Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. 10-Q

Item 1. Legal Proceedings From time to time, we have been and may again become involved in legal proceedings arising in the course of our business. Patent-Related Litigation Beginning in August 2013, we were informed of abbreviated new drug application (“ANDA”) filings in the United States by Watson Laboratories, Inc. (now Actavis Laboratories, Inc., or “Actavis”), Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (“Par”), Alvogen Pine Brook, Inc. (“Alvogen”), Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”), Sandoz Inc. (“Sandoz”), and Mylan Technologies Inc. (“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 United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Delaware District Court”). After the commencement of the ANDA patent litigation against Teva, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (“DRL”) acquired the ANDA filings for Teva’s buprenorphine and naloxone sublingual film that are at issue in these trials. Of these, cases against three of the six generic companies have been resolved. ● Mylan and Sandoz settled without a trial. Sandoz withdrew all challenges and became the distributor of the authorized generic products. ● All cases against Par were resolved pursuant to a May 2018 settlement agreement between the Company, Indivior, and Par and certain of its affiliates. 42 Table of Contents ● Actavis was found to infringe Patent No. 6,603,514, or the ’514 patent, and cannot enter the market until the expiration of the patent in 2024, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) affirmed that ruling on July 12, 2019. ● DRL and Alvogen were found not to infringe under a different claim construction analysis, and the Federal Circuit affirmed that ruling on July 12, 2019. Teva has agreed to be bound by all DRL adjudications. Subsequent to the above, all potential generic competitors without a settlement agreement were also sued for infringement of two additional new patents that contain new claims not adjudicated in the original Delaware District Court case against DRL and Alvogen. On July 12, 2019, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decisions from the previously decided cases. The remaining case against Actavis was dismissed in light of the infringement ruling above, which prevents Actavis from entering the market until 2024. The case(s) against the remaining defendants regarding the additional asserted patents have not been finally resolved. A Markman hearing in the cases against Dr. Reddy’s and Alvogen, which is pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the “New Jersey District Court”), was held on October 17, 2019. On November 5, 2019, District Judge McNulty of the New Jersey District Court issued a Markman opinion construing the disputed terms of the asserted patents. On January 9, 2020, the New Jersey District Court entered a stipulated order of non-infringement of one of the patents, Patent No. 9,931,305, or the ’305 patent, based on the Federal Circuit Court’s claim construction ruling, and we and Indivior preserved our rights to appeal the claim construction ruling. On November 19, 2019, Magistrate Judge Waldor of the New Jersey District Court issued an order granting DRL and Alvogen’s requests to file amended answers to add antitrust counterclaims against us and Indivior. We and Indivior appealed the Magistrate Judge’s decision to District Judge McNulty on December 4, 2019, and DRL and Alvogen opposed the appeal. On January 17, 2020, we filed a motion to dismiss DRL’s and Alvogen’s antitrust counterclaims for failure to state a claim and DRL and Alvogen opposed the motion. On August 24, 2020, Judge McNulty issued an Opinion and Order denying both the appeal of the Magistrate’s decision and our Motion to Dismiss. On June 3, 2020, the court issued an order setting a schedule for ongoing fact discovery, expert discovery, and dispositive motions. The schedule currently sets the close of fact discovery for October 20, 2020, with expert discovery continuing through the end of April 2021. The schedule also sets the deadline for filing dispositive motions for May 18, 2021. No trial date has been set in those cases. We are 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, is any, in this matter. On February 19, 2019, the Federal Circuit issued its mandate reversing the District of New Jersey’s preliminary injunction against Dr. Reddy’s. Following issuance of the mandate, the District of New Jersey vacated preliminary injunctions against both Dr. Reddy’s and Alvogen. Dr. Reddy’s, Alvogen, and Mylan all launched generic versions of Suboxone Sublingual Film, and the launches by Dr. Reddy’s and Alvogen are “at risk” because the products are the subject of the ongoing patent infringement litigations. On March 22, 2019, we and Indivior brought suit against Aveva Drug Delivery Systems, Inc., Apotex Corp., and Apotex Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the “Southern District of Florida Court”) for infringement of the Company’s U.S. Patents Nos. 8,017,150, 9,687,454, the ’514 patent and the ’305 patent, seeking an injunction and potential monetary damages. Following a negotiated settlement between all parties, on December 3, 2019, the parties submitted a Notice of Settlement and a Joint Motion to Approve Consent Judgment. The Southern District of Florida Court entered an order dismissing the suit on December 18, 2019. We are also seeking to enforce our patent rights in multiple cases against BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. (“BDSI”). Three cases are currently pending but stayed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina (the “Eastern District of North Carolina Court”): ● 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 8,652,378 and 8,475,832. This case is stayed. ● 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, and seeks an injunction and potential monetary damages. Shortly after the case was filed, BDSI filed four (4) IPR’s challenging the asserted ’167 patent. On March 24, 2016, the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), issued a final written decision finding that all claims of the ’167 patent were valid. The case was stayed in May 2016 pending the final determination of the appeals on those decisions. Following the PTAB’s February 7, 2019 decisions on remand denying institution, we and Indivior submitted a notice to the Court on February 15, 2019 notifying the Court that the stay should be lifted as result of the PTAB’s decisions. We are awaiting further action from the Court. 43 Table of Contents ● On January 13, 2017, we also sued BDSI asserting infringement of the ’167 patent by BDSI’s Belbuca product and seeking an injunction and potential monetary damages. On August 7, 2019, the Eastern District of North Carolina Court granted BDSI’s motion to dismiss the Complaint without prejudice and denied BDSI’s motion to stay as moot. On November 11, 2019, we filed a new Complaint against BDSI in the Eastern District of North Carolina Court. On November 27, 2019, BDSI filed a motion to stay the case pending BDSI’s appeal of the PTAB’s remand decisions, and we opposed the motion. The Eastern District of North Carolina Court denied BDSI’s motion to stay on April 1, 2020. BDSI’s appeal of the PTAB’s remand decisions to the United State Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was docketed on March 13, 2019, and on March 20, 2019, we moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. On August 29, 2019, the Federal Circuit granted the motion to dismiss BDSI’s appeal. On September 30, 2019, BDSI filed a petition for rehearing in the Federal Circuit en banc , which we opposed. The Federal Circuit denied BDSI’s petition for rehearing en banc on January 13, 2020. On June 11, 2020, BDSI filed a petition for writ of certiorari at the Supreme Court of the United States. At the request of the Supreme Court, we filed an opposition to BDSI’s petition on August 17, 2020, and BDSI filed a reply on August 27, 2010. On October 5, 2020, the Supreme Court issued an order denying BDSI’s petition. After the Federal Circuit denied BDSI’s petition, on January 13, 2020, BDSI filed with the Eastern District of North Carolina Court a motion to dismiss the Complaint, and we opposed the motion on February 2, 2020. The Eastern District of North Carolina Court denied BDSI’s motion to dismiss and its motion to stay on April 1, 2020. On April 16, 2020, BDSI filed an Answer to the Complaint, including counterclaims for non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of the ’167 patent. On May 7, 2020, Aquestive filed a motion to dismiss BDSI’s unenforceability counterclaim and a motion to strike BDSI’s corresponding affirmative defenses for failure to state a claim for inequitable conduct under the heightened pleading standard applicable to such claims and defenses. Rather than oppose Aquestive’s Motion to Dismiss, 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, Aquestive filed a Motion to Dismiss BDSI’s Amended Counterclaim for unenforceability and a Motion to Strike BDSI’s corresponding affirmative defense of unenforceability again for failure to state a claim under the applicable heightened pleading standard. BDSI’s filed its opposition to Aquestive’s Motion to Dismiss and Strike on July 16, 2020. Aquestive filed its Reply to BDSI’s Opposition on July 30, 2020. The parties are awaiting further action from the court on Aquestive’s motion. 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 and seeking an injunction, civil penalties, and disgorgement. After filing the suit, 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, but 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 expert discovery phase closed May 30, 2019, but additional reports and depositions were conducted through August 1, 2019. The remainder of the case schedule, including summary judgment briefing, is stayed pending resolution of Indivior’s appeal of the District Court’s class certification ruling in a co-pending multi-district litigation to which we are not a party. On July 28, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued its opinion affirming the District Court’s order certifying the class. On August 27, 2020, the district court issued a scheduling order, setting the deadline for filing remaining Daubert challenges and summary judgment. Under the scheduling order, the remaining Daubert motions were filed on September 28, 2020, and oppositions are due on October 19, 2020. The court will set oral argument on the motions, but the date for oral argument is not yet known. Summary judgment motions are due January 11, 2021, and responses to summary judgment motions are due February 11, 2021. No trial date has yet been set. We are not able to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of this proceeding or provide a reasonable estimate, or range of estimate, of the possible outcome or loss, if any, in this matter. Humana and Centene Actions On September 18, 2020, Humana, Inc., a health insurance payer, filed a suit against Aquestive and Indivior in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania relating to Suboxone. The Humana action, which alleges facts similar to those at issue in the Antitrust Case and the Suboxone MDL described above, was assigned to the same judge that is presiding over those actions. Humana’s Complaint alleges five causes of action against Aquestive, 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 and other related insurance payers filed a similar suit against Aquestive 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. No other proceedings have occurred, and the schedule is not yet known. We are not able to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of this proceeding or provide a reasonable estimate, or range of estimate, of the possible outcome or loss, if any, in this matter. 44 Table of Contents California Complaint On December 5, 2019, Neurelis Inc. (“Neurelis”) filed a complaint against Aquestive in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego alleging Unfair Competition, Defamation, and Malicious Prosecution related to the Company’s pursuit of FDA approval for Libervant. 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 is expected to oppose. Neurelis filed a motion for leave to file a Supplemental Complaint on February 5, 2020, which we will oppose. On February 5, 2020, Neurelis filed a Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Complaint (“Motion”). On June 5, 2020, Neurelis filed a Motion for Limited Discovery related to Aquestive’s anti-SLAPP motion. The court previously scheduled a hearing on both Aquestive’s anti-SLAPP Motion and on Neurelis’s Motion for April 24, 2020. However, on April 3, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the court issued an order continuing all hearings scheduled through April 30, 2020. The court held ultimately a telephonic status conference on June 25, 2020 to determine a schedule for hearing the pending motions. During that status conference, the court set Aquestive’s anti-SLAPP motion for hearing on July 24, 2020. The court also declined Neurelis’s request to hear its Motion and its Motion for Limited Discovery. Neurelis filed its response to Aquestive’s anti-SLAPP Motion on July 13, 2020, and we filed our reply on July 17, 2020. The court held a telephonic hearing on Aquestive’s anti-SLAPP motion on July 24, 2020. On August 6, 2020, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Aquestive’s anti-SLAPP motion. Aquestive filed a notice of appeal to the California Court of Appeal on September 1, 2020, and Neurelis filed a notice of cross-appeal on October 5, 2020. We are not able to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of this proceeding or provide a reasonable estimate, or range of estimate, of the possible outcome or loss, if any, in this matter.