What changed in this filing

/stocks — the workspaceLOADING

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

2023-05-12 compared with 2022-11-14 · 57 added, 47 removed, 35 unchanged (75% of the section changed)

2 unchanged sentences

On September 3, 2020, plaintiff Jim Chapman filed a putative federal securities class action lawsuit against the Company, our Chief Executive Officer, Rostislav Raykov, and Chief Financial Officer, Robert Andrade, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, captioned Chapman v.

Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc.

et al ., Case No.

Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al ., Case No.

1:20-cv-00812.

our third-party PEDMARK ® product manufacturing facility and the impact the facility would have on regulatory approval for PEDMARK ® .

The complaint alleged that prior to our August 10, 2020 receipt of a CRL from the FDA concerning our NDA for PEDMARK ® , defendants made materially false or misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts about our third-party PEDMARK ® product manufacturing facility and the impact the facility would have on regulatory approval for PEDMARK ® .

On December 3, 2020, the court appointed a lead plaintiff to represent the putative class.

On February 1, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

The amended complaint added members of our Board of Directors as defendants, asserts a putative class period from December 20, 2018 through August 10, 2020, makes allegations similar to those in the original complaint, claims the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, and seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees and costs.

The amended complaint added members of our Board of Directors as defendants, asserted a putative class period from December 20, 2018 through August 10, 2020, made allegations similar to those in the original complaint, claimed that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, and sought an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees and costs.

On March 3, 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

5 unchanged sentences

On March 30, 2022, lead plaintiff filed a motion for post judgment relief, seeking leave to file a second amended complaint.

In his proposed second amended complaint, lead plaintiff seeks to add allegations stemming from the receipt of a second CRL following our resubmission of our NDA for PEDMARK ® , which we received on November 29, 2021, among other things.

In his proposed second amended complaint, lead plaintiff sought to add allegations stemming from the receipt of a second CRL following our resubmission of our NDA for PEDMARK ® , which we received on November 29, 2021, among other things.

Defendants filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion for post judgment relief on April 20, 2022.

3 unchanged sentences

On October 21, 2022, defendants filed a reply in support of the request for judicial notice.

We believe that this lawsuit is without merit and intend to defend it vigorously.

We cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit.

Failure by us to obtain a favorable resolution of the lawsuit could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition.

We have not recorded a liability as of September 30, 2022, because we believe a potential loss is not probable or reasonably estimable given the nature of the proceedings and our success so far by obtaining a dismissal with prejudice of the amended complaint.

On February 15, 2023, the Magistrate Judge recommended the motion for post judgment relief be

Lead plaintiff filed no timely objection to the recommendation, and on March 2, 2023, the U.S.

District Court Judge issued an order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, denying the motion for post judgment relief, and entering judgment for defendants.

Lead plaintiff had until April 3, 2023 to file a notice of appeal and did not file a notice of appeal.

The case is now closed.

Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc.

1 unchanged sentence

Fisher filed a putative federal securities class action lawsuit against the Company and our CEO and CFO in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, captioned Fisher v.

Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al.

1:22-cv-00115.

The complaint asserts a putative class period from May 28, 2021 through November 28, 2021, and alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making materially false and misleading statements or omissions regarding the status of our third-party PEDMARK ® product manufacturing facility, the facility’s compliance with cGMP, and the impact its status and compliance would have on regulatory approval for PEDMARK ® in the period leading up to the Company’s November 29, 2021 receipt of a CRL for a subsequent NDA for PEDMARK ® .

The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages and attorneys’ fees and costs.

The complaint asserted a putative class period from May 28, 2021 through November 28, 2021, and alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making materially false and misleading statements or omissions regarding the status of our third-party PEDMARK ® product manufacturing facility, the facility’s compliance with cGMP, and the impact its status and compliance would have on regulatory approval for PEDMARK ® in the period leading up to the Company’s November 29, 2021 receipt of a CRL for a subsequent NDA for PEDMARK ® .

The complaint sought an unspecified amount of damages and attorneys’ fees and costs.

On April 11, 2022, plaintiff Jeffrey D.

1 unchanged sentence

On June 23, 2022, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

The amended complaint asserts the same putative class period from May 28, 2021 through November 28, 2021, is brought against the same defendants and makes allegations similar to those in the original complaint.

The amended complaint asserted the same putative class period from May 28, 2021 through November 28, 2021, was brought against the same defendants and made allegations similar to those in the original complaint.

