XML 28 R16.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.25.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Indemnification In the normal course of business, we enter into agreements that contain a variety of representations and warranties and provide for general indemnification, including indemnification associated with product liability or infringement of intellectual property rights. Our exposure under these agreements is unknown because it involves future claims that may be made but have not yet been made against us. To date, we have not paid any claims or been required to defend any action related to these indemnification obligations. We have agreed to indemnify our executive officers, directors and certain other employees for losses and costs incurred in connection with certain events or occurrences, including advancing money to cover certain costs, subject to certain limitations. The maximum potential amount of future payments we could be required to make under the indemnification obligations is unlimited; however, we maintain insurance policies that may limit our exposure and may enable us to recover a portion of any future amounts paid. Assuming the applicability of coverage, the willingness of the insurer to assume coverage, and subject to certain retention, loss limits and other policy provisions, we believe the fair value of these indemnification obligations is not significant. Accordingly, we did not recognize any liabilities relating to these obligations as of March 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024. No assurances can be given that the covering insurers will not attempt to dispute the validity, applicability, or amount of coverage without expensive litigation against these insurers, in which case we may incur substantial liabilities as a result of these indemnification obligations. Legal Proceedings We are involved in legal proceedings, including the following matters: Xyrem Antitrust Litigation From June 2020 to May 2022, a number of lawsuits were filed on behalf of purported direct and indirect Xyrem purchasers, alleging that the patent litigation settlement agreements we entered with generic drug manufacturers who had filed ANDAs violate state and federal antitrust and consumer protection laws, as follows: On June 17, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by BCBS against the Company Defendants. The BCBS Lawsuit also the BCBS Defendants. On June 18 and June 23, 2020, respectively, two additional class action lawsuits were filed against the Company Defendants and the BCBS Defendants: one by the New York State Teamsters Council Health and Hospital Fund in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and another by the Government Employees Health Association Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On June 18, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by the City of Providence, Rhode Island, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, against the City of Providence Defendants. On June 30, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, against UFCW Defendants. On July 13, 2020, the plaintiffs in the BCBS Lawsuit and the GEHA Lawsuit dismissed their complaints in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and refiled their respective lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On July 14, 2020, the plaintiffs in the UFCW Lawsuit dismissed their complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and on July 15, 2020, refiled their lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On July 31, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by the A.F. of L.-A.G.C. Building Trades Welfare Plan on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, against Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc. The AFL Plan Lawsuit also names Roxane Laboratories Inc., West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp., Hikma Labs Inc., Hikma Pharmaceuticals plc, Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Lupin Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Lupin Inc. On August 14, 2020, an additional class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by the Self-Insured Schools of California on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, against the Company Defendants, as well as Hikma Pharmaceuticals plc, Eurohealth (USA) Inc., Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp., Roxane Laboratories, Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Endo International, plc, Endo Pharmaceuticals LLC, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Lupin Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc., Lupin Inc., Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Sun Pharmaceutical Holdings USA, Inc., Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Watson Laboratories, Inc., Wockhardt Ltd., Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Wockhardt USA LLC, Mallinckrodt plc, and Mallinckrodt LLC. On September 16, 2020, an additional class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, by Ruth Hollman on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, against the same defendants named in the Self-Insured Schools Lawsuit. In December 2020, the above cases were centralized and transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, where the multidistrict litigation will proceed for the purpose of discovery and pre-trial proceedings. On March 18, 2021, United Healthcare Services, Inc. filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against the Company Defendants, Hikma Pharmaceuticals plc, Roxane Laboratories, Inc., Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Eurohealth (USA) Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Lupin Ltd., and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., raising similar allegations. On March 24, 2021, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation conditionally transferred the UHS Lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, where it was consolidated for discovery and pre-trial proceedings with the other cases. On August 13, 2021, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part the Company Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaints in the cases referenced above. On October 8, 2021, Humana Inc. filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company Defendants, Hikma Pharmaceuticals plc, Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Hikma Labs, Inc., Eurohealth (USA), Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Lupin Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Lupin Inc, raising similar allegations. On October 8, 2021, Molina Healthcare Inc. filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company Defendants, Hikma Pharmaceuticals plc, Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Hikma Labs, Inc., Eurohealth (USA), Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Lupin Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Lupin Inc, raising similar allegations. On February 17, 2022, Health Care Service Corporation filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company Defendants, Hikma Pharmaceuticals plc, Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Hikma Labs, Inc., Eurohealth (USA), Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Lupin Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Lupin Inc, raising similar allegations. On April 19, 2023, the Court held a hearing on class certification in the consolidated multi-district litigation referenced above. On May 12, 2023, the Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion and preliminarily certified classes of Xyrem purchasers seeking monetary and injunctive relief. The Court excluded Xywav purchasers from the classes. On April 26, 2024, we, Hikma, and the plaintiffs filed motions for summary judgment. The Court held oral argument on these motions on July 19, 2024. On August 26, 2024, the Court issued a decision granting in part and denying in part the parties’ motions for summary judgment. Certain administrative service organization plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of a portion of the Court’s summary judgment ruling. On December 16, 2024, the Court denied the motion for reconsideration. On January 15, 2025, Aetna, Inc., which is not a party to the consolidated multi-district litigation, filed a notice of appeal of the order denying reconsideration. On March 26, 2025, we and Hikma filed a motion to dismiss Aetna’s appeal. On June 13, 2024, we filed a motion to decertify the class. On June 28, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the definition of the certified class. The Court held oral argument on these motions on August 22, 2024. On October 18, 2024, the Court issued a decision denying our motion to decertify the class and granting the plaintiffs’ motion to amend the class definition. On November 1, 2024, we filed a petition with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit seeking leave to appeal the Court’s decision amending the class definition. On January 29, 2025, the Ninth Circuit denied our petition for permission to appeal. On April 7, 2025, Jazz Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited, our wholly-owned subsidiary, entered into a class settlement agreement with the class of indirect Xyrem purchasers to settle all claims of participating class members against the Company with respect to our actions leading up to, and entering into, patent litigation settlement agreements with the ANDA filers. Pursuant to the class settlement agreement, which was entered into with counsel representing the class representatives, we agreed to pay a total of $145 million in a lump sum. The class settlement agreement remains subject to court approval. The class settlement agreement, in which we deny all alleged wrongdoing, also includes specified releases by class members of Jazz and its past, present and future affiliates, directors, officers, employees and other related parties, for all conduct concerning any of the matters alleged, or that could have been alleged, in the lawsuit. Plaintiffs who affirmatively opt out of the class will not be bound by the release and will not receive any settlement proceeds. Additionally, the class settlement agreement grants us the right to rescind the settlement agreement in the event an agreed upon percentage based on Xyrem purchases or payments made by potential class members that opt out. This settlement, if finalized on the agreed-upon terms, will resolve the majority of claims at issue in the multidistrict litigation. If the class settlement agreement is not approved by the Court, or we terminate the class settlement agreement, we intend to defend against these claims vigorously. We also remain confident in our defenses to the other claims brought by plaintiffs described above, including that the patent settlement agreements at issue were and are pro-competitive, and intend to continue to vigorously defend against these claims. The Court scheduled a preliminary approval hearing regarding