XML 34 R23.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.23.3

Commitments and Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies |
Commitments and Contingencies | 16. 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 material litigation and, accordingly, does not have any other amounts recorded for any litigation related matters. ​ Xtampza ER Litigation ​ The Company filed the New Drug Application (“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 Orange Book, in this case OxyContin. The 505(b)(2) process requires that the Company certify to the FDA that the Company does not infringe any of the patents listed for OxyContin in the Orange Book, or that the patents are invalid. The process also requires that the Company notify Purdue Pharma, L.P (“Purdue”), as the holder of the NDA, and any other Orange Book-listed patent owners that it has made such a certification. On February 11, 2015, the Company made the required certification documenting why Xtampza ER does not infringe any of the 11 Orange Book-listed patents for OxyContin, five of which have been invalidated in court proceedings, and provided the required notice to Purdue. Under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration 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. ​ In response to these actions, Purdue sued 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. ​ Purdue subsequently filed two follow-on lawsuits asserting infringement of two patents that had been late-listed in the Orange Book and therefore, could not trigger any stay of FDA approval: Purdue filed suit asserting infringement of Patent No. 9,073,933 in November 2015, and asserted infringement of Patent No. 9,522,919 in April 2017. In addition, Purdue filed suit on two patents that had not been listed in the Orange Book, filing suit in June 2016 asserting infringement of Patent No. 9,155,717 and in September 2017, asserting infringement of 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. The PTAB held oral argument on the proceedings on July 10, 2019 and was scheduled to issue a decision on the patentability of the ʼ961 patent by no later than October 4, 2019. On September 15, 2019, Purdue commenced a voluntary case under chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. On September 24, 2019, Purdue gave the PTAB notice of its bankruptcy filing and sought the imposition of an automatic stay of the PGR proceedings. On October 2, 2019, the PTAB extended the one-year period for issuing its decision by up to six months. ​ In October 2017, and in response to the filing of the Company’s supplemental New Drug Application (“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. ​ 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. The Court issued an order on September 28, 2018 in which it granted in part a motion for summary judgment that the Company filed. Specifically, the Court ruled that the Xtampza ER formulation does not infringe the ʼ497 and ʼ717 patents. On September 18, 2019, Purdue gave the Court notice of its bankruptcy filing and sought the imposition of an automatic stay of the proceedings. On September 20, 2019, the matter was stayed pending further order of the Court. ​ On September 1, 2020, the Bankruptcy Court entered an Order Granting Motions for Relief from the Automatic Stay, lifting the automatic stays in both the District of Massachusetts and PTAB proceedings. The Company appealed the Bankruptcy Court’s Order, in part, and that appeal is stayed, on consent by Purdue, pending the outcome of any appeal of the PTAB proceedings. On September 11, 2020, Purdue filed a motion to terminate the PTAB action on the basis that those proceedings had gone beyond the 18-month statutory period. The Company opposed Purdue’s motion. On November 19, 2021, the PTAB (i) denied Purdue’s motion to terminate the PGR and (ii) issued its Final Written Decision, finding that claims 1-17 of the ʼ961 patent were invalid for lack of written description and anticipation. On December 17, 2021, Purdue filed a Request for Director Review. That request was denied on February 7, 2022. On February 16, 2022, Purdue filed a Federal Circuit notice of appeal. On April 12, 2022, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal as Untimely. On May 20, 2022, the Federal Circuit denied the Motion to Dismiss and directed the parties to address jurisdiction during merits briefing. Oral arguments in the appeal were heard on September 5, 2023. ​ On April 2, 2021, the Court granted Purdue’s Motion to Lift the Stay in the District of Massachusetts that was entered following Purdue’s Notice of Bankruptcy. On April 9, 2021, Purdue filed another follow-on lawsuit asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,407,434, which was late-listed in the Orange Book and therefore could not trigger any stay of FDA approval. The Company responded to Purdue’s complaint asserting the ’434 patent with a motion to dismiss. On May 21, 2021, and in response to the Company’s motion to dismiss, Purdue filed an amended