XML 30 R19.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.19.2

Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies |
Commitments and Contingencies | 14. Commitments and Contingencies ​ Legal Proceedings ​ From time to time, the Company may face legal claims or actions in the normal course of business. Except as disclosed below, the Company is not currently a party to any litigation and, accordingly, does not have any amounts recorded for any litigation related matters. ​ Xtampza ER Litigation The Company filed the NDA for Xtampza ER as a 505(b)(2) application, which allows the Company to reference data from an approved drug listed in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (commonly known as the Orange Book), in this case OxyContin OP. The 505(b)(2) process requires that the Company certifies to the FDA and notify Purdue Pharma, L.P (“Purdue”), as the holder of the NDA and any other Orange Book-listed patent owners, that the Company does not infringe any of the patents listed for OxyContin OP in the Orange Book, or that the patents are invalid. The Company made such certification and provided such notice on February 11, 2015 and such certification documented why Xtampza ER does not infringe any of the 11 Orange Book listed patents for OxyContin OP, five of which have been invalidated in court proceedings. Under the Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984, Purdue had the option to sue the Company for infringement and receive a stay of up to 30 months before the FDA could issue a final approval for Xtampza ER, unless the stay was earlier terminated. ​ Purdue exercised its option and elected to sue the Company for infringement in the District of Delaware on March 24, 2015 asserting infringement of three of Purdue’s Orange Book-listed patents (Patent Nos. 7,674,799, 7,674,800, and 7,683,072) and a non-Orange Book-listed patent (Patent No. 8,652,497), and accordingly, received a 30-month stay of FDA approval. The Delaware court transferred the case to the District of Massachusetts. After the Company filed a partial motion for judgment on the pleadings relating to the Orange Book-listed patents, the District Court of Massachusetts ordered judgment in the Company’s favor on those three patents, and dismissed the claims asserting infringement of those patents with prejudice. Upon dismissal of those claims, the 30-month stay of FDA approval was lifted. As a result, the Company was able to obtain final approval for Xtampza ER and launch the product commercially. In November 2015, Purdue filed a follow-on suit asserting infringement of another patent, Patent No. 9,073,933, which was late-listed in the Orange Book and therefore could not trigger any stay of FDA approval. In June 2016, Purdue filed another follow-on suit asserting infringement of another non-Orange Book listed patent, Patent No. 9,155,717. In April 2017, Purdue filed another follow-on suit asserting infringement of another patent, Patent No. 9,522,919, which was late-listed in the Orange Book and therefore could not trigger any stay of FDA approval. Then, in September 2017, Purdue filed another follow-on suit asserting infringement of another non-Orange Book listed patent, Patent No. 9,693,961. ​ On March 13, 2018, the Company filed a Petition for Post-Grant Review (“PGR”) of the ʼ961 patent with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). The PGR argues that the ʼ961 patent is invalid for lack of a written description, for lack of enablement, for indefiniteness, and as being anticipated by prior art. Purdue filed its Patent Owner Preliminary Response on July 10, 2018. The PTAB entered an order to institute post-grant review of all claims of the ’961 patent on October 4, 2018, upon a finding that it is more likely than not that the claims of the ʼ961 patent are unpatentable. Purdue filed its Patent Owner Response on January 30, 2019. The Company filed its reply on April 12, 2019, and Purdue filed a sur-reply on May 10, 2019. The PTAB held oral argument on the proceedings on July 10, 2019 and, absent special circumstances, will issue a decision on the patentability of the ʼ961 patent by no later than October 4, 2019. ​ In October 2017, and in response to the filing of the Company’s Supplemental NDA (“sNDA”) seeking to update the drug abuse and dependence section of the Xtampza ER label, Purdue filed another suit asserting infringement of the ʼ933 and ʼ919 patent. The Company filed a motion to dismiss that action, and the Court granted its motion on January 16, 2018. The current suits have been consolidated by the District of Massachusetts, where Purdue asserted infringement of five patents: the ʼ497 patent, the ʼ933 patent, the ʼ717 patent, the ʼ919 patent, and the ʼ961 patent. The Court issued an order on September 28, 2018 in which it granted in part a motion for summary judgment filed by the Company, and in which the Court ruled that the ʼ497 and ʼ717 patents are not infringed by the Company. As a result, only the ʼ933, the ʼ919, and the ʼ961 patents remain in dispute. On October 16, 2018, the Company filed a motion to stay proceedings in the district court on the ‘961 patent pending the PGR. None of these suits are associated with any stay of FDA approval for Xtampza ER. Purdue has made a demand for monetary relief but has not quantified its alleged damages. Purdue has also requested a judgment of infringement, an adjustment of the effective date of FDA approval, and an injunction on the sale of the Company’s products accused of infringement. The Company has denied all claims and seeks a judgment that the patents are invalid and/or not infringed by the Company; the Company is also seeking a judgment that the case is exceptional, with an award to the Company of its fees for defending the case. The parties are in the early stages of fact discovery. Written discovery has commenced with depositions expected to commence during 2019. A claim construction hearing was held on June 1, 2017. On November 21, 2017, the Court issued its claim construction ruling, construing certain claims of the ʼ933, ʼ497, and ʼ717 patents. No trial date has been scheduled. The Company is, and plans to continue, defending this case vigorously. At this stage, the Company is unable to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or estimate the amount or range of potential loss, if any. ​ Nucynta Litigation On February 7, 2018, Purdue filed a patent infringement suit against the Company in the District of Delaware. Specifically, Purdue argues that the Company’s sale of immediate-release and extended-release Nucynta infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 9,861,583, 9,867,784, and 9,872,836. Purdue has made a demand for monetary relief in its complaint but has not quantified its alleged damages. ​ On December 6, 2018, the Company filed an Amended Answer asserting an affirmative defense for patent exhaustion. On December 10, 2018, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation for resolution of the Company’s defense of patent exhaustion and stayed the action, with the exception of briefing on and resolution of the Company’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and any discovery related to that Motion. On December 12, 2018, the Company filed a Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, arguing that the Purdue’s claims were barred by the doctrine of patent exhaustion. Purdue filed its response on January 11, 2019 and the Company filed a reply on January 25, 2019. On June 18, 2019, the court heard oral argument on the Company’s Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. On June 19, 2019, the court issued an order stating that “judgment in Collegium’s favor is warranted under the doctrine of patent exhaustion to the extent Collegium’s alleged infringing activities resulted from sales that fall within the scope of that covenant.” The court explained, however, that based on the current record, it was not possible “to determine whether title of the Nucynta Products was transferred to Collegium” from sales authorized by Purdue’s covenant not to sue. The court ordered discovery on this issue and the case remains “stayed with the exception of discovery and briefing on and resolution of the Company’s anticipated motion for summary judgment based on patent exhaustion.” ​ The Company plans to defend this case vigorously. At this stage, the Company is unable to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or estimate the amount or range of potential loss, if any. Teva Litigation The Company has fifteen patents listed in the FDA Orange Book as covering the Company’s abuse-deterrent product and methods of using it to treat patients: Patents Nos. 7,399,488; 7,771,707; 8,449,909; 8,557,291; 8,758,813; 8,840,928; 9,044,398; 9,248,195; 9,592,200; 9,682,075; 9,737,530, 9,763,883; 9,968,598; 10,004,729; and 10,188,644 (the “Orange Book Patents”). Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”) filed Notice Letters of Patent Certification against all of the fifteen listed Orange Book Patents alleging that they were invalid and/or not infringed by the proposed oxycodone products that are the subject of Teva’s Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”). On February 22, 2018—within the 45-day period that gives the Company a 30-month stay on FDA approval of Teva’s ANDA while the parties have an opportunity to litigate—the Company sued Teva in the District of Delaware on eleven of the Orange Book Patents. Teva responded to the Company’s complaint on May 14, 2018, alleging that the Orange Book Patents are invalid and are not infringed by Teva’s proposed ANDA products and asserting counterclaims of non-infringement and invalidity of the Orange Book Patents. The Company answered Teva’s counterclaims on June 4, 2018. The parties briefed claim construction and the court heard argument on April 12, 2019. Fact discovery is scheduled to close on September 20, 2019 and expert discovery will close on January 24, 2020. ​ The Company filed a second lawsuit in the District of Delaware, asserting two additional Orange Book Patents, on November 30, 2018. Teva responded to the Company’s complaint on January 11, 2019, alleging that the asserted patents are invalid and are not infringed by Teva’s proposed ANDA products, and asserting counterclaims of non-infringement and invalidity of the asserted patents. The Company answered Teva’s counterclaims on February 1, 2019. The court consolidated the second suit with the first suit, and thus both suits are proceeding on the same schedule. ​ The Company filed a third lawsuit in the District of Delaware, asserting one additional Orange Book Patent, on May 9, 2019. Teva responded to the Company’s complaint on June 6, 2019, alleging that the asserted patent is invalid and is not infringed by Teva’s proposed ANDA products, and asserting counterclaims of non-infringement and invalidity of the asserted patent. The Company answered Teva’s counterclaims on June 27, 2019. No schedule has been entered in the third lawsuit. ​ Opioid Litigation ​ On March 19, 2018, a lawsuit was filed by multiple local governments in the Circuit Court of Crittenden County, Arkansas, against the Company and other pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors alleging a variety of claims related to opioid marketing and distribution practices. On January 29, 2019, the Company was dismissed from this litigation without prejudice. ​ On March 21, 2018, the Company, along with other pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors, were named in a class-action lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Kentucky by a family practice clinic, on behalf of other similarly-situated healthcare providers. The action alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) relating to opioid marketing and distribution practices. On April 14, 2018, the lawsuit was conditionally transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation to the federal Prescription Opiate Multi District Litigation (the “MDL”) in the Southern District of Ohio. On April 10, 2018, the conditional transfer was finalized and the lawsuit was docketed in the MDL on April 11, 2018. On May 4, 2018, the Company, along with other pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors, were named in two lawsuits filed in the MDL by the Fiscal Court of Bourbon County, Kentucky and the Fiscal Court of Owen County, Kentucky, relating to opioid marketing and