Litigation	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2014
Litigation
Litigation	15. Litigation Department of Health and Human Services Subpoena In December 2013, we received a subpoena from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Health and Human Services in connection with a civil investigation by the United States Department of Justice, principally represented by the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland. The subpoena requests documents regarding Remodulin, Tyvaso and Adcirca, including our marketing practices relating to these products. We are cooperating with the investigation. We are not aware that a claim, litigation or assessment has been asserted in connection with the subpoena. However, we cannot predict what actions, if any, may be taken by the OIG, the Department of Justice, other governmental entities, or any third parties in connection with such investigation. Sandoz Inc. In February 2012, we received a Paragraph IV certification letter (the Original Notice Letter) from Sandoz Inc. (Sandoz) advising that Sandoz had submitted an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) to the FDA requesting approval to market a generic version of the 10 mg/mL strength of Remodulin. In December 2012, we received notice (the Second Notice Letter) that Sandoz had amended its previously filed ANDA to request additional approval to market generic versions of the 1 mg/mL, 2.5 mg/mL, and 5 mg/mL strengths of Remodulin. In the Original Notice Letter and the Second Notice Letter, Sandoz stated that it intends to market a generic version of Remodulin before the expiration of the following patents relating to Remodulin: U.S. Patent No. 5,153,222, which expires in October 2014; U.S. Patent No. 6,765,117, which expires in October 2017; and U.S. Patent No. 7,999,007, which expires in March 2029. Each of these patents is listed in the Orange Book. We responded to the Original Notice Letter by filing a lawsuit in March 2012 against Sandoz in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging patent infringement. We responded to the Second Notice Letter by filing an additional lawsuit in January 2013 for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Sandoz filed counterclaims in each action alleging that the patents at issue in the litigation are invalid or will not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use or sale of the proposed product described in Sandoz’s ANDA submission. Shortly before trial, Sandoz withdrew its request to market a generic version of Remodulin before the expiration of U.S. Patent No. 5,153,222, but maintained its request to market a generic version of Remodulin before the expiration of the other two patents. The trial for both lawsuits, limited to U.S. Patent Nos. 6,765,117 and 7,999,007, occurred in May and June 2014 and we received the Court’s decision in August 2014. In that decision, with respect to U.S. Patent No. 6,765,117 the Court both ruled that the patent is valid and enforceable against Sandoz, Inc., and enjoined Sandoz from marketing its generic product until the expiration of that patent in October 2017. With respect to U.S. Patent No. 7,999,007, the Court ruled that the patent is valid, but would not be infringed by Sandoz’ generic product. Sandoz has appealed the ruling that U.S. Patent No. 6,765,117 is valid and would be infringed, and that U.S. Patent No. 7,999,007 is valid. We have filed a cross-appeal challenging the Court’s ruling that U.S. Patent No. 7,999,007 would not be infringed by Sandoz’s generic version of Remodulin. In July 2014, we received an additional Paragraph IV certification letter (Third Notice Letter) from Sandoz, seeking permission to market and sell its generic version of Remodulin before the expiration of U.S. Patent No. 8,497,393, which expires in December 2028 and is also listed in the Orange Book. We responded to Sandoz’s Third Notice Letter by filing a lawsuit in September 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey for patent infringement with respect to U.S. Patent No. 8,497,393. We intend to vigorously enforce our intellectual property rights relating to Remodulin. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. On July 21, 2014, we received a Paragraph IV certification letter (Teva’s Notice Letter) from Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Teva) advising that Teva had submitted an ANDA to the FDA requesting approval to market a generic version of Remodulin. In Teva’s Notice Letter, Teva states that it intends to market a generic version of Remodulin before the expiration of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,765,117 and 8,497,393, both of which are also the subject of Paragraph IV certifications by Sandoz, discussed above. Teva’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 Teva’s ANDA submission. We responded to Teva’s Notice Letter by filing a lawsuit in September 2014 against Teva in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,765,117, 7,999,007 and 8,497,393, as well as infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,653,137 and 8,658,694, both of which expire in September 2028. Teva requested and obtained an extension of the deadline to file its answer to our complaint. Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, the FDA is automatically precluded from approving Teva’s ANDA for up to 30 months from receipt of Teva’s Notice Letter or until the issuance of a District Court decision that is adverse to us, whichever occurs first. We intend to vigorously enforce our intellectual property rights relating to Remodulin

15. Litigation

Department of Health and Human Services Subpoena

In December 2013, we received a subpoena from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Health and Human Services in connection with a civil investigation by the United States Department of Justice, principally represented by the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland. The subpoena requests documents regarding Remodulin, Tyvaso and Adcirca, including our marketing practices relating to these products. We are cooperating with the investigation. We are not aware that a claim, litigation or assessment has been asserted in connection with the subpoena. However, we cannot predict what actions, if any, may be taken by the OIG, the Department of Justice, other governmental entities, or any third parties in connection with such investigation.

Sandoz Inc.

In February 2012, we received a Paragraph IV certification letter (the Original Notice Letter) from Sandoz Inc. (Sandoz) advising that Sandoz had submitted an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) to the FDA requesting approval to market a generic version of the 10 mg/mL strength of Remodulin. In December 2012, we received notice (the Second Notice Letter) that Sandoz had amended its previously filed ANDA to request additional approval to market generic versions of the 1 mg/mL, 2.5 mg/mL, and 5 mg/mL strengths of Remodulin. In the Original Notice Letter and the Second Notice Letter, Sandoz stated that it intends to market a generic version of Remodulin before the expiration of the following patents relating to Remodulin: U.S. Patent No. 5,153,222, which expires in October 2014; U.S. Patent No. 6,765,117, which expires in October 2017; and U.S. Patent No. 7,999,007, which expires in March 2029. Each of these patents is listed in the Orange Book.

We responded to the Original Notice Letter by filing a lawsuit in March 2012 against Sandoz in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging patent infringement. We responded to the Second Notice Letter by filing an additional lawsuit in January 2013 for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Sandoz filed counterclaims in each action alleging that the patents at issue in the litigation are invalid or will not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use or sale of the proposed product described in Sandoz’s ANDA submission. Shortly before trial, Sandoz withdrew its request to market a generic version of Remodulin before the expiration of U.S. Patent No. 5,153,222, but maintained its request to market a generic version of Remodulin before the expiration of the other two patents. The trial for both lawsuits, limited to U.S. Patent Nos. 6,765,117 and 7,999,007, occurred in May and June 2014 and we received the Court’s decision in August 2014. In that decision, with respect to U.S. Patent No. 6,765,117 the Court both ruled that the patent is valid and enforceable against Sandoz, Inc., and enjoined Sandoz from marketing its generic product until the expiration of that patent in October 2017. With respect to U.S. Patent No. 7,999,007, the Court ruled that the patent is valid, but would not be infringed by Sandoz’ generic product.

Sandoz has appealed the ruling that U.S. Patent No. 6,765,117 is valid and would be infringed, and that U.S. Patent No. 7,999,007 is valid. We have filed a cross-appeal challenging the Court’s ruling that U.S. Patent No. 7,999,007 would not be infringed by Sandoz’s generic version of Remodulin.

In July 2014, we received an additional Paragraph IV certification letter (Third Notice Letter) from Sandoz, seeking permission to market and sell its generic version of Remodulin before the expiration of U.S. Patent No. 8,497,393, which expires in December 2028 and is also listed in the Orange Book. We responded to Sandoz’s Third Notice Letter by filing a lawsuit in September 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey for patent infringement with respect to U.S. Patent No. 8,497,393.

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

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

On July 21, 2014, we received a Paragraph IV certification letter (Teva’s Notice Letter) from Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Teva) advising that Teva had submitted an ANDA to the FDA requesting approval to market a generic version of Remodulin.

In Teva’s Notice Letter, Teva states that it intends to market a generic version of Remodulin before the expiration of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,765,117 and 8,497,393, both of which are also the subject of Paragraph IV certifications by Sandoz, discussed above. Teva’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 Teva’s ANDA submission.

We responded to Teva’s Notice Letter by filing a lawsuit in September 2014 against Teva in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,765,117, 7,999,007 and 8,497,393, as well as infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,653,137 and 8,658,694, both of which expire in September 2028. Teva requested and obtained an extension of the deadline to file its answer to our complaint.

Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, the FDA is automatically precluded from approving Teva’s ANDA for up to 30 months from receipt of Teva’s Notice Letter or until the issuance of a District Court decision that is adverse to us, whichever occurs first. We intend to vigorously enforce our intellectual property rights relating to Remodulin