14.

Commitments and contingencies:

Operating leases

Since November 2007, the Company has leased space for their corporate offices. Lease expense for the corporate office was $0.3 million, $0.1 million and $0.1 million for each of the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. The Company leased new space for their corporate offices, which began March 2015 for 89 months.

The future minimum commitment on the new operating lease at December 31, 2015 is as follows:


Years ending December 31,
2016	$	318
2017		318
2018		318
2019		318
2020		318
Thereafter		503

	$	2,093

Indemnifications

The Company’s directors and officers are indemnified against costs and expenses related to stockholder and other claims (i.e., only actions taken in their capacity as officers and directors) that are not covered by the Company’s directors and officers insurance policy. This indemnification is ongoing and does not include a limit on the maximum potential future payments, nor are there any recourse provisions or collateral that may offset the cost. No events have occurred as of December 31, 2015 which would trigger any liability under the agreement.

Certain Rights of CDC

The Company and CDC IV, LLC (“CDC”) are parties to a Clinical Development and License Agreement, dated July 15, 2005 (as amended, the “CDLA”) pursuant to which CDC has previously provided funds to the Company for the development of the Company’s ONSOLIS^®product. CDC is entitled to receive a mid-single digit royalty based on net sales of ONSOLIS^®, including minimum royalties of $375,000 per quarter beginning in the second full year following commercial launch. The royalty term expires upon the latter of expiration of the patent or generic entry into a particular country.

In September 2007, in connection with CDC’s consent to the North American Meda transaction, the Company, among other transactions with CDC, granted CDC a 1% royalty on sales of the next BEMA^® product, which will be BUNAVAIL^®. CDC’s right to the royalty shall immediately terminate at any time if annual net sales of BUNAVAIL^® equal less than $7.5 million in any calendar year following the third anniversary of initial launch of the product and CDC receives $0.02 million in three (3) consecutive quarters as payment for CDC’s one percent (1%) royalty during such calendar year

The Company expects to record such royalties as costs of sales occur.

Litigation Related To ONSOLIS^®

On November 2, 2010, MonoSol Rx LLC (“MonoSol”) filed an action against the Company and its commercial partners for ONSOLIS^® in the Federal District Court of New Jersey (the DNJ) for alleged patent infringement and false marking. The Company was formally served in this matter on January 19, 2011. MonoSol claims that the Company’s manufacturing process for ONSOLIS^®, which has never been disclosed publicly and which the Company and its partners maintain as a trade secret, infringes its patent (United States Patent No. 7,824,588) (the ’588 Patent). Of note, the BEMA^® technology itself is not at issue in the case, nor is BELBUCA™ or BUNAVAIL^®, but rather only the manner in which ONSOLIS^®, which incorporates the BEMA^® technology, is manufactured. Pursuant to its complaint, MonoSol is seeking an unspecified amount of damages, attorney’s fees and an injunction preventing future infringement of MonoSol’s patents.

The Company strongly refutes as without merit MonoSol’s assertion of patent infringement, which relates to the Company’s confidential, proprietary manufacturing process for ONSOLIS^®. On September 12, 2011, the Company filed a request for inter partes reexamination in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) of MonoSol’s ’588 Patent demonstrating that all claims of such patent were anticipated by or obvious in the light of prior art references, including several prior art references not previously considered by the USPTO, and thus invalid. On September 16, 2011, the Company filed a motion for stay pending the outcome of the reexamination proceedings, which subsequently was granted.

In November 2011, the USPTO rejected all 191 claims of MonoSol’s ’588 Patent. On January 20, 2012, the Company filed requests for reexamination before the USPTO of MonoSol’s US patent No 7,357,891 (the ’891 Patent), and No 7,425,292 (the ’292 Patent), the two additional patents asserted by MonoSol, demonstrating that all claims of those two patents were anticipated by or obvious in the light of prior art references, including prior art references not previously considered by the USPTO, and thus invalid. The USPTO granted the requests for reexamination with respect to MonoSol’s ’292 and ’891 Patents. In its initial office action in each, the USPTO rejected every claim in each patent.