the class settlement agreement for May 15, 2025. No trial date has been set for the remaining cases against Jazz. On January 13, 2023, Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Lupin Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Lupin Inc, notified the Court that they had reached a settlement-in-principle with the class action plaintiffs. On April 19, 2023, the Court held a hearing on a motion for preliminary approval of this proposed settlement. On May 12, 2023, the Court granted the motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. On January 11, 2024, the Court held a hearing on the motion for final approval of the proposed settlement. The Court deferred ruling and scheduled a further hearing for final approval of the proposed settlement on April 17, 2024. During February and March 2024, the parties notified the Court of settlements between certain non-class action plaintiffs and each of Amneal and Lupin, and the Court dismissed those plaintiffs’ claims against the applicable parties. On April 17, 2024, the Court issued an order granting the motion for final approval of the settlement between the class action plaintiffs, Amneal, and Lupin. On December 11, 2023, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. and Health Options, Inc. filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against the Company Defendants, Hikma Pharmaceuticals plc, Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Hikma Labs, Inc., and Eurohealth (USA), Inc., raising similar allegations. On January 23, 2024, the Blue Cross Florida case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and consolidated with the above referenced multidistrict litigation for pretrial purposes. On May 9, 2022, Aetna filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda against the Company Defendants, Hikma Pharmaceuticals plc, Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Hikma Labs, Inc., Eurohealth (USA), Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Lupin Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Lupin Inc, raising similar allegations. On December 27, 2022, the Court granted in part and denied in part our motion to dismiss Aetna’s complaint. As a result of that ruling, the generic defendants have been dismissed from the case, and certain of Aetna’s claims against Jazz have been dismissed. On January 27, 2023, Aetna filed an amended complaint against Jazz. On March 22, 2023, we filed motions to dismiss and to strike portions of the amended complaint. On June 26, 2023, the Court granted our motions, and granted Aetna leave to further amend its complaint. On November 17, 2023, Aetna filed its second amended complaint. On February 2, 2024, we filed our answer to the second amended complaint and Hikma filed a motion to quash service. The Court held a hearing on Hikma’s motion on December 4, 2024 and has set a further hearing for June 4, 2025. The Court has not set a further schedule in this case. The plaintiffs in certain of these lawsuits are seeking to represent a class of direct purchasers of Xyrem, and the plaintiffs in the remaining lawsuits are seeking to represent a class of indirect purchasers of Xyrem. Each of the lawsuits generally alleges violations of U.S. federal and state antitrust, consumer protection, and unfair competition laws in connection with the Company Defendants’ conduct related to Xyrem, including actions leading up to, and entering into, patent litigation settlement agreements with each of the other named defendants. Each of the lawsuits seeks monetary damages, exemplary damages, equitable relief against the alleged unlawful conduct, including disgorgement of profits and restitution, and injunctive relief. It is possible that additional lawsuits will be filed against the Company Defendants making similar or related allegations. If the plaintiffs were to be successful in their claims, they may be entitled to injunctive relief or we may be required to pay significant monetary damages, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects. As of March 31, 2025, we recorded an accrual of $172.0 million within accrued liabilities in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets, for charges related to presently expected resolution of some portion of the Xyrem antitrust litigation, including the class settlement. The related expense is included within selling, general and administrative expenses in our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Loss for the three months ended March 31, 2025. Patent Infringement Litigation Avadel Litigation On May 13, 2021, we filed a patent infringement suit against Avadel, and several of its corporate affiliates in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The suit alleges that Avadel’s Lumryz will infringe five of our patents related to controlled release formulations of oxybate and the safe and effective distribution of oxybate. The suit seeks an injunction to prevent Avadel from launching a product that would infringe these patents, and an award of monetary damages if Avadel does launch an infringing product. Avadel filed an answer to the complaint and counterclaims asserting that the patents are invalid or not enforceable, and that its product will not infringe our patents. Avadel filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings on its counterclaim that one of our patents should be delisted from the Orange Book. On November 18, 2022, the Court issued an order that we delist the patent from the Orange Book. On November 22, 2022, we filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit temporarily stayed the District Court’s delisting order. On February 24, 2023, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s delisting order, lifted the temporary stay, and gave Jazz 14 days to request that FDA delist the patent from the Orange Book. Jazz complied with the Federal Circuit’s order and requested delisting on February 28, 2023. On March 3, 2023, we and Avadel stipulated to the dismissal without prejudice of the claims and counterclaims related to infringement and validity of the delisted patent in both this suit and a later-filed suit described below related to the same patent. On August 4, 2021, we filed an additional patent infringement suit against Avadel in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The second suit alleges that Avadel’s Lumryz will infringe a newly-issued patent related to sustained-release formulations of oxybate. The suit seeks an injunction to prevent Avadel from launching a product that would infringe this patent, and an award of monetary damages if Avadel does launch an infringing product. Avadel filed an answer to the complaint and counterclaims asserting that the patents are invalid or not enforceable, and that its product will not infringe our patents. On November 10, 2021, we filed an additional patent infringement suit against Avadel in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The third suit alleges that Avadel’s Lumryz will infringe a newly-issued patent related to sustained-release formulations of oxybate. The suit seeks an injunction to prevent Avadel from launching a product that would infringe this patent, and an award of monetary damages if Avadel does launch an infringing product. Avadel filed an answer to the complaint and counterclaims asserting that the patents are invalid or not enforceable, and that its product will not infringe our patents. On April 14, 2022, Avadel sued us in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Avadel’s suit alleges that we misappropriated trade secrets related to Avadel’s once-nightly sodium oxybate development program and breached certain contracts between the parties. Avadel seeks monetary damages, an injunction preventing us from using Avadel’s confidential information, and an order directing the United States Patent and Trademark Office to modify the inventorship of one of our oxybate patents. On July 8, 2022, we filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which the Court denied on July 18, 2023. The denial is not a ruling that Jazz misappropriated Avadel‘s trade secrets or breached any contract. The case will go forward in discovery and the Court instructed the parties to submit a proposed scheduling order. On June 7, 2022, we received notice from Avadel that it had filed a "paragraph IV certification" regarding one patent listed in the Orange Book for Xyrem. A paragraph IV certification is a certification by a generic applicant that alleges that patents covering the branded product are invalid, unenforceable, and/or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use or sale of the generic product. On July 15, 2022, we filed an additional lawsuit against Avadel asserting infringement of that patent. The suit alleges that the filing of Avadel’s application for approval of FT218 is an act of infringement, and that Avadel’s product would infringe the patent if launched. The suit seeks an injunction to prevent Avadel from launching a product that would infringe the patent, and an award of damages if Avadel does launch an infringing product. Avadel filed an answer to the complaint and counterclaims asserting that the patent is invalid, that its product would not infringe, and that by listing the patent in the Orange Book, we engaged in unlawful monopolization in violation of the Sherman Act. On December 9, 2022, we filed a motion to dismiss Avadel’s counterclaims. On June 29, 2023, we filed a motion seeking leave to supplement our motion to dismiss, as well as a motion to stay discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. As noted above, on March 3, 2023, we and Avadel stipulated to the dismissal without prejudice of the claims and counterclaims related to infringement and validity of the delisted patent. On November 1, 2023, the Court held a claim construction hearing relating to disputed terms in the asserted patents. On December 15, 2023, the Court issued a written opinion and order resolving the parties’ remaining claim construction disputes. On November 20, 2023, we and Avadel each filed motions for summary judgment. On February 14, 2024, the Court issued a written opinion and order denying both parties’ motions for summary judgment. Trial regarding our patent infringement claims against Avadel began on February 26, 2024, and concluded on March 4, 2024, with the jury finding both of our asserted patents valid, and awarding us damages for infringement for Avadel’s past sales of Lumryz. On April 12, 2024, we filed a motion for a permanent injunction and ongoing royalties. On August 27, 2024, the Court granted our motion for an injunction in part, and requested additional briefing about ongoing royalties. The issued injunction prevents Avadel from seeking FDA approval or marketing Lumryz for the treatment of idiopathic hypersomnia or other indications not already a part of Lumryz’s product labeling as of March 4, 2024, and enjoins Avadel from infringing in any way Claim 24 of our ’782 patent by making, using or selling Lumryz through and including the February 2036 expiration date of the ’782 patent, subject to certain exclusions including, among other things (i) for the treatment of narcolepsy, (ii) for the treatment of patients who have been prescribed Lumryz as of the effective date of the injunction conditioned on the payment of an amount to be determined and (iii) in clinical trials and studies ongoing as of the effective date of the injunction. The Court also granted our motion for an ongoing royalty for any future sale of Lumryz to patients with narcolepsy at a rate to be determined based upon further briefing by the parties on the appropriate ongoing rate above 3.5%. Avadel appealed this injunction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit held oral argument on this appeal on February 7, 2025, and on May 6, 2025, published its opinion in which it reversed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the Federal Circuit’s opinion. The Court scheduled a trial regarding Avadel’s counterclaims for unlawful monopolization for November 3, 2025 and a trial regarding Avadel’s trade secret misappropriation claims for December 15, 2025. On March 13, 2024 and March 19, 2024, we filed motions to stay Avadel’s unlawful monopolization counterclaim and trade secret claims, respectively, pending resolution of post-trial motions and potential appeals in the patent infringement suit. On May 24, 2024, the Court denied the motion to stay the unlawful monopolization counterclaim and the previously-filed motion to dismiss the same. On June 7, 2024, we filed a motion for reargument or, in the alternative, to certify the decision for interlocutory appeal. That motion remains pending and no hearing date has been set. The Court stayed Avadel’s trade secret misappropriation claims pending appeal of the injunction in the related patent matter. We filed a further motion to stay the unlawful monopolization counterclaims, which remains pending. On July 21, 2022, Avadel filed a lawsuit against FDA in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging FDA’s determination that Avadel was required to file a paragraph IV certification regarding one of our Orange Book listed patents. Avadel filed a motion for preliminary injunction or, in the alternative, summary judgment, seeking relief including a declaration that FDA’s decision requiring patent certification was unlawful, an order setting aside that decision, an injunction prohibiting FDA from requiring such certification as a precondition to approval of its application for FT218, and an order requiring FDA to take final action on Avadel’s application for approval of FT218 within 14 days of the Court’s ruling. On July 27, 2022, we filed a motion to intervene in that case, which the Court granted. The Court held a hearing on the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment on October 7, 2022. On November 3, 2022, the Court granted our and FDA’s motions for summary judgment and denied Avadel’s motion. From December 2024 through April 2025, Avadel filed a series of patent infringement suits against us in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The suits allege that Jazz’s sales of Xywav infringe on certain newly-issued Avadel patents, and Avadel seeks an award of monetary damages. We have not yet responded to these lawsuits. Xywav Patent Litigation In June 2021, we received notice from Lupin, that it has filed with FDA an ANDA, for a generic version of Xywav. The notice from Lupin included a paragraph IV certification with respect to ten of our patents listed in FDA’s Orange Book for Xywav on the date of our receipt of the notice. The asserted patents relate generally to the composition and method of use of Xywav, and methods of treatment when Xywav is administered concomitantly with certain other medications. In July 2021, we filed a patent infringement suit against Lupin in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges that by filing its ANDA, Lupin has infringed ten of our Orange Book listed patents. We are seeking a permanent injunction to prevent Lupin from introducing a generic version of Xywav that would infringe our patents. As a result of this lawsuit, we expect that a stay of approval of up to 30 months will be imposed by FDA on Lupin's ANDA. In June 2021, FDA recognized seven years of Orphan Drug Exclusivity for Xywav through July 21, 2027. On October 4, 2021, Lupin filed an answer to the complaint and counterclaims asserting that the patents are invalid or not enforceable, and that its product, if approved, will not infringe our patents. In April 2022, we received notice from Lupin that it had filed a paragraph IV certification regarding a newly-issued patent listed in the Orange Book for Xywav. On May 11, 2022, we filed an additional lawsuit against Lupin in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that by filing its ANDA, Lupin infringed the newly-issued patent related to a method of treatment when Xywav is administered concomitantly with certain other medications. The suit seeks a permanent injunction to prevent Lupin from introducing a generic version of Xywav that would infringe our patent. On June 22, 2022, the Court consolidated the two lawsuits we filed against Lupin. In November 2022, we received notice from Lupin that it had filed a paragraph IV certification regarding a newly-issued patent listed in the Orange Book for Xywav. On January 19, 2023, we filed an additional lawsuit against Lupin in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that by filing its ANDA, Lupin infringed the newly-issued patent referenced in its November 2022 paragraph IV certification, as well as another patent that issued in January 2023. The suit seeks a permanent injunction to prevent Lupin from introducing a generic version of Xywav that would infringe the two patents in suit. On February 15, 2023, the Court consolidated the new lawsuit with the two suits we previously filed against Lupin. No trial date has been set in the consolidated case against Lupin. In February 2023, we received notice from Teva that it had filed with FDA an ANDA for a generic version of Xywav. The notice from Teva included a paragraph IV certification with respect to thirteen of our patents listed in FDA’s Orange Book for Xywav on the date of the receipt of the notice. The asserted patents relate generally to the composition and method of use of Xywav, and methods of treatment when Xywav is administered concomitantly with certain other medications. In March 2023, we filed a patent infringement suit against Teva in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges that by filing its ANDA, Teva has infringed thirteen of our Orange Book listed patents. We are seeking a permanent injunction to prevent Teva from introducing a generic version of Xywav that would infringe our patents. As a result of this lawsuit, we expect that a stay of approval of up to 30 months will be imposed by FDA on Teva’s ANDA. On May 23, 2023, Teva filed an answer to the complaint and counterclaims asserting that the patents are invalid or not enforceable, and that its product, if approved, will not infringe our patents. On December 15, 2023, based on a stipulation between all parties, the Court consolidated the Lupin lawsuits and the Teva lawsuit for all purposes. No trial date has been set in the consolidated case. In July 2024, we received notices from Lupin and Teva that they had each filed a paragraph IV certification regarding a newly-issued patent listed in the Orange Book for Xywav. On August 27, 2024, we filed an additional lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against each of Lupin and Teva, alleging that, by filing its ANDA, each party infringed the newly-issued patent related to a method of treatment using Xywav. The suits seek orders that the effective date of FDA approval of each defendant’s application shall be a date no earlier than the expiration of the newly-issued patent. Epidiolex Patent Litigation In November and December 2022, we received notices from the Epidiolex ANDA Filers, that they have each filed with FDA an ANDA for a generic version of Epidiolex (cannabidiol) oral solution. As of the date of this filing, we are not aware of other ANDA filers. The notices from the Epidiolex ANDA Filers each included a “paragraph IV certification” with respect to certain of our patents listed in FDA’s Orange Book for Epidiolex on the date of the receipt of the notice. The listed patents relate generally to the composition and method of use of Epidiolex, and methods of treatment using Epidiolex. A paragraph IV certification is a certification by a generic applicant that alleges that patents covering the branded product are invalid, unenforceable, and/or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use or sale of the generic product. On January 3, 2023, we filed a patent infringement suit against the Epidiolex ANDA Filers in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges that by filing their ANDAs, the Epidiolex ANDA Filers have infringed certain of our Orange Book listed patents, and seeks an order that the effective date of FDA approval of the ANDAs shall be a date no earlier than the expiration of the last to expire of the asserted patents. As a result of this lawsuit, we expect that a stay of approval of up to 30 months will be imposed by FDA on the Epidiolex ANDA Filers’ ANDAs. From March 2023 through May 2023, we received the Epidiolex ANDA Filers’ answers to the complaint. The answers include defenses and counterclaims asserting that the Epidiolex ANDA Filers’ products, if launched, would not infringe our patents, that our patents are invalid and, in one instance, counterclaims related to allegations of inequitable conduct and improper listing of patents in the Orange Book. On May 25, 2023, we filed a motion to dismiss certain of the counterclaims. On January 11, 2024, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part our motion to dismiss. On September 20, 2024, the Court held a claim construction hearing relating to disputed terms in the asserted patents. The Court has not yet issued a decision on the claim construction disputes. The Court in the Epidiolex Patent Litigation scheduled trial for September 2025. In June and July 2023, we received notice from certain of the Epidiolex ANDA Filers that they had each filed a paragraph IV certification regarding a newly-issued patent listed in the Orange Book for Epidiolex. On July 21, 2023, we filed an additional lawsuit against all of the Epidiolex ANDA Filers in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that, by filing its ANDA, each Epidiolex ANDA Filer infringed the newly-issued patent related to a method of treatment using Epidiolex. The suit seeks an order that the effective date of FDA approval of each Epidiolex ANDA Filer’s application shall be a date no earlier than the expiration of the newly-issued patent. In September and October 2023, we received notice from certain of the Epidiolex ANDA Filers that they had each filed a paragraph IV certification regarding one or more newly-issued patents listed in the Orange Book for Epidiolex. On December 15, 2023, we filed an additional lawsuit against seven of the original Epidiolex ANDA Filers with whom we have not previously settled. We filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that, by filing its ANDA, each Epidiolex ANDA Filer infringed the newly-issued patents related to methods of treatment using Epidiolex. The suit seeks an order that the effective date of FDA approval of each Epidiolex ANDA Filer’s application shall be a date no earlier than the expiration of the newly-issued patents. In March and April 2024, we received notice from certain of the Epidiolex ANDA Filers that they had each filed a paragraph IV certification regarding one or more newly-issued patents listed in the Orange Book for Epidiolex. On July 3, 2024, we filed an additional lawsuit against six of the original Epidiolex ANDA Filers with whom we had not previously settled. We filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that, by filing its ANDA, each Epidiolex ANDA Filer infringed the newly-issued patents related to methods of treatment using Epidiolex. The suit seeks an order that the effective date of FDA approval of each Epidiolex ANDA Filer’s application shall be a date no earlier than the expiration of the newly-issued patents. From October 2023 through January 2025, we entered into settlement agreements with each of the Epidiolex ANDA Filers that resolved our patent litigation with them related to Epidiolex. Under the settlement agreements, we granted each of the Epidiolex ANDA Filers a license to manufacture, market, and sell its own generic version of Epidiolex beginning in the very late 2030s, or earlier under certain circumstances, including but not limited to the launch of another generic Epidiolex product or a final decision that all unexpired claims of the Epidiolex patents are not infringed, or are invalid and/or unenforceable. Zepzelca Patent Litigation In July and August 2024, we received notices from the Zepzelca ANDA Filers that they have each filed with FDA an ANDA for a generic version of Zepzelca (lurbinectedin). As of the date of this filing, we are not aware of other ANDA filers. The notices from the Zepzelca ANDA Filers each included a paragraph IV certification with respect to a patent listed in the Orange Book for Zepzelca on the date of the receipt of the notice. The listed patent relates to the drug substance, drug product and approved use of Zepzelca. Jazz is the exclusive licensee to this Zepzelca patent pursuant to an agreement with PharmaMar. A paragraph IV certification is a certification by a generic applicant that alleges that the patent covering the branded product is invalid, unenforceable, and/or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use or sale of the generic product. On September 11, 2024, we and PharmaMar filed a patent infringement suit against the Zepzelca ANDA Filers in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges that by filing their ANDAs, the Zepzelca ANDA Filers have infringed the Orange Book listed patent for Zepzelca, and seeks an order that the effective date of FDA approval of the ANDAs shall be a date no earlier than the expiration of the asserted patent. In December 2024, we received the Zepzelca ANDA Filers’ answers to the complaint. The answers include defenses and counterclaims asserting that the Zepzelca ANDA Filers’ products, if launched, would not infringe our patents and that our patents are invalid. No trial date has been set in this matter. On March 26, 2025, we and Sandoz stipulated to the dismissal of our lawsuit against Sandoz without prejudice. On September 12, 2024, we and PharmaMar filed a patent infringement suit against RK Pharma, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges that by filing its ANDA, RK Pharma has infringed the Orange Book listed patent for Zepzelca, and seeks an order that the effective date of FDA approval of RK Pharma’s ANDA shall be no earlier than the expiration of the asserted patent. On November 13, 2024, we voluntarily dismissed this action against RK Pharma in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. RK Pharma remains a defendant in the litigation referenced above in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Defitelio Patent Litigation In March 2025, we received a notice from Almaject that it had filed with FDA an ANDA for a generic version of Defitelio (defibrotide sodium). The notice from Almaject included a paragraph IV certification respect to certain of our patents listed in FDA’s Orange Book for Defitelio on the date of the notice. The listed patents relate generally to the Defitelio drug product and its approved use. On April 16, 2025, we filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Almaject in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges that by filing its ANDA, Almaject has infringed certain of our Orange Book listed patents, and seeks an order that the effective date of FDA approval for the Almaject ANDA shall be on a date no earlier than the expiration of the last to expire of the asserted patents. As a result of this lawsuit, we expect that a stay of approval of up to 30 months will be imposed by FDA on Almaject’s ANDA. FDA Litigation On June 22, 2023, we filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia seeking a declaration that FDA’s approval on May 1, 2023, of the NDA for Avadel's Lumryz was unlawful. In the complaint, we alleged that FDA acted outside its authority under the Orphan Drug Act, when, despite ODE protecting