complaint asserting the ’434 patent. The Company renewed its motion to dismiss on June 4, 2021, arguing: (i) Purdue cannot, as a matter of law, state a claim for infringement under § 271(e)(2)(A); (ii) Purdue cannot, as a matter of law, state a claim for product-by-process infringement under §271(g); and (iii) Purdue has not alleged facts sufficient to support any indirect infringement theory under §271(b) or (c). The Court held a hearing on the Company’s motion to dismiss on October 13, 2021, and the motion is pending before the Court. ​ Like the prior follow-on lawsuits, the ’434 patent litigation was consolidated into the lead case and a scheduling order was entered. On October 5, 2021, the Court held a claim construction hearing for the ʼ961 patent and the ʼ434 patent. On May 15, 2023, the Court issued an order that (i) vacated the existing deadlines with respect to the ʼ933, ʼ919, and ʼ434 patents and stayed the case pending the Federal Circuit’s decision in a different litigation that invalidated certain claims of the ʼ933 and ʼ919 patents and (ii) continued the existing stay concerning the ʼ961 patent pending Purdue’s appeal of the PTAB’s order invalidating that patent. The Court has not set a deadline for dispositive motions or trial. ​ The remaining patents-in-suit in the lead consolidated action in the District of Massachusetts are the ʼ933, ʼ919, ʼ434, and ʼ961 patents. The parties agreed, however, that litigation concerning the ʼ961 patent is stayed pending resolution of Purdue’s Federal Circuit appeal of the PTAB decision invalidating the claims of the ʼ961 patent. Purdue has made a demand for monetary relief, and 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 has requested a judgment that the remaining asserted patents are invalid and/or not infringed; the Company is also seeking a judgment that the case is exceptional and has requested an award of the Company’s attorneys’ fees for defending the case. ​ 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. ​ 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 affirmative 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 related to patent exhaustion and any discovery related to that Motion. Also, on December 10, 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. 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 remained “stayed with the exception of discovery and briefing on and resolution of the Company’s anticipated motion for summary judgment based on patent exhaustion.” ​ On September 19, 2019, Purdue gave the Court notice of its bankruptcy filing and sought the imposition of an automatic stay of the proceedings. The Nucynta litigation is subject to the automatic bankruptcy stay. ​ Pending resolution of the bankruptcy action, 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. ​ Litigation Related to the BDSI Acquisition ​ On February 25, 2022, in connection with the BDSI Acquisition, a purported individual stockholder of BDSI filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Stein v. BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., et al., No. 1:22-cv-01600, naming as defendants BDSI and each member of its Board of Directors as of the date of the Merger Agreement (“Stein Action”). On February 28, 2022, two additional cases were filed by purported individual stockholders of BDSI in the same court, captioned Sanford v. BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., et al., No. 1:22-cv-01676 (“Sanford Action”), and Higley v. BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., et al., No. 1:22-cv-01658 (“Higley Action”). On March 2, 2022 and March 5, 2022, two additional cases were filed by purported individual stockholders of BDSI in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, captioned Justice II v. BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., et al., No. 1:22-cv-01145 (“Justice Action”) and Zomber v. BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., et al., No. 1:22-cv-01220 (“Zomber Action”; together with the Stein, Sanford, Higley, and Justice Actions, the “Actions”). The Actions and any similar subsequently filed cases involving BDSI, its officers or Board of Directors, or any committee thereof, and/or any of the Company’s officers or directors relating directly or indirectly to the Merger Agreement, the BDSI Acquisition or any related transaction, are referred to as the “Merger Litigations.” ​ The Merger Litigations filed to date generally allege that the Schedule 14D-9 is materially incomplete and misleading by allegedly failing to disclose purportedly material information relating to the sale process leading to the Merger, BDSI’s financial projections, and the analyses performed by Moelis & Company LLC in connection with the Merger. The Merger Litigations assert violations of Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act and violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against BDSI’s Board of Directors. Additionally, the Stein, Higley, Justice, and Zomber complaints assert violations