XML 14 R20.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.20.1

Legal Matters | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Legal Matters | Legal Matters Fanapt®. The Company has been involved in litigation with Roxane Laboratories, Inc. (Roxane) and its affiliates, West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Limited and West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp (West-Ward), since the Company filed a lawsuit against Roxane in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Delaware District Court) for patent infringement in June 2014. The lawsuit was filed in response to Roxane’s submission to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) for a generic version of Fanapt® prior to the expiration of certain of the Company’s patents covering Fanapt®, including U.S. Patent No. 8,586,610 (‘610 Patent). In August 2016, the Delaware District Court ruled in the Company’s favor, permanently enjoining Roxane from manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell, distributing or importing any generic iloperidone product described in Roxane’s ANDA until the expiration of the ‘610 Patent in November 2027, or May 2028 if the Company obtains pediatric exclusivity. In April 2018, following an appeal by Roxane of the Delaware District Court’s decision to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (Federal Circuit), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Delaware District Court’s ruling. In June 2018, West-Ward, having replaced Roxane as defendants following the acquisition of Roxane by West-Ward’s parent company, Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC, petitioned the Federal Circuit for a rehearing en banc. In August 2018, the Federal Circuit denied West-Ward's petition. In January 2019, West-Ward filed a petition in the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari seeking reversal of the Federal Circuit’s decision. In March 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court invited the Solicitor General of the U.S. to file a brief in the matter expressing the views of the U.S. In January 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court denied West-Ward's petition for writ of certiorari. In 2015, the Company filed six separate patent infringement lawsuits in the Delaware District Court against Roxane, Inventia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. (Inventia), Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Lupin), Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Taro Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. (Taro), and Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (Apotex, and collectively with Roxane, Inventia, Lupin and Taro, the Fanapt® Defendants). These lawsuits were filed in response to the submission to the FDA by each of the Fanapt® Defendants of ANDAs for generic versions of Fanapt® prior to the expiration of the ‘610 Patent in November 2027 or the U.S. Patent No. 9,138,432 in September 2025. The Company entered into separate confidential stipulations with each of Inventia and Lupin regarding any potential launch of their generic versions of Fanapt®. The parties are scheduled to provide the court with a status report on May 28, 2020 with respect to the remaining lawsuits against the other Fanapt® Defendants. HETLIOZ®. In April and May 2018, the Company filed three separate patent infringement lawsuits in the Delaware District Court against Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Teva), MSN Pharmaceuticals Inc. and MSN Laboratories Private Limited (MSN) and Apotex (collectively with Teva and MSN, the HETLIOZ® Defendants) after having received Paragraph IV certification notice letters (Paragraph IV Letters) from each of the HETLIOZ® Defendants alleging that certain of the Company's patents covering HETLIOZ® (collectively, the HETLIOZ® Patents) were invalid, unenforceable and/or would not be infringed by the manufacture, use or sale of their generic versions of HETLIOZ®, as described in the ANDAs submitted to the FDA by each of the HETLIOZ® Defendants, prior to the expiration of the latest to expire of the HETLIOZ® Patents in 2034. Each of the HETLIOZ® Patents are listed in the Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (Orange Book). In December 2018, the Company filed amended complaints against each of the HETLIOZ® Defendants following the receipt of additional Paragraph IV Letters from Teva and Apotex concerning its Orange Book listed '977 Patent, which expires in 2035. These lawsuits are scheduled for trial in July 2021. In March 2019, April 2019, and May 2019, the Company filed three additional patent infringement lawsuits in the Delaware District Court against the HETLIOZ® Defendants following the receipt of additional Paragraph IV Letters from each concerning its Orange Book listed U.S. Patent No. 10,149,829, which expires in 2033. These lawsuits have been consolidated with the other lawsuits against the HETLIOZ® Defendants and are also scheduled for trial in July 2021. In November and December 2019, the Company filed additional patent infringement lawsuits in the Delaware District Court against Apotex and Teva, respectively, for infringement of its Orange Book listed U.S. Patent No. 10,376,487 (‘487 Patent) following the receipt of additional Paragraph IV Letters from Apotex and Teva regarding the '487 Patent, which expires in July 2035. Teva asserted a counterclaim for a declaratory judgment that the ‘487 Patent is invalid. The Company answered Teva’s counterclaim by denying their allegation that the ‘487 Patent is invalid. In January 2020, the Company filed two additional patent infringement lawsuits in the Delaware District Court against Teva and Apotex for infringement of its Orange Book-listed U.S. Patent No. 10,449,176 (‘176 Patent) following the receipt of additional Paragraph IV Letters from Teva and Apotex regarding the ‘176 Patent, which expires in January 2033. These lawsuits have been consolidated with the other lawsuits against the HETLIOZ® Defendants and are also scheduled for trial in July 2021. In January 2020 and February 2020, the Company received additional Paragraph IV Letters from MSN concerning the '487 patent and the '176 Patent, respectively, in which MSN alleges that the ‘487 and the '176 Patents are invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, or importation of MSN's generic version of HETLIOZ® as described in MSN's ANDA. In February and March 2020 the Company filed two additional lawsuits in the Delaware District Court against MSN for infringement of its ‘487 Patent and ‘176 Patent. These lawsuits have been consolidated with the other lawsuits against the HETLIOZ® Defendants and are also scheduled for trial in July 2021. Other Matters. In April 2018, the Company submitted a protocol amendment to the FDA, proposing a 52-week open-label extension (OLE) period for patients who had completed the tradipitant Phase II clinical study (2301) in gastroparesis. In May 2018, based on feedback from the FDA, the Company amended the protocol limiting the duration of treatment in the 2301 study to a total of three months, while continuing to seek further dialogue with the FDA on extending the study duration to 52-weeks. As a part of this negotiation process, in September 2018, the Company submitted a new follow-on 52-week OLE protocol to the FDA (2302) for patients who had completed the 2301 study. While waiting for further feedback, the Company did not enroll any patients in any study beyond 12 weeks. In December 2018, the FDA imposed a partial clinical hold (PCH) on the two proposed studies, stating that the Company is required first to conduct additional chronic toxicity studies in canines, monkeys or minipigs before allowing patients access in any clinical protocol beyond 12 weeks. At that time, the FDA informed the Company that the original PCH was not based on any safety or efficacy data related to tradipitant, but, rather that these additional toxicity studies were required by a guidance document. Subsequently, the FDA has taken the position that an additional study was required in order for the FDA to have adequate toxicology data to undertake a risk analysis of tradipitant. On February 5, 2019, the Company filed a lawsuit against the FDA in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (DC District Court), challenging the FDA’s legal authority to issue the PCH, and seeking an order to set it aside. In February 2019, the FDA filed a Motion for Voluntary Remand to the Agency and for a Stay of the Case. In March 2019, the DC District Court granted the FDA’s request for voluntary remand and returned the matter to the FDA for further consideration. In April 2019, the FDA provided its remand response, in which it indicated that, upon review of scientific literature and tradipitant data, it believes that a PCH continues to be appropriate until the Company has adequate safety data from a nine-month non-rodent toxicity study. In May 2019, the Company filed an amended complaint, and in July 2019, the Company filed a Motion for Summary Judgment based on its continuing belief after review of the FDA’s remand response that additional chronic toxicity studies are unjustified, and that it has provided the FDA with sufficient information regarding the safety of tradipitant to justify the continued study of tradipitant in patients beyond 12 weeks, in accordance with applicable law and FDA regulations. The FDA filed a reply and cross-motion for summary judgment in October 2019 and an oral hearing was held in December 2019. In January 2020, the Court granted the FDA's cross-motion for summary judgment and granted judgment in favor of the FDA on the Company's claims. The Company has elected not to appeal the Court's ruling. In February 2019, a qui tam action filed against the Company was unsealed by order of the DC District Court. The qui tam action, which was filed under seal in March 2017, was brought by a former Company employee on behalf of the U.S., 28 states and the District of Columbia (collectively, the Plaintiff States) and the policyholders of certain insurance companies under the Federal False Claims Act and state law equivalents to the Federal False Claims Act and related state laws. The complaint alleged that the Company violated these laws through the promotion and marketing of its products Fanapt® and HETLIOZ® and sought, among other things, treble damages, civil penalties for each alleged false claim, and attorneys’ fees and costs. By virtue of the DC District Court having unsealed the original complaint, the Company learned that in January 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice (the DOJ), as well as the Plaintiff States, elected not to intervene in the qui tam action at that time. In May 2019, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint under seal repeating the same allegations and seeking the same relief. According to a filing unsealed in June 2019, the DOJ reaffirmed its decision not to intervene and incorporated its prior filing, indicating that neither the DOJ nor the Plaintiff States were intervening regarding the original complaint. Although the DOJ and the Plaintiff States have elected not to intervene, the plaintiff may litigate this action and the DOJ and the Plaintiff States may later seek to intervene in the action. In August 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, and in October 2019 the plaintiff filed a reply. In March 2020, the DC District Court vacated the scheduled hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss and will notify the parties of a new hearing date if one is deemed necessary by the DC District Court. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in the case. In February 2019, a securities class action, Gordon v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants. An amended complaint was filed in July 2019. The amended complaint, filed on behalf of a purported stockholder, asserts claims on behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased the Company’s publicly traded securities between November 4, 2015 and February 11, 2019, for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements and/or omissions regarding Fanapt®, HETLIOZ® and the Company’s interactions with the FDA regarding tradipitant between November 3, 2015 and February 11, 2019. On March 23, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiff is expected to file its reply by May 7, 2020. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit. The Company does not anticipate that this litigation will have a material adverse effect on its business, results of operations or financial condition. However, this lawsuit is subject to inherent uncertainties, the actual cost may be significant, and the Company may not prevail. The Company believes it is entitled to coverage under its relevant insurance policies, subject to a retention, but coverage could be denied or prove to be insufficient. In July 2019, a shareholder derivative complaint, Samuel Williams vs. Mihael Polymeropoulos, et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York naming certain current and former Company directors and officers as defendants. In September 2019, a shareholder derivative complaint, Michael Bavaro v. Mihael Polymeropoulos, et al., was filed in the Delaware District Court naming certain current and former Company directors and officers as defendants. In October 2019, the Company filed a motion to transfer the Bavaro case to the Eastern District of New York, where the Gordon and Williams cases are pending. In March 2020, the Delaware District Court transferred the Bavaro case to the Eastern District of New York, consolidating the Williams and Bavaro cases, and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on April 24, 2020. These complaints, filed on behalf of purported stockholders, derivatively on behalf of the Company, assert claims for alleged breach of fiduciary duties by certain of the Company’s current and former directors and officers. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend these lawsuits. The Company does not anticipate that this litigation will have a material adverse effect on its business, results of operations or financial condition. However, these lawsuits are subject to inherent uncertainties, the actual cost may be significant, and the Company may not prevail. The Company believes it is entitled to coverage under its relevant insurance policies, subject to a retention, but coverage could be denied or prove to be insufficient. In July 2017, the CHMP issued a negative opinion recommending against approval of Fanaptum® (oral iloperidone tablets) for the treatment of schizophrenia in adult patients in the E.U. The CHMP was of the opinion that the benefits of Fanaptum® did not outweigh its risks and recommended against marketing authorization. In March 2018, the Company filed an application seeking annulment of the EMA’s negative opinion and the subsequent European Commission decision refusing marketing authorization of Fanaptum in the European General Court. In December 2019, the General Court issued its judgment dismissing the action, leaving the EMA opinion and Commission decision intact. In February 2020, the Company filed an appeal of this judgment with the Court of Justice of the E.U.

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 legal proceedings, legal contingencies, litigation, regulatory and environmental matters and other 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 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration