What changed in this filing

/stocks — the workspaceLOADING

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

2023-03-09 compared with 2022-04-13 · 158 added, 82 removed, 170 unchanged (59% of the section changed)

20 unchanged sentences

On October 30, 2020, the Company filed its Reply, denying the substantive allegations of Apotex’s Counterclaims.

On January 27, 2022, the Court issued an Order staying all litigation proceedings and administratively terminated the action until the stay is lifted.

As of the date of this submission, this case remains administratively terminated.

On January 27, 2022, the Court issued an Order staying all litigation proceedings and administratively terminated the action.

The Court lifted the stay on July 1, 2022.

Pursuant to the Court’s January 27, 2022 and July 1, 2022 Orders, the 30-month Stay was extended by 152 days from November 14, 2022 to April 15, 2023.

On August 1, 2022, the Court issued an Order consolidating this lawsuit with another pending lawsuit against Apotex, C.A.

22-cv-322 (D.N.J.), discussed in Section II, below.

The Court issued a revised Scheduling Order on December 20, 2022 that further extends the 30-month stay.

The Court issued another Scheduling Order on February 17, 2023 that provides for a final pre-trial conference and trial in June 2023.

Pretrial discovery is ongoing as of the date of this submission.

Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Apotex Inc., et al., C.A.

3:22-cv-00322-FLW-TJB (FLW)(TJB) (D.N.J.)

22-cv-322 (FLW)(TJB) (D.N.J.)

The Company received a Paragraph IV Notice Letter from generic drug makers Apotex Inc.

7 unchanged sentences

The Complaint—filed in the U.S.

District Court for the District of New Jersey—alleges, inter alia, that Apotex infringed the Company’s Oxtellar XR® patents by submitting to the FDA an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) seeking to market a generic version of Oxtellar XR® prior to the expiration of U.S.

On January 27, 2022, in related Civil Action No.

20-cv-7870 (FLW)(TJB) (D.N.J.), the Court issued an Order staying all litigation proceedings and administratively terminated that related action until the stay is lifted.

That Order further indicated that this action, i.e., Civil Action No.

22-cv-00322 (FLW)(TJB) (D.N.J.), will also be stayed.

As of the date of this submission, this case remains administratively terminated.

District Court for the District of New Jersey—alleges, inter alia, that Apotex infringed U.S.

11,166,960 by submitting to the FDA an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) seeking to market a generic version of Oxtellar XR® prior to the expiration of U.S.

On January 27, 2022, in related action, C.A.

20-cv-7870 (D.N.J.), the Court issued an Order staying all litigation proceedings and administratively terminated that related action.

That Order further indicated that this action, i.e., C.A.

22-cv-322 (D.N.J.), will also be stayed.

The Court lifted the stay of both actions on July 1, 2022.

Pursuant to the Court’s January 27, 2022 and July 1, 2022 Orders, the 30-month Stay was extended by 152 days from November 14, 2022 to April 15, 2023.

On August 1, 2022, the Court issued an Order consolidating this lawsuit with another pending lawsuit against Apotex, C.A.

20-cv-7870 (D.N.J.), discussed in Section 1, above, and administratively terminated C.A.

As of the date of this submission, C.A.

22-cv-322 (D.N.J.) remains administratively terminated.

Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

RiconPharma LLC, et al., C.A.

21-cv-12133 (FLW)(TJB) (D.N.J.)

21-cv-12133 (KM)(MAH) (D.N.J.)

The Company received a Paragraph IV Notice Letter from generic drug maker RiconPharma LLC dated April 20, 2021 directed to nine of its Oxtellar XR® Orange Book patents.

9 unchanged sentences

Supernus filed a motion to strike the jury demand in Ricon’s answer.

On December 6, 2021, the Court signed an Order withdrawing the Jury demand from Ricon’s answer.

On December 6,

2021, the Court signed an Order withdrawing the Jury demand from Ricon’s answer.

On December 13, 2021, Ricon filed an amended Answer to Supernus’s Complaint.

On December 15, 2021, the Company filed its reply, denying the substantive allegations of Ricon’s Counterclaims.

