|
5. Commitments and Contingencies
|
3 Months Ended | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Mar. 31, 2015
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Commitments and Contingencies |
Contingency Matters
In February 2007, Geistlich Söhne AG für Chemische Industrie, Switzerland, or Geistlich, brought an action against the European Sodemann Patent covering the Company’s Neutrolin® product candidate which is owned by ND Partners, LLC and licensed to the Company pursuant to the License and Assignment Agreement between the Company and ND Partners LLC. The action that was brought against the counterpart of the Sodemann Patent in Germany at the Board of the European Patent Office opposition division was for lack of inventiveness in the use of citric acid and a pH value in the range of 4.5 to 6.5 with having the aim to provide an alternative lock solution through having improved anticoagulant characteristics compared to the lock solutions of the prior art. The Board of the European Patent Office opposition division rejected the opposition by Geistlich. On August 27, 2008, Geistlich appealed the court's ruling, alleging the same arguments as presented during the opposition proceedings. The Company filed a response to the appeal of Geistlich on March 25, 2009 where the Company requested a dismissal of the appeal and to maintain the patent as granted. As of March 27, 2014, no further petitions have been filed by ND Partners or Geistlich. On October 10, 2012, the Company became aware that the Board of Appeals of the European Patent Office issued, on September 4, 2012, a summons for oral proceedings. On November 28, 2012, the Board of Appeals of the European Patent Office held oral proceedings and verbally upheld the counterpart of the Sodemann Patent covering Neutrolin®, but remanded the proceeding to the lower court to consider restricting certain of the counterpart of the Sodemann Patent claims. The Company received the Appeals Board final written decision on March 28, 2013 which was consistent with the oral proceedings. In a letter dated September 30, 2013, the Company was notified that the opposition division of the European Patent Office reopened the proceedings before the first instance again, and has given their preliminary non-binding opinion that the patent as amended during the appeal proceedings fulfils the requirements of Clarity, Novelty, and Inventive Step, and invited the parties to provide their comments and/or requests by February 10, 2014. The Company filed its response on February 3, 2014 to request that the patent be maintained as amended during the appeal proceedings. Geistlich did not provide any filing by February 10, 2014; however, the Board of the European Patent Office opposition division has granted Geistlich an extension to respond by the end of July 2014 because its representative did not receive the September 30, 2013 letter due to a change of address. Geistlich did not file a further statement within the required timeline. On November 5, 2014, the Opposition Division at the EPO issued the interlocutory decision to maintain the patent on the basis of the claims as amended during the appeal proceedings. This decision becomes final if no further appeal is lodged by Geistlich by January 15, 2015. As of the date of this report, the Company had not received a communication from the European Patent Office that Geistlich has filed such an appeal.
On September 9, 2014, the Company filed in the Mannheim, Germany District Court a patent infringement action against TauroPharm GmbH and Tauro-Implant GmbH as well as their respective CEOs (the "Defendants") claiming infringement of the Company’s European Patent EP 1 814 562 B1, which was granted by the European Patent Office on January 8, 2014 (the “Prosl European Patent”). The Prosl European Patent covers a low heparin catheter lock solution for maintaining patency and preventing infection in a hemodialysis catheter. In this action, the Company claim that the Defendants infringe on the Prosl European Patent by manufacturing and distributing catheter locking solutions to the extent they are covered by the claims of the Prosl European Patent. The Company believes that its patent is sound, and is seeking injunctive relief and raising claims for information, rendering of accounts, calling back, destruction and damages. Separately, TauroPharm has filed an opposition with the European Patent Office against the Prosl European Patent alleging that it lacks novelty and inventive step. The Company cannot predict what other defenses the Defendants may raise, or the ultimate outcome of either of these related matters.
In the same complaint against the same Defendants, the Company also alleged an infringement (requesting the same remedies) of ND Partners’ utility model DE 20 2005 022 124 U1 (the “Utility Model”) which is basically identical to the Prosl European Patent in its main aspects and claims. The Mannheim court separated the two proceedings so that the Prosl European Patent and the Utility Model proceeding are now tried separately and independently from each other due to the slightly differing requirements for both IP rights. TauroPharm has filed a cancellation action against the Utility Model before the German Patent and Trademark Office based on the same arguments as the opposition against the Prosl European Patent. The Company cannot predict what other defenses the Defendants may raise, or the ultimate outcome of this matter.
On March 27, 2015, the Mannheim District Court held a hearing to evaluate whether the Utility Model has been infringed by TauroPharm in connection with the manufacture, sale and distribution of its TauroLock-HEP100 and HEP500 products. A hearing before the same court was held on January 30, 2015 on the separate, but related, question of infringement of the Prosl European Patent by TauroPharm based upon the same circumstances. While the Court had indicated that it might render a decision in the patent infringement matter, it has now informed the Company that decisions in each of these related matters likely will be issued on May 8, 2015, although the Company cannot assure that any decision will be rendered on that date. The Court’s decisions will be subject to appeal.
Parallel to the Court proceedings, both the opposition proceedings against the Prosl European Patent before the European Patent Office, or EPO, and the cancellation action against the Utility Model before the German Patent and Trademark Office, or German PTO, are ongoing. The Company does not expect a decision from the EPO before the middle of 2016 (in the case of the Prosl European Patent) or late 2015 from the German PTO (in the case of the Utility Model), with each such decision being subject to appeal.
On January 16, 2015, the Company filed a complaint against TauroPharm GmbH and its managing directors in the District Court of Cologne, Germany. In the complaint, the Company alleges violation of the German Unfair Competition Act by TauroPharm for the unauthorized use of its proprietary information obtained in confidence by TauroPharm. The Company alleges that TauroPharm is improperly and unfairly using its proprietary information relating to the composition and manufacture of its product Neutrolin®, which is approved for sale in Germany, in its manufacture and sale of TauroPharm’s products TauroLockTM, TauroLock-HEP100TM and TauroLock-HEP500TM. The Company seeks a cease and desist order against TauroPharm from continuing to manufacture and sell any product containing taurolidine as well as citric acid in addition to possible other components, damages for any sales in the past and the removal of all such products from the market. A hearing in this matter has been scheduled in the District Court of Cologne for July 2, 2015.
In connection with the aforementioned proceedings against Tauropharm, the Company was required by the District Court Mannheim to provide a security deposit of approximately $132,000 to cover legal fees in the event Tauropharm is entitled to reimbursement of these costs. The Company recorded the deposit as restricted cash for the quarter ended March 31, 2015.
Commitments
Navinta LLC, a U.S.-based Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (“API”) developer, provides API manufacturing (manufactured in India at an FDA-compliant facility) and a Drug Master File for CRMD003, pursuant to a supply agreement dated December 7, 2009 (the “Navinta Agreement”). The Navinta Agreement provides that Navinta supply taurolidine (the API for CRMD003) to the Company on an exclusive worldwide basis in the field of the prevention and treatment of human infection and/or dialysis so long as the Company purchased a minimum of $350,000 of product from Navinta by December 30, 2010, which the Company achieved, and following the Company’s first commercial sale of a product incorporating taurolidine, purchases a minimum of $2,250,000 of product on an annual basis for five years. The Company did not purchase the required amount in 2014 and as a result, lost its exclusive manufacturing rights. The Company is also required to make certain cash payments to Navinta upon the achievement of certain sales-based milestones. The maximum aggregate amount of such payments, assuming achievement of all milestones, is $1,975,000 over five years.
On March 24, 2015, the Company and Navinta LLC entered into an amendment to the Taurolidine Supply Agreement to extend the term of the Agreement to March 31, 2016 and to lower the price per kilogram of API that the Company purchases from Navinta LLC under the Navinta Agreement. The Company also agreed to purchase a minimum amount of product from Navinta LLC during 2015, which replaces the prior minimum purchase requirement.
In 2008, the Company entered into a License and Assignment Agreement (the “NDP License Agreement”) with ND Partners LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“NDP”). Pursuant to the NDP License Agreement, NDP granted the Company exclusive, worldwide licenses for certain antimicrobial catheter lock solutions, processes for treating and inhibiting infections, a biocidal lock system and a taurolidine delivery apparatus, and the corresponding United States and foreign patents and applications (the “NDP Technology”). The Company acquired such licenses and patents through its assignment and assumption of NDP’s rights under certain separate license agreements by and between NDP and Dr. Hans-Dietrich Polaschegg, Dr. Klaus Sodemann and Dr. Johannes Reinmueller. As consideration in part for the rights to the NDP Technology, the Company paid NDP an initial licensing fee of $325,000 and granted NDP a 5% equity interest in the Company, consisting of 39,980 shares of the Company’s Common Stock.
In addition, the Company is required to make payments to NDP upon the achievement of certain regulatory and sales-based milestones. Certain of the milestone payments are to be made in the form of shares of common stock currently held in escrow for NDP, and other milestone payments are to be paid in cash. The maximum aggregate number of shares issuable upon achievement of milestones is 145,543 shares. During the year ended December 31, 2014, a certain milestone was achieved resulting in the release of 35,886 shares held in escrow. The number of shares held in escrow as of March 31, 2014 is 109,657 shares of common stock. The maximum aggregate amount of cash payments upon achievement of milestones is $3,000,000 with $2,500,000 remaining at March 31, 2015. Events that trigger milestone payments include but are not limited to the reaching of various stages of regulatory approval processes and certain worldwide net sales amounts.
On April 11, 2013, the Company entered into an amendment to the NDP License Agreement. Under Article 6 of the NDP License Agreement, the Company was obligated to make a milestone payment of $500,000 to ND Partners upon the first issuance of a CE Marking for a licensed product, which payment was payable to ND Partners within 30 days after such issuance. Pursuant to the terms of the amendment, the Company and ND Partners agreed to delay such milestone payment to a time, to be chosen by the Company, anytime within 12 months after the achievement of such issuance. As consideration for the amendment, the Company issued ND Partners a warrant to purchase 125,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $1.50 per share. The warrant is exercisable immediately upon issuance and has a term of five years. In January 2014, the Company settled this milestone payment which resulted in the issuance of 50,000 shares of the Company’s Series C-3 non-voting convertible preferred and 250,000 shares issuable upon exercise of warrants at an exercise price of $1.25 per share which was decreased to $0.90 per share. Through March 31, 2015, no other milestone payments have been earned by or paid to Navinta.
The NDP License Agreement may be terminated by the Company on a country-by-country basis upon 60 days prior written notice. If the NDP License Agreement is terminated by either party, the Company’s rights to the NDP Technology will revert back to NDP.
The Company entered into sublease for 4,700 square feet of office space in Bedminster, New Jersey, which sublease runs from April 1, 2015 until March 31, 2018. Rent is $5,000 per month plus occupancy costs such as utilities, maintenance and taxes. In accordance with the lease agreement, the Company has deposited $5,000 with the landlord, the equivalent of one month rent.
The Company’s subsidiary entered into a lease agreement for its offices in Fulda, Germany with ITZ GmbH. The lease has a term of 36 months which commenced on September 1, 2013 for a base monthly payment of €498. The total 36 month lease obligation is approximately €17,900. Additionally, its subsidiary leases its copier pursuant to a lease agreement dated October 10, 2013 with Frima Buromaschinen Schafer GmbH & Co. KG. The lease has a term of 48 months which commenced on November 1, 2013 for a monthly payment of €59. The total 48 month lease obligation is approximately €2,800.
Under the Company’s current lease agreements, the total remaining lease obligation as of March 31, 2015 is set forth below:
|