XML 31 R19.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.10.0.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies |
Note 14. | Commitments and Contingencies
(A) | Operating Leases
The Company has entered into various lease agreements for production and research facilities and offices. Most leases contain renewal options. Certain leases contain purchase options and require the Company to pay for taxes, maintenance and operating expenses. All of the Company’s leases are classified as operating leases. Rent expense for all leased manufacturing facilities and sales, laboratory and office space was approximately $375 and $345 for three months ended September 30, 2018 and 2017, respectively and $998 and $990 for the nine months ended September 30, 2018 and 2017, respectively.
(B) | Litigation and Contingencies
From time to time, we have been and may again become involved in legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of our business. Except as described below, we are not presently a party to any litigation or legal proceedings that we believe to be material and we are not aware of any pending or threatened litigation against us that we believe could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results, financial condition or cash flows. Patent-Related Litigation Beginning in August 2013, we were informed of ANDA filings in the United States by Watson Laboratories, Inc. (now Actavis Laboratories, Inc., or Actavis), Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., or Par, Alvogen Pine Brook, Inc., or Alvogen, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., or Teva, Sandoz Inc., or Sandoz, and Mylan Technologies Inc. or Mylan, for the approval by the FDA of generic versions of Suboxone Sublingual Film in the United States. We filed patent infringement lawsuits against all six generic companies in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Of these, cases against three of the six generic companies have been resolved.
• | Sandoz. By court order in August 2016, our ANDA patent litigation case against Sandoz has been dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Sandoz is no longer pursuing a Paragraph IV certification for its proposed generic version of Suboxone Sublingual Film, and therefore is no longer challenging the validity or infringement of our Orange Book-listed patents.
• | Mylan. The case against Mylan was settled and the Court signed a Consent Judgment in September 2017 disposing of the entire case.
• | Par. All cases against Par were resolved pursuant to a May 2018 settlement agreement between us, Indivior, and Par and certain of its affiliates.
After the commencement of the above-mentioned ANDA patent litigation against Teva, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories acquired the ANDA filings for Teva’s buprenorphine and naloxone sublingual film that are at issue in these trials. Trials against Dr. Reddy’s, Actavis and Par in the lawsuits involving the Orange Book and process patents occurred in November-December of 2015 and November of 2016. On June 3, 2016, the Court issued its Trial Opinion finding that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,603,514, or the ’514 patent, are valid and infringed by Actavis’s and Par’s ANDA Products. On August 31, 2017, the Court upheld U.S. Patent No. 8,900,497, or the ’497 patent, as valid but not infringed by Par’s, Actavis’s or Dr. Reddy’s proposed processes for making their ANDA Products. The Court also again upheld the validity of the ’514 patent but held it was not infringed by Dr. Reddy’s ANDA Products, and upheld the validity of U.S. Patent No. 8,017,150, or the ’150 patent, but held that it was not infringed by Dr. Reddy’s ANDA Products. All of these cases are consolidated on appeal to the Federal Circuit, except that the cases between Indivior and us and Par and certain affiliates have been resolved by a settlement agreement. Trial against Alvogen was held in September, 2017. The only issue raised at trial was whether Alvogen’s ANDA Products and processes infringe the ’514 and ’497 patents; Alvogen did not challenge the validity of the patents. In March 2018, the Court issued its opinion finding that Alvogen’s ANDA products and processes would not infringe the ’514 or ’497 patents. We and Indivior appealed the ruling, and the appeal is currently pending before the Federal Circuit. If any company is able to obtain FDA approval for its generic version of Suboxone Sublingual Film, it may be able to launch the product prior to the expiration of any or all the applicable patents protecting our Suboxone Film, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, results of operations and financial condition. We are also seeking to enforce our patent rights in multiple cases against BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., or BDSI. Two cases are currently pending but stayed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina:
| · | The first, a declaratory judgment action brought by BDSI against Indivior and Aquestive, seeks declarations of invalidity and non-infringement of U.S. Patents Nos. 7,897,080, or the ’080 patent, 8,652,378, or the ’378 patent, and 8,475,832, or the ’832 patent. This case stayed pending inter partes review of the ’832 patent and reexamination of the ’080 patent.
| · | The second was filed by us and Indivior related to BDSI’s infringing Bunavail product, and alleges infringement of our patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,765,167, or the ’167 patent. This case was initially filed in September 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey but was transferred to North Carolina. Shortly after the case was filed, BDSI filed an IPR challenging the asserted ’167 patent. On March 24, 2016, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, or the PTAB, issued a final written decision finding the ’167 patent was not unpatentable. This case is stayed pending the outcome and final determination of the proceedings concerning the ’167 patent (discussed further below).
On January 13, 2017, we also sued BDSI asserting infringement of the ’167 patent by BDSI’s Belbuca product. The case was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and was later transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware by agreement of the parties. On October 16, 2018, the Delaware Court issued an order transferring the case to the U.S. Court District for the Eastern District of North Carolina. On November 28, 2016, after the PTAB issued its final written decisions finding that the ’167 patent was not unpatentable in IPR2015-00165, IPR2015-00168 and IPR2015-00169, BDSI filed a notice of appeal of those decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case was fully briefed, and the Court heard oral arguments on February 9, 2018. On June 19, 2018, BDSI filed a motion to terminate and remand the appeal, which the Company opposed. On July 31, 2018, the Federal Circuit granted the motion, vacating the PTAB’s decisions and remanding for further proceedings before the PTAB. The review proceedings remain pending before the PTAB. In September 2017, Indivior brought suit against Alvogen for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,687,454, or the ’454 patent, based on the filing of an ANDA seeking approval for a generic version of Suboxone Sublingual Film, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In February 2018, we and Indivior amended the complaint, which added us as a plaintiff and a claim for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,855,221, or the ’221 patent. Indivior brought suits against Dr. Reddy’s and Teva in September 2017, and against Par and certain affiliates in October 2017, for infringement of the ’454 patent, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Indivior also brought suit in September 2017 against Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. for infringement of the ’454 patent, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. On March 13, 2018, the Court granted transfer of this case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. In February 2018, we and Indivior brought suit against Actavis, Dr. Reddy’s, Teva, and Par and certain affiliates for infringement of the ’221 patent. The suit against Actavis was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, and the other three cases were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In April 2018, we brought suit with Indivior against Actavis, Alvogen, Dr. Reddy’s, Teva, and Par and certain affiliates for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,931,305, or the ’305 patent. The cases against Alvogen, Dr. Reddy’s, Teva, and Par are pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, and they have each been consolidated with the actions asserting infringement of the ’454 and ’221 patents. Following transfer of the case asserting the ’454 patent from Utah to Delaware, and by agreement of the parties, the cases against Actavis asserting infringement of the ’454, ’221, and ’305 patents are consolidated in a single action pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. All matters involving Par were resolved on May 11, 2018, when we, Indivior, and Par and certain of its affiliates entered into a settlement agreement resolving patent litigation related to SUBOXONE (buprenorphine and Naloxone) Sublingual Film. As required by law, the parties submitted the settlement agreement to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice for review. On June 14, 2018, Dr. Reddy’s notified the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey that the FDA had granted final approval of its ANDAs and that it had launched generic versions of Suboxone Sublingual Film. The Company and Indivior filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and a request for a temporary restraining order, and the Court granted the request on June 15, 2018 enjoining and restraining Dr. Reddy’s from offering for sale, selling or importing its generic versions of Suboxone Sublingual Film. On July 13, 2018, the Court granted the preliminary injunction, which enjoins Dr. Reddy’s from launching a generic version of Suboxone during the pendency of the litigation and until further order from the Court. Dr. Reddy’s appealed the preliminary injunction ruling to the Federal Circuit. Dr. Reddy’s also requested a stay of the injunction pending appeal, which the Company and Indivior opposed. Both the District Judge and the Federal Circuit denied Dr. Reddy’s request for a stay. The Federal Circuit heard oral argument on the appeal on October 4, 2018 but has not yet issued its opinion. Antitrust Litigation On September 22, 2016, forty-one states and the District of Columbia, or the States, brought suit against Indivior and us in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging violations of federal and state antitrust statutes and state unfair trade and consumer protection laws relating to Indivior’s launch of Suboxone Sublingual Film in 2010. After filing, the case was consolidated for pre-trial purposes with the In re Suboxone (Buprenorphine Hydrochloride and Naloxone) Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2445, or the Suboxone MDL, a multidistrict litigation relating to putative class actions on behalf of various private plaintiffs against Indivior relating to its launch of Suboxone Sublingual Film. While we were not named as a defendant in the original Suboxone MDL cases, the action brought by the States alleges that we participated in an antitrust conspiracy with Indivior in connection with Indivior’s launch of Suboxone Sublingual Film and engaged in related conduct in violation of federal and state antitrust law. We moved to dismiss the States’ conspiracy claims, and by order dated October 30, 2017, the Court denied our motion to dismiss. We filed an answer denying the States’ claims on November 20, 2017. The fact discovery period closed July 27, 2018, but the parties agreed to conduct certain fact depositions in August 2018. The case is proceeding to expert discovery, which is scheduled to close May 3, 2019. Product Litigation On December 27, 2016, we were named as a co-defendant in product liability suit brought by Laurence and Michelle Allen, as Co-Administrators of the Estate of John Bradley Allen, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. This suit, which also named Indivior Inc. and Indivior PLC as defendants, asserts causes of action for negligence, strict liability, and failure to warn against the defendants in connection with the manufacture and sale of Suboxone Sublingual Film. Plaintiffs allege that John Bradley Allen’s use of Suboxone Sublingual Film was a substantial contributing cause of his mental anguish and death and seek $100 million in damages. All defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on April 10, 2017, and those motions were fully briefed on May 18, 2017. Aquestive was dismissed from the case on May 9, 2017, and the remainder of the case was closed on August 9, 2018, after the complaint was dismissed in favor of Indivior.

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