Following the initial Rule 16 Scheduling Conference, the Court issued a case schedule that provides for the Final Pretrial Order being submitted on June 9, 2023, and a trial in July 2023.

On November 22, 2022, the Court issued an Order consolidating for all purposes this lawsuit with another pending lawsuit against Ricon, C.A.

22-cv-6340 (D.N.J.), discussed in Section IV below.

The Court issued a revised Scheduling Order on February 9, 2023 that provides a Joint Final Pretrial Order deadline of January 11, 2024.

Pretrial discovery is ongoing as of the date of this submission.

Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

TWi Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A.

17-cv-2164 (RMB)(JS) (D.N.J.)

The Company received a second Paragraph IV Notice Letter directed to its Oxtellar XR® Orange Book Patent Nos.

and 9,370,525 from generic drug maker TWi Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

on February 16, 2017.

On March 31, 2017, the Company filed a lawsuit against TWi Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

and TWi International LLC (collectively “TWi”) alleging infringement of United States Patent Nos.

RiconPharma LLC, et al., C.A.

22-cv-6340 (KM)(MAH) (D.N.J.)

The Company received a Paragraph IV Notice Letter from generic drug maker RiconPharma, LLC (“Ricon”) dated October 7, 2022 directed to one of its Oxtellar XR® Orange Book patents.

Supernus’s U.S.

11,166,960 generally covers once-a-day oxcarbazepine formulations and methods of treating seizures using those formulations.

The FDA Orange Book lists U.S.

11,166,960 as expiring on April 13, 2027.

On October 28, 2022, the Company filed a lawsuit against Ricon alleging infringement of U.S.

The Complaint—filed in the U.S.

District Court for the District of New Jersey—alleges, inter alia, that Ricon infringed U.S.

11,166,960 by submitting to the FDA an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) seeking to market a generic version of Oxtellar XR® prior to the expiration of U.S.

On November 22, 2022, the Court issued an Order consolidating for all purposes this lawsuit with another pending lawsuit against Ricon, C.A.

21-cv-12133 (D.N.J.), discussed in Section III above.

The Court further ordered that this action, C.A.

22-cv-6340 (D.N.J.), be administratively terminated.

Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Ajanta Pharma Limited, C.A.

22-cv-1431 (D.

The Company received a Paragraph IV Notice Letter from generic drug maker Ajanta Pharma Limited (“Ajanta”) dated September 19, 2022, advising the Company of the filing by Ajanta of an Abbreviated New Drug Application with the U.S.

Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) seeking approval for Oxcarbazepine Extended-Release Tablets, 150 mg, 300 mg, and 600 mg.

The Notice Letter is directed to the Oxtellar XR® Orange Book patents, namely United States Patent Nos.

7,722,898, 7,910,131, 8,617,600, 8,821,930, 9,119,791, 9,351,975, 9,370,525, 9,855,278, 10,220,042, and 11,166,960.

TWi filed a motion to dismiss the Company’s March 31, 2017 Complaint on May 10, 2017.

On May 11, 2017, the district court administratively terminated TWi’s motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the Court’s Individual Rules and Procedures.

On May 19, 2017, the district court “administratively terminate[d] this matter pending this Court’s decision in the First TWi Action [concerning United States Patent Nos.

7,722,898, 7,910,131, 8,617,600, and 8,821,930].” As of the date of this submission.

Civil Action No.

17-2164 (RMB)(JS) (D.N.J.) remains administratively terminated.

These patents generally cover once-a-day oxcarbazepine formulations and methods of treating seizures using those formulations.

The FDA Orange Book currently lists all ten of the Oxtellar XR® Orange Book patents as expiring on April 13, 2027.

On October 28, 2022, the Company filed a lawsuit against Ajanta alleging infringement of the Company’s ten Oxtellar XR® patents.

The Complaint—filed in the U.S.

District Court for the District of Delaware—alleges, inter alia, that Ajanta infringed the Company’s Oxtellar XR® patents by submitting to the FDA an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) seeking to market a generic version of Oxtellar XR® prior to the expiration of the Company’s patents.

Filing its October 28, 2022 Complaint within 45 days of receiving Ajanta’s Paragraph IV certification notice entitles Supernus to an automatic stay preventing the FDA from approving Ajanta’s ANDA for 30 months from the date of the Company’s receipt of the Paragraph IV Notice Letter.

On January 3, 2023, Ajanta answered the Complaint and denied the substantive allegations of the Complaint, asserting affirmative defenses that include non-infringement and invalidity.

Ajanta also asserted Counterclaims seeking declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity.

On January 24, 2023, the Company filed its Reply, denying the substantive allegations of Ajanta’s Counterclaims.

As of the date of this submission, the Court has not issued a case schedule.

Trokendi XR ®

1 unchanged sentence

Ajanta Pharma Limited, et al., C.A.

21-cv-6964 (FLW)(LHG) (D.N.J.)

21-cv-6964 (GC)(LHG) (D.N.J.)

The Company received a Paragraph IV Notice Letter from generic drug maker Ajanta Pharma Limited dated February 10, 2021 directed to ten of its Trokendi XR® Orange Book patents.

10 unchanged sentences

On June 7, 2021, Ajanta answered the Complaint and denied the substantive allegations of the Complaint, asserting affirmative defenses that include non-infringement and invalidity.

Ajanta also asserted Counterclaims seeking declaratory judgments of non‑infringement and invalidity for the Trokendi XR® Orange Book patents.

Ajanta also asserted Counterclaims seeking declaratory judgments of non‑infringement and

invalidity for the Trokendi XR® Orange Book patents.

On June 28, 2021, the Company filed its reply, denying the substantive allegations of Ajanta’s Counterclaims.

Following the initial Rule 16 Scheduling Conference, the Court issued a case schedule.

On December 17, 2021, the Court issued an order consolidating this lawsuit and the lawsuit against Torrent, discussed in Section VI, below, under which this lawsuit is the lead case and the 30 month stay preventing the FDA from approving Ajanta’s ANDA was extended to December 16, 2023.

Under the amended scheduling order, the Final Pretrial Conference is set for April 24, 2023.

A trial date has not been set.

On December 17, 2021, the Court issued an order consolidating this lawsuit with the lawsuit against Torrent, discussed in Section VII below.

The consolidation order extended the 30‑month stay preventing the FDA from approving Ajanta’s ANDA to December 16, 2023.

On January 24, 2023, the Court amended the scheduling order.

Under the amended scheduling order, the Final Pretrial Conference is set for June 26, 2023.

The amended scheduling order states that trial will begin on July 24, 2023.

Pretrial discovery is ongoing as of the date of this submission.

1 unchanged sentence

Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd., et al., C.A.

21-cv-14268 (FLW)(LHG) (D.N.J.)

21-cv-14268 (GC)(LHG) (D.N.J.)

The Company received a Paragraph IV Notice Letter from generic drug maker Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

15 unchanged sentences

Following the initial Rule 16 Scheduling Conference, the Court issued a case schedule.

On December 17, 2021, the Court issued an order consolidating this lawsuit with the lawsuit against Ajanta, discussed in Section V, above,

under which the Ajanta lawsuit is the lead case.

Under the amended scheduling order, the Final Pretrial Conference is set for April 24, 2023.

A trial date has not been set.

On December 17, 2021, the Court issued an order consolidating this lawsuit with the lawsuit against Ajanta, discussed in Section VI, above.

On January 24, 2023, the Court amended the scheduling order.

Under the amended scheduling order, the Final Pretrial Conference is set for June 26, 2023.

The amended scheduling order states that trial will begin on July 24, 2023.

Pretrial discovery is ongoing as of the date of this submission.

16 unchanged sentences

On January 10, 2022, the Company filed its reply, denying the substantive allegations of Lupin’s Counterclaims.

On February 11, 2022, the Court instructed the parties to submit a proposed scheduling order that would provide for a trial that begins on June 20, 2023.

As of the date of this submission.

the date for the initial Rule 16 Scheduling Conference has not been set.

On February 13, 2023, the Court issued a revised scheduling order that provides for the Final Pretrial Conference on January 11, 2024, and a 5-day bench trial beginning on January 22, 2024.

Pretrial discovery is ongoing as of the date of this submission.

Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc., et al., C.A.

21-cv-17104 (FLW)(LHG) (D.N.J.)

21-cv-17104 (GC)(LHG) (D.N.J.)

The Company received a Paragraph IV Notice Letter from generic drug maker Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc.

1 unchanged sentence

Supernus’s U.S.

and 10,314,790 generally cover once-a-day topiramate formulations and methods of treating or preventing seizures and migraines using those formulations.

and 10,314,790 generally cover once-a-day

topiramate formulations and methods of treating or preventing seizures and migraines using those formulations.

The FDA Orange Book currently lists United States Patent No.

10 unchanged sentences

On December 28, 2021, Zydus answered the Complaint and denied the substantive allegations of the Complaint, asserting affirmative defenses that include non-infringement and invalidity.

As of the date of this submission, the date for the initial Rule 16 Scheduling Conference has not been set and the Court has not issued a case schedule.

On April 29, 2022, the Court issued a scheduling order.

The Company entered into a settlement agreement with Zydus, and on January 6, 2023, a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice was entered by the U.S.

District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The agreement has been submitted to the applicable governmental agencies.

___________________

4 unchanged sentences

See https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1356576/000110465917031191/a17-10293_1ex10d1.htm.

Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Alkem Laboratories Ltd., C.A.

22-cv-3511 (EEB)(SRH) (N.D.

The Company received a Paragraph IV Notice Letter from generic drug maker Alkem Laboratories Ltd.

dated May 25, 2022 directed to ten of its Trokendi XR® Orange Book patents.

Supernus’s U.S.

and 10,314,790 generally cover once-a-day topiramate formulations and methods of treating or preventing seizures and migraines using those formulations.

The FDA Orange Book currently lists United States Patent No.

8,298,576 as expiring on April 4, 2028 and United States Patent Nos.

and 10,314,790 as expiring on November 16, 2027.

On July 6, 2022, the Company filed a lawsuit against Alkem Laboratories Ltd.

(“Alkem”) alleging infringement of the Company’s Trokendi XR® Orange Book patents.

The Complaint—filed in the U.S.

District Court for the Northern District of Illinois—alleges, inter alia, that Alkem infringed the Company’s Trokendi XR® patents by submitting to the FDA an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) seeking to market a generic version of Trokendi XR® prior to the expiration of the Company’s patents.

Filing its July 6, 2022 Complaint within 45 days of receiving Alkem’s Paragraph IV certification notice entitles Supernus to an automatic stay preventing the FDA from approving Alkem’s ANDA for 30 months from the date of the Company’s receipt of the Paragraph IV Notice Letter.

On October 3, 2022, Alkem answered the Complaint and denied the substantive allegations of the Complaint, asserting affirmative defenses that include non-infringement and invalidity.

On October 26, 2022, the Court issued a scheduling order.

The scheduling order states that the Pretrial Conference will be in May 2024 and that trial will commence in June 2024.

Pretrial discovery is ongoing as of the date of this submission.

Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd., et al., C.A.

22-cv-4705 (GC)(LHG) (D.N.J.)

The Company received a Paragraph IV Notice Letter from generic drug makers Dr, Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd.

Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc.

dated June 9, 2022 directed to ten of its Trokendi XR® Orange Book patents.

Supernus’s U.S.

and 10,314,790 generally cover once-a-day topiramate formulations and methods of treating or preventing seizures and migraines using those formulations.

The FDA Orange Book currently lists United States Patent No.

8,298,576 as expiring on April 4, 2028 and United States Patent Nos.

and 10,314,790 as expiring on November 16, 2027.

On July 22, 2022, the Company filed a lawsuit against Dr, Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd.

Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc.

(“DRL”) alleging infringement of the Company’s Trokendi XR® Orange Book patents.

The Complaint—filed in the U.S.

District Court for the District of New Jersey—alleges, inter alia, that DRL infringed the Company’s Trokendi XR® patents by submitting to the FDA an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) seeking to market a generic version of Trokendi XR® prior to the expiration of the Company’s patents.

Filing its July 22, 2022 Complaint within 45 days of receiving DRL’s Paragraph IV certification notice entitles Supernus to an automatic stay preventing the FDA from approving DRL’s ANDA for 30 months from the date of the Company’s receipt of the Paragraph IV Notice Letter.

On October 7, 2022, DRL answered the Complaint and denied the substantive allegations of the Complaint, asserting affirmative defenses that include

non-infringement and invalidity.

On February 21, 2023, the Court issued a Scheduling Order that sets the Final Pretrial Conference on June 24, 2024 and the trial to begin on July 22, 2024.

Pretrial discovery is ongoing as of the date of this submission.

Sage Chemical, Inc., et al.

Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A.

22-cv-1302 (CFC) (D.

On October 3, 2022, Sage Chemical, Inc.

and TruPharma, LLC filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Britannia Pharmaceuticals Limited (Britannia), and US WorldMeds Partners, LLC (US WorldMeds) violated state and federal antitrust law in connection with APOKYN® (apomorphine HCl).

On October 16, 2022, Plaintiffs amended their complaint to add additional defendants MDD US Enterprises, LLC, MDD US Operations, LLC (each subsidiaries of Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.), USWM, LLC (“USWM”), Paul Breckinridge Jones, Sr., Herbert Lee Warren, Jr., Henry Van Den Berg, and Kristin L.

On January 10, 2023, Defendants filed an Omnibus Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint seeking dismissal of each of Plaintiffs’ claims and the lawsuit in its entirety and US WorldMeds with USWM, Britannia, and the group of individual defendants each filed separate motions to dismiss.

Plaintiffs’ responses are due on March 13, 2023.

On January 17, 2023 the Court issued an order that the parties shall meet and confer regarding the content of a proposed Scheduling Order, and shall submit such a proposed Scheduling Order to the Court no later than February 16, 2023.

On January 25, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to stay discovery and stay the deadline to submit a proposed scheduling order pending resolutions of Defendants’ motions to dismiss.

Briefing on that motion concluded on February 6, 2023.

As of the date of this submission, the Court has not issued a decision on Defendants’ motion to stay, but the Court has ordered that the parties need not meet and confer regarding the content of a proposed Scheduling Order or submit such a proposed order while the motion to stay remains pending.

On June 10, 2021, Newron Pharmaceuticals S.p.A.

2 unchanged sentences

(the "Company"), through its subsidiary MDD US Operations, LLC (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), initiated litigation against generic drug makers Aurobindo Pharma Limited, Aurobindo Pharma USA Inc., MSN Laboratories Private Limited ("MSN"), Optimus Pharma Pvt Ltd, Prinston Pharmaceutical, Inc., RK Pharma, Inc.

and Zenara Pharma Private Limited (collectively, "Defendants") for infringement of three FDA Orange Book patents covering XADAGO®, Parent's once-daily

product indicated as adjunctive treatment to levodopa/carbidopa in patients with Parkinson's Disease experiencing "off" episodes.

and Zenara Pharma Private Limited (collectively, "Defendants") for infringement of three FDA Orange Book patents covering XADAGO®, the Company's once-daily product indicated as adjunctive treatment to levodopa/carbidopa in patients with Parkinson's Disease experiencing "off" episodes.

8,076,515, 8,278,485 and 8,283,380 (collectively, the "XADAGO Patents") cover the pharmaceutical formulation of and methods of treatment with safinamide.

The XADAGO Patents expire between June 2027 and March 2031.

The Company has a license agreement with Zambon, Newron's partner, related to the XADAGO Patents, and as a new chemical entity, XADAGO is under the 5-year FDA exclusivity period that expires on March 21, 2022.

The Company has a license agreement with Zambon, Newron's partner, related to the XADAGO Patents, and as a new chemical entity, XADAGO was under the 5-year FDA exclusivity period that expired on March 21, 2022.

The Complaint - filed in the U.S.

District Court for the District of Delaware - alleges that the Defendants infringed the XADAGO Patents by submitting to the U.S.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) seeking to market a generic version of XADAGO prior to the expiration of the patents.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) seeking to market generic versions of XADAGO prior to the expiration of the patents.

Filing the Complaint within 45 days of receiving each of the Defendants' Paragraph IV notice letters entitles the Plaintiffs to an automatic stay preventing the FDA from approving the Defendants' ANDAs for 30 months from the date of the Plaintiffs' receipt of the Paragraph IV Notice Letters.

The parties agreed on a case schedule.

Fact discovery is ongoing.

A trial has been set for January 8, 2024.

On March 22, 2022, defendant Optimus Pharma Pvt Ltd was dismissed from the case without prejudice.

A claim construction hearing was held on December 1, 2022.

On January 5, 2023, Defendants Aurobindo Pharma Limited and Aurobindo Pharma USA Inc were dismissed from the case without prejudice pursuant to a settlement agreement.

Fact discovery is ongoing with the remaining defendants.

Adamas Litigation

4 unchanged sentences

Since 2018 multiple generic companies have launched generic versions of NAMENDA XR.

A number of companies have submitted ANDAs including one or more certifications pursuant to 21 U.S.C.

§ 355(j)(2)(A)(vii)(iv) to the FDA requesting approval to manufacture and market generic versions of Namzaric, on which Adamas became entitled to receive royalties from Forest beginning in May 2020.

A number of companies have submitted ANDAs including one or more certifications to the FDA, pursuant to 21 U.S.C.

§ 355(j)(2)(A)(vii)(iv), requesting approval to manufacture and market generic versions of Namzaric, on which Adamas became entitled to receive royalties from Forest beginning in May 2020.

Adamas and Forest have settled with all such Namzaric ANDA filers, including all first filers on all the available dosage forms of Namzaric.

3 unchanged sentences

On April 1, 2019, Adamas was served with a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No.

3:18-cv-03018-JCS) against it and several Allergan entities alleging violations of federal and state false claims acts (FCA) in connection with the commercialization of NAMENDA XR and Namzaric by Allergan.

3:18-cv-03018-JCS) against it and several Forest and Allergan entities alleging violations of federal and state false claims acts (FCA) in connection with the commercialization of NAMENDA XR and Namzaric by Allergan.

The lawsuit is a qui tam complaint brought by a named individual, Zachary Silbersher, asserting rights of the Federal government and various state governments.

The lawsuit was originally filed in May 2018 under seal, and Adamas became aware of the lawsuit when it was served.

The complaint alleges that patents held by Allergan and Adamas covering NAMENDA XR and Namzaric were procured through fraud on the United States Patent and Trademark Office and that these patents were asserted against potential generic manufacturers of NAMENDA XR and Namzaric to prevent the generic manufacturers from entering the market, thereby wrongfully excluding generic competition resulting in artificially high price being charged to government payors.

The lawsuit was originally filed in May 2018 under seal, and Adamas became aware of the lawsuit

when it was served.

Adamas's patents in question were licensed exclusively to Forest.

1 unchanged sentence

To date the federal and state governments have declined to intervene in this action.

This case is currently stayed pending Adamas's and Allergan's interlocutory appeal of the District Court's December 11, 2020 order denying Adamas's and Allergan's motion to dismiss the complaint.

This case is currently stayed pending Adamas's and Allergan's interlocutory appeal of the District Court's December 11, 2020 order denying Adamas's and Allergan's motions to dismiss the complaint.

The appeal is pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Case No.

Argument was held on January 10, 2022 and no decision has been reached as of the date of this filing.

Argument was held on January 10, 2022.

On August 25, 2022, the Ninth Circuit sided with the defendants by reversing the District Court’s public disclosure bar rulings and remanding the case back to the District Court to decide certain issues in the first instance.

On October 11, 2022, the plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing with the Ninth Circuit which was denied on November 3, 2022.

On December 23, 2022, defendants filed renewed motions to dismiss directed to the remaining unresolved issue.

The district court has set a hearing on the renewed motion to dismiss for March 17, 2023.

On December 10, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the federal securities laws was filed by Ali Zaidi against Adamas and certain of Adamas's former directors and officers in federal court in the Northern District of California (Case No.

5 unchanged sentences

Plaintiffs opposed the motion to dismiss.

The motion to dismiss remains pending.

On January 13, 2023, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

Plaintiff has until February 27, 2023 to file a third amended complaint or notice that Lead Plaintiff does not intend to amend, after which Defendants have sixty (60) days to file a motion to dismiss or otherwise respond to the operative complaint.

On March 16, 2020, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed by Patrick Van Camp in federal court in the Northern District of California (Case No.

4:20-cv-01815) naming Adamas and certain of Adamas's current and former directors and officers

as defendants.

This lawsuit alleges breaches of fiduciary duty and violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by certain of Adamas's current and former directors and officers.

4:20-cv-01815) naming Adamas and certain of Adamas's former directors and officers as defendants.

This lawsuit alleges certain of Adamas's former directors and officers breached fiduciary duties and violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Adamas is named as a nominal defendant only.

On April 6, 2020, another, virtually identical, shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed by James Druzbik in federal court in the Northern District of California (Case No.

4:20-cv-02320) naming Adamas and certain of Adamas's current and former directors and officers as defendants.

4:20- cv-02320) naming Adamas and certain of Adamas's former directors and officers as defendants.

This lawsuit contains the same allegations, claims, and defendants as the first derivative action.

Adamas is named as a nominal defendant only.

In all of these actions, Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

These actions are ongoing.

On October 26, 2021, Elaine Wang, a purported stockholder of Adamas, filed a complaint for violations of federal securities laws in the Southern District of New York (Case No.

1:21-cv-8742) challenging the disclosures made in connection with the acquisition of Adamas by Parent.

The complaint names each of Adamas’s directors as a defendant and alleges that the disclosures in the solicitation statement filed on October 25, 2021 were materially false and misleading under Section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act.

A second lawsuit by purported stockholder, Jeffrey D.

Justice II, was filed on October 28, 2021 in the same court (Case No.

1:21-cv-08818) against the same defendants with similar claims.

A third lawsuit by purported stockholder, Stourbridge Investments LLC, was filed on October 29, 2021 in the same court (Case No.

1:21-cv-08856) against the same defendants with similar claims.

A fourth lawsuit by purported stockholder, Tran Tran, was filed on October 29, 2021 in the Northern District of California (Case No.

3:21-cv-08417) also against the same defendants and with similar claims.

A fifth lawsuit by purported stockholder, Kelly Cook, was filed on November 2, 2021 in the Easter District of New York (Case No.

1:21-cv-06102) against the same defendants with similar claims.

A sixth lawsuit by purported stockholder, Catherine Coffman, was filed on November 5, 2021 in the Northern District of California (Case No.

3:21-cv-08646) against the same defendants with similar claims.

A seventh lawsuit by purported stockholder, Michael Kent, was filed on November 5, 2021 in the District of Delaware (Case No.

1:21-cv-01579) against the same defendants with similar claims.

An eighth lawsuit by purported stockholder, Marc Waterman, was filed on November 8, 2021 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Case No.

2:21-cv-04912) against the same defendants with similar claims.

A ninth lawsuit by purported stockholder, Lori Vereker, was filed on November 10, 2021 in the Southern District of New York (Case No 1:21-cv-09319) against the same defendants with similar claims.

A tenth lawsuit by purported stockholder, Michael McDevitt, was filed on November 11, 2021 in the Southern District of New York (Case No 1:21-cv-09343) against the same defendants with similar claims.

In all of these actions, Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, unspecified monetary damages, unspecified costs, and other relief.

These actions have all been voluntarily dismissed and are no longer pending.

In both actions, Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

These actions have been consolidated and are stayed pending resolution of the Zaidi class action.

Adamas believes it has strong factual and legal defenses to all actions and intends to defend itself vigorously.

2 unchanged sentences

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-K

Item 3. Legal Proceedings