XML 104 R27.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.23.1

Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Contingencies | Contingencies Litigation and Contingencies From time to time, the Company has been and may again become involved in legal proceedings arising in the course of its business, including product liability, intellectual property, commercial litigation, or environmental or other regulatory matters. Patent-Related Litigation Indivior Inc., Indivior UK Ltd., and Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs. S.A. and Dr. Reddy’s Labs., Inc., On February 7, 2018, we and Indivior Inc. and Indivior UK Ltd. (collectively, “Indivior”) initiated a lawsuit against Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories S.A. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. (collectively, “Dr. Reddy’s”) asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,855,221 (the "221 patent”). On April 3, 2018, we and Indivior initiated a separate lawsuit against Dr. Reddy’s asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,931,305 (the "’305 patent”). On May 29, 2018, the lawsuits regarding the ’221 and ’305 patents were consolidated which was originally initiated by Indivior against Dr. Reddy’s asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,687,454 (the "’454 patent”). On February 19, 2019, the Court granted the parties’ agreed stipulation to drop the ’221 patent from the case. On January 8, 2020, the Court entered a stipulated order of non-infringement of the ’305 patent based on the Court’s claim construction ruling, and the Company and Indivior preserved our rights to appeal the claim construction ruling. On June 28, 2022, pursuant to a settlement agreement between the parties, the Court entered a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal, dismissing all claims and counterclaims with prejudice in the lawsuit. Indivior Inc., Indivior UK Ltd., and Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. On February 7, 2018, the Company and Indivior initiated a lawsuit against Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”) asserting infringement of the ’221 patent. On April 3, 2018, the Company and Indivior initiated a separate lawsuit against Teva asserting infringement of the ’305 patent. On May 29, 2018, the lawsuits regarding the ’221 and ’305 patents were consolidated with a suit originally initiated by Indivior against Teva asserting infringement of the ’454 patent. The parties agreed that the case would be governed by the final judgment against Dr. Reddy’s (described above). The Company is not able to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of this proceeding or provide a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the possible outcome or losses, if any, in this matter. Indivior Inc., Indivior UK Ltd., and Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. v. Alvogen Pine Brook LLC On September 14, 2017, Indivior initiated a lawsuit against Alvogen Pine Brook LLC (“Alvogen”) asserting infringement of the ’454 patent. On February 7, 2018, the Company and Indivior filed an Amended Complaint, adding the Company as a plaintiff and asserting infringement of the’221 patent. On April 3, 2018, the Company and Indivior initiated a separate lawsuit against Alvogen asserting infringement of the ’305 patent. On May 29, 2018, the cases were consolidated. On February 26, 2019, the Court granted the parties’ agreed stipulation to drop the ’221 patent from the case. On January 9, 2020, the Court entered a stipulated order of non-infringement of the ’305 patent based on the Court’s claim construction ruling, and the Company and Indivior preserved the right to appeal the claim construction ruling. On November 21, 2019, Alvogen filed an amended answer and counterclaims asserting monopolization, attempted monopolization, and conspiracy to monopolize against the Company and Indivior under federal and New Jersey antitrust laws. The court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss Alvogen’s counterclaims on August 24, 2020. On November 2, 2020, Alvogen filed a second amended answer and counterclaims, removing its allegations of monopolization and attempted monopolization against the Company and asserting only conspiracy to monopolize against the Company. Fact discovery on Alvogen’s antitrust counterclaims concluded on January 29, 2021. Expert discovery concluded on October 8, 2021, and dispositive motions were filed on October 26, 2021. The Court heard oral argument on the dispositive motions on August 29, 2022, and the parties are awaiting a ruling from the Court. There is no trial date set. The Company is not able to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of this proceeding or provide a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the possible outcome or losses, if any, in this matter. Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and MonoSol Rx, LLC v. BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. and Quintiles Commercials US, Inc. (BDSI 2014 Lawsuit) On September 22, 2014, the Company and Indivior initiated a lawsuit against BDSI and Quintiles Commercial US, Inc. (“Quintiles”) asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,765,167 (the "’167 patent”) in the District of New Jersey (Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-5892). On July 22, 2015, the case was transferred to the Eastern District of North Carolina. BDSI filed requests for inter partes review (“IPR”) of the ’167 patent before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), and on May 6, 2016, the Court stayed the case pending the outcome and final determination of the IPR proceedings. On March 24, 2016, the PTAB issued final written decisions finding the ’167 patent was not unpatentable, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) remanded those decisions for further proceedings before the PTAB. Following the PTAB’s February 7, 2019 decision on remand denying institution, BDSI appealed that decision to the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the appeal, and denied BDSI’s request for rehearing en banc. BDSI filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States (“Supreme Court”), which the Supreme Court denied on October 5, 2020. On April 15, 2021, the court lifted the stay of the litigation in the Eastern District of North Carolina. On April 29, 2021, BDSI filed a renewed motion to dismiss the complaint. In response, the Company and Indivior filed an amended complaint on May 18, 2021, which, among other things, removed Quintiles as a defendant. On June 3, 2021, BDSI filed a notice withdrawing its motion to dismiss the original complaint. On July 7, 2021, the court entered a scheduling order in the case. Under the current scheduling order, the parties have completed their exchange of preliminary infringement and validity contentions, have completed claim construction briefing, and are proceeding with fact discovery. The court may schedule a claim construction hearing, and the remainder of the schedule is dependent on the timing of the court’s ruling on claim construction. The Company is not able to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of this proceeding or provide a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the possible outcome or losses, if any, in this matter. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. v. BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. On November 11, 2019, the Company initiated a lawsuit against BDSI asserting infringement of the ’167 patent in the Eastern District of North Carolina. On April 1, 2020, the Court denied BDSI’s motion to stay and its motion to dismiss the complaint. On April 16, 2020, BDSI filed its Answer and Counterclaims to the complaint, including counterclaims for non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of the ’167 patent. On May 7, 2020, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss BDSI’s unenforceability counterclaim and a Motion to Strike BDSI’s corresponding affirmative defenses. On May 28, 2020, BDSI amended its counterclaims and filed an Answer and Amended Counterclaims, which included additional allegations in support of BDSI’s unenforceability counterclaim. On June 25, 2020, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss BDSI’s Amended Counterclaim for unenforceability and a Motion to Strike BDSI’s corresponding affirmative defense of unenforceability, which BDSI opposed. On March 16, 2021, the court issued an order granting-in-part and denying-in-part the Company’s motion to dismiss BDSI’s counterclaims asserting unenforceability of the ’167 patent. The Company filed its answer to the remaining portions of BDSI’s counterclaims on April 6, 2021. BDSI also filed on April 6, 2021 a renewed motion to dismiss the Company’s complaint, which the Company opposed. On August 10, 2021, the court entered an order denying BDSI’s motion to dismiss. On July 7, 2021, the court entered a scheduling order in the case, including the same operative dates as the court included in the scheduling order for the BDSI 2014 Lawsuit described above, and the parties are proceeding under that same schedule. The Company is not able to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of this proceeding or provide a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the possible outcome or losses, if any, in this matter. Antitrust Litigation State of Wisconsin, et al. v. Indivior Inc., Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (UK) Ltd., Indivior PLC, and MonoSol Rx, LLC On September 22, 2016, forty-one states and the District of Columbia, or the States, brought a lawsuit against Indivior and the Company 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 and seeking an injunction, civil penalties, and disgorgement. After filing the lawsuit, 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 the Company was not named as a defendant in the original Suboxone MDL cases, the action brought by the States alleges that the Company 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. The Company moved to dismiss the States’ conspiracy claims, but by order dated October 30, 2017, the Court denied its motion to dismiss. The Company filed an answer denying the States’ claims on November 20, 2017. Daubert motions were filed on September 28, 2020, and oppositions were filed on October 19, 2020. On February 19, 2021, the court issued an order denying all Daubert motions. On March 8, 2021, Aquestive filed a motion for summary judgment, and briefing on summary judgment motions was completed on May 28, 2021. The hearing on Aquestive’s motion for summary judgment was held on May 18, 2022 and, on October 19, 2022, the Court entered an order dismissing all claims against the Company in the lawsuit. The order dismissing all claims against the Company could be appealed by the plaintiffs in this case. The Company is not able to determine or predict whether the plaintiffs will appeal the order or the ultimate outcome of this proceeding or provide a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the possible outcome or loss, if any, in this matter. Humana and Centene Actions Humana Inc. v. Indivior Inc, Indivior Solutions Inc., Indivior PLC, Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (UK) Ltd., and Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. Centene Corporation, Wellcare Health Plans, Inc., New York Quality Healthcare Corporation d/b/a Fidelis Care, and Health Net, LLC v. Indivior Inc, Indivior Solutions Inc., Indivior PLC, Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (UK) Ltd., and Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. On September 18, 2020, Humana, Inc. (“Humana”), a health insurance payor, filed a lawsuit against the Company and Indivior in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging facts similar to those at issue in the Antitrust Case and the Suboxone MDL described above, which lawsuit was assigned to the same judge that is presiding over Antitrust Case and Suboxone MDL. Humana’s Complaint alleges five causes of action against the Company, including conspiracy to violate the RICO Act, fraud under state law, unfair and deceptive trade practices under state law, insurance fraud, and unjust enrichment. On