Legal Proceedings	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2024
Legal Proceedings
Legal Proceedings	14. Legal Proceedings YUTREPIA-Related Litigation In June 2020, United Therapeutics filed a complaint for patent infringement against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:20 cv 00755 RGA) (the “Original Hatch-Waxman Litigation”), asserting infringement by the Company of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,604,901, entitled “Process to Prepare Treprostinil, the Active Ingredient in Remodulin®” (the “‘901 Patent”), and 9,593,066, entitled “Process to Prepare Treprostinil, the Active Ingredient in Remodulin®” (the “‘066 Patent”), relating to United Therapeutics’ Tyvaso®, a nebulized treprostinil solution for the treatment of PAH. United Therapeutics’ complaint was in response to the Company’s NDA for YUTREPIA, filed with the FDA, requesting approval to market YUTREPIA, a dry powder formulation of treprostinil for the treatment of PAH. The YUTREPIA NDA was filed under the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway with Tyvaso® as the reference listed drug. In July 2020, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) issued U.S. Patent No. 10,716,793 (the “‘793 Patent”), entitled “Treprostinil Administration by Inhalation”, to United Therapeutics. In July 2020, United Therapeutics filed an amended complaint in the Original Hatch-Waxman Litigation asserting infringement of the ‘793 Patent by the practice of YUTREPIA. In June 2021, the Court held a claim construction hearing. Based on the Court’s construction of the claim terms, United Therapeutics filed a stipulation of partial judgment with respect to the ‘901 Patent in December 2021 under which United Therapeutics agreed to the entry of judgment of the Company’s non-infringement of the ’901 Patent. United Therapeutics did not file an appeal with respect to the ‘901 Patent. Trial proceedings in the Original Hatch-Waxman Litigation were held in March 2022. In August 2022, Judge Andrews, who was presiding over the Original Hatch-Waxman Litigation, issued an opinion that claims 1, 2, 3, 6 and 9 of the ‘066 Patent were invalid, that the remaining asserted claims of the ‘066 Patent were not infringed by the Company, and that all of the asserted claims of the ‘793 Patent were both valid and infringed by the Company, based on the arguments presented by the Company in the Original Hatch-Waxman Litigation. In September 2022, Judge Andrews entered a final judgment in the Original Hatch-Waxman Litigation that incorporated the findings from his opinion and ordered that the effective date of any final approval by the FDA of YUTREPIA shall be a date which is not earlier than the expiration date of the ’793 Patent, which will be in 2027. Both the Company and United Therapeutics appealed Judge Andrews’ decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On July 24, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed Judge Andrews’ decision with respect to both the ‘066 patent and the ‘793 patent. In March 2020, the Company filed a petition for inter partes review with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “PTAB”) of the USPTO with respect to the ‘901 Patent, seeking a determination that the claims in the ‘901 Patent are invalid. In October 2021, the PTAB issued a final written decision concluding that seven of the claims in the ‘901 patent were unpatentable, leaving only the narrower dependent claims 6 and 7, both of which require actual storage at ambient temperature of treprostinil sodium. In November 2021, United Therapeutics submitted a rehearing request with respect to the PTAB’s decision in the inter partes review of the ‘901 Patent. The rehearing request was denied in June 2022. In August 2022, United Therapeutics appealed the decision of the PTAB with respect to the ‘901 Patent to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Oral argument was held in February 2024, and the appeal remains pending. In January 2021, the Company filed a petition for inter partes review with the PTAB relating to the ‘793 Patent, seeking a determination that the claims in the ‘793 Patent are invalid. In July 2022, the PTAB ruled in the Company’s favor, concluding that based on the preponderance of the evidence, all the claims of the ’793 Patent have been shown to be unpatentable. In August 2022, United Therapeutics submitted a rehearing request with respect to the PTAB’s decision in the inter partes review of the ‘793 Patent. The rehearing request was denied in February 2023. In April 2023, United Therapeutics appealed the decision of the PTAB with respect to the ‘793 Patent to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In December 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the earlier decision by the PTAB, which found all claims of the ‘793 Patent to be unpatentable due to the existence of prior art cited by us in inter partes review proceedings. In January 2024, United Therapeutics filed a request for rehearing of the decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The request for rehearing was denied in March 2024. United Therapeutics has publicly stated that it plans to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to seek an appeal with the United States Supreme Court, but no such petition has been filed to date. As a result of this decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit with respect to the invalidity of the ‘793 Patent, in December 2023, the Company filed a motion for Judge Andrews to set aside the injunction he issued in the Original Hatch-Waxman Litigation. The motion was granted in March 2024, and the injunction on final approval by the FDA of YUTREPIA was set aside. United Therapeutics has appealed Judge Andrews’ decision to set aside the injunction to the Federal Circuit. In connection with an amendment to our NDA filed in July 2023 to add PH-ILD as an indication for YUTREPIA, the Company provided a new notice of the paragraph IV certification to United Therapeutics as the owner of the patents that are the subject of the certification to which the NDA for YUTREPIA refers. As a result, in September 2023, United Therapeutics filed a second complaint for patent infringement against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:23-cv-00975-RGA) (the “New Hatch-Waxman Litigation”), again asserting infringement by the Company of the ‘793 Patent. In November 2023, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the USPTO) issued U.S. Patent No. 11,826,327, or the ‘327 Patent, entitled “Treatment for Interstitial Lung Disease”, to United Therapeutics. On November 30, 2023, United Therapeutics filed an amended complaint in the New Hatch-Waxman Litigation asserting infringement of the ‘327 Patent by the practice of YUTREPIA based on the amended NDA. In January 2024, the Company filed an answer, counterclaims and a partial motion to dismiss the claims related to the ‘793 Patent as a result of the decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to affirm the PTAB’s finding that the ’793 patent is unpatentable. In February 2024, United Therapeutics stipulated to the dismissal of the claims in the New Hatch-Waxman Litigation related to the ‘793 Patent. In February 2024, United Therapeutics also filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent us from manufacturing, marketing, storing, importing, distributing, offering for sale, and/or selling YUTREPIA for the treatment of PH-ILD. Briefing on the motion is complete and a hearing on the motion was held in April 2024. The motion remains pending. FDA Litigation In February 2024, United Therapeutics filed a complaint against the FDA in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging the FDA’s acceptance of our amended NDA for review (the “FDA Litigation”). The Company intervened and became a party to the lawsuit in March 2024. In March 2024, United Therapeutics filed a motion for a temporary restraining order in the FDA Litigation, seeking to enjoin the FDA from approving our NDA for YUTREPIA with respect to the indication to treat PH-ILD. United Therapeutics’ motion was denied in March 2024. On May 7, 2024, both the Company and the FDA filed motions to dismiss United Therapeutics’ complaint. Briefing on the motions to dismiss is in progress. Trade Secret Litigation In December 2021, United Therapeutics filed a complaint in the Superior Court in Durham County, North Carolina, alleging that the Company and a former United Therapeutics employee, who later joined the Company as an employee many years after terminating his employment with United Therapeutics, conspired to misappropriate certain trade secrets of United Therapeutics and engaged in unfair or deceptive trade practices. In January 2024, our co-defendant in the lawsuit filed a motion to dismiss all claims. The motion has been briefed and remains pending, with a hearing on the motion scheduled for May 16, 2024. Fact discovery in the case has concluded, and expert discovery is in process. RareGen Litigation In April 2019, Sandoz and Liquidia PAH (then known as RareGen) filed a complaint against United Therapeutics and Smiths Medical in the District Court of New Jersey (Case No. No. 3:19 cv 10170), (the “RareGen Litigation”), alleging that United Therapeutics and Smiths Medical violated the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, state law antitrust statutes and unfair competition statutes by engaging in anticompetitive acts regarding the drug treprostinil for the treatment of PAH. In March 2020, Sandoz and Liquidia PAH filed a first amended complaint adding a claim that United Therapeutics breached a settlement agreement that was entered into in 2015, in which United Therapeutics agreed to not interfere with Sandoz’s efforts to launch its generic treprostinil, by taking calculated steps to restrict and interfere with the launch of Sandoz’s competing generic product. United Therapeutics developed treprostinil under the brand name Remodulin® and Smiths Medical manufactured a pump and cartridges that are used to inject treprostinil into patients continuously throughout the day. Sandoz and Liquidia PAH allege that United Therapeutics and Smiths Medical entered into anticompetitive agreements (i) whereby Smiths Medical placed restrictions on the cartridges such that they can only be used with United Therapeutics’ branded Remodulin® product and (ii) requiring Smiths Medical to enter into agreements with specialty pharmacies to sell the cartridges only for use with Remodulin®. In November 2020, Sandoz and Liquidia PAH entered into a binding term sheet (the “Term Sheet”) with Smiths Medical in order to resolve the outstanding RareGen Litigation solely with respect to disputes between Smiths Medical, Liquidia PAH and Sandoz. In April 2021, Liquidia PAH and Sandoz entered into a Long Form Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with Smiths Medical to further detail the terms of the settlement among such parties as reflected in the Term Sheet. Pursuant to the Term Sheet and the Settlement Agreement, the former RareGen members and Sandoz received a payment of $4.25 million that was evenly split between the parties. In addition, pursuant to the Term Sheet and Settlement Agreement, Smiths Medical disclosed and made available to Sandoz and Liquidia PAH certain specifications and other information related to the cartridge that Smiths Medical developed and manufactures for use with the CADD-MS 3 infusion pump (the “CADD-MS 3 Cartridge”). Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Smiths Medical also granted Liquidia PAH and Sandoz a non-exclusive, royalty-free license in the United States to Smiths Medical’s patents and copyrights associated with the CADD-MS 3 Cartridge and certain other information for use of the CADD-MS 3 pump and the CADD-MS 3 Cartridges. Smiths also agreed in the Settlement Agreement to provide information and assistance in support of Liquidia PAH’s efforts to receive FDA clearance for the RG 3ml Medication Cartridge (the “RG Cartridge”) and to continue to service certain CADD-MS 3 pumps that are available for use with the Treprostinil Injection through January 1, 2025. Liquidia PAH and Sandoz agreed, among other things, to indemnify Smiths from certain liabilities related to the RG Cartridge. In September 2021, United Therapeutics filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to all of the claims brought by Sandoz and Liquidia PAH against United Therapeutics. At the same time, Sandoz filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to the breach of contract claim. In March 2022, the Court issued an order granting partial summary judgment to United Therapeutics with respect to the antitrust and unfair competition claims, denying summary judgment to United Therapeutics with respect to the breach of contract claim, and granting partial summary judgment to Sandoz with respect to the breach of contract claim. A trial to determine the amount of damages due from United Therapeutics to Sandoz with respect to the breach of contract claim was held from late April to early May 2024. Closing arguments are scheduled for June 2024. Under the Promotion Agreement, all proceeds from the litigation will be divided evenly between Sandoz and Liquidia PAH. Under the litigation finance agreements that Liquidia PAH has entered into with Henderson and PBM, any net proceeds received by Liquidia PAH with respect to the RareGen Litigation will be divided between Henderson and PBM.

Legal Proceedings

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2024

14. Legal Proceedings

YUTREPIA-Related Litigation

In June 2020, United Therapeutics filed a complaint for patent infringement against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:20 cv 00755 RGA) (the “Original Hatch-Waxman Litigation”), asserting infringement by the Company of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,604,901, entitled “Process to Prepare Treprostinil, the Active Ingredient in Remodulin®” (the “‘901 Patent”), and 9,593,066, entitled “Process to Prepare Treprostinil, the Active Ingredient in Remodulin®” (the “‘066 Patent”), relating to United Therapeutics’ Tyvaso®, a nebulized treprostinil solution for the treatment of PAH. United Therapeutics’ complaint was in response to the Company’s NDA for YUTREPIA, filed with the FDA, requesting approval to market YUTREPIA, a dry powder formulation of treprostinil for the treatment of PAH. The YUTREPIA NDA was filed under the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway with Tyvaso® as the reference listed drug.

In July 2020, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) issued U.S. Patent No. 10,716,793 (the “‘793 Patent”), entitled “Treprostinil Administration by Inhalation”, to United Therapeutics. In July 2020, United Therapeutics filed an amended complaint in the Original Hatch-Waxman Litigation asserting infringement of the ‘793 Patent by the practice of YUTREPIA.

In June 2021, the Court held a claim construction hearing. Based on the Court’s construction of the claim terms, United Therapeutics filed a stipulation of partial judgment with respect to the ‘901 Patent in December 2021 under which United Therapeutics agreed to the entry of judgment of the Company’s non-infringement of the ’901 Patent. United Therapeutics did not file an appeal with respect to the ‘901 Patent.

Trial proceedings in the Original Hatch-Waxman Litigation were held in March 2022. In August 2022, Judge Andrews, who was presiding over the Original Hatch-Waxman Litigation, issued an opinion that claims 1, 2, 3, 6 and 9 of the ‘066 Patent were invalid, that the remaining asserted claims of the ‘066 Patent were not infringed by the Company, and that all of the asserted claims of the ‘793 Patent were both valid and infringed by the Company, based on the arguments presented by the Company in the Original Hatch-Waxman Litigation. In September 2022, Judge Andrews entered a final judgment in the Original Hatch-Waxman Litigation that incorporated the findings from his opinion and ordered that the effective date of any final approval by the FDA of YUTREPIA shall be a date which is not earlier than the expiration date of the ’793 Patent, which will be in 2027. Both the Company and United Therapeutics appealed Judge Andrews’ decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On July 24, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed Judge Andrews’ decision with respect to both the ‘066 patent and the ‘793 patent.

In March 2020, the Company filed a petition for inter partes review with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “PTAB”) of the USPTO with respect to the ‘901 Patent, seeking a determination that the claims in the ‘901 Patent are invalid. In October 2021, the PTAB issued a final written decision concluding that seven of the claims in the ‘901 patent were unpatentable, leaving only the narrower dependent claims 6 and 7, both of which require actual storage at ambient

temperature of treprostinil sodium. In November 2021, United Therapeutics submitted a rehearing request with respect to the PTAB’s decision in the inter partes review of the ‘901 Patent. The rehearing request was denied in June 2022. In August 2022, United Therapeutics appealed the decision of the PTAB with respect to the ‘901 Patent to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Oral argument was held in February 2024, and the appeal remains pending.

In January 2021, the Company filed a petition for inter partes review with the PTAB relating to the ‘793 Patent, seeking a determination that the claims in the ‘793 Patent are invalid. In July 2022, the PTAB ruled in the Company’s favor, concluding that based on the preponderance of the evidence, all the claims of the ’793 Patent have been shown to be unpatentable. In August 2022, United Therapeutics submitted a rehearing request with respect to the PTAB’s decision in the inter partes review of the ‘793 Patent. The rehearing request was denied in February 2023. In April 2023, United Therapeutics appealed the decision of the PTAB with respect to the ‘793 Patent to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In December 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the earlier decision by the PTAB, which found all claims of the ‘793 Patent to be unpatentable due to the existence of prior art cited by us in inter partes review proceedings. In January 2024, United Therapeutics filed a request for rehearing of the decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The request for rehearing was denied in March 2024. United Therapeutics has publicly stated that it plans to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to seek an appeal with the United States Supreme Court, but no such petition has been filed to date.

As a result of this decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit with respect to the invalidity of the ‘793 Patent, in December 2023, the Company filed a motion for Judge Andrews to set aside the injunction he issued in the Original Hatch-Waxman Litigation. The motion was granted in March 2024, and the injunction on final approval by the FDA of YUTREPIA was set aside. United Therapeutics has appealed Judge Andrews’ decision to set aside the injunction to the Federal Circuit.

In connection with an amendment to our NDA filed in July 2023 to add PH-ILD as an indication for YUTREPIA, the Company provided a new notice of the paragraph IV certification to United Therapeutics as the owner of the patents that are the subject of the certification to which the NDA for YUTREPIA refers. As a result, in September 2023, United Therapeutics filed a second complaint for patent infringement against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:23-cv-00975-RGA) (the “New Hatch-Waxman Litigation”), again asserting infringement by the Company of the ‘793 Patent. In November 2023, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the USPTO) issued U.S. Patent No. 11,826,327, or the ‘327 Patent, entitled “Treatment for Interstitial Lung Disease”, to United Therapeutics. On November 30, 2023, United Therapeutics filed an amended complaint in the New Hatch-Waxman Litigation asserting infringement of the ‘327 Patent by the practice of YUTREPIA based on the amended NDA. In January 2024, the Company filed an answer, counterclaims and a partial motion to dismiss the claims related to the ‘793 Patent as a result of the decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to affirm the PTAB’s finding that the ’793 patent is unpatentable. In February 2024, United Therapeutics stipulated to the dismissal of the claims in the New Hatch-Waxman Litigation related to the ‘793 Patent. In February 2024, United Therapeutics also filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent us from manufacturing, marketing, storing, importing, distributing, offering for sale, and/or selling YUTREPIA for the treatment of PH-ILD. Briefing on the motion is complete and a hearing on the motion was held in April 2024. The motion remains pending.

FDA Litigation

In February 2024, United Therapeutics filed a complaint against the FDA in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging the FDA’s acceptance of our amended NDA for review (the “FDA Litigation”). The Company intervened and became a party to the lawsuit in March 2024. In March 2024, United Therapeutics filed a motion for a temporary restraining order in the FDA Litigation, seeking to enjoin the FDA from approving our NDA for YUTREPIA with respect to the indication to treat PH-ILD. United Therapeutics’ motion was denied in March 2024. On May 7, 2024, both the Company and the FDA filed motions to dismiss United Therapeutics’ complaint. Briefing on the motions to dismiss is in progress.

Trade Secret Litigation

In December 2021, United Therapeutics filed a complaint in the Superior Court in Durham County, North Carolina, alleging that the Company and a former United Therapeutics employee, who later joined the Company as an employee many years after terminating his employment with United Therapeutics, conspired to misappropriate certain trade secrets of United Therapeutics and engaged in unfair or deceptive trade practices. In January 2024, our co-defendant in the lawsuit filed a motion to dismiss all claims. The motion has been briefed and remains pending, with a hearing on the motion scheduled for May 16, 2024. Fact discovery in the case has concluded, and expert discovery is in process.

RareGen Litigation

In April 2019, Sandoz and Liquidia PAH (then known as RareGen) filed a complaint against United Therapeutics and Smiths Medical in the District Court of New Jersey (Case No. No. 3:19 cv 10170), (the “RareGen Litigation”), alleging that United Therapeutics and Smiths Medical violated the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, state law antitrust statutes and unfair competition statutes by engaging in anticompetitive acts regarding the drug treprostinil for the treatment of PAH. In March 2020, Sandoz and Liquidia PAH filed a first amended complaint adding a claim that United Therapeutics breached a settlement agreement that was entered into in 2015, in which United Therapeutics agreed to not interfere with Sandoz’s efforts to launch its generic treprostinil, by taking calculated steps to restrict and interfere with the launch of Sandoz’s competing generic product. United Therapeutics developed treprostinil under the brand name Remodulin® and Smiths Medical manufactured a pump and cartridges that are used to inject treprostinil into patients continuously throughout the day. Sandoz and Liquidia PAH allege that United Therapeutics and Smiths Medical entered into anticompetitive agreements (i) whereby Smiths Medical placed restrictions on the cartridges such that they can only be used with United Therapeutics’ branded Remodulin® product and (ii) requiring Smiths Medical to enter into agreements with specialty pharmacies to sell the cartridges only for use with Remodulin®.

In November 2020, Sandoz and Liquidia PAH entered into a binding term sheet (the “Term Sheet”) with Smiths Medical in order to resolve the outstanding RareGen Litigation solely with respect to disputes between Smiths Medical, Liquidia PAH and Sandoz. In April 2021, Liquidia PAH and Sandoz entered into a Long Form Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with Smiths Medical to further detail the terms of the settlement among such parties as reflected in the Term Sheet. Pursuant to the Term Sheet and the Settlement Agreement, the former RareGen members and Sandoz received a payment of $4.25 million that was evenly split between the parties. In addition, pursuant to the Term Sheet and Settlement Agreement, Smiths Medical disclosed and made available to Sandoz and Liquidia PAH certain specifications and other information related to the cartridge that Smiths Medical developed and manufactures for use with the CADD-MS 3 infusion pump (the “CADD-MS 3 Cartridge”). Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Smiths Medical also granted Liquidia PAH and Sandoz a non-exclusive, royalty-free license in the United States to Smiths Medical’s patents and copyrights associated with the CADD-MS 3 Cartridge and certain other information for use of the CADD-MS 3 pump and the CADD-MS 3 Cartridges. Smiths also agreed in the Settlement Agreement to provide information and assistance in support of Liquidia PAH’s efforts to receive FDA clearance for the RG 3ml Medication Cartridge (the “RG Cartridge”) and to continue to service certain CADD-MS 3 pumps that are available for use with the Treprostinil Injection through January 1, 2025. Liquidia PAH and Sandoz agreed, among other things, to indemnify Smiths from certain liabilities related to the RG Cartridge.

In September 2021, United Therapeutics filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to all of the claims brought by Sandoz and Liquidia PAH against United Therapeutics. At the same time, Sandoz filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to the breach of contract claim. In March 2022, the Court issued an order granting partial summary judgment to United Therapeutics with respect to the antitrust and unfair competition claims, denying summary judgment to United Therapeutics with respect to the breach of contract claim, and granting partial summary judgment to Sandoz with respect to the breach of contract claim. A trial to determine the amount of damages due from United Therapeutics to Sandoz with respect to the breach of contract claim was held from late April to early May 2024. Closing arguments are scheduled for June 2024.

Under the Promotion Agreement, all proceeds from the litigation will be divided evenly between Sandoz and Liquidia PAH. Under the litigation finance agreements that Liquidia PAH has entered into with Henderson and PBM, any net

proceeds received by Liquidia PAH with respect to the RareGen Litigation will be divided between Henderson and PBM.