As expected, in the ’891 Patent and ’292 Patent Ex Parte Reexamination proceedings, MonoSol amended the claims several times and made multiple declarations and arguments in an attempt to overcome the rejections made by the USPTO. These amendments, declarations and other statements regarding the claim language significantly narrowed the scope of their claims in these two patents. In the case of the ’891 Patent, not one of the original claims survived reexamination and five separate amendments were filed confirming the Company’s position that the patent was invalid. Additionally, the Company believes that arguments and admissions made by MonoSol prevent it from seeking a broader construction during any subsequent litigation by employing arguments or taking positions that contradict those made during prosecution.

A Reexamination Certificate for MonoSol’s ’891 Patent in its amended form was issued August 21, 2012 (Reexamined Patent No. 7,357,891C1 or the ’891C1 Patent). A Reexamination Certificate for MonoSol’s ’292 Patent in its amended form was issued on July 3, 2012 (Reexamined Patent No. 7,425,292C1 or the ’292C1 Patent). These actions by the USPTO confirm the invalidity of the original patents and through the narrowing of the claims in the reissued patents strengthens the Company’s original assertion that its products and technologies do not infringe on MonoSol’s original patents.

On June 12, 2013, despite the Company’s previously noted success in the prior ex parte reexaminations for the ’292 and ’891 Patents, the Company filed requests for inter partes reviews (“IPR”) on the narrowed yet reexamined patents, the ’292 C1 and ’891 C1 Patents, to challenge their validity and continue to strengthen the Company’s position. On November 13, 2013, the USPTO decided not to institute the two inter partes reviews for the ’891 C1 and ’292 C1 Patents. The USPTO’s decision was purely on statutory grounds and based on a technicality (in that the IPRs were not filed within what the UPSTO determined to be the statutory period) rather than substantive grounds. Thus, even though the inter partes reviews were not instituted, the USPTO decision preserves the Company’s right to raise the same arguments at a later time (e.g., during litigation). Regardless, the Company’s assertion that its products and technologies do not infringe the original ’292 and ’891 Patents and, now, the reexamined ’891 C1 and ’292 C1 Patents remains the same.

Importantly, in the case of MonoSol’s ’588 Patent, at the conclusion of the reexamination proceedings (and its appeals process), on April 17, 2014, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a Decision on Appeal affirming the Examiner’s rejection (and confirming the invalidity) of all the claims of the ’588 Patent. MonoSol did not request a rehearing by the May 17, 2014 due date for making such a request and did not further appeal the Decision to the Federal Court of Appeals by the June 17, 2014 due date for making such an appeal. Subsequently, on August 5, 2014, the USPTO issued a Certificate of Reexamination cancelling the ‘588 Patent claims.

Based on the Company’s original assertion that its proprietary manufacturing process for ONSOLIS^® does not infringe on patents held by MonoSol, and the denial and subsequent narrowing of the claims on the two reissued patents MonoSol has asserted against the Company while the third has had all claims rejected by the USPTO, the Company remains very confident in its original stated position regarding this matter. Thus far, the Company has proven that the “original” ’292 and ’891 patents in light of their reissuance with fewer and narrower claims were indeed invalid and the third and final patent, the ’588 patent, was invalid as well with all its claims cancelled. Given the outcomes of the ‘292, ‘891 and ‘588 reexamination proceedings, at a January 22, 2015 status meeting, the Court decided to lift the stay and grant the Company’s request for the case to proceed on an expedited basis with a Motion for Summary Judgment to dismiss the action. On September 25, 2015, the Honorable Freda L. Wolfson granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment and ordered the case closed. The Company was found to be entitled to absolute intervening rights as to both patents in suit, the ‘292 and ‘891 patents and the Company’s ONSOLIS^® product is not liable for infringing the patents prior to July 3, 2012 and August 21, 2012, respectively. In October 2015, MonoSol appealed the decision of the court to the Federal Circuit. The Company has no reason to believe the outcome will be different and will vigorously defend the appeal. MonoSol filed an appeal with the Federal Circuit and has subsequently decided to withdraw the appeal. On February 25, 2016, MonoSol filed an Unopposed Motion For Voluntary Dismissal Of Appeal, which was granted by the court on February 26, 2016 and the case dismissed. Thus, the district court’s grant of the Summary Judgement of Intervening Rights will stand. In addition, the possibility exists, however, that MonoSol could file another suit alleging infringement of the ‘292 and ’891 patents. The Company believes ONSOLIS^® and the Company’s other products relying on the BEMA^® technology, including BUNAVAIL^® and BELBUCA™, do not infringe any amended, reexamined claim from either patent after those dates.

Litigation Related To BUNAVAIL^®

On October 29, 2013, Reckitt Benckiser, Inc., RB Pharmaceuticals Limited, and MonoSol (collectively, the RB Plaintiffs) filed an action against the Company relating to its BUNAVAIL^® product in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina for alleged patent infringement. BUNAVAIL^® is a drug approved for the maintenance treatment of opioid dependence. The RB Plaintiffs claim that the formulation for BUNAVAIL^®, which has never been disclosed publicly, infringes its patent (United States Patent No. 8,475,832) (the ’832 Patent).

On May 21, 2014, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss. In doing so, the Court dismissed the case in its entirety. The RB Plaintiffs did not appeal the Court Decision by the June 21, 2014 due date and therefore, the dismissal will stand and the RB Plaintiffs lose the ability to challenge the Court Decision in the future. The possibility exists, however, that the RB Plaintiffs could file another suit alleging infringement of the ‘832 Patent. If this occurs, based on the Company’s original position that its BUNAVAIL^® product does not infringe the ‘832 Patent, the Company would defend the case vigorously (as the Company has done so previously), and the Company anticipates that such claims against the Company ultimately would be rejected.

On September 20, 2014, based upon the Company positions and belief that its BUNAVAIL^® product does not infringe any patents owned by the RB Plaintiffs, the Company proactively filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North (EDNC) Carolina, requesting the Court to make a determination that the Company’s

BUNAVAIL^® product does not infringe the RB Plaintiffs’ ‘832 Patent, US Patent No. 7,897,080 (‘080 Patent) and US Patent No. 8,652,378 (‘378 Patent). With the declaratory judgment, there is an automatic stay in proceedings. The RB Plaintiffs may request that the stay be lifted, but they have the burden of showing that the stay should be lifted. For the ‘832 Patent, the

January 15, 2014 IPR was instituted and in June 2015, all challenged claims were rejected for both anticipation and obviousness. In August 2015, the RB Plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Federal Circuit. The Company will vigorously defend this appeal at the Federal Circuit. For the ‘080 Patent, all claims have been rejected in an inter partes reexamination and the rejection of all claims

as invalid over the prior art has been affirmed on appeal by the PTAB in a decision dated March 27, 2015. In May 2015, the RB Plaintiffs filed a response after the decision to which the Company filed comments. In December 2015 the Board denied MonoSol’s request to reopen prosecution, but provided MonoSol an opportunity to file a corrected response. MonoSol filed the request in December 2015 and the Company subsequently filed comments on December 23, 2015. The Company is awaiting a further decision from the Board, which the Company has no reason to believe will be inconsistent with the original decision rendered in March 2015. For the ‘378 Patent, an IPR was filed on June 1, 2014, but an IPR was not instituted. However, in issuing its November 5, 2014 decision not to institute the IPR, the PTAB construed the claims of the ‘378 Patent narrowly. As in prior litigation proceedings, the Company believes these IPR and the reexamination filings will provide support for maintaining the stay until the IPR and reexamination proceedings conclude. Indeed, given the PTAB’s narrow construction of the claims of the ‘378 Patent, the Company filed a motion to withdraw the ‘378 Patent from the case on December 12, 2014. In addition, the Company also filed a joint motion to continue the stay (with RB Plaintiffs) in the proceedings on the same day. Both the motion to withdraw the ‘378 Patent from the proceedings and motion to continue the stay were granted.