September 21, 2020, Centene Corporation (“Centene”) and other related insurance payors filed a similar lawsuit against the Company and Indivior in the Eastern District of Missouri. The counsel representing Humana is also representing Centene. On September 21, 2020, the Centene action was provisionally transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. On January 15, 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Centene and Humana complaints. The court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed all complaints against the defendants in these matters on July 22, 2021. On August 20, 2021, Centene and Humana appealed the decision to the U.S. Appeals Court for the Third Circuit (“Third Circuit”). Also, on August 20, 2021, Humana filed a complaint in state court in Kentucky, alleging the same causes of action previously filed in the federal case in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. That state court action remains stayed pending further action from the court following resolution of the federal appeal in the Third Circuit. On December 15, 2022, the Third Circuit issued an opinion and order affirming the district court’s dismissal of the Centene and Humana actions. The Company is not able to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of the state court action in Kentucky by Humana, or provide a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the possible outcome or loss, if any, in this matter. California Litigation Neurelis, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. On December 5, 2019, Neurelis Inc. filed a lawsuit against us in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego alleging the following three causes of action: (1) Unfair Competition under California Business and Professional Code § 17200 (“UCL”); (2) Defamation; and (3) Malicious Prosecution. Neurelis filed a First Amended Complaint on December 9, 2019, alleging the same three causes of action. The Company filed a Motion to Strike Neurelis’s Complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP (“strategic lawsuit against public participation”) statute on January 31, 2020, which Neurelis opposed. On August 6, 2020, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the Company’s anti-SLAPP motion. The parties cross-appealed the ruling to the California Court of Appeal. The appeals court held oral argument on the appeal on October 14, 2021, and issued its ruling on November 17, 2021. Under the ruling, the court struck the entirety of the malicious prosecution claim and struck portions of the UCL and defamation claims. On April 12, 2022, Neurelis filed a Second Amended Complaint in response to the Court of Appeal's decision. The Second Amended Complaint also added a cause of action for Trade Libel. On May 3, 2022, the Company filed a "demurrer" challenge to the sufficiency of the allegations of the Second Amended Complaint. Oral argument on the Company’s motion for attorney fees related to the anti-SLAPP motion and on the Second Amended Complaint and demurer challenge was held on June 17, 2022. The Court entered an order granting the Company’s motion for attorney fees, awarding $155,907.50 and ordering Neurelis to pay the fees within 60 days of June 17, 2022. The Court denied the Company’s demurrer and the parties are proceeding with discovery on the claims in the Second Amended Complaint. No trial date has been set. The Company is not able to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of this proceeding or provide a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the possible outcome or loss, if any, in this matter. Federal Securities Class Action Deanna Lewakowski v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., et al. On March 1, 2021, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court of the District of New Jersey alleging that the Company and certain of its officers engaged in violations of the federal securities laws relating to public statements made by the Company regarding the FDA approval of Libervant. Following the court’s appointment of a lead plaintiff, an amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs on June 25, 2021. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on August 16, 2021, which became fully briefed as of November 1, 2021. There is no date set for a hearing on the motion to dismiss and no trial date has yet been set. The Company is not able to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of this proceeding or provide a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the possible outcome or loss, if any, in this matter. Shareholder Derivative Litigation Loreen Niewenhuis v. Keith Kendall, et al. On December 15, 2021, a purported Aquestive shareholder instituted a derivative action captioned Loreen Niewenhuis v. Keith Kendall, et al. in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, purportedly on behalf of the Company, against certain current and former officers and directors of the Company. The case was designated as related to the pending federal securities class action Deanna Lewakowski v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., referenced above, and accepted by the same judge presiding over the securities class action. The complaint in this matter alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty and contribution. The factual allegations that form the basis of these claims are similar to the disclosure-related allegations asserted in the class action. On April 4, 2022, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting the same claims against the same defendants. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on April 25, 2022, which became fully briefed as of June 27, 2022. There is no date set for a hearing on the motion to dismiss and no trial date has yet been set. The Company is not able to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of this proceeding or provide a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the possible outcome or loss, if any, in this matter.

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 440 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration