Litigation	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2021
Litigation
Litigation	Note 20. Litigation Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Aventis Pharma, SA In January 2009, the Company filed a qui tam complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, 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. On May 11, 2017, the Company’s lawsuit against Aventis was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. On July 14, 2017, Aventis filed an application with the District Court for entitlement to attorneys’ fees and expenses. On November 20, 2017, the District Court issued its order granting Aventis’ application for fees, and on November 13, 2020, the Court issued an Order (“November Order”) awarding Aventis $12.1 million in attorneys’ fees and $0.7 million in cost and expenses. The Company recorded $12.8 million in other income (expenses), in the consolidated statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2020. On May 3, 2021, the Court issued a further Order based upon supplemental application to the Court seeking fees, expenses, and interest for the period after, and not covered by, the November Order. The Court awarded Aventis an additional $4.4 million bringing the total amount awarded to Aventis to $17.2 million. On June 30, 2021, the Company and Aventis entered into a settlement agreement to settle the attorney fees’ and expenses claim for $14.5 million. The additional $1.7 million was recorded in other income (expenses), in the condensed consolidated statement of operations. The settlement was paid in full in the third quarter of 2021. Regadenoson (0.4 mg/5 mL, 0.08 mg/mL) Patent Litigation On February 25, 2020, Astellas US LLC, Astellas Pharma US, Inc., and Gilead Sciences, Inc. (collectively, “Astellas-Gilead”) filed a Complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against IMS for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,106,183 (the “‘183 patent”), RE47,301 (the “‘301 patent”), and 8,524,883 (the “‘883 patent”) (collectively, “Astellas-Gilead Patents”) with regard to IMS’s ANDA No. 214,252 for approval to manufacture and sell 0.4 mg/5 mL (0.08 mg/mL) intravenous solution of Regadenoson. On March 4, 2020, IMS filed its Answer and Counterclaims. On March 30, 2020, the Court issued an Order allowing the Company to join pending consolidated litigation with five other generic Regadenoson ANDA filers involving similar claims. Trial is currently scheduled for January 2022. The Company’s 30-month FDA stay expires August 10, 2022. Currently, this lawsuit does not expose the Company to any liabilities, as the product has not been launched. The Company intends to vigorously defend this patent lawsuit. Ramirez v. Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. On May 29, 2020, Priscilla Ramirez (“Ramirez”), a former employee filed a PAGA lawsuit for alleged violations of various California labor laws pertaining to wage and hour against the Company. The Company accrued the amount of $1.0 million for this litigation as of March 31, 2021. On April 5, 2021, the parties reached a settlement for $1.0 million. On June 9, 2021, Ramirez submitted a motion to the Court to approve the settlement. On August 16, 2021, the Court approved Ramirez’s motion to approve the settlement. On September 13, 2021, consistent with the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company remitted payment for this case, thus resolving the matter. Other Litigation The Company is also subject to various other claims, arbitrations, 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 material 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.

Litigation

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2021

Note 20. Litigation

Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Aventis Pharma, SA

In January 2009, the Company filed a qui tam complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, 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.

On May 11, 2017, the Company’s lawsuit against Aventis was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. On July 14, 2017, Aventis filed an application with the District Court for entitlement to attorneys’ fees and expenses. On November 20, 2017, the District Court issued its order granting Aventis’ application for fees, and on November 13, 2020, the Court issued an Order (“November Order”) awarding Aventis $12.1 million in attorneys’ fees and $0.7 million in cost and expenses. The Company recorded $12.8 million in other income (expenses), in the consolidated statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2020.

On May 3, 2021, the Court issued a further Order based upon supplemental application to the Court seeking fees, expenses, and interest for the period after, and not covered by, the November Order. The Court awarded Aventis an additional $4.4 million bringing the total amount awarded to Aventis to $17.2 million.

On June 30, 2021, the Company and Aventis entered into a settlement agreement to settle the attorney fees’ and expenses claim for $14.5 million. The additional $1.7 million was recorded in other income (expenses), in the condensed consolidated statement of operations. The settlement was paid in full in the third quarter of 2021.

Regadenoson (0.4 mg/5 mL, 0.08 mg/mL) Patent Litigation

On February 25, 2020, Astellas US LLC, Astellas Pharma US, Inc., and Gilead Sciences, Inc. (collectively, “Astellas-Gilead”) filed a Complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against IMS for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,106,183 (the “‘183 patent”), RE47,301 (the “‘301 patent”), and 8,524,883 (the “‘883 patent”) (collectively, “Astellas-Gilead Patents”) with regard to IMS’s ANDA No. 214,252 for approval to manufacture and sell 0.4 mg/5 mL (0.08 mg/mL) intravenous solution of Regadenoson. On March 4, 2020, IMS filed its Answer and Counterclaims. On March 30, 2020, the Court issued an Order allowing the Company to join pending consolidated litigation with five other generic Regadenoson ANDA filers involving similar claims. Trial is currently scheduled for January 2022. The Company’s 30-month FDA stay expires August 10, 2022. Currently, this lawsuit does not expose the Company to any liabilities, as the product has not been launched. The Company intends to vigorously defend this patent lawsuit.

Ramirez v. Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

On May 29, 2020, Priscilla Ramirez (“Ramirez”), a former employee filed a PAGA lawsuit for alleged violations of various California labor laws pertaining to wage and hour against the Company. The Company accrued the amount of $1.0 million for this litigation as of March 31, 2021. On April 5, 2021, the parties reached a settlement for $1.0 million. On June 9, 2021, Ramirez submitted a motion to the Court to approve the settlement. On August 16, 2021, the Court approved Ramirez’s motion to approve the settlement. On September 13, 2021, consistent with the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company remitted payment for this case, thus resolving the matter.

Other Litigation

The Company is also subject to various other claims, arbitrations, 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 material 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.