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, 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 have not recognized any liabilities relating to these obligations as of December 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.

Lease expense under our operating leases was as follows (in thousands):



	Year Ended December 31,
	2016		2015		2014
Lease expense	$	11,600	$	10,479	$	10,678

Future minimum lease payments under our noncancelable operating and facility leases as of December 31, 2016, were as follows (in thousands):



Year ending December 31,	Lease Payments
2017	$	15,442
2018	12,255
2019	10,881
2020	9,941
2021	9,439
Thereafter	67,914
Total	$	125,872

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. The lease has a term of 12 years from the commencement date as defined in the lease agreement and we have an option to extend the term of the lease twice for a period of five years each. We are obligated to make lease payments totaling approximately $88 million over the initial term of the lease. 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 December 31, 2016, we recorded project construction costs of $27.1 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 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 year ended December 31, 2016, we recorded rent expense associated with the ground lease of $1.9 million in our consolidated statements of income.

In August 2016, we entered into an operating lease agreement for office space in Dublin, Ireland for a term of 20 years, with an option to terminate at the end of eight years with no less than one year’s prior written notice and the payment of a termination fee, and a further option to terminate at the end of 15 years with no less than one year’s prior written notice. We are obligated to make minimum lease payments totaling $19.6 million in connection with this lease.

As of December 31, 2016, we had $27.1 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 West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp., formerly known as Roxane Laboratories, Inc., or 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. 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 were 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, which was approved by the FDA in January 2017, 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 were consolidated by the District Court into a second case, 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, or REMS, patents.

In July 2016, the District Court determined that it would try all of the patents at issue in the first and second Roxane consolidated cases together, including the REMS patents that were previously bifurcated and stayed, and set trial in this combined consolidated case for the second quarter of 2017. In the first quarter of 2017, the District Court bifurcated and stayed the part of the combined consolidated case involving the REMS patents. Also in the first quarter of 2017, the FDA approved Roxane’s ANDA with a REMS that is separate from the Xyrem REMS.

On August 12, 2016, we filed a lawsuit against Roxane in the District Court alleging that an additional later-issued REMS patent is or will be infringed by Roxane’s ANDA and seeking a permanent injunction to prevent Roxane from introducing a generic version of Xyrem that would infringe that patent. In September 2016, Roxane moved to dismiss the lawsuit. This motion is pending.

The actual timing of events in our litigation with Roxane may be 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 extended Amneal’s 30-month stay period to coincide with the date of Par’s 30-month stay period. The stay expired on May 20, 2016.

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. In March 2016, Par moved to dismiss claims involving our patents 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), or our method of administration patents relating to DDI patents. In August 2016, we and Par stipulated to dismiss claims relating to our patents covering the formulation of Xyrem on the grounds that Par had notified FDA that it had converted its Paragraph IV Certifications to a Paragraph III Certification.

On June 4, 2014, we received a notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Ohm Laboratories Inc., formerly known as Ranbaxy, Inc., 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. In May 2016, the Ranbaxy litigation was settled as described below. In the first quarter of 2017, the FDA tentatively approved the ANDAs of Amneal and Ranbaxy.

On October 30, 2014, we received a notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., formerly known as 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 REMS patents 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 inter partes review, or 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. In April 2016, the Wockhardt litigation was settled as set forth below

On July 23, 2015, we received a Paragraph IV Certification from Lupin Inc., or Lupin, that it had 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, April and June 2016, the District Court issued orders consolidating all of the cases then pending against Amneal, Par, Ranbaxy, Watson, Wockhardt and Lupin into a single case for all purposes. No trial date has been set in that consolidated case.

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 the six REMS patents. In July 2016, the PTAB issued final decisions that the claims of these six patents are unpatentable; as a result, if the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upholds those decisions on appeal, these claims will be canceled. We have filed notices of appeal with respect to these IPR decisions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In September 2015, certain of the ANDA filers filed a petition for IPR with respect to the validity of an additional REMS patent. In March 2016, the PTAB partially instituted an IPR on a seventh REMS patent, declining to review 25 of 28 claims. A PTAB decision on the three claims that were tried is expected before the end of the first quarter of 2017.

