the Committee is considering the issues raised in the stockholders’ letter. |
|
In November 2014, we received another letter purportedly on behalf of a stockholder that demands access to certain books and records of the Company for the purpose of investigating matters pertaining to the Brown Action. The Company intends to comply with the demand to the extent it considers reasonable in view of the Demand Investigation Committee’s ongoing consideration of matters pertaining to the Brown Action. |
|
On June 7, 2013, Children's Medical Center Corporation (CMCC) filed a lawsuit against us in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts alleging that our obligation to pay a 1% royalty on REVLIMID® net sales revenue and a 2.5% royalty on POMALYST®/IMNOVID® net sales revenue under a license agreement entered into in December 2002 extended beyond February 28, 2013 and that our failure to make royalty payments to CMCC subsequent to February 28, 2013 breached the license agreement. CMCC is seeking unspecified damages and a declaration that the license agreement remains in full force and effect. In July 2013, we removed these proceedings to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On August 5, 2013, we filed an answer to CMCC’s complaint and a counterclaim for declaratory judgment that our obligations to pay royalties have expired. On August 26, 2013, CMCC filed an answer to our counterclaim. On November 24, 2014, the scheduling order was amended and the close of fact discovery was extended to February 13, 2015. No trial date has as yet been set by the court. On July 8, 2014, CR Rev Holdings, LLC (“CR Rev”) filed a complaint against Celgene in the same action. CR Rev alleges that CMCC sold and assigned a substantial portion of the royalty payments owed by Celgene on the sale of REVLIMID® to CR Rev. CR Rev has alleged causes of action with respect to REVLIMID® identical to those alleged by CMCC, and seeks unspecified damages and a declaration that the license agreement is still in effect. We intend to vigorously defend against CMCC's and CR Rev’s claims. As of December 31, 2014, we consider the range of reasonably possible loss relating to this lawsuit to be between zero and $85.5 million, with the high end of the range being the royalty payments on REVLIMID® we would have made to CMCC under the license agreement through December 31, 2014, if our obligation to pay royalties remained in effect. CMCC contends that our royalty obligation continues on net sales of REVLIMID®, as well as POMALYST®/IMNOVID®, at least until May 2016 and if CMCC prevails, we may be obligated to continue to pay royalties on sales for periods after December 31, 2014. |
|
In the second quarter of 2014, we received a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) subpoena from the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts requesting certain documents relating to an investigators meeting in 2011 with respect to a clinical study relating to ABRAXANE®. The Company is cooperating with the United States Attorney in connection with this subpoena. |
On October 2, 2014, a complaint was filed in Delaware Chancery Court by a stockholder asserting derivative claims on behalf of the Company against the non-employee members of the Board of Directors. The complaint alleges that equity grants made to non-employee directors in 2012 and 2013 were excessive compared to the equity grants to directors of peer companies, and that the award of such allegedly excessive compensation constituted a breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks equitable relief, disgorgement of the alleged excess compensation, modification of the Company’s compensation process to limit the equity awards that may be granted to non-employee directors, and attorneys’ fees and other costs. |
|
On November 7, 2014, the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craft Workers Local 1 Health Fund (IUB) filed a putative class action lawsuit against us in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that we violated various state antitrust, consumer protection, and unfair competition laws by (a) allegedly securing an exclusive supply contract with Seratec S.A.R.L. so that Barr Laboratories (“Barr” who at one time held an ANDA for THALOMID®) allegedly could not secure its own supply of thalidomide active pharmaceutical ingredient; (b) allegedly refusing to sell samples of our THALOMID® and REVLIMID® brand drugs to Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Lannett Company, and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories so that those companies could conduct the bioequivalence testing needed to submit ANDAs to the FDA for approval to market generic versions of these products; and (c) allegedly bringing unjustified patent infringement lawsuits against Barr and Natco Pharma Limited in order to allegedly delay those companies from obtaining approval for proposed generic versions of THALOMID® and REVLIMID®. IUB, on behalf of itself and a putative class of third party payors, is seeking injunctive relief and damages. On February 6, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss IUB’s complaint. We intend to vigorously defend against IUB’s claims. |