14.

Commitments and contingencies:

Litigation related to ONSOLIS^®

On November 2, 2010, 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 claimed that our 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 was 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 was seeking an unspecified amount of damages, attorney’s fees and an injunction preventing future infringement of MonoSol’s patents.

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 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 had no reason to believe the outcome would be different and were prepared to vigorously defend the appeal. MonoSol, however, 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 stands. The possibility exists that MonoSol could file another suit alleging infringement of the ‘292 and ’891 patents. The Company continues to believe, however, that ONSOLIS^® and its other products relying on the BEMA^® technology, including BUNAVAIL^® and BELBUCA^®, do not infringe any amended, reexamined claim from either patent.

Litigation related to BUNAVAIL^®

RB and MonoSol

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 (EDNC) 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 them ultimately would be rejected.

On September 20, 2014, based upon the Company’s position 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 EDNC, requesting the Court to make a determination that its 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 Federal Circuit affirmed the USPTO’s decision, and the RB Plaintiffs then filed a Petition for Panel Rehearing and for Rehearing En Banc, which was denied. A mandate issued on October 25, 2016, pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, meaning that a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court is no longer possible for the RB Plaintiffs. The ‘832 IPR was finally resolved with the invalidation of claims 15-19. 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 we filed comments. In December 2015, the PTAB 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 we subsequently filed comments on December 23, 2015. The PTAB issued a communication on July 7, 2016 denying MonoSol’s request to reopen prosecution of the rejections of all claims over the prior art. On January 31, 2017, the PTAB issued a final decision maintaining an additional new ground of rejection in addition to the previous grounds of invalidity. As