Quarterly report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)

Commitment and Contingencies Legal Proceedings

v3.19.3
Commitment and Contingencies Legal Proceedings
9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitment and Contingencies Legal Proceedings Commitment and Contingencies Legal Proceedings
We record an estimate of a loss when the loss is considered probable and estimable. Where a liability is probable and there is a range of estimated loss and no amount in the range is more likely than any other number in the range, we record the minimum estimated liability related to the claim in accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies. As additional information becomes available, we assess the potential liability related to our pending litigation and revises our estimates. Revisions in our estimates of potential liability could materially impact our results of operations.

On July 27, 2018, AG Oncon, LLC, AG Ofcon, Ltd., Calamos Market Neutral Income Fund, Capital Ventures International, Citadel Equity Fund Ltd., Opti Opportunity Master Fund, Polygon Convertible Opportunity Master Fund, Wolverine Flagship Fund Trading Limited, as plaintiffs, filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (AG Oncon, LLC v. Ligand Pharmaceuticals Inc.) alleging claims for violation of the Trust Indenture Act, breach of contract, damages and a declaratory judgment that the Supplemental Indenture, dated as of February 20, 2018, entered into by us and Wilmington Trust, National Association, as trustee, is invalid. On October 1, 2018, we filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint. On May 24, 2019, the Court granted the motion and subsequently entered an order dismissing the action with prejudice. On July 12, 2019, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the Delaware Supreme Court. Plaintiffs filed their opening brief on August 29, 2019. We filed our opposition brief on September 30, 2019. Plaintiffs filed their reply brief on October 15, 2019. The court has not yet set a date for oral argument.

In November 2017, CyDex, our wholly-owned subsidiary, received a Paragraph IV certification Notice Letter from Teva stating that Teva had submitted an ANDA to the FDA, seeking approval to manufacture, offer to sell, and sell a generic version of EVOMELA® prior to the expiration of any of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,410,077 (“the ’077 patent”); 9,200,088 (“the ’088 patent”), or 9,493,582 (“the ’582 patent”), and alleging that these patents, each of which relates to Captisol®, are invalid, unenforceable, and/or will not be infringed by Teva’s ANDA product. On December 20, 2017, CyDex filed a complaint against Teva in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, asserting that the filing of Teva’s ANDA constitutes infringement of each of the ’077 patent, the ’088 patent, and the ’582 patent. On March 22, 2018, Teva filed an answer and counterclaims seeking declarations of non-infringement and invalidity as to each of the asserted patents and, on April 12, 2018, CyDex filed an answer to Teva’s counterclaims. On October 31, 2019, CyDex, Teva, and Acrotech Biopharma L.L.C. (the holder of the NDA for EVOMELA®) entered into a Confidential Settlement Agreement, settling this patent litigation. As a result of the settlement, Teva will be permitted to market a generic version of EVOMELA® in the United States on June 1, 2026 or earlier under certain circumstances. The terms of the settlement agreement are otherwise confidential.

On April 9, 2019, CyDex received a Paragraph IV certification Notice Letter from Alembic Global Holdings SA (“Alembic”) stating that Alembic had submitted an ANDA to the FDA, seeking approval to manufacture, offer to sell, and sell a generic version of EVOMELA® prior to the expiration of any of the ’077 patent; the ’088 patent, the ’582 patent, or U.S. Patent No. 10,040,872 (“the ’872 patent”), and alleging that these patents, each of which relates to Captisol®, are invalid, unenforceable, and/or would not be infringed by Alembic’s ANDA product. On May 23, 2019, CyDex filed a complaint against Alembic, Alembic Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., and Alembic Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, asserting that the filing of Alembic’s ANDA constitutes infringement of each of the ’088 patent and the ’582 patent. On July 29, 2019, Alembic filed an answer and counterclaims seeking declarations of non-infringement and invalidity as to each of the asserted patents and, on August 19, 2019, CyDex filed an answer to Alembic’s counterclaims.

On September 16, 2019, CyDex received a Paragraph IV certification Notice Letter from Lupin Ltd. (“Lupin”) stating that Lupin had submitted an ANDA to the FDA, seeking approval to manufacture, offer to sell, and sell a generic version of EVOMELA® prior to the expiration of any of the ’077 patent; the ’088 patent, the ’582 patent, or the ’872 patent, and alleging that these patents, each of which relates to Captisol®, are invalid, unenforceable, and/or would not be infringed by Lupin’s ANDA product. CyDex filed a complaint on October 29, 2019, alleging patent infringement against Lupin.

On October 31, 2019, we received three civil complaints filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on behalf of several Indian tribes. The Northern District of Ohio is the Court that the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (“JPML”) has assigned several hundred civil cases which have been designated as a Multi-District Litigation (“MDL”) and captioned In Re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation. The allegations in these complaints focus on the activities of defendants other than the company and no individualized factual allegations have been advanced against us in any of the three complaints. The complaints assert that the defendants deceptively marketed and sold various opioid products. The complaints seek compensatory and exemplary damages against all named defendants. However, no specific damages have been asserted at this time with respect to us. We have been engaged to respond to the complaints by requesting dismissals by the court. Since the MDL was designated and the cases were transferred to the Northern District of Ohio, the multiple litigants have been engaged in largely procedural matters. We reject all claims raised in the complaints and intend to vigorously defend these matters.