Litigation

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2021

Sandoz Antitrust Litigation

On April 16, 2019, Sandoz Inc. (Sandoz) and its marketing partner RareGen, LLC (now known as Liquidia PAH, LLC, a subsidiary of Liquidia Corporation) (RareGen), filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against us and Smiths Medical ASD, Inc. (Smiths Medical), alleging that we and Smiths Medical engaged in anticompetitive conduct in connection with plaintiffs’ efforts to launch their generic version of Remodulin. In particular, the complaint alleges that we and Smiths Medical unlawfully impeded competition by entering into an agreement to produce CADD-MS®3 cartridges specifically for the delivery of subcutaneous Remodulin, without making these cartridges available for the delivery of Sandoz’s generic version of Remodulin. The parties completed expedited discovery in anticipation of a motion filed by the plaintiffs on October 4, 2019, seeking preliminary injunctive relief. We and Smiths Medical filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, and we filed our opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction on October 25, 2019. On January 29, 2020, the Court issued a decision denying the request for preliminary injunction sought by Sandoz and RareGen. According to the Court, “[Sandoz and RareGen] have not met their burden of demonstrating a reasonable probability of eventual success in the litigation.” The Court also denied our and Smiths Medical’s motion to dismiss the entire action. Plaintiffs declined to appeal the Court’s denial of their motion for preliminary injunction. On March 30, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to add a count alleging that we breached our earlier patent settlement agreement with Sandoz by refusing to grant Sandoz access to cartridges. The parties have substantially completed fact discovery and are currently engaging in expert discovery, and we do not anticipate a trial before mid-2022 at the earliest.

Smiths Medical was dismissed from the case on November 13, 2020, based on a settlement resolving the disputes between the plaintiffs and Smiths Medical. As part of this settlement, Smiths Medical paid the plaintiffs $4.25 million, disclosed and made available to the plaintiffs certain specifications and other information related to the MS-3 cartridges, and granted to the plaintiffs a non-exclusive, royalty-free license in the United States to Smiths Medical’s patents and copyrights associated with the MS-3 cartridges and certain other information related to the MS-3 pumps and cartridges.

We believe plaintiffs’ claims to be meritless and intend to vigorously defend the litigation. However, due to the uncertainty inherent in any litigation, we cannot guarantee that an adverse outcome will not result. Any litigation of this nature could involve substantial cost, and an adverse outcome could result in substantial monetary damages and/or injunctive relief adverse to our business. We currently are not able to reasonably estimate a range of potential losses due to the early stage of the litigation and the inherent unpredictability of any outcome at trial.

Patent Litigation with Liquidia Technologies, Inc.

On March 30, 2020, Liquidia Technologies, Inc. (Liquidia) filed two petitions for inter partes review (IPR) with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). In its petitions, Liquidia seeks to invalidate U.S. Patent Nos. 9,604,901 (the ’901 patent) and 9,593,066 (the ’066 patent), both of which relate to a method of making treprostinil, the active pharmaceutical ingredient in our Remodulin, Tyvaso, and Orenitram products. These patents were issued in March 2017 and are listed in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations publication, also known as the Orange Book, for Remodulin, Tyvaso, and Orenitram. In July 2020, we filed preliminary responses to the petitions. On October 13, 2020, the PTAB declined to institute IPR proceedings on the ’066 patent because Liquidia failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any claim relating to the ’066 patent. Also on October 13, 2020, the PTAB instituted IPR proceedings on the ’901 patent, finding that Liquidia had established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on some of the claims of the ’901 patent. We expect the PTAB will issue a final written decision regarding the ’901 patent IPR around October 2021. Any appeals of the PTAB’s final written decision would delay any final outcome.

In January 2020, Liquidia submitted an NDA to the FDA for approval of LIQ861, a dry powder inhalation formulation of treprostinil. This NDA was submitted under the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway with Tyvaso as the reference listed drug. On November 25, 2020, Liquidia issued a press release stating that the FDA issued a complete response letter for its NDA, identifying “the need for additional information and clarification on chemistry, manufacturing and controls (CMC) data pertaining to the drug product and device biocompatibility.” According to Liquidia, it does not anticipate the complete response letter will affect its projected launch timing of LIQ861 in the second half of 2022. Liquidia announced on May 10, 2021, and June 2, 2021, respectively, that it had resubmitted its NDA in response to the complete response letter and that the FDA had accepted that resubmitted NDA.

In April 2020, we received a Paragraph IV Certification Notice Letter (Notice Letter) from Liquidia, stating that it intends to market LIQ861 before the expiration of all patents listed in the Orange Book for Tyvaso. The Notice Letter states that Liquidia’s NDA for LIQ861 contains a Paragraph IV certification alleging that these patents are not valid, not enforceable, and/or will not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use or sale of LIQ861.

On June 4, 2020, we filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Liquidia for infringement of the ’901 patent and the ’066 patent, both of which expire in December 2028. We filed our lawsuit within 45 days of receipt of notice from Liquidia of its NDA filing. As a result, under the Hatch-Waxman Act, the FDA is precluded by regulation from approving Liquidia’s NDA for up to 30 months or until the resolution of the litigation, whichever occurs first. On July 16, 2020, Liquidia filed

an answer to our complaint that included counterclaims alleging, among other things, that the patents at issue in the litigation are not valid and will not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use or sale of LIQ861.

On July 21, 2020, the USPTO issued a new patent to us related to Tyvaso. The new patent, U.S. Patent No. 10,716,793 (the ’793 patent), expires May 14, 2027, and is listed in the Orange Book for Tyvaso. On July 22, 2020, we filed an amended complaint against Liquidia to include a claim for infringement of the ’793 patent. The ’793 patent relates to a method of administering treprostinil via inhalation and includes claims covering the dosing regimen used to administer Tyvaso. On August 5, 2020, Liquidia filed an answer to our amended complaint that repeated its defenses and counterclaims and added new defenses and counterclaims related to the ’793 patent. On August 26, 2020, we filed a motion to dismiss Liquidia’s invalidity defenses with respect to the ’793 patent based on assignor estoppel. The Court denied our motion, finding that it is too early in the case to conclusively resolve the issue given the fact-intensive inquiry that is necessary. We can continue to assert an assignor estoppel defense and raise it for resolution later in the case, whether at trial or in a dispositive pre-trial motion. On June 4, 2021, we filed a motion to file an amended complaint adding trade secret misappropriation claims against Liquidia and a former Liquidia employee. The motion has been briefed, and we are awaiting the Court’s decision on whether it will permit those claims to move forward as part of this case. The case is set for trial commencing on March 28, 2022.

On January 7, 2021, Liquidia filed another petition for IPR with the PTAB. In its petition, Liquidia seeks to invalidate the ’793 patent. In May 2021, we filed a preliminary response to the petition. The PTAB has three months from receipt of our preliminary response to decide whether to institute the IPR. If the PTAB institutes review, we expect that the PTAB will issue a final written decision regarding the ’793 patent around July 2022. Any appeals of the PTAB’s final written decision would delay any final outcome.

We plan to vigorously enforce our intellectual property rights related to Tyvaso.

MSP Recovery Litigation

On July 27, 2020, MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC; MSPA Claims 1, LLC; and Series PMPI, a designated series of MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC (Plaintiffs) filed a “Class Action Complaint” (the Complaint) against Caring Voices Coalition, Inc. (CVC) and us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The Complaint alleges that we violated the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations act and various state laws by coordinating with CVC when making donations to a pulmonary arterial hypertension fund so that those donations would go towards copayment obligations for Medicare patients taking drugs manufactured and marketed by us. Plaintiffs claim to have received assignments from various Medicare Advantage health plans and other insurance entities that allow them to bring this lawsuit on behalf of those entities to recover allegedly inflated amounts they paid for our drugs. On April 6, 2021, the Court granted our motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Two members of the putative class, Humana Inc. and UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company, have informed us that they may bring claims directly against us to recover alleged overpayments.

We intend to vigorously defend against this lawsuit.

Patent Litigation with ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

In February 2021, we received a Paragraph IV certification notice letter from ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (ANI) indicating that ANI has submitted an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) to the FDA to market a generic version of Orenitram before the expiration of the following patents:


U.S. Patent No.			Expiration Date
8,252,839			May 2024
9,050,311			May 2024
9,278,901			May 2024
7,544,713			July 2024
7,417,070			July 2026
8,497,393			December 2028
9,604,901			December 2028
9,592,066			December 2028
8,747,897			October 2029
8,410,169			February 2030
8,349,892			January 2031

ANI’s notice letter states that the ANDA contains a Paragraph IV certification alleging that these patents are not valid, not enforceable, and/or will not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use or sale of the proposed product described in ANI’s ANDA submission. We responded to the ANI notice letter by filing a lawsuit against ANI on April 1, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of each of the patents noted above. Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, the FDA is automatically precluded from approving ANI’s ANDA for up to 30 months from receipt of ANI’s notice letter or until the entry by a

U.S. District Court of a final judgment that is adverse to us on all patents that form the basis of the stay, whichever occurs first. The Court has set a schedule for the case with trial set to start on May 8, 2023.

We previously settled litigation with Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. (Actavis) related to its ANDA submitted to the FDA to market a generic version of Orenitram. Under our settlement agreement, Actavis is permitted to market its generic version of Orenitram in June 2027. If ANI is successful in the pending litigation, it could potentially accelerate Actavis’ launch date. We do not know whether Actavis obtained and, if so, retained, 180 days of exclusivity from other generic competition based on its first-to-file status.

We intend to vigorously enforce our intellectual property rights relating to Orenitram.

340B Program Litigation

We participate in the Public Health Service’s 340B drug pricing program (the 340B program), through which we sell our products at discounted prices to covered entities, including pharmacies that have contracts with such covered entities (340B contract pharmacies). Increasing use of 340B contract pharmacies, coupled with a lack of oversight and transparency, has resulted in increased risks of 340B statutory violations related to the diversion of 340B-purchased drugs to individuals who are not patients of the 340B covered entity, and to prohibited “duplicate discounts” when 340B-purchased drugs are also billed to Medicaid. On November 13, 2020, we notified the U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) that we would begin implementing narrowly-tailored 340B contract pharmacy policies with the goal of stemming abuses of the 340B program without upsetting the status quo or creating hardship for covered entities or their patients. At around the same time, a number of other manufacturers also announced their own policies aimed at stemming 340B program abuses.

On December 30, 2020, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) General Counsel issued a non-binding Advisory Opinion (the Advisory Opinion) concluding that, among other things, pharmaceutical manufacturers are obligated to sell their drugs at the 340B discounted price to an unlimited number of 340B contract pharmacies. On May 17, 2021, HRSA sent a letter to us stating that our 340B contract pharmacy policies violated the 340B statute. HRSA also sent materially similar letters to five other pharmaceutical manufacturers. We responded to that letter by clarifying our policies and requesting additional information from HRSA. To date, HRSA has not responded.

The federal government’s pronouncements regarding the use of 340B contract pharmacies have triggered a variety of litigation. In one of those cases, the court concluded that the Advisory Opinion was “legally flawed,” and in response HHS withdrew the Advisory Opinion. Notwithstanding the withdrawal of the Advisory Opinion, HRSA has made clear that it is not withdrawing its May 17, 2021 letter to us and the threat of enforcement action.

On June 23, 2021, we commenced litigation against HRSA and HHS in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking to vindicate the lawfulness of our 340B program contract pharmacy policies. On July 16, 2021, we filed a combined motion for summary judgment and preliminary injunction, and we anticipate that this motion will be fully briefed by the end of August 2021. Litigation involving other manufacturers is also moving forward in parallel with our case and may influence the outcome in our case.

We intend to vigorously defend our 340B program contract pharmacy policies.