XML 36 R21.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.24.2.u1

Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2024
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 material litigation and, accordingly, does not have any other amounts recorded for any litigation related matters. ​ Xtampza ER Litigation ​ On March 24, 2015, Purdue sued the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware 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). The lawsuit was initiated in response to the Company filing the New Drug Application (“NDA”) for Xtampza ER as a 505(b)(2) application referencing data from Purdue’s OxyContin NDA, and under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, triggered a stay of up to 30 months before the FDA could issue a final approval for Xtampza ER, unless the stay was earlier terminated. ​ 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 which lifted the 30-month stay of FDA approval. Following this judgment, the Company obtained final approval for Xtampza ER and launched 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 asserted infringement of Patent No. 9,073,933 in November 2015 and Patent No. 9,522,919 in April 2017. In addition, Purdue invoked two non-Orange Book-listed patents, 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 argued that the ʼ961 patent is invalid. ​ 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 ruled that the Xtampza ER formulation does not infringe the ʼ497 and ʼ717 patents. ​ On September 15, 2019, Purdue commenced chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. Later in September 2019, Purdue gave the District Court of Massachusetts, as well as the PTAB, notice of its bankruptcy filing and sought the imposition of an automatic stay of proceedings. Both the Court and the PTAB granted Purdue’s requests to stay the pending matters. ​ On September 1, 2020, the Bankruptcy Court entered an Order, lifting the automatic stays in both the District of Massachusetts and 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. On November 19, 2021, the PTAB: (i) denied Purdue’s motion to terminate the PGR; and (ii) issued its Final Written Decision, finding that the asserted claims of the ʼ961 patent were invalid for lack of written description and anticipation. Purdue appealed the decision to Federal Circuit, which issued its decision on November 21, 2023, affirming the authority of the PTAB to issue its Final Written Decision and upholding the PTAB’s finding of invalidity relative to the ’961 patent. Purdue has exhausted all possibility of appeal, and the judgment of invalidity of the ‘961 patent is final without further right of appeal. ​ 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. The Company responded to Purdue’s complaint with a motion to dismiss. On May 21, 2021, and in response to the Company’s motion to dismiss, Purdue filed an amended complaint. 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 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 resolution of Purdue’s appeal rights relating to the decision invalidating the claims of the ʼ961 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. 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 U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, in which it 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. 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 Purdue’s claims were barred by the doctrine of patent exhaustion. On June 19, 2019, the Court issued an order calling for discovery on a factual predicate for the patent exhaustion defense and noted that 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 notified the Court of its bankruptcy filing and sought an automatic stay of proceedings, which was granted. The Nucynta litigation currently remains subject to the bankruptcy stay. ​ 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. ​ Opioid Litigation ​ As a result of the opioid epidemic, numerous state and local governments and other entities brought suit against manufacturers, 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. The Company was initially named as a defendant in 21 of the MDL cases. By April 19, 2022, all MDL cases naming the Company were dismissed or withdrawn. ​ Outside of the MDL, several cases were filed against the Company in Arkansas, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts state courts with allegations similar to those in the MDL related to opioid marketing and distribution practices, as well as allegations including violations of state consumer protections laws. ​ On March 21, 2019, the Arkansas state court litigation was dismissed. On December 24, 2021, the Company entered into a settlement framework with Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law, LLP, the law firm representing plaintiffs in 27 jurisdictions filed either in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts state courts, or filed in other state courts and removed to the MDL. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the Company paid $2,750 in exchange for dismissal, with prejudice, of each plaintiff’s lawsuit and a release of claims related to such lawsuits. The Company is currently dismissed from all cases. ​ The Company settled to efficiently resolve these litigations and did not admit any liability or acknowledge any wrongdoing in connection with the settlement. ​ Opioid-Related Request and Subpoenas ​ The Company, like several other pharmaceutical companies, has received subpoenas or civil investigative demands related to opioid sales and marketing practices, from the Offices of the Attorney General of Washington, New Hampshire, Maryland, and Massachusetts. ​ On December 16, 2021, the Company entered into an Assurance of Discontinuance with the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office. The Company is currently cooperating with each of the remaining states in their respective investigations. ​ Aquestive Litigation ​ On September 22, 2014, 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 in the District Court in the District of New Jersey alleging patent infringement against BDSI related to its Bunavail product. The RB Plaintiffs claimed that Bunavail, whose formulation and manufacturing processes have never been disclosed publicly, infringed U.S. Patent No. 8,765,167. ​ On January 13, 2017, Aquestive filed a complaint in the District Court for the District of New Jersey against BDSI alleging Belbuca also infringed the ’167 Patent. On March 8, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal after agreeing to settle the dispute. 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, which was recognized as an expense included in “selling, general and administrative expenses” in the consolidated statements of operations for the year ended December 31, 2023. ​ 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 District Court for the Southern District of New York 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: the “Sanford Action” and the “Higley Action.” In March 2022, two additional cases were filed by purported individual stockholders of BDSI in the District Court for the Eastern District of New York: the “Justice Action” and the “Zomber Action” (together with the Stein, Sanford, and Higley 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. 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. 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, between February and March of 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”). In March 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”). ​ Plaintiffs in the Higley, Zomber, and Justice Actions each filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of their complaint in the second quarter of 2022. On July 28, 2022, plaintiff in the Sanford Action filed a partial voluntary dismissal of the individual named defendants, and on October 26, 2022, filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the BDSI defendant. On February 17, 2023, the Stein Action was dismissed. ​ 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. ​ Alvogen ​ On September 7, 2018, BDSI filed a complaint for patent infringement in 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 infringed BDSI’s Orange Book-listed patents for Belbuca, including U.S. Patent Nos. 8,147,866, 9,655,843 and 9,901,539 (collectively, “the BEMA patents”). This complaint followed receipt by BDSI on July 30, 2018 of a Paragraph IV Patent Certification from Alvogen stating it had filed an abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) with the FDA for a generic version of Belbuca Buccal Film in strengths 75 mcg, 150 mcg, 300 mcg, 450 mcg, 600 mcg, 750 mcg and 900 mcg. ​ A three-day bench trial was held from March 1-3, 2021. On December 20, 2021, the Court issued an opinion upholding the validity of certain claims in BDSI’s ʼ866 patent and certain claims in the ’539 patent. The Court entered final judgment on January 21, 2022 upholding the validity of claims of the ’866 and ’539 patents and thereby extended the effective date of any final approval by the FDA of Alvogen’s ANDA until December 21, 2032, (the expiration date of the ’539 patent) and enjoining Alvogen from commercially launching its ANDA products until December 21, 2032. Alvogen filed a motion to stay certain provisions of the final judgment. 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. 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 December 21, 2022, 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. Chemo Research, S.L. ​ On March 1, 2019, BDSI filed a complaint for patent infringement in the 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 the BEMA patents. This complaint followed receipt by BDSI on January 31, 2019, of a Notice Letter from Chemo Research S.L. stating that it had filed with the FDA an 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. ​ Chemo agreed to be bound by the decision of the Court with respect to the validity of the BEMA patents as disputed between BDSI and Alvogen. Accordingly, the December 20, 2021 ruling of the Court upholding the validity of certain claims of the BEMA patents is binding upon Chemo. In March 2022, the Court vacated the bench trial set to begin April 25, 2022 to address the remaining Chemo infringement claims. The Court has not yet set a new trial date. ​ On August 1, 2022, BDSI received a second Paragraph IV certification notice letter from Chemo indicating it 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 yet 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 Court denied Chemo’s request for a trial date in Spring 2023, 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. Chemo submitted a further amended ANDA to FDA in September 2023. On May 30, 2024, the parties submitted a Joint Status Report to the Court providing that Chemo received a fourth Complete Response Letter on March 27, 2024. BDSI requested that the Court stay the litigation, whereas Chemo asked the court to maintain the status quo because the Court had not yet set a trial date. The Court has taken no action in response to the parties’ Joint Status Letter. ​ The Company plans to litigate 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. ​

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