On August 5, 2022, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

1 unchanged sentence

On September 9, 2022, defendants filed a reply in support of the motion to dismiss.

On September 27, 2022, defendants filed a request for judicial notice regarding the FDA’s press release announcing that it approved PEDMARK ® On September 30, 2022, lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the request for judicial notice.

On September 27, 2022, defendants filed a request for judicial notice regarding the FDA’s press release announcing that it approved PEDMARK ® .

On September 30, 2022, lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the request for judicial notice.

On October 6, 2022, defendants filed a reply in support of the request for judicial notice.

On October 12, 2022, the U.S.

District Court Judge issued a memorandum opinion and order dismissing the amended complaint in its entirety and with

prejudice, and on October 14, 2022, entered judgment.

Lead plaintiff has until November 14, 2022 to file a notice of appeal.

We believe that the lawsuit is without merit and intend to defend it vigorously.

We cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit.

Failure by us to obtain a favorable resolution of the lawsuit could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition.

District Court Judge issued a memorandum opinion and order dismissing the amended complaint in its entirety and with prejudice, and on October 14, 2022, entered judgment.

Lead plaintiff had until November 14, 2022 to file a notice of appeal and did not file a notice of appeal.

The case is now closed.

Hope Medical Enterprises, Inc.

Inter Partes Review Challenges

On October 29, 2021, Hope Medical Enterprises, Inc.

(“Hope”) filed two petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the USPTO.

In its petitions, Hope seeks to invalidate our U.S.

10,596,190 (“US ‘190”), which is exclusively in-licensed from OHSU and relates to a method of using our PEDMARK ® product, and our U.S.

10,792,363 (“US ’363”), which relates to an anhydrous form of STS, which is the active pharmaceutical ingredient in our PEDMARK ® product.

US ‘190 was issued on March 24, 2020.

US ‘363 was issued on October 6, 2020.

On January 11, 2022, OHSU filed a Request for Supplemental Examination of US ‘190 requesting the consideration by the Central Re-examination Unit (“CRU”) of the USPTO of certain prior art references, including references cited by Hope in its Petition for IPR that are relevant to the granted claim of the patent.

On May 9, the PTAB granted Hope Medical’s Petition to Institute the IPR against the ‘190 patent and a stayed the Supplemental Examination pending the result of the ‘190 IPR.

In its petitions, Hope seeks to invalidate U.S.

10,596,190 (“US ‘190 Patent”), which is exclusively in-licensed from Oregon Health & Science University (“OHSU”) and relates to a method of using our PEDMARK ® product, and our wholly owned U.S.

10,792,363 (“US ’363 Patent”), which relates to an anhydrous form of STS and its method of manufacture, which is the active pharmaceutical ingredient in our PEDMARK ® product.

The US ‘190 Patent was issued on March 24, 2020.

The US ‘363 Patent was issued on October 6, 2020.

On May 9, 2022, the PTAB granted Hope’s Petition to Institute the IPR against the ‘190 patent.

On August 12, 2022, we filed a Motion to Amend the single claim of the ‘190 Patent in the IPR to focus on the treatment of medulloblastoma.

We expect a decision in the ‘190 IPR in May 2023, which can be appealed by the losing party.

Further, in May 2022, the PTAB granted Hope Medical’s Petition to Institute the IPR against the ‘363 patent.

On December 5, 2022, we filed a Revised Motion to Amend the single claim of the ‘190 Patent, maintaining the focus on the treatment of medulloblastoma.

On April 18, 2023, the PTAB issued a final written decision against the only claim of the‘190 patent.

We have the opportunity to request reconsideration of the PTAB’s final written decision until May 18, 2023, and the opportunity to file an appeal of the PTAB’s final written decision with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit until June 20, 2023.

In May 2022, the PTAB granted Hope’s Petition to Institute the IPR against the ‘363 patent.

During the ‘363 IPR, we disclaimed the patent claims directed to the anhydrous morphic form of STS and continued with claims directed to its method of manufacture.

We expect a decision in the ‘363 IPR in May 2023, which can be appealed by the losing party.

On April 5, 2022, the USPTO issued U.S.

11,291,728 (‘728) that covers the PEDMARK pharmaceutical formulation.

On September 14, 2022, the USPTO issued Notices of Allowance to us for two additional patent applications that cover the PEDMARK pharmaceutical formulation.

