XML 37 R20.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.23.3
Legal Matters
 9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Legal Matters Legal Matters
HETLIOZ®. Between April 2018 and March 2021, the Company filed numerous Hatch-Waxman lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Delaware District Court) against Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Teva), MSN Pharmaceuticals Inc. and MSN Laboratories Private Limited (MSN) and Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (Apotex, and collectively with Teva and MSN, the HETLIOZ® Defendants) asserting that U.S. Patent Nos. RE46,604 (‘604 Patent), 9,060,995, 9,539,234, 9,549,913, 9,730,910 (‘910 Patent), 9,844,241, 10,071,977, 10,149,829 (‘829 Patent), 10,376,487 (‘487 Patent), 10,449,176, 10,610,510, 10,610,511, 10,829,465, and 10,611,744 will be infringed by the HETLIOZ® Defendants’ generic versions of HETLIOZ® for which they were seeking FDA approval. As initially disclosed in the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 14, 2022, in January 2022, the Company entered into a license agreement with MSN and Impax Laboratories LLC (Impax) resolving the lawsuits against MSN (the MSN/Impax License Agreement). The MSN/Impax License Agreement grants MSN and Impax a non-exclusive license to manufacture and commercialize MSN’s generic version of HETLIOZ® in the U.S. effective as of March 13, 2035, unless prior to that date the Company obtains pediatric exclusivity for HETLIOZ®, in which case the license will be effective as of July 27, 2035. The MSN/Impax License Agreement also provides that MSN and Impax may launch a generic version of HETLIOZ® earlier under certain limited circumstances. The consolidated lawsuits against the remaining HETLIOZ® Defendants were tried in March 2022.
On December 13, 2022, the Delaware District Court ruled that Teva and Apotex did not infringe the ‘604 Patent, and that the asserted claims of the ‘604, ‘910, ‘829 and ‘487 Patents were invalid. In December 2022, the Company appealed the Delaware District Court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) and an oral argument for the appeal was held in March 2023. On May 10, 2023, a three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit affirmed the Delaware District Court’s ruling, and on June 9, 2023, the Company requested a rehearing or rehearing en banc from the Federal Circuit. On August 16, 2023, the Federal Circuit denied the Company’s petition for a rehearing. The Company intends to file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Federal Circuit’s decision, and on October 13, 2023, the Company filed an application for an extension of time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Federal Circuit’s decision. Chief Justice Roberts granted the application, extending the time to file to January 12, 2024.
On December 27, 2022, the Company filed patent infringement lawsuits, including Hatch-Waxman Act claims, against each of Teva and Apotex in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (NJ District Court) asserting that U.S. Patent No. 11,285,129, a method of administration patent that was not litigated in the Delaware District Court cases (‘129 Patent), will be infringed by Teva’s and Apotex’ generic versions of HETLIOZ®, each of which was approved by the FDA. The Company asked the NJ District Court to, among other things, order that the effective date of the FDA’s approval of Teva’s and Apotex’ generic versions of HETLIOZ® be a date that is no earlier than the expiration of the ‘129 Patent, or such later date that the NJ District Court may determine, and enjoin each of Teva and Apotex from the commercial manufacture, use, import, offer for sale and/or sale of their generic versions of HETLIOZ® until the expiration of the ‘129 Patent, or such later date that the NJ District Court may determine. In February 2023, the case was transferred to the Delaware District Court, where the Company’s lawsuit remains pending.
In January 2023, the Company filed a lawsuit in the NJ District Court against Teva challenging Teva’s advertising and marketing practices related to its at-risk launch of its generic version of HETLIOZ® for the single indication of Non-24. The Company believes that Teva’s advertising and marketing practices related to its generic version of HETLIOZ® promote its product for uses beyond the limited labeling that Teva sought, and the FDA approved. The Company seeks to, among other things, enjoin Teva from engaging in false and misleading advertising and recover monetary damages. In March 2023, Teva filed a motion to dismiss or to transfer the case to the Delaware District Court, which remains pending.
In January 2023, the Company filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (DC District Court) against the FDA challenging the FDA’s approval of Teva’s Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) for its generic version of HETLIOZ® capsules under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), and FDA regulations. Under the FDCA, every ANDA must contain information to show that the labeling proposed for the generic drug is the same as the labeling approved for the listed drug. The labeling and packaging for HETLIOZ® includes Braille, but Teva’s generic tasimelteon does not. On this basis, the Company believes that Teva’s approved labeling does not comply with applicable requirements. The Company has asked the DC District Court to, among other things, vacate the FDA’s approval of Teva’s ANDA, declare that the approval of the ANDA was unlawful, arbitrary, and capricious and compel the FDA to order Teva to recall its generic HETLIOZ® product. In February 2023, Teva intervened in the lawsuit as a defendant. In September 2023, the Company amended its lawsuit to request that the DC District Court set aside the FDA’s July 2023 denial of the Company’s citizen petition, originally filed with the FDA in January 2023. The Company’s lawsuit remains pending.
In September 2023, the Company filed a lawsuit in the DC District Court against the FDA challenging the FDA’s approval of MSN’s ANDA for its generic version of HETLIOZ® capsules under the APA, the FDCA, and FDA regulations. The Company believes that MSN’s underlying approval data, particularly its bioequivalence studies, are faulty. On this basis, the Company has asked the DC District Court to, among other things, vacate the FDA’s approval of MSN’s ANDA, declare that the approval of the ANDA was unlawful, arbitrary, and capricious and compel the FDA to order MSN to recall its generic HETLIOZ® product. The Company’s lawsuit remains pending.
Other Matters. From April 2022 to October 2023, the Company filed twelve lawsuits in the DC District Court against the FDA to compel the FDA to produce records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) regarding, among other matters: the FDA’s denial of the Company’s supplemental New Drug Application (sNDA) for HETLIOZ® in the treatment of jet lag disorder; cases in which the FDA waived its putative requirement of a 9-month non-rodent toxicity study before drugs can be tested on human patients for extended durations; communications external to and within the FDA relating to tradipitant and HETLIOZ®; a warning letter that the FDA sent to Vanda concerning Vanda’s webpages for HETLIOZ® and Fanapt®; the FDA’s removal of a clinical trials design presentation from its website; discipline reviews relating to the FDA’s evaluations of the Company’s sNDA for HETLIOZ® and a third-party sNDA for jet lag; internal standard operating procedures or guidance relating to the FDA’s processing of incoming FOIA requests; and bioequivalence and other study reports submitted relating to the FDA’s consideration of Teva’s ANDA. Two of these lawsuits were resolved in the Company’s favor in June 2023 and August 2023, respectively, one is pending resolution and the other nine remain outstanding. The FDA has failed to respond and provide the requested documents within the statutory timeframe with respect to each of these nine outstanding requests. The Company has asked the DC District Court to, among other things, compel the FDA to comply with its obligations and declare that its lack of compliance violates FOIA.
In April 2022, the Company filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (the MD District Court) against the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Administrator of CMS challenging CMS’ rule broadly interpreting the defined terms “line extension” and “new formulation” under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (ACA), which went into effect in January 2022 (the Rule). The Company believes that the Rule is unlawful and contrary to the intent of Congress when it passed the ACA. Under the Rule, certain of the Company’s products would be treated as line extensions and new formulations subject to enhanced rebates, despite the statutory text and CMS’ own long-standing practice, under which such products would not constitute line extensions or new formulations. In March 2023, the MD District Court ruled that CMS’ interpretation of the terms was reasonable and consistent with Congress’ intent. In April 2023, the Company appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which has tentatively scheduled an oral argument for the week of January 22, 2024.
In May 2022, the Company filed a lawsuit in the DC District Court against the FDA challenging the FDA’s denial of Fast Track designation for tradipitant. In October 2021, the Company submitted to the FDA a request for Fast Track designation for tradipitant under the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA). The FDAMA provides for expedited development and review of drugs that receive Fast Track designation from the FDA. Under the FDAMA, the FDA must designate a drug as a Fast Track product if it both (1) is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and (2) demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for such disease or condition. Although Fast Track designation is non-discretionary when the criteria are satisfied, the FDA denied the Company’s request for Fast Track designation. The Company does not believe that the FDA based its decision on the relevant criteria. Therefore, among other reasons, the Company maintains that the FDA’s denial is unlawful. The Company has asked the DC District Court to, among other things, set aside and vacate the FDA’s denial. An oral argument was held in January 2023. In August 2023, the DC District Court ruled against the Company. In September 2023, the Company appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, where the Company’s lawsuit remains pending.
In September 2022, the Company filed a lawsuit in the DC District Court against the FDA to compel the FDA to comply with two separate nondiscretionary obligations under the FDCA and its implementing regulations: an obligation to publish a notice of an opportunity for a hearing on the Company’s sNDA in the Federal Register within 180 days of the filing of the sNDA, and a separate obligation to publish the same notice within 60 days of the request for a hearing. The FDA published the notice of an opportunity for a hearing on October 11, 2022. The Company has asked the DC District Court to, among other things, compel the FDA to comply with its obligations and declare that its lack of compliance violates the FDCA and the FDA regulations. The Company’s lawsuit remains pending.
In May 2023, the Company filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (Federal Claims Court) against the federal government for the uncompensated taking and misuse of the Company’s trade secrets and confidential information. The Company believes that the FDA violated the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause by improperly providing confidential details from the Company’s drug master files for HETLIOZ® and Fanapt® to generic drug manufacturers during the FDA’s review of the manufacturers’ ANDAs. The Company has asked the Federal Claims Court to, among other things, declare that
the FDA’s disclosure of the Company’s confidential commercial information constitutes a taking for purposes of the Fifth Amendment and award just compensation. The federal government has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which the Company has opposed. The Company’s lawsuit remains pending.