distribution practices. On June 11 and 12, 2018, the Company was named in four lawsuits filed in the MDL by a health system and various member hospitals. On September 26, 2018, the Company was named in two lawsuits filed in the MDL by the Fiscal Court of Lee County, Kentucky and the Fiscal Court of Wolfe County, Kentucky. On March 15, 2019, the Company was named in an additional lawsuit in the MDL by the City of Paterson, New Jersey. The lawsuits all seek, generally, penalties and/or injunctive relief. On March 15, 2019, the plaintiffs in all of the MDL cases in which the Company was named, except for the City of Paterson case, filed amended complaints which no longer name the Company as a defendant, effectively terminating these lawsuits as to the Company. The City of Paterson lawsuit is not designated as a representative case in the MDL and, therefore, is effectively currently stayed. In April 2019, the City of Norwich, Connecticut and the Town of Enfield, Connecticut filed lawsuits in Connecticut Superior Court. The lawsuits allege violations of fraud, public nuisance, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of state consumer protection laws. On June 28, 2019, both cases were transferred to the MDL, where they are effectively stayed. ​ On May 29, 2018, a lawsuit was filed by Bucks County, Pennsylvania against the Company and other pharmaceutical manufacturers and on June 12, 2018, a lawsuit was filed by Clinton County, Pennsylvania, against the Company and other pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors. On June 6, 2018, a lawsuit was filed by Mercer County, Pennsylvania, against the Company and other pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors. These lawsuits allege claims related to opioid marketing and distribution, including negligence, fraud, unjust enrichment, public nuisance, and violations of state consumer protections laws. These cases have been consolidated for discovery purposes in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas as part of a consolidated proceeding of similar lawsuits brought by numerous Pennsylvania counties against other pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors. In March 2019, three additional cases were filed in Pennsylvania by two payor groups and Warminster Township. In July 2019, the Company learned of additional lawsuits alleging similar claims which were filed by Warrington Township in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas, and filed by the City of Lock Haven in the Clinton County Court of Common Pleas. The City of Lock Haven case has been coordinated into the consolidated proceeding before the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas; the Warrington Township case is pending transfer. None of these cases have been designated a Track One case in which discovery would commence, and therefore are effectively stayed at present. ​ On July 30, 2018, a lawsuit was filed by the City of Worcester, Massachusetts against the Company and other pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors. The action alleges a variety of claims related to opioid marketing and distribution practices including public nuisance, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, violations of Mass Gen. Laws ch. 93A, Section 11, unjust enrichment and civil conspiracy. In February 2019, the City of Worcester case was transferred to the Business Litigation Session of the Superior Court. Additional lawsuits brought by the following cities and counties Massachusetts were filed between October 2018 and April 2019: City of Salem, City of Framingham, Town of Lynnfield, City of Springfield, City of Haverhill, City of Gloucester, Town of Canton, Town of Wakefield, City of Chicopee; Town of Natick; City of Cambridge, and Town of Randolph. With the exception of the City of Cambridge and the Town of Randolph, each of these additional lawsuits has been coordinated before the Business Litigation Session; the City of Cambridge and Town of Randolph are pending transfer into the Business Litigation Session. The case brought by the City of Springfield has been selected to advance for the purpose of motions practice. The other cases pending before the Business Litigation Session are effectively stayed at present. ​ On January 11, 2019, the City of Portsmouth filed a lawsuit in Virginia Circuit Court against the Company and other pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors. The lawsuit alleges a variety of claims related to opioid marketing and distribution practices including public nuisance, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and violations of state consumer protection laws. On June 24, 2019, the case was removed to the Eastern District of Virginia federal court, where it awaits either coordination in the federal MDL or remand to state court. The plaintiff has filed its opposition to coordination and requested remand to Virginia Circuit Court. ​ On June 14, 2019, the City of Trenton filed a lawsuit in New Jersey Superior Court against the Company and other pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors. The lawsuit alleges a variety of claims related to opioid marketing and distribution practices including public nuisance, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and violations of state consumer protection laws and the New Jersey Drug Dealer Liability Act. ​ The Company disputes the allegations in these lawsuits and intends to vigorously defend these actions. At this stage, the Company is unable to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or estimate the amount or range of potential loss, if any. ​ Opioid-Related Request and Subpoenas The Company, like a number of other pharmaceutical companies, has received subpoenas or civil investigative demands related to opioid sales and marketing. The Company has received such subpoenas or civil investigative demands from the Offices of the Attorney General of each of Washington, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts. The Company is currently cooperating with each of the foregoing states in their respective investigations.

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://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration