Commitments and Contingencies

Indemnification

In the normal course of business, we enter into agreements that contain a variety of representations and warranties and provide for general indemnification, including indemnification associated with product liability or infringement of intellectual property rights. Our exposure under these agreements is unknown because it involves future claims that may be made but have not yet been made against us. To date, we have not paid any claims or been required to defend any action related to these indemnification obligations.

We have agreed to indemnify our executive officers, directors and certain other employees for losses and costs incurred in connection with certain events or occurrences, including advancing money to cover certain costs, subject to certain limitations. The maximum potential amount of future payments we could be required to make under the indemnification obligations is unlimited; however, we maintain insurance policies that may limit our exposure and may enable us to recover a portion of any future amounts paid. Assuming the applicability of coverage and the willingness of the insurer to assume coverage, and subject to certain retention, loss limits and other policy provisions, we believe the fair value of these indemnification obligations is not significant. Accordingly, we did not recognize any liabilities relating to these obligations as of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015. No assurances can be given that the covering insurers will not attempt to dispute the validity, applicability, or amount of coverage without expensive litigation against these insurers, in which case we may incur substantial liabilities as a result of these indemnification obligations.

Lease and Other Commitments

We have noncancelable operating leases for our office buildings and we are obligated to make payments under noncancelable operating leases for automobiles used by our sales force. Future minimum lease payments under our noncancelable operating and facility leases as of March 31, 2016 were as follows (in thousands):



Year Ending December 31,	Lease Payments
2016 (remainder)	$	9,175
2017	13,014
2018	8,552
2019	7,277
2020	6,715
Thereafter	66,588
Total	$	111,321

In January 2015, we entered into an agreement to lease office space located in Palo Alto, California in a building to be constructed by the landlord. We expect to occupy this office space by the end of 2017. In connection with this lease, the landlord is providing a tenant improvement allowance for the costs associated with the design, development and construction of tenant improvements for the leased facility. We are obligated to fund all costs incurred in excess of the tenant improvement allowance. The scope of the planned tenant improvements do not qualify as “normal tenant improvements” under the lease accounting guidance. Accordingly, for accounting purposes, we have concluded we are the deemed owner of the building during the construction period. As of March 31, 2016, we recorded project construction costs of $5.1 million incurred by the landlord as construction-in-progress in property and equipment, net and a corresponding financing obligation in other non-current liabilities in our condensed consolidated balance sheets. We will increase the asset and financing obligation as additional building costs are incurred by the landlord during the construction period. In the three months ended March 31, 2016, we recorded rent expense associated with the ground lease of $0.5 million in our condensed consolidated statements of income.

As of March 31, 2016, we had $53.4 million of noncancelable purchase commitments due within one year, primarily related to agreements with third party manufacturers.

Legal Proceedings

We are involved in legal proceedings, including the following matters:

Xyrem ANDA Matters. On October 18, 2010, we received a notice of Paragraph IV Patent Certification, or Paragraph IV Certification, from Roxane that it had submitted an ANDA to the FDA requesting approval to market a generic version of Xyrem. Roxane’s initial notice alleged that all five patents then listed for Xyrem in the FDA’s publication “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” or Orange Book, on the date of the notice are invalid, unenforceable or not infringed by Roxane’s proposed generic product. On November 22, 2010, we filed a lawsuit against Roxane in response to Roxane’s initial notice in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, or the District Court, seeking a permanent injunction to prevent Roxane from introducing a generic version of Xyrem that would infringe our patents. In accordance with the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, or Hatch-Waxman Act, as a result of our having filed a timely lawsuit against Roxane, FDA approval of Roxane’s ANDA was stayed for 30 months, or until April 2013. That stay has expired. Additional patents covering Xyrem have been issued since December 2010, and after receiving Paragraph IV Certification notices from Roxane with respect to those patents, we have filed additional lawsuits against Roxane to include these additional patents in the litigation. All of the lawsuits filed against Roxane between 2010 and 2012 have been consolidated by the District Court into a single case, which we refer to as the first Roxane consolidated case. In the first Roxane consolidated case, we allege that 10 of our patents covering Xyrem are or will be infringed by Roxane’s ANDA and seek a permanent injunction to prevent Roxane from launching a generic version of Xyrem that would infringe these patents.

After receiving additional Paragraph IV Certification notices from Roxane, we filed three actions against Roxane in the District Court on February 20, 2015, June 1, 2015 and January 27, 2016 that have since been consolidated, which we refer to as the second Roxane consolidated case. In the second Roxane consolidated case, we allege that five of our patents covering Xyrem are or will be infringed by Roxane’s ANDA and seek a permanent injunction to prevent Roxane from introducing a generic version of Xyrem that would infringe those patents.

In December 2013, the District Court permitted Roxane to amend its answer in the first Roxane consolidated case to allege certain equitable defenses, and the parties were given additional time for discovery on those new defenses. In addition, in March 2014, the District Court granted our motion to bifurcate and stay the portion of the first Roxane consolidated case regarding patents related to the distribution system for Xyrem. Although no trial date has been scheduled, we anticipate that trial on the patents in the first Roxane consolidated case that are not subject to the stay could occur as early as the third quarter of 2016. We do not have any estimate of a possible trial date on the patents in the first Roxane consolidated case that are currently subject to the stay or for the second Roxane consolidated case.

In April 2015, Roxane moved in the second Roxane consolidated case to dismiss claims involving our patent covering a part of the Xyrem label that instructs prescribers on adjusting the dose of Xyrem when it is being co-administered with divalproex sodium (also known as valproate or valproic acid) on the grounds that this patent does not cover patentable subject matter. In October 2015, the District Court administratively terminated this motion to dismiss (without prejudice) pending the outcome of IPR proceedings before the PTAB, relating to the patent that was the subject of Roxane’s motion. Such IPR proceedings were filed by Par, Ranbaxy and Amneal and are discussed below.

The actual timing of events in our litigation with Roxane may be significantly earlier or later than we currently anticipate. We cannot predict the specific timing or outcome of events in these matters or the impact of these matters on other ongoing proceedings with any ANDA filer.

On December 10, 2012, we received notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, or Amneal, that it had submitted an ANDA to the FDA requesting approval to market a generic version of Xyrem. On January 18, 2013, we filed a lawsuit against Amneal in the District Court alleging that our patents covering Xyrem are infringed or will be infringed by Amneal’s ANDA and seeking a permanent injunction to prevent Amneal from introducing a generic version of Xyrem that would infringe these patents. On November 21, 2013, we received notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., or Par, that it had submitted an ANDA to the FDA requesting approval to market a generic version of Xyrem. On December 27, 2013, we filed a lawsuit against Par in the District Court alleging that our patents covering Xyrem are infringed or will be infringed by Par’s ANDA and seeking a permanent injunction to prevent Par from introducing a generic version of Xyrem that would infringe these patents.

In April 2014, Amneal asked the District Court to consolidate its case with the Par case, stating that both cases would proceed on the schedule for the Par case. The District Court granted this request in May 2014. The order consolidating the cases provides that Amneal’s 30-month stay period will be extended to coincide with the date of Par’s 30-month stay period. As a result, the FDA’s approval of both Amneal’s and Par’s ANDAs is stayed until the earlier of (i) May 20, 2016, or (ii) a District Court decision finding that the identified patents are invalid, unenforceable or not infringed.

Additional patents covering Xyrem have issued since April 2014 and have been listed in the Orange Book for Xyrem. Amneal and Par have given us additional notices of Paragraph IV Certifications regarding such patents, and we have filed additional lawsuits against Amneal and Par in the District Court alleging that our patents covering Xyrem are infringed or will be infringed by Amneal’s and Par’s ANDAs and seeking a permanent injunction to prevent Amneal and Par from introducing a generic version of Xyrem that will infringe these patents.

On June 4, 2014, we received a notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited, or Ranbaxy, that it had submitted an ANDA to the FDA requesting approval to market a generic version of Xyrem. On July 15, 2014, we filed a lawsuit against Ranbaxy in the District Court alleging that our patents covering Xyrem are infringed or will be infringed by Ranbaxy’s ANDA and seeking a permanent injunction to prevent Ranbaxy from introducing a generic version of Xyrem that will infringe these patents. Since June 2014, we have received additional notices of Paragraph IV Certification from Ranbaxy regarding newly issued patents for Xyrem listed in the Orange Book, and we have filed additional lawsuits against Ranbaxy in the District Court alleging that our patents covering Xyrem are infringed or will be infringed by Ranbaxy’s ANDA and seeking a permanent injunction to prevent Ranbaxy from introducing a generic version of Xyrem that will infringe these patents.

On October 30, 2014, we received a notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Watson Laboratories, Inc., or Watson, that it had submitted an ANDA to the FDA requesting approval to market a generic version of Xyrem. On December 11, 2014, we filed a lawsuit against Watson in the District Court alleging that our patents covering Xyrem are or will be infringed by Watson’s ANDA and seeking a permanent injunction to prevent Watson from introducing a generic version of Xyrem that would infringe these patents. In March 2015, Watson moved to dismiss the portion of the case based on our Orange Book-listed patents covering the distribution system for Xyrem on the grounds that these patents do not cover patentable subject matter. In November 2015, the District Court administratively terminated this motion to dismiss (without prejudice) pending the outcome of IPR proceedings before the PTAB relating to the patents that were the subject of Watson’s motion. Since March 2015, we have received an additional notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Watson regarding newly issued patents for Xyrem listed in the Orange Book, and we have filed an additional lawsuit against Watson in the District Court alleging that our patents covering Xyrem are or will be infringed by Watson’s ANDA and seeking a permanent injunction to prevent Watson from introducing a generic version of Xyrem that would infringe these patents.

In April 2015, the District Court issued an order that consolidated all then-pending lawsuits against Amneal, Par, Ranbaxy and Watson into one case.

On June 8, 2015, we received a Paragraph IV Certification from Wockhardt Bio AG, or Wockhardt, that it had submitted an ANDA to the FDA requesting approval to market a generic version of Xyrem. On July 17, 2015, we filed a lawsuit in the District Court alleging that our patents covering Xyrem were or would be infringed by Wockhardt’s ANDA and seeking a permanent injunction to prevent Wockhardt from introducing a generic version of Xyrem that would infringe our patents. On November 26, 2015, we received an additional notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Wockhardt regarding newly issued patents listed in the Orange Book, and we filed an additional lawsuit against Wockhardt in the District Court alleging that our patents covering Xyrem were or would be infringed by Wockhardt’s ANDA and seeking a permanent injunction to prevent Wockhardt from introducing a generic version of Xyrem that would infringe these patents.

On July 23, 2015, we received a Paragraph IV Certification from Lupin Inc., or Lupin, that it has submitted an ANDA to the FDA requesting approval to market a generic version of Xyrem. On September 2, 2015, we filed a lawsuit in the District Court alleging that our patents covering Xyrem are or will be infringed by Lupin’s ANDA and seeking a permanent injunction to prevent Lupin from introducing a generic version of Xyrem that would infringe our patents.

In January 2016, the District Court issued an order consolidating all of the cases then pending against Amneal, Par, Ranbaxy, Watson, Wockhardt and Lupin into a single case for all purposes. In April 2016, the District Court issued orders consolidating two cases against Amneal and Ranbaxy relating to later-issued patents with the previously consolidated case against Amneal, Par, Ranbaxy, Watson and Lupin.

We entered into settlement agreements with Wockhardt and Ranbaxy on April 18, 2016 and May 9, 2016, respectively, that resolved our patent litigation against Wockhardt and Ranbaxy. Under the settlement agreements, we granted each of Wockhardt and Ranbaxy a license to manufacture, market, and sell its generic version of Xyrem on or after December 31, 2025, or earlier depending on the occurrence of certain events. The specific terms of the settlement agreements are confidential.

The settlements with Wockhardt and Ranbaxy do not resolve the litigation against Amneal, Par, Watson and Lupin, which is ongoing. We cannot predict the specific timing or outcome of events in this matter with respect to the remaining defendants or the impact of developments involving any specific parties or patents on other ongoing proceedings with any ANDA filer.

Xyrem Post-Grant Patent Review Matters. In January 2015, certain of the ANDA filers filed petitions for IPR with respect to the validity of six patents covering the distribution system for Xyrem. In July 2015, the PTAB issued decisions instituting IPR trials with respect to these petitions, and we expect the PTAB to issue final decisions on the validity of the patents in July 2016. In September 2015, certain of the ANDA filers filed a petition for IPR with respect to the validity of an additional patent covering the distribution system for Xyrem. In March 2016, the PTAB issued a decision instituting an IPR trial with respect to three claims of the patent subject to this petition, and we expect the PTAB to issue final decisions on the validity of these claims in March 2017. The PTAB denied the petition with respect to the other 25 claims of the patent.

In October 2015, Ranbaxy and Par filed petitions for IPR with respect to the validity of one of our patents covering a method for prescribing Xyrem when it is being co-administered with divalproex sodium, and Amneal filed an IPR petition on the same patent in February 2016. In April 2016, the PTAB denied Par’s petition in its entirety and issued a decision on Ranbaxy’s petition, instituting an IPR trial with respect to 16 of the claims under the patent subject to this petition and denying the petition with respect to the other 18 claims. We expect a decision on the Amneal petition in August 2016. In March 2016, Ranbaxy filed a petition for IPR with respect to the validity of the second of our patents covering a method for prescribing Xyrem when it is being co-administered with divalproex sodium. In connection with settlement of our litigation with Ranbaxy in May 2016, we expect to file a joint motion with Ranbaxy to terminate both of the IPR petitions filed by Ranbaxy.

In December 2015, Wockhardt filed a petition for IPR with respect to the validity of one of our patents covering the formulation of Xyrem. In April 2016, following settlement of our patent litigation against Wockhardt, we and Wockhardt filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR petitions filed or joined by Wockhardt.

We cannot predict whether additional post-grant patent review challenges will be filed by any of the ANDA filers or any other entity, whether the PTAB will terminate the IPRs as requested by the parties, the outcome of any IPR or other proceeding, whether the PTAB will institute any petitioned IPR proceeding that has not yet been instituted, or the impact any IPR or other proceeding might have on ongoing ANDA litigation proceedings or other aspects of our Xyrem business.

From time to time we are involved in legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. We believe there is no other litigation pending that could have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition.

Other Contingencies

We have not previously submitted pricing data for two radiopharmaceutical products, Quadramet^® (samarium sm 153 lexidronam injection) and ProstaScint^® (capromab pendetide), for Medicaid and the Public Health Service’s 340B drug pricing discount program, or 340B program. We engaged in interactions with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, and a trade group, the Council on Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals, or CORAR, regarding the reporting of Medicaid pricing data and paying Medicaid rebates for radiopharmaceutical products. In addition to the discussions with CMS as part of CORAR, we have had separate discussions with CMS directly regarding Quadramet. We sold Quadramet to a third party in December 2013, but we retained any liabilities related to sales of the product during prior periods. Similarly, we sold ProstaScint to a third party in May 2015, but we retained any liabilities related to sales of the product during prior periods. We are currently unable to predict whether price reporting and rebates will be required for Quadramet and ProstaScint and, if so, for what period they will be required. The initiation of any reporting of Medicaid pricing data for Quadramet or ProstaScint could result in retroactive 340B ceiling price liability for these two products. We are currently unable to reasonably estimate an amount or range of a potential contingent loss. Any material liability resulting from radiopharmaceutical price reporting would negatively impact our financial results.

In May 2016, we received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts requesting documents related to our support of 501(c)(3) organizations that provide financial assistance to Medicare patients, and, for Xyrem, documents concerning our provision of financial assistance to Medicare patients. Other companies have disclosed similar inquiries. We intend to cooperate with this subpoena. We are unable to predict how long this investigation will continue or its outcome, but it is possible that we will incur significant costs in connection with the investigation, regardless of the outcome.