We expect these two additional U.S.

patents to issue in Q4 of 2022 or Q1 of 2023.

These patents will expire in 2039, unless held invalid or unenforceable by a court of final jurisdiction.

On approval of PEDMARK, we listed the ‘728 and the ‘190 patents in the FDA Orange Book.

We plan to update the Orange Book with additional patents granted by the USPTO on issuance.

We obtained U.S.

Orphan Drug Designation for the use of PEDMARK in the prevention of platinum-induced ototoxicity in pediatric patients in 2004.

We plan to pursue PUMA upon approval of the MAA, which would allow for 10 years of market exclusivity upon PUMA approval.

We plan to vigorously defend our intellectual property rights related to PEDMARK.

However, we are unable to predict the outcome of Hope’s IPR petitions, or the Supplemental Examination.

While we now have, or will shortly receive, additional U.S.

patents that cover PEDMARK™ over the IPR challenged patents, an invalidation of our patents covering PEDMARK could have a material adverse effect on our ability to protect our rights in PEDMARK beyond periods of marketing exclusivity for PEDMARK possible in the United States under Orphan Drug Designation and in Europe under European Market Exclusivity for Pediatric Use (“PUMA”).

Because the remaining claims in the ‘363 patent are directed to a method of manufacture, the ‘363 patent is not eligible for listing in the U.S.

FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (commonly referred to as the “Orange Book”).

On December 14, 2022, we filed a Revised Motion to Amend the remaining

claims in the ‘363 Patent.

In April 2023, the PTAB extended the time for a decision on the ‘363 Patent IPR up to an additional 6 months, or November 2023, after which the decision can be reconsidered and/or appealed by the losing party.

In addition to the ‘190 Patent, the USPTO has now granted three additional U.S.

patents that cover the PEDMARK® formulation, each of which have been listed in the U.S.

FDA’s “Orange Book” (U.S.

11,291,728 (issued April 5, 2022), U.S.

11,510,984 (issued November 29, 2022), and U.S.

11,617,793 (issued April 4, 2023)).We plan to vigorously defend our intellectual property rights to PEDMARK®.

An invalidation of our patents covering PEDMARK ® could have a material adverse effect on our ability to protect our rights in PEDMARK ® beyond periods of marketing exclusivity for PEDMARK ® in the United States under Orphan Drug Designation.

CIPLA ANDA Litigation

On December 1, 2022, we received a letter dated November 30, 2022, notifying us that CIPLA Ltd.

and CIPLA USA (“CIPLA”) submitted to the FDA an ANDA (ANDA No.

218028) for a generic version of PEDMARK ® (sodium thiosulfate solution) that contains Paragraph IV Certifications on two of our patents covering PEDMARK ® :

the OHSU licensed US ‘190 Patent, expiration date January 2038;

and our US 11,291,728 Patent, expiration date July 2039.

On January 6, 2023, we received a letter dated January 5, 2023, notifying us that CIPLA submitted to the FDA a Paragraph IV Certification on our newly issued US 11,510,984 Patent.

These patents are listed in FDA’s list of Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, commonly referred to as the Orange Book, for PEDMARK ® .

The certifications allege these patents are invalid or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use, or sale of CIPLA’s sodium thiosulfate solution.

Under the Food and Drug Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, as amended, after receipt of a valid Paragraph IV notice, the Company may bring a patent infringement suit in a federal district court against CIPLA within 45 days from the receipt of the Notice Letter and if such a suit is commenced within the 45-day period, the Company is entitled to a 30 month stay on the FDA’s ability to give final approval to any proposed products that reference PEDMARK ® .

In addition to the 30-month stay, because we have received Orphan Drug Exclusivity, the FDA may not approve CIPLA’s ANDA for at least 7 years from PEDMARK ® ’s FDA approval date of September 20, 2022.

On January 10, 2023 we filed suit against the CIPLA entities in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Case No.

2:23-cv-00123), for infringement of the ‘190 Patent, the ‘728 Patent, and the ‘984 Patent.

On April 20, 2023, we filed an Amended Complaint to only assert infringement of the ‘728 patent and the ‘984 Patent.

The suit is ongoing.

In Europe, we plan to pursue approval of PEDMARK® under European Market Exclusivity for Pediatric Use (“PUMA”), which would allow for 10 years of market exclusivity in Europe upon PUMA approval.

Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.

What changed 10-Q

Item 1. Legal Proceedings