of Section 14(d) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14d-9 promulgated thereunder. The Merger Litigations seek, among other things: an injunction enjoining consummation of the Merger, rescission of the Merger Agreement, a declaration that BDSI and its Board of Directors violated Sections 14(e) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, damages, costs of the action, including plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and experts’ fees and expenses, and any other relief the court may deem just and proper. ​ In addition, on February 24, 2022, February 28, 2022, and March 7, 2022, BDSI received demand letters from three purported stockholders of BDSI seeking to inspect certain books and records of BDSI related to the Merger (collectively, the “Inspection Letters”). On March 4, 2022, March 9, 2022, and March 11, 2022, BDSI received demand letters from four purported stockholders alleging that the Schedule 14D-9 omits purportedly material information relating to the Merger (collectively, the “Demand Letters”). ​ On April 14, 2022, plaintiff in the Higley Action filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the complaint. On May 15, 2022, plaintiff in the Zomber Action filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the complaint. And, on June 24, 2022, plaintiff in the Justice Action filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the complaint. In the remaining Stein and Sanford Actions, on July 20, 2022, the respective Courts entered an Order for plaintiff to serve a summons and complaint by August 3, 2022. On July 28, 2022, plaintiff in the Sanford Action filed a partial voluntary dismissal of the individual named defendants but not BDSI from that action and filed a waiver of service as to BDSI. On October 26, 2022, plaintiff in the Sanford Action filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the complaint as to Defendant BDSI as well. On February 17, 2023, the Court in the Stein Action entered an order dismissing that action. ​ While the Company believes that the remaining Merger Litigations, Inspection Letters, and Demand Letters are without merit and that the disclosures in the Schedule 14D-9 comply fully with applicable law, solely in order to avoid the expense and distraction of litigation, BDSI previously determined to voluntarily supplement the Schedule 14D-9 with certain supplemental disclosures set forth in BDSI’s Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC on March 11, 2022 (the “Supplemental Disclosures”). The Company and BDSI believe that the Supplemental Disclosures mooted all allegations or concerns raised in the Merger Litigations, Inspection Letters, and Demand Letters. ​ As set forth in the Supplemental Disclosures, nothing therein shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable law of the Supplemental Disclosures. To the contrary, the Company and BDSI specifically deny all allegations that any of the Supplemental Disclosures, or any other additional disclosures, were or are required. The Company intends to defend the Merger Litigations vigorously. In connection with the Supplemental Disclosures, however, the Company has agreed to pay certain fees based on the purported benefit that the stockholders brought to the Company and its other stockholders through the Actions, Inspection Letters, and Demand Letters. ​ Opioid Litigation ​ As a result of the opioid epidemic, numerous state and local governments, healthcare providers, and other entities brought suit against manufacturers, wholesale distributors, and pharmacies alleging a variety of claims related to opioid marketing and distribution practices. In late 2017, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the consolidation of cases pending around the country in federal court against opioid manufacturers and distributors into a Multi-District Litigation (“MDL”) in the Northern District of Ohio. Of the 21 MDL cases that named the Company as a defendant, the allegations against it were previously dismissed or withdrawn in 13 cases as of December 31, 2021. The remaining eight MDL cases that named the Company were dismissed as of April 19, 2022. In addition, the Company had been previously dismissed from three non-MDL cases filed in Pennsylvania and Arkansas state courts. ​ Outside of the MDL, there were several cases filed against the Company in state courts in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts: ​
| ● | In Pennsylvania, six lawsuits naming the Company were 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. These included lawsuits filed between May 2018 and July 2019, alleging claims related to opioid marketing and distribution, including negligence, fraud, unjust enrichment, public nuisance, and violations of state consumer protections laws.
​
| ● | In Massachusetts, there were lawsuits by 13 municipalities, all of which were consolidated before the Business Litigation Session of the Superior Court. The actions alleged 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.
