XML 36 R23.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.4.0.3

Litigation | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2016
Litigation |
Litigation | 17. Litigation Enoxaparin Patent Litigation In September 2011, Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or Momenta, a Boston‑based pharmaceutical company, and Sandoz Inc., or Sandoz, the generic division of Novartis, initiated litigation against the Company for alleged patent infringement of two patents related to testing methods for batch release of enoxaparin, which the Company refers to as the “‘886 patent” and the “‘466 patent.” The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, or the District Court. In October 2011, the District Court issued a preliminary injunction barring the Company from selling its generic enoxaparin product and also requiring Momenta and Sandoz to post a $100.1 million bond. The preliminary injunction was stayed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, or the Federal Circuit, in January 2012, and reversed by the Federal Circuit in August 2012. In January 2013, the Company moved for summary judgment of non‑infringement of both patents. Momenta and Sandoz withdrew their allegations as to the ‘466 patent, and in July 2013, the District Court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment of non‑infringement of the ‘886 patent and denied Momenta and Sandoz’s motion for leave to amend infringement contentions. On January 24, 2014, the District Court judge entered final judgment in the Company’s favor on both patents. Momenta and Sandoz also filed a motion to collect attorneys’ fees and costs relating to a discovery motion, which the District Court granted. On May 9, 2016, the District Court issued an order imposing fees and costs of approximately $0.4 million in relation to this discovery motion. This amount has been accrued in the General and Administrative expense for the quarter ended March 31, 2016. On January 30, 2014, Momenta and Sandoz filed a notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit appealing the court’s final judgment including summary judgment denying Momenta and Sandoz’s motion for leave to amend their infringement contentions. The Company intends to attempt to collect the $100.1 million bond posted by Momenta and Sandoz following a decision on the merits in the event the Company prevails. Following appeal briefing filed by the parties, t he Federal Circuit held oral argument on May 4, 2015. On November 10, 2015, the Federal Circuit panel affirmed-in-part and vacated-in-part the decision of the District Court granting summary judgment of non-infringement as to the Company, and it remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The Federal Circuit panel affirmed the District Court’s holding in the Company’s favor that the Company does not infringe under 35 U.S.C. 271(g), and the panel vacated the grant of summary judgment to the extent it was based on the determination that the Company’s activities fall within the 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(1) safe harbor. The Federal Circuit panel also left to the District Court’s discretion whether to reconsider on remand its denial of leave for Momenta and Sandoz to amend their infringement contentions. On January 11, 2016, the Company filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc with the Federal Circuit. On February 17, 2016, the Federal Circuit denied the Company’s Petition, and the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on February 24, 2016, whereby the case will return to the District Court for further proceedings. On March 18, 2016, the parties filed a joint status report with the District Court. The Company intends to vigorously defend this case on further appeal and/or in the District Court. False Claims Act Litigation In January 2009, the Company filed a qui tam complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, or the District Court, alleging that Aventis Pharma S.A., or Aventis, through its acquisition of a patent through false and misleading statements to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, as well as through false and misleading statements to the FDA, overcharged the federal and state governments for its Lovenox® product. If the Company is successful in this litigation, it could be entitled to a portion of any damage award that the government ultimately may recover from Aventis. In October 2011, the District Court unsealed the Company’s complaint. On February 28, 2014, Aventis filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of the adequacy of the Company’s notice letter to the government, and the District Court denied Aventis’ motion for summary judgment in a final order it issued on May 12, 2014. On June 9, 2014, at Aventis’ request, the District Court issued an order certifying for appeal its order denying Aventis’ motion for summary judgment. On June 9, 2014, Aventis filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, or the Ninth Circuit, a petition for permission to appeal the District Court’s denial of Aventis’ motion for summary judgment, and the Company filed an opposition to Aventis’ petition on June 19, 2014. On August 22, 2014, the Ninth Circuit granted Aventis’ petition. The parties have completed and filed their respective appeal briefs with the Ninth Circuit. A date for oral argument has not been set by the Ninth Circuit. The District Court set an evidentiary hearing for July 7, 2014 on the “original source” issue, a key element under the False Claims Act. The evidentiary hearing was conducted as scheduled, from July 7, 2014 through July 10, 2014. On July 13, 2015, the District Court issued a ruling concluding that the Company is not an original source under the False Claims Act, and the District Court entered final judgment dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On July 27, 2015, Aventis filed a request for attorneys’ fees with the District Court, and on August 3, 2015, the Company filed objections to Aventis’s request. On July 20, 2015, the Company filed with the Ninth Circuit a notice of appeal of the District Court’s dismissal of the case, and Aventis filed a notice of cross-appeal on August 5, 2015. On November 12, 2015, Aventis filed a pleading asking that the District Court impose various monetary penalties and fines against the Company, including disgorgement of enoxaparin revenues and attorneys’ fees expended by Aventis in this action, based on Aventis’s allegations that the Company engaged in sanctionable conduct. On November 23, 2015, the District Court issued an order setting forth a procedure for sanctions proceedings as to the Company as well as its outside counsel. On December 24, 2015, the Company filed a pleading with the District Court opposing the imposition of sanctions, and on January 20, 2016, Aventis filed a response pleading further pressing for the imposition of sanctions. On May 6, 2016, the District Court issued three orders requesting that the Company and its outside counsel file a document showing cause as to why sanctions should not be imposed and to set up a conference call with the partiers and the court to discuss whether any discovery and/or a hearing is necessary. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against any such imposition of sanctions. On March 28, 2016, the Company filed its opening brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals setting forth detailed arguments as to why the False Claims Act litigation should not have been dismissed by the District Court. While the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain, the Company believes Aventis’s request is without merit, and it intends to vigorously defend this case. California Employment Litigation On January 6, 2015, the Company received a formal demand from Plaintiff’s counsel in an employment related lawsuit captioned Eva Hernandez v. International Medication Systems Limited, in connection with a complaint originally filed on February 4, 2013 in the Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles, or the Court, by plaintiff Eva Hernandez on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. Plaintiff’s complaint included alleged violations of the California Labor Code stemming from the Company’s alleged timekeeping practices, as well as other similar and related claims brought under California law. In the complaint, Plaintiff sought damages and related remedies under California law, as well as various penalty payments under the California Labor Code, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. On April 7, 2015, solely to resolve the dispute, minimize disruption to the Company due to ongoing litigation, and other similar and related factors (but unrelated to the alleged merits of Plaintiff’s claims), the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle this matter on a class wide basis for a total amount of $3.2 million, plus applicable payroll taxes. The Joint Stipulation of Settlement as executed by the parties was filed with the Court on June 2, 2015. On July 1, 2015, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement, and on November 5, 2015, the Court entered an order granting final approval of the settlement. Momenta/Sandoz Antitrust Litigation On September 17, 2015, the Company initiated a lawsuit by filing a Complaint in the Central District of California against Momenta and Sandoz. The Company’s complaint generally asserts that Momenta and Sandoz have engaged in certain types of illegal, monopolistic, and anticompetitive conduct giving rise to various causes of action against them. On December 9, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to transfer the case to the District of Massachusetts. On January 4, 2016, the Company filed oppositions to both motions. On January 26, 2016, the District Court of the Central District of California granted Defendants’ motion to transfer and did not rule on Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the case was transferred to the District of Massachusetts and is currently awaiting further action by the District Court of the District of Massachusetts. On February 9, 2016, the Company filed a writ of mandamus with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to attempt to appeal the District Court of the Central District of California’s granting of Defendants’ motion to transfer to the District of Massachusetts. On May 9, 2016, the parties filed a joint status report with the District Court advising the court that briefing on the motion to dismiss has been completed and requesting oral arguments. Other Litigation The Company is also subject to various other claims and lawsuits from time-to-time arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company records a provision for contingent losses when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. In the opinion of management, the ultimate resolution of any such matters is not expected to have a materially adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows; however, the results of litigation and claims are inherently unpredictable and the Company’s view of these matters may change in the future. Regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on the Company because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources, and other factors.

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for legal proceedings, legal contingencies, litigation, regulatory and environmental matters and other contingencies. + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LossContingencyInformationAboutLitigationMattersAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration