Item 1. Legal Proceedings
Item 1. Legal Proceedings.
Legal Proceedings Relating to Vadadustat
Opposition Proceedings Against Akebia
In July 2011, a third party filed an opposition to our issued European Patent No. 2044005, or the ’005 EP Patent, in the European Patent Office, or the EPO. During the oral proceedings, which took place on April 10, 2013, the Opposition Division of the EPO maintained the ’005 EP Patent. This decision resulted in the maintenance of a claim directed to a compound chosen from a group of eight compounds, including vadadustat, as well as claims to compositions and methods for treating various diseases, including, but not limited to, anemia. Both parties appealed the decision of the Opposition Division of the EPO. On February 27, 2018, we withdrew the ’005 EP Patent from appeal and filed a divisional patent application to pursue a focused claim set that includes claims for vadadustat, as well as pharmaceutical compositions and methods of treating anemia.
In September 2018, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited filed an opposition to our issued Indian Patent No. 287720 in the Indian Patent Office.
Proceedings Filed by Akebia Against FibroGen, Inc.
Europe
We filed an opposition in the EPO against FibroGen, Inc.’s, or FibroGen’s, European Patent No. 1463823, or the ’823 EP Patent on December 5, 2013, and an oral proceeding took place March 8 and 9, 2016. Following the oral proceeding, the Opposition Division of EPO ruled that the patent as granted did not meet the requirements for patentability under the European Patent Convention and, therefore, revoked the patent in its entirety. FibroGen has appealed that decision.
On May 13, 2015, May 20, 2015 and July 6, 2015, we filed oppositions to FibroGen’s European Patent Nos. 2322155, or the ’155 EP Patent, 1633333, or the ’333 EP Patent, and 2322153, or the ’153 EP Patent in the EPO, respectively, requesting the patents be revoked in their entirety. These method of use patents do not prevent persons from using the compound for other uses, including any previously known use of the compound. In particular, these patents do not claim methods of using any of our product candidates for purposes of inhibiting HIF-PH for the treatment of anemia due to chronic kidney disease, or CKD. While we do not believe these patents will prevent us from commercializing vadadustat for the treatment of anemia due to CKD, we filed these oppositions to provide us and our collaborators with maximum flexibility for developing vadadustat and our pipeline of investigational oral hypoxia-inducible factor prolyl hydroxylase, or HIF-PH, inhibitor compounds.
Oppositions to the ’155 EP Patent and the ’153 EP Patent were also filed in the EPO by Glaxo Group Limited, or Glaxo, and by Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH, Bayer Pharma Aktiengesellschaft, and Bayer Animal Health GmbH, or, collectively, Bayer. Glaxo withdrew its oppositions on March 2, 2020 and Bayer withdrew its oppositions on June 30, 2021.
With regard to the opposition that we filed in Europe against the ’333 EP Patent, an oral proceeding took place on December 8 and 9, 2016. Following the oral proceeding, the Opposition Division of the EPO ruled that the patent as granted did not meet the requirements for patentability under the European Patent Convention and, therefore, revoked the patent in its entirety. On December 9, 2016, FibroGen filed a notice to appeal the decision to revoke the ’333 EP Patent. The Board of Appeal held an oral proceeding on this appeal on February 24 and 25, 2022, during which proceeding the '333 EP Patent was maintained in restricted form. The ‘333 EP patent was originally granted with four independent claims, one of which was found obvious on appeal. The remaining claims are directed to: treatment of anemia of chronic disease in subjects having a percent transferrin saturation of less than 20% (claim 1), treatment of anemia that is refractory to treatment with exogenously administered erythropoietin (claim 6), and treatment of iron deficiency (claim 15).
In oral proceedings held on May 29, 2017, regarding the ’155 EP Patent, the European Opposition Division ruled that the ’155 EP Patent as granted did not meet the requirements for patentability under the European Patent Convention and, therefore, revoked the patent in its entirety. FibroGen filed a notice to appeal the decision to revoke the ’155 EP Patent on May 29, 2017. An oral proceeding for the appeal was held on February 22, 2022, during which proceeding the Board of Appeal maintained the revocation of the ‘155 EP Patent in its entirety.
In related oral proceedings held on May 31, 2017 and June 1, 2017 for the ’153 EP Patent, the Opposition Division of the EPO maintained the patent after FibroGen significantly narrowed the claims to an indication for which vadadustat is not intended to be developed. We and Glaxo separately filed notices to appeal the decision to maintain the ’153 EP Patent on November 9, 2017. Bayer filed a notice to appeal the decision on November 14, 2017. Glaxo withdrew its appeal on March 2, 2020 and
47
Bayer withdrew its appeal on June 30, 2021. An oral proceeding for the appeal was held on February 21, 2022, during which proceeding the Board of Appeal revoked the ‘153 patent in its entirety.
On April 3, 2019, we filed oppositions to FibroGen’s European Patent Nos. 2289531, or the ’531 EP Patent, and 2298301, or the ’301 EP Patent in the EPO, respectively, requesting the patents be revoked in their entirety. Oral proceedings for oppositions to the two patents were held on September 7-8 and 10, 2021. Following oral proceedings, the Opposition Division of the EPO maintained certain claims in amended form in the two patents. On January 26, 2022, we filed notice to appeal the Opposition Division’s decision for ’531 EP. These two patents will expire in December 2022, and we do not expect the Opposition Division’s decision on the two patents to have any effect on our commercialization of vadadustat in Europe.
Japan
On June 2, 2014, we filed an invalidity proceeding before the Japan Patent Office, or JPO, against certain claims of FibroGen’s Japanese Patent No. 4804131, or the ’131 JP Patent, which is the Japanese counterpart to the ’823 EP Patent, and the JPO issued a preliminary decision finding all of the challenged claims to be invalid. FibroGen subsequently amended the claims and the JPO accepted the amendments. The resulting ’131 JP Patent does not cover vadadustat or any pyridine carboxamide compounds.
On June 22, 2018, we and our collaboration partner in Japan, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, or MTPC, jointly filed a Request for Trial before the JPO to challenge the validity of one of FibroGen’s HIF-related patents in Japan, JP4845728. On July 20, 2018 and August 13, 2018, we and MTPC jointly filed a Request for Trial before the JPO to challenge the validity of two additional FibroGen HIF-related patents in Japan, JP5474872 and JP5474741, respectively. On September 26, 2019, the JPO conducted an invalidation trial for JP5474872 and JP4845728. On November 11, 2019, the JPO conducted an invalidation trial for JP5474741. On February 10, 2020, the JPO issued a pre-notice of a trial decision for JP4845728, which invalidated all claims except two claims in amended form. On March 11, 2020, the JPO issued a pre-notice of a trial decision for JP5474872, which invalidated all claims except one claim in amended form. On April 1, 2022, the JPO issued a final decision for JP4845728, which invalidated all claims except claims directed to the medical use to treat anemia that does not respond to erythropoiesis. We expect the JPO to issue final decisions for JP5474741 and JP5474872 this year. We do not believe these decisions will prevent our collaboration partner MTPC from commercializing vadadustat for the treatment of anemia due to CKD in Japan.
United Kingdom
On December 13, 2018, we and our collaboration partner, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., or Otsuka, filed Particulars of Claim in the Patents Court of the United Kingdom to challenge the validity of FibroGen’s six HIF-related patents in the UK: the ’823 EP Patent (UK), the ’333 EP Patent (UK), the ’153 EP Patent (UK), the ’155 EP Patent (UK), European Patent (UK) No. 2,289,531, or the ’531 EP Patent (UK), and European Patent (UK) No. 2,298,301, or the ’301 EP Patent (UK). In May 2019, Astellas Pharma Inc., or Astellas, the exclusive licensee of FibroGen’s HIF-related patents, sued Akebia and Otsuka for patent infringement in the Patents Court of the UK. In September 2019, we and Otsuka filed an Amended Particulars of Claim to include FibroGen’s European Patent No. 1487472, or the ’472 EP Patent (UK). On February 28, 2020, the parties agreed to dismiss the ’472 EP Patent (UK) from the trial.
A trial was conducted in March 2020. On April 20, 2020, the Patents Court of the UK issued a judgment in favor of Akebia, which invalidated all the claims at issue in each of the ’823 EP Patent (UK), the ’333 EP Patent (UK), the ’153 EP Patent (UK), the ’155 EP Patent (UK) and the ’301 EP Patent (UK). The ’531 EP Patent (UK) was amended to a single claim to recite one specific compound; this claim was held to be valid but not infringed by vadadustat. On June 11, 2020, FibroGen and Astellas appealed the Patents Court’s judgment on the invalidity of the ’823 EP Patent (UK), the ’301 EP Patent (UK), the ’333 EP Patent (UK), the ’153 EP Patent (UK), and the ’155 EP Patent (UK) in the Court of Appeal (Civil Division). On June 8, 2021 - June 10, 2021, the United Kingdom Court of Appeal held a three-day hearing for the appeal. On August 24, 2021, the Court of Appeal issued a judgment, which reversed the Patents Court’s judgment on the invalidity of the ’823 EP Patent (UK) and maintained certain claims of the ’823 EP Patent (UK) and the ’301 EP Patent (UK) in amended form, and which affirmed the Patents Court’s judgment on the invalidity of the ’333 EP Patent (UK), the ’155 EP Patent (UK), and the ’153 EP Patent (UK). Akebia and Otsuka are seeking permission to appeal to the UK Supreme Court. We do not expect the UK Court of Appeal’s judgment to have any effect on our commercialization of vadadustat in the UK.
United States
On March 29, 2021, we and our collaboration partner Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc. filed a lawsuit against FibroGen and AstraZeneca AB in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware to seek a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of FibroGen’s twelve HIF-related patents in the United States: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,318,703,
48
8,466,172, 8,614,204, 9,920,011, 8,629,131, 8,604,012, 8,609,646, 8,604,013, 10,626,090, 10,894,774, 10,882,827, and 10,927,081. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on June 4, 2021. We and Otsuka filed an opposition to the defendants’ motion on July 2, 2021, and the defendants filed a reply brief on July 16, 2021. On April 5, 2022, we voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice, our declaratory judgment complaint against FibroGen and AstraZeneca under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Legal Proceedings Relating to Auryxia
ANDA Litigation
In 2018 and 2019, Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., or Keryx, received Paragraph IV certification notice letters regarding Abbreviated New Drug Applications, or ANDAs, submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, by third parties requesting approval for generic versions of Auryxia tablets (210 mg ferric iron per tablet). In response to such ANDA filings, Keryx and its licensors, Panion & BF Biotech, Inc., or Panion, and, as applicable, Chen Hsing Hsu, M.D., filed complaints for patent infringement against such third parties. Keryx, Panion and, as applicable, Dr. Hsu have now entered into settlement and license agreements resolving all patent litigation proceedings brought by Keryx, Panion and, as applicable, Dr. Hsu, in response to ANDAs filed by third parties seeking approval to market generic versions of Auryxia ® (ferric citrate) tablets prior to the expiration of the applicable patents. Each settlement agreement granted the defendants a license to market a generic version of Auryxia in the United States beginning on March 20, 2025 (subject to FDA approval), or earlier under certain circumstances customary for settlement agreements of this nature.
Stockholder Litigation Relating to the Merger
On June 28, 2018, we entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Keryx and Alpha Therapeutics Merger Sub, Inc., or the Merger Sub, pursuant to which the Merger Sub would merge with and into Keryx, with Keryx becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of ours, or the Merger. On December 12, 2018, we completed the Merger. In October and November 2018, four purported shareholders of Keryx filed four separate putative class actions, or the Merger Securities Actions, against Keryx, a former officer and director of Keryx (Jodie P. Morrison), former directors of Keryx (Kevin J. Cameron, Mark J. Enyedy, Steven C. Gilman, Michael T. Heffernan, Daniel P. Regan and Michael Rogers, some of whom are current members of our Board of Directors), and, with respect to the Rosenblatt action discussed below, the Merger Sub and Akebia, challenging the disclosures made in connection with the Merger.
Three of the Merger Securities Actions were filed in the Delaware District Court: Corwin v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (filed October 16, 2018); Van Hulst v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (filed October 24, 2018); and Andreula v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (filed November 1, 2018). The fourth Merger Securities Action was filed in the Massachusetts District Court: Rosenblatt v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (filed October 23, 2018). On February 19, 2019, the plaintiff in the Rosenblatt action filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice. On March 27, 2019, the plaintiff in the Van Hulst action filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice.
On April 2, 2019, the Delaware District Court granted Abraham Kiswani, a member of the putative class in both the Andreula and Corwin actions, and plaintiff John Andreula’s motion to consolidate the remaining two Merger Securities Actions pending in the Delaware District Court and consolidated the Corwin and Andreula cases under the caption In re Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., or the Consolidated Federal Action. The Delaware District Court also appointed Kiswani and plaintiff Andreula as lead plaintiffs for the Consolidated Federal Action. On June 3, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in the Consolidated Federal Action, or the Consolidated Complaint. The Consolidated Complaint generally alleged that the registration statement filed in connection with the Merger contained allegedly false and misleading statements or failed to disclose certain allegedly material information in violation of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. The alleged misstatements or omissions related to (i) certain financial projections for Keryx and Akebia and certain financial analyses performed by our advisors and (ii) any alleged negotiations that may have taken place regarding the conversion of certain convertible notes of Keryx in connection with the Merger. The Consolidated Complaint sought compensatory and/or rescissory damages, a declaration that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 thereunder, and an award of lead plaintiffs’ costs, including reasonable allowance for attorneys’ fees and experts’ fees. The defendants in the Consolidated Federal Action moved to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint in its entirety and with prejudice on August 2, 2019. On April 15, 2020, the Delaware District Court granted the defendants’ motion and dismissed the Consolidated Complaint in its entirety. On July 2, 2020, lead plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint, or the Second Consolidated Complaint. The Second Consolidated Complaint (i) asserts the same claims under the Exchange Act as the Consolidated Complaint, (ii) names the same defendants as the Consolidated Complaint, (iii) seeks the same relief as the Consolidated Complaint and (iv) as with the Consolidated Complaint, challenges as false or misleading alleged misstatements or omissions related to certain financial projections for Keryx and Akebia and certain financial analyses performed by our advisors. The defendants in the Consolidated Federal Action moved to dismiss the Second Consolidated Complaint in its entirety with prejudice on August 10, 2020. Briefing on defendants’ motion to dismiss was completed on
49
October 7, 2021, and the Third Circuit submitted the case on the briefs without oral argument on February 10, 2022. The decision is currently pending.
On July 15, 2021, a purported former Keryx stockholder filed a putative class action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York against Akebia, a current officer of Akebia (John P. Butler), a former officer of Akebia (Jason A. Amello), former directors of Akebia (Muneer A. Satter, Scott A. Canute, Michael D. Clayman, Maxine Gowen, Duane Nash, Ronald C. Renaud, Jr., and Michael S. Wyzga), a current director of Akebia (Cynthia Smith), a former director and officer of Keryx (Jodie P. Morrison), a former officer of Keryx (Scott A. Holmes) and former directors of Keryx (Michael Rogers, Kevin J. Cameron, Steven C. Gilman, Daniel P. Regan, Mark J. Enyedy, and Michael T. Heffernan, some of whom are current members of our Board of Directors). The action is captioned Loper v. Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., et al., or the Loper Action. The complaint in the Loper Action alleges that the registration statement filed in connection with the Merger contained allegedly false and misleading statements or failed to disclose certain allegedly material information in violation of Section 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The alleged misstatements or omissions relate to the safety, approvability, and commercial viability of vadadustat. The complaint in the Loper Action seeks damages including interest thereon, an award of plaintiffs’ and the class’s costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees, and rescission, disgorgement, or such other equitable or injunctive relief that the Court deems appropriate.
On August 16, 2021, another purported former Keryx stockholder filed a putative class action making substantially similar allegations and asserting the same claims as the Loper Action, also in the Supreme Court of the State of New York against the same defendants named in the Loper Action (except for Kevin J. Cameron, Scott A. Holmes, and Daniel P. Regan). The action is captioned Panicho v. Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., et al., or the Panicho Action.
On September 13, 2021, the parties in the Loper Action and Panicho Action entered into a joint stipulation and proposed order, which provided for the consolidation of the two actions under the caption In re Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation, or the Consolidated State Action. On October 27, 2021, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in the Consolidated State Action. On January 10, 2022, defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint in its entirety. Briefing on defendants’ motion to dismiss was completed on April 22, 2022. Oral arguments have not yet been scheduled.
On March 14, 2022, a purported stockholder of Akebia filed a putative federal securities class action against Akebia as well as three present and former officers of Akebia (John P. Butler, David A. Spellman, and Jason A. Amello) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The action is captioned Deputy v. Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 1:22-cv-01411, or the EDNY Action. The complaint in the EDNY Action alleges that defendants made materially false and misleading statements in violation Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The alleged false and misleading statements relate to the safety, approvability, and commercial viability of vadadustat. The complaint in the EDNY Action seeks damages including interest thereon, an award of plaintiffs’ and the class’s costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees, or such other and further relief that the Court deems appropriate.
We deny any allegations of wrongdoing and intend to continue vigorously defending against the stockholder lawsuits described in this Legal Proceedings section. There is no assurance, however, that we will be successful in the defense of these lawsuits, or any associated appeals, or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund any settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of these actions. Moreover, we are unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate a range of possible losses at this time. A resolution of these lawsuits in a manner adverse to us, however, could have a material effect on our financial position and results of operations in the period in which a particular lawsuit is resolved.