In October 2015, Ranbaxy and Par filed petitions for IPR with respect to the validity of one of our DDI patents, 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. In July 2016, the PTAB denied Amneal’s petition in its entirety. In March 2016, Ranbaxy filed a petition for IPR with respect to the validity of the second of our DDI patents. In connection with settlement of our litigation with Ranbaxy, both of the IPR petitions filed by Ranbaxy were terminated.

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 connection with settlement of our patent litigation with Wockhardt, this IPR petition was terminated.

We cannot predict whether additional post-grant patent review challenges will be filed by any of the ANDA filers or any other entity, the outcome of any pending IPR or other proceeding, the outcome of any appeal of the July 2016 IPR decisions with respect to the six REMS patents or the impact any IPR or other proceeding might have on ongoing ANDA litigation proceedings or other aspects of our Xyrem business.

Shareholder Litigation Matters Relating to Celator Acquisition. On June 21, 2016, a putative class-action lawsuit challenging our acquisition of Celator Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or Celator, captioned Dunbar v. Celator Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or the Dunbar action, was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey. We refer to our acquisition of Celator in this report as the Celator Acquisition. The complaint was filed against Celator, each member of the Celator board of directors, Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc and our wholly owned subsidiary Plex Merger Sub, Inc., or Plex. The complaint generally alleges that the Celator directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Celator Acquisition, and that Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc and Plex aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint also generally asserts that the Celator directors breached their fiduciary duties to Celator’s public stockholders by, among other things, (i) agreeing to sell Celator to us at an inadequate price, (ii) implementing an unfair process, (iii) agreeing to certain provisions of the merger agreement for the Celator Acquisition that allegedly favored us and deterred alternative bids, and (iv) failing to disclose purportedly material information in Celator’s Schedule 14D-9 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC. The plaintiff sought, among other things, an injunction against the consummation of the Celator Acquisition and an award of costs and expenses, including a reasonable allowance for attorneys’ and experts’ fees.

Between June 27, 2016 and June 29, 2016, two putative class-action lawsuits challenging the Celator Acquisition, captioned Palmisciano v. Celator Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or the Palmisciano action, and Barreto v. Celator Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or the Barreto action, were filed in the District Court. The complaints were filed against Celator and each member of the Celator board of directors. The complaints assert causes of action under sections 14 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, predicated on Celator’s and the Celator directors’ alleged failure to disclose purportedly material information in Celator’s Schedule 14D-9 filing with the SEC. The plaintiffs sought, among other things, an injunction against the consummation of the Celator Acquisition and an award of costs and expenses, including a reasonable allowance for attorneys’ and experts’ fees. Neither Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc nor Plex were named defendants in these actions.

On July 6, 2016, the defendants to the Dunbar action, the Palmisciano action and the Barreto action entered into a memorandum of understanding regarding settlement of these actions with the plaintiffs. The memorandum of understanding outlines the terms of the parties’ agreement in principle to settle and release all claims which were or could have been asserted in these actions. In consideration for such settlement and release, the parties to these actions agreed, among other things, that Celator would amend its Schedule 14D-9 to include certain supplemental disclosures. The Schedule 14D-9 was amended by Celator on July 6, 2016, and the Celator Acquisition was completed on July 12, 2016. The settlement remains subject to, among other items, confirmatory discovery, the execution of a stipulation of settlement by the parties, final approval of the settlement by the District Court in the Barreto action and dismissal with prejudice of the Dunbar action and the Palmisciano action.

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

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 the provision of financial assistance to Medicare patients. In October 2016, we received a second subpoena updating and further specifying document requests regarding support to 501(c)(3) organizations that provide financial assistance to Medicare patients and the provision of financial assistance for Medicare patients taking drugs sold by us. In February 2017, we received a third subpoena requesting documents regarding our support to a specific 501(c)(3) organization that established a fund for narcolepsy patients in January 2017. Other companies have disclosed similar subpoenas and continuing inquiries. We are cooperating with this investigation. We are unable to predict how long this investigation will continue, whether we will receive additional subpoenas in connection with this investigation, or its outcome, but we expect that we will continue to incur significant costs in connection with the investigation, regardless of the outcome. For more information, see the risk factor under the heading “We are subject to significant ongoing regulatory obligations and oversight, which may result in significant additional expense and limit our ability to commercialize our products” in Part I, Item 1A of this Annual Report on Form 10‑K.