​ On December 24, 2021, the Company entered into a settlement framework with Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law, LLP, the law firm representing plaintiffs in each of the 27 cases, including the 8 remaining MDL cases and 19 state court cases described above. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement framework, which were later memorialized in a final settlement agreement, the Company agreed to pay $2,750 in exchange for the dismissal, with prejudice, of each plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Company and a release of claims related to such lawsuits. The settlement agreement was executed by the Company and all 27 plaintiffs, and the amounts subject to the settlement agreement were paid. As of April 19, 2022, the Company was dismissed, with prejudice, from each of the 27 cases. ​ The Company entered into this settlement to efficiently resolve this litigation and does not admit any liability or acknowledge any wrongdoing in connection with the settlement agreement. ​ Aquestive Litigation ​ On October 29, 2013, Reckitt Benckiser, Inc., Indivior PLC (formerly RB Pharmaceuticals Limited, “Indivior”), and Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. (formerly MonoSol Rx, “Aquestive”) (collectively, the “RB Plaintiffs”) filed an action against BDSI relating to its Bunavail product in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina (“EDNC”) for alleged patent infringement. Bunavail is a drug approved for the maintenance treatment of opioid dependence. This case was dismissed, but the RB Plaintiffs subsequently filed an action against BDSI, on September 22, 2014, relating to Bunavail product in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey for alleged patent infringement. The RB Plaintiffs claimed that Bunavail, whose formulation and manufacturing processes have never been disclosed publicly, infringes its U.S. Patent No. 8,765,167 (the “’167 Patent”). ​ On January 13, 2017, Aquestive filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging Belbuca infringes the ’167 Patent. ​ On March 8, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal. The RB Plaintiffs dismissed their claims with prejudice, and BDSI dismissed its counterclaims without prejudice. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, BDSI resolved both the Bunavail and Belbuca litigations in exchange for a one-time, lump-sum payment of $8,500 to Aquestive. ​ Chemo Research, S.L ​ On March 1, 2019, BDSI filed a complaint for patent infringement in United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Chemo Research, S.L., Insud Pharma S.L., IntelGenx Corp., and IntelGenx Technologies Corp. (collectively, the “Chemo Defendants”), asserting that the Chemo Defendants infringe its Orange Book-listed patents for BELBUCA, including U.S. Patent Nos. 8,147,866 (“’866 patent”) and 9,655,843, (“’843 patent”) both expiring in July of 2027, and U.S. Patent No. 9,901,539 (“’539 patent”) expiring December of 2032 (collectively, “the BEMA patents”). This complaint follows a receipt by BDSI on January 31, 2019, of a Notice Letter from Chemo Research S.L. stating that it has filed with the FDA an abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) containing a Paragraph IV Patent Certification, for a generic version of BELBUCA Buccal Film in strengths 75 mcg, 150 mcg, 300 mcg, 450 mcg, and 900 mcg. Because BDSI initiated a patent infringement suit asserting the patents identified in the Notice Letter within 45 days after receipt, the FDA is prevented from approving the ANDA until the earlier of 30 months or a decision in the case that each of the patents is not infringed or invalid. On March 15, 2019, BDSI filed a complaint against the Chemo Defendants in the Federal District Court for the District of New Jersey asserting the same claims for patent infringement made in the Delaware lawsuit. On April 19, 2019, Defendants filed an answer to the Delaware complaint wherein they denied infringement of the ’866, ’843 and ’539 patents and asserted counterclaims seeking declaratory relief concerning the alleged invalidity and non-infringement of such patents. ​ On April 25, 2019, BDSI voluntarily dismissed the New Jersey lawsuit given Defendants’ consent to jurisdiction in Delaware. ​ The trial to adjudicate issues concerning the validity of the Orange Book-listed patents covering BELBUCA was held from March 1-3, 2021. Chemo did not participate in the bench trial. Instead, on February 26, 2021, Chemo agreed to be bound by the decision of the Court with respect to the validity of the BEMA patents from the March 1-3, 2021 trial with Alvogen. On December 20, 2021, the Court issued an opinion upholding the validity of certain claims in BDSI’s ʼ866 patent, which expires in 2027, and certain claims in the ’539 patent, which expires in 2032, to which Chemo is bound. This holding was affirmed on appeal by the Federal Circuit on December 21, 2022. The bench trial to adjudicate issues concerning the Chemo Defendants’ infringement of the Orange Book patents was set to commence on April 25, 2022. On March 30, 2022, the Court vacated the trial and has not yet set a new trial date. ​ On August 1, 2022, BDSI received a second Paragraph IV certification notice letter from Chemo indicating that Chemo has amended its ANDA to (i) withdraw its generic version of the 75 mcg and 150 mcg strengths of BELBUCA; and (ii) include its generic version of the 600 mcg and 750 mcg strengths of BELBUCA, in addition to the 300 mcg, 450 mcg, and 900 mcg strengths identified in the first Chemo Paragraph IV certification notice letter. In response, BDSI filed a complaint for patent infringement in Federal District Court for the District of Delaware. Chemo answered the complaint on December 1, 2022. The Court has not set a schedule for this litigation. ​ On August 24, 2022, the Court instructed the parties to update the Court at such time as the FDA addresses Chemo's July 29, 2022 response to the FDA. On February 8, 2023, the district court denied Chemo’s request for a trial date in the spring, and again instructed the parties to update the Court at such time as the FDA addresses Chemo’s July 29, 2022 response to the FDA. Chemo received a complete response letter with respect to its July 29, 2022 ANDA in April 2023. ​ The Company plans to litigate these cases 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. ​ Alvogen ​ On September 7, 2018, BDSI filed a complaint for patent infringement in United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Alvogen Pb Research & Development LLC, Alvogen Malta Operations Ltd., Alvogen Pine Brook LLC, Alvogen, Incorporated, and Alvogen Group, Incorporated (collectively, “Alvogen”), asserting that Alvogen infringes BDSI’s Orange Book-listed patents for BELBUCA, including U.S. Patent Nos. 8,147,866 and 9,655,843, both expiring in July of 2027, and U.S. Patent No. 9,901,539, expiring in December of 2032 (collectively, “the BEMA patents”). This complaint followed receipt by BDSI on July 30, 2018 of a Paragraph IV Patent Certification from Alvogen stating that Alvogen had filed an ANDA with the FDA for a generic version of BELBUCA Buccal Film (75 mcg, 150 mcg, 300 mcg, 450 mcg, 600 mcg, 750 mcg and 900 mcg). Because BDSI initiated a patent infringement suit asserting the patents identified in the Paragraph IV notice within 45 days after receipt of the Paragraph IV Certification, the FDA is prevented from approving the ANDA until the earlier of 30 months or a decision in the case that each of the patents is not infringed or invalid. ​ The Court scheduled a bench trial to adjudicate issues concerning the validity of the BEMA patents. A three-day bench trial against Alvogen was conducted commencing on March 1, 2021. ​ On December 20, 2021, the Court issued an opinion upholding the validity of certain claims in BDSI’s ʼ866 patent, which expires in 2027, and certain claims in the ’539 patent, which expires in 2032. Alvogen conceded infringement of those claims prior to the trial. The Court entered final judgment on January 21, 2022. The final judgment entered in this case upholding the validity of claims of the ’866 and ’539 Orange Book-listed patents extends the effective date of any final approval by the FDA of Alvogen’s ANDA until December 21, 2032, which is the expiration date of the ’539 patent, and enjoins Alvogen and those acting in concert with Alvogen from commercially manufacturing, using, selling, or offering for sale Alvogen’s ANDA products until December 21, 2032. Alvogen filed a motion to stay certain provisions of the final judgment in the Court. BDSI filed an opposition to Alvogen’s request for a stay. The Court retained jurisdiction to decide BDSI’s motion for contempt, which was filed on September 21, 2021. ​ Alvogen filed a notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit seeking to reverse the Court’s final judgment entered on January 21, 2022. Separately, BDSI filed a cross-appeal to the Federal Circuit seeking to reverse the Court’s opinion that claims 3 and 10 of the ʼ866 patent and claims 8, 9 and 20 of the ’843 patent are invalid and thus Alvogen is not liable for infringement of those claims, as well as any other ruling decided adversely to BDSI. On November 1, 2022, the Federal Circuit held oral argument on the parties’ appeal and issued its decision on December 21, 2022. In that decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court judgment that certain claims of the ʼ866 and ʼ539 patent were not invalid as obvious. The Federal Circuit also vacated the district court’s judgment that certain claims of the ʼ866 and ʼ843 patent were invalid as obvious and remanded to the district court for further proceedings. The mandate issued on February 10, 2023. ​ As it has done in the past, the Company intends to vigorously defend its intellectual property against assertions of invalidity or non-infringement. ​ 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, Maryland and Massachusetts. ​ On December 16, 2021, the Company entered into an Assurance of Discontinuance with the Massachusetts Attorney General (the “AoD”). The Company is currently cooperating with each of the remaining 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://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 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//450/tableOfContent Reference 3: 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//1943274/2147480327/954-440-50-1 Reference 4: 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 5: 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