Jazz’s low-sodium oxybate product Xywav, FDA approved the Lumryz NDA and granted Lumryz ODE based on FDA’s finding that Lumryz makes a major contribution to patient care and is therefore clinically superior to Xywav and Xyrem. Jazz further alleged that, in doing so, FDA failed to follow its own regulations, failed to follow established agency policy without providing a reasoned explanation for the departure, reversed prior decisions by its own staff and experts without a reasoned explanation, and disregarded the relevant scientific literature and data. The complaint, filed pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, asked the Court to vacate and set aside FDA’s approval of the Lumryz NDA and sought a declaration that FDA’s approval of the Lumryz NDA was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and otherwise not in accordance with law and that approval of the Lumryz NDA was in excess of FDA’s statutory authority and was made without observance of procedure required by law. On September 15, 2023, we filed a motion for summary judgment. On October 20, 2023, Avadel and FDA filed cross motions for summary judgment. Oral argument on these motions was held on May 10, 2024 and on October 30, 2024, the District Court issued an order denying Jazz’s motion for summary judgment and granting Avadel’s and FDA’s cross-motions for summary judgment. Jazz respectfully disagrees with the Court’s decision and is appealing the matter to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. We filed our opening appeal brief on January 31, 2025. The appeal is fully briefed and the D.C. Circuit held oral argument on the appeal on May 5, 2025, but has not yet issued a decision. Qui tam matter In July 2022, we received a subpoena from the USAO for the District of Massachusetts requesting documents related to Xyrem and U.S. Patent No. 8,772,306 (“Method of Administration of Gamma Hydroxybutyrate with Monocarboxylate Transporters”), product labeling changes for Xyrem, communications with FDA and the USPTO, pricing of Xyrem, and other related documents. On July 18, 2024, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts unsealed a qui tam whistleblower lawsuit underlying the USAO’s subpoena, captioned 1:21-cv-10891-PBS and originally filed under seal on May 27, 2021. The public docket in this matter indicates that on May 24 and June 7, 2024, respectively, the United States and a number of states named in the whistleblower complaint declined to intervene in this matter. As such, private whistleblower litigation will proceed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The Court set a deadline of September 1, 2024, for the plaintiff to file an amended complaint, and December 2, 2024, for us to file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The p laintiff filed the amended complaint on September 1, 2024. We filed our motion to dismiss on December 2, 2024. The Court held oral argument on the motion to dismiss on April 2, 2025. From time to time, we are involved in legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. We believe there is no other litigation pending that could have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition. Chimerix Acquisition Litigation On March 21, 2025, Chimerix filed a Recommendation Statement with the SEC in relation to the proposed acquisition of Chimerix by Jazz. Also on March 21, 2025, Jazz disseminated a Tender Offer Statement to Chimerix shareholders in relation to the proposed transaction. Following filing of the filing and dissemination of the Tender Offer Documents, Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc, its subsidiary Pinetree Acquisition Sub, Inc., Chimerix Inc., the Chimerix Board of Directors, Centerview Partners LLC, were named as a defendants in the Rosenthal Lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Chemung. In addition to the Rosenthal Lawsuit, the Chimerix Shareholder Litigation was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. Collectively, in the Chimerix Transaction Litigation, the plaintiffs alleged that the Tender Offer Documents omitted material information and contained misrepresentations, in violation of various New York and North Carolina laws. The plaintiffs in the Chimerix Transaction Litigation sought various remedies, including injunctive relief to prevent the consummation of the Chimerix Acquisition unless certain allegedly material information was disclosed, or in the alternative, rescission or damages. On April 7, 2025, Chimerix filed an amended Recommendation Statement and Jazz filed an amended Tender Offer Document, each containing supplemental disclosures related to the Chimerix Acquisition. Pursuant to a memorandum of understanding between the parties, the Rosenthal Lawsuit was dismissed on April 7, 2025. Jazz does not believe any of its or Chimerix’s supplemental disclosures were material or required by law and further believes that the claims in the Chimerix Transaction Litigation are meritless. Jazz will continue to defend itself in the remaining Chimerix Transaction Litigation.

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

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 405 -SubTopic 30 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/405-30/tableOfContent Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/450/tableOfContent Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147478522/954-440-50-1 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 6: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration