Legal Proceedings

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2019

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Legal Proceedings

Legal Proceedings

In addition to the below legal proceedings, from time to time, the Company may be a party to litigation and subject to claims incident to the ordinary course of business. Although the results of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company currently believes that the final outcome of these ordinary course matters, or matters discussed below, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business nor has the Company recorded any loss in connection with these matters because the Company believes that loss is neither probable nor estimable. Regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on the Company because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other factors.

Commercial Litigation

In Re: Taxotere (Docetaxel)

On February 1, 2017, the Company was named as a defendant, among various other manufacturers, in several product liability suits that are consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana as part of MDL 2740 (Civil Action No 2:16 md-2740). The claims are for personal injuries allegedly arising out of the use of docetaxel.

In March 2017, the Company reached agreements in principle with the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in this matter to voluntarily dismiss the Company from all of the lawsuits in which it was named and from the master complaint. The Company is in the process of working with the other parties in this matter to have it removed from the Multidistrict litigation entirely.  As part of the agreement, in the event a case is brought in the future with facts that justify the Company’s inclusion, the plaintiffs reserved the right to include the Company in such matter.  The plaintiffs have filed several additional lawsuits since the parties’ agreement in principle to dismiss, and the Company is in the process of working with plaintiffs to explore the possibility of dismissing those lawsuits.  

Eagle v. Burwell

On April 27, 2016, the Company filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the FDA and other federal defendants seeking an order requiring the FDA to recognize orphan drug exclusivity for BENDEKA for the treatment of CLL and indolent B-cell NHL.  On June 8, 2018, the Court issued a decision requiring the FDA to recognize seven years of orphan drug exclusivity in the U.S. for BENDEKA, and on July 6, 2018 the FDA recognized such ODE until December 7, 2022.  In addition, on July 6, 2018, the FDA submitted a Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgement Pursuant to Rule 59(e), pursuant to which the FDA requested that the Court amend its decision to make clear that the decision does not affect any applications referencing TREANDA.  The FDA’s motion was denied by the Court on August 1, 2018 on the grounds that the FDA had not satisfied the standard for altering or amending the judgment. The FDA and two intervenors have appealed the Court’s final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.  Oral arguments occurred on October 17, 2019 and a decision is not expected until the Spring of 2020. On February 20, 2019, the FDA issued a decision in favor of the Company, regarding the scope of exclusivity for BENDEKA. Pursuant to the FDA’s decision, and unless the district court is reversed on appeal, no bendamustine product used to treat the same indications (including generic versions of TREANDA) may launch in the United States until December 7, 2022 unless it is clinically superior to BENDEKA.

Eagle v. Eli Lilly

On August 24, 2017, the Company filed an antitrust complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (“New Jersey District Court”) against Eli Lilly and Company (“Lilly”).  The complaint alleges that Lilly engaged in anticompetitive conduct which restrained competition by delaying and blocking the Company’s launch of a competing pemetrexed injection product (to compete with Lilly’s Alimta). Lilly accepted service and answered the complaint on October 27, 2017. Lilly also filed a motion to transfer this case to Delaware on October 27, 2017. The Company filed a motion to oppose such transfer on November 6, 2017. On July 20, 2018, the New Jersey District Court transferred the case to Delaware. On November 27, 2018, the Delaware Court stayed the case at least until conclusion of the PEMFEXY^TM patent trial described below.

Chiesi v. Eagle

On October 3, 2018, Chiesi USA, Inc. ("Chiesi") filed a complaint against Eagle in the Superior Court of Wake County, North Carolina. The complaint alleges that Eagle has failed to provide adequate information regarding the sales of Argatroban pursuant to a License and Development Agreement between the parties. On July 17, 2019, Chiesi dismissed the actions without prejudice.

Patent Litigation

Eli Lilly and Company. v. Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (PEMFEXY^TM (Pemetrexed))

On August 14, 2017, Lilly filed suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana (the “Indiana Suit”).  Lilly alleged patent infringement based on the filing of the Company’s 505(b)(2) NDA seeking approval to manufacture and sell the Company’s EP-5101.  EP-5101, if finally approved by FDA, will be a branded alternative to Alimta®.

On September 8, 2017, Eagle moved to dismiss the Indiana Suit for improper venue.  On September 11, 2017, Lilly voluntarily dismissed the Indiana Suit.  It then filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging similar patent infringement claims (the “Delaware Suit”).  Eagle answered and filed various counterclaims in the Delaware Suit on October 3, 2017.  Lilly answered Eagle’s counterclaims on October 24, 2017. The Court held a scheduling conference on December 11, 2017 and set trial in the Delaware Suit to begin on September 9, 2019, but later rescheduled trial to begin October 28, 2019. On May 31, 2018, Eagle filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, which the Court denied on October 26, 2018. On January 23, 2019, the Court held a Markman hearing. Trial took place from October 28, 2019 to October 31, 2019 and is scheduled to continue on December 12, 2019 through December 13, 2019. The Delaware Suit is pending.

Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. v. Slayback Pharma Limited Liability Company; Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. v. Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp.; Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC; Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. v. Mylan Laboratories Limited; Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v. Hospira, Inc. - (BENDEKA®)

BENDEKA, which contains bendamustine hydrochloride, is an alkylating drug that is indicated for the treatment of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, as well as for the treatment of patients with indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma that has progressed during or within six months of treatment with rituximab or a rituximab-containing regimen. Five companies - Slayback Pharma Limited Liability Company (“Slayback”), Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (“Apotex”), Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC (“Fresenius”), Mylan Laboratories Limited (“Mylan”), and Lupin - have filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications (“ANDA’s”) referencing BENDEKA® that include challenges to one or more of the BENDEKA® Orange Book-listed patents. Hospira, Inc. (“Hospira”) filed a 505(b)(2) NDA.

The Company, Cephalon, Inc. and/or Teva Pharmaceuticals International GMBH (together the “Patentees”), filed separate suits against Slayback, Apotex, Fresenius, Mylan, Hospira, and Lupin in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on August 16, 2017 (Slayback (“Slayback I”)), August 18, 2017 (Apotex), August 24, 2017 (Fresenius), December 12, 2017 (Mylan), January 19, 2018 (Slayback (“Slayback II”)), July 19, 2018 (Hospira), and July 2, 2019 (Lupin). In these Complaints, the Patentees allege infringement of the challenged patents, namely U.S. Patent Nos. 8,791,270 and 9,572,887 against Slayback (Slayback I and Slayback II), and of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,609,707, 8,791,270, 9,000,021, 9,034,908, 9,144,568, 9,265,831, 9,572,796, 9,572,797, 9,572,887, 9,579,384, 9,597,397, 9,597,398, 9,597,399 against Fresenius, Apotex, and Mylan, and of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,572,887, 10,010,533, 9,034,908, 9,144,568, 9,597,397, 9,597,398, 9,597,399, 9,000,021, 9,579,384 against Hospira, and of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,609,707, 9,000,021, 9,034,908, 9,144,568, 9,265,831, 9,572,796, 9,572,797, 9,572,887, 9,579,384, 9,597,397, 9,597,398, 9,597,399, 10,010,533, and 10,052,385 against Lupin. The parties stipulated to dismiss without prejudice U.S. Patent No. 8,791,270 as to Apotex, Fresenius and Mylan on July 24, 2018, August 2, 2018, and August 3, 2018, respectively. Slayback, Apotex, Fresenius, and Mylan answered their Complaints and some filed various counterclaims on September 29, 2017 (Slayback I), February 12, 2018 (Slayback II), November 27, 2017, September 15, 2017, and February 14, 2018, respectively. The Patentees answered the Slayback I, Slayback II, Fresenius, and Apotex counterclaims on October 20, 2017, March 5, 2018, October 6, 2017, and December 18, 2017, respectively. On October 15, 2018, the Patentees filed a suit against Fresenius and Mylan in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging patent infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,010,533 and 10,052,385. The Slayback I, Slayback II, Apotex, Fresenius and Mylan cases have been consolidated for all purposes, and a bench trial in these cases began September 9, 2019 and concluded September 19, 2019. Hospira filed a motion to dismiss the case, which was fully briefed on November 16, 2018. All cases are pending.

The FDA is stayed from approving Apotex’s, Fresenius’, Mylan’s, and Lupin’s ANDA’s, and Hospira’s 505(b)(2) application, until the earlier of (1) January 7, 2020, January 14, 2020, April 30, 2020, November 21, 2021, and December 20, 2020 respectively (the “30-month stay dates”); and (2) a court decision that each of the challenged patents is not infringed, invalid, or

unenforceable. The 30-month stay dates may be shortened or lengthened if either party to the action fails to reasonably cooperate in expediting the action. The FDA cannot approve Slayback’s ANDA until March 2033.

Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Slayback Pharma Limited Liability Company

Slayback filed an ANDA referencing Eagle's Belrapzo. Slayback’s ANDA includes challenges to one or more of the Belrapzo Orange Book-listed patents. On September 20, 2018, the Company filed a suit against Slayback in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging patent infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,609,707, 9,265,831, 9,572,796, 9,572,797 and 10,010,533. On October 10, 2018, Slayback answered the Complaint and filed various counterclaims. On October 31, 2018, the Company answered Slayback’s counterclaims. This case is currently stayed.

Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Slayback Pharma Limited Liability Company

Slayback filed a 505(b)(2) NDA referencing Eagle’s Belrapzo. Slayback’s NDA includes challenges to one or more of the Belrapzo Orange Book-listed patents. On December 11, 2018, the Company filed a suit against Slayback in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging patent infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,265,831, 9,572,796, 9,572,797, and 10,010,533. On January 4, 2019, Slayback filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. On May 9, 2019, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granted Slayback’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. On July 23, 2019, the Company filed an appeal of this decision with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. That appeal is pending.

Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. et al. v. Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Vasopressin)

On May 31, 2018, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Par Sterile Products, LLC, and Endo Par Innovation Company, LLC (together “Par”) filed suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Par alleged patent infringement based on the filing of the Company’s ANDA seeking approval to manufacture and sell the Company’s vasopressin product. The Company’s vasopressin product, if approved by FDA, will be an alternative to Vasostrict, which is indicated to increase blood pressure in adults with vasodilatory shock (e.g., post-cardiotomy or sepsis) who remain hypotensive despite fluids and catecholamines. The Company answered the complaint on August 6, 2018. The court issued a Markman ruling on July 1, 2019. Trial is scheduled to begin May 18, 2020. This suit is pending.

Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.v. Accord (Argatroban)

On March 27, 2019, the Company and Chiesi filed suit against Accord Healthcare, Inc. (“Accord”) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the “New Jersey suit”) and in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina (the “North Carolina suit”) (together “the suits”). The suits alleged patent infringement based on Accord’s 505(b)(2) NDA seeking approval to manufacture and sell Accord’s proposed argatroban product. On May 21, 2019, the Company and Chiesi voluntarily dismissed the North Carolina suit. On July 10, 2019, Accord moved for judgment on the pleadings in the New Jersey suit. The New Jersey suit is currently pending.