On September 22, 2014, the RB Plaintiffs filed an action against the Company (and the Company’s commercial partner) relating to the Company’s BUNAVAIL^® product in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey for alleged patent infringement. The RB Plaintiffs claim that BUNAVAIL^®, whose formulation and manufacturing processes have never been disclosed publicly, infringes its patent U.S. Patent No. 8,765,167 (‘167 Patent). As with prior actions by the RB Plaintiffs, the Company believes this is another anticompetitive attempt by the RB Plaintiffs to distract the Company’s efforts from commercializing BUNAVAIL^®. The Company strongly refutes as without merit the RB Plaintiffs’ assertion of patent infringement and will vigorously defend the lawsuit. On December 12, 2014, the Company filed a motion to transfer the case from New Jersey to North Carolina and a motion to dismiss the case against the Company’s commercial partner. The Court issued an opinion on July 21, 2015 granting the Company’s motion to transfer the venue to the EDNC, but denying the Company’s motion to dismiss in its entirety as moot. The Company will continue to vigorously defend this case in the EDNC.

In a related matter, on October 28, 2014, the Company filed multiple IPR requests on the ’167 Patent demonstrating that certain claims of such patent were anticipated by or obvious in light of prior art references, including prior art references not previously considered by the USPTO, and thus, invalid. The USPTO instituted three of the four IPR requests and the Company filed a request for rehearing for the non-instituted IPR. A final decision on the instituted ‘167 IPRs is expected in May 2016.

On January 22, 2014, MonoSol filed a Petition for IPR on US Patent No. 7,579,019 (the ‘019 Patent). The Petition asserted that the claims of the ‘019 Patent are alleged to be unpatentable over certain prior art references. The IPR was instituted on August 6, 2014. An oral hearing was held in April 2015 and a decision upholding all seven claims was issued August 5, 2015. In September 2015, MonoSol requested that the USPTO rehear the IPR. The Company will continue to vigorously defend its ‘019 patent. The Company expects the USPTO to issue a decision in the first half of 2016.

Litigation related to Actavis

On February 8, 2016, the Company received a purported notice relating to a Paragraph IV certification from Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. (“Actavis”) seeking to find invalid three Orange Book listed patents (the “Patents”) relating specifically to BUNAVAIL^®. The Paragraph IV certification relates to an Abbreviated New Drug Application (the “ANDA”) filed by Actavis with the FDA for a generic formulation of BUNAVAIL^®. The Patents subject to Acatvis’ certification are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,579,019 (“the ’019 Patent”), 8,147,866 and 8,703,177.

The Company believes that Actavis’ claims of invalidity of the Patents are wholly without merit and, as the Company has done in the past, intends to vigorously defend its intellectual property. The Company is highly confident that the Patents are valid, as evidenced in part by the fact that the ‘019 Patent has already been the subject of an unrelated inter partes review (“IPR”) before the USPTO under which the Company prevailed and all claims of the ‘019 Patent survived. Although there is a pending request for rehearing of the final IPR decision regarding the ‘019 Patent pending at the USPTO, the Company believes the USPTO’s decision will be upheld. Under the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, as amended (the “Hatch-Waxman Amendments”), after receipt of a valid Paragraph IV notice, the Company may, and in this case plan to, bring a patent infringement suit in federal district court against Actavis within 45 days from the date of receipt of the certification notice. If such a suit is commenced within this 45 day period, the Company is

entitled to receive a 30 month stay on FDA’s ability to give final approval to any proposed products that reference BUNAVAIL^®. The 30 month stay is expected to preempt any final approval by FDA on Actavis’ ANDA until at least August of 2018. In addition, given the FDA approval of BUNAVAIL^®, the Company is entitled to three years of market exclusivity for

BUNAVAIL^® ending in June 2017. Given this timeframe, Actavis’ action is not unexpected. In addition, the Company has additional pending intellectual property which, if issued, would be capable of extending the patent life of all three of the Company’s BEMA^®-related products, including BUNAVAIL^®, and potentially be listed in the Orange Book.