XML 35 R20.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.24.3

Legal Proceedings | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2024
Legal Proceedings |
Legal Proceedings | 14. Legal Proceedings YUTREPIA-Related Litigation In 2020, United Therapeutics filed a complaint for patent infringement against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (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”), 9,593,066, entitled “Process to Prepare Treprostinil, the Active Ingredient in Remodulin®” (the “‘066 Patent”), and 10,716,793, entitled “Treprostinil Administration by Inhalation” (the “‘793 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 December 2021, United Therapeutics filed a stipulation of partial judgment with respect to the ‘901 Patent under which United Therapeutics agreed to the entry of judgment of the Company’s non-infringement of the ’901 Patent. 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. In January 2021, the Company filed a petition for inter partes review with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (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. These decisions related to the ‘901 Patent, the ‘066 Patent and the ‘793 Patent have all been affirmed on appeal and are not subject to further appeal. In connection with an amendment to the Company’s 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 the Company 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 the Company from manufacturing, marketing, storing, importing, distributing, offering for sale, and/or selling YUTREPIA for the treatment of PH-ILD. Judge Andrews denied the motion for a preliminary injunction in May 2024. Discovery in the case remains ongoing. FDA Litigation In February 2024, United Therapeutics filed a complaint against the FDA in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (the “D.C. District Court”), challenging the FDA’s acceptance of the Company’s amended NDA for review (the “Original 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 and preliminary injunction in the FDA Litigation, seeking to enjoin the FDA from approving the Company’s NDA for YUTREPIA with respect to the indication to treat PH-ILD. United Therapeutics’ motion was denied in March 2024. On August 20, 2024, United Therapeutics voluntarily dismissed its complaint, without prejudice. On August 21, 2024, the Company filed a lawsuit in the D.C. District Court to challenge the decision by the FDA to grant three-year regulatory exclusivity to Tyvaso DPI (the “New FDA Litigation”). The D.C. District Court has granted the parties’ motion for an expedited summary judgment briefing schedule, with briefing to be completed on or before November 15, 2024 and a summary judgment hearing scheduled for December 5, 2024. On September 16, 2024, United Therapeutics filed a cross claim in the New FDA Litigation, re-asserting its challenge to FDA’s acceptance of the Company’s amended NDA for review. The Company intervened and became a party with respect to the cross claim on November 5, 2024. United Therapeutics has filed a motion for an expedited summary judgment briefing schedule for its cross claim. That motion remains pending. 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 Robert Roscigno (“Dr. Roscigno”) 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, Dr. Roscigno filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to all claims, but the motion was denied in July 2024. In addition, in July 2024, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to all claims. A hearing on the Company’s motion for summary judgment has been scheduled for December 19, 2024. In May 2024, United Therapeutics filed a second complaint in the Superior Court in Durham County, North Carolina, against Dr. Roscigno, alleging that he breached prior employment agreements with United Therapeutics by failing to assign to United Therapeutics his interest in patents obtained by the Company that relied upon or benefitted from certain inventions, discoveries, materials, authorship, derivatives and results developed by Dr. Roscigno while he was employed by United Therapeutics. The Company was also named as a defendant in this new lawsuit. As part of the lawsuit, United Therapeutics alleges that Dr. Roscigno misappropriated certain intellectual property of United Therapeutics which led to the development of YUTREPIA. The complaint also seeks declaratory judgement such that all right, title and interest in and to any patentable or unpatentable inventions, discoveries, and ideas made or conceived by Dr. Roscigno while employed by the Company should be assigned and transferred to United Therapeutics because they involved the use of United Therapeutics’ confidential information. On July 30, 2024, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all claims. A hearing on the Company’s motion to dismiss has been scheduled for December 19, 2024. ​ RareGen Litigation In April 2019, Sandoz and Liquidia PAH (then known as RareGen) filed a complaint against United Therapeutics and Smiths Medical (now ICU 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, and closing arguments were held in June 2024. On November 1, 2024, the Court entered a judgment in the amount of $70.6 million. United Therapeutics has filed a notice of its intent to appeal the decision. ​ 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. ​

X
- Definition Legal Proceedings Disclosure [Abstract] + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | lqda_LegalProceedingsDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | lqda_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for legal proceedings, legal contingencies, litigation, regulatory and environmental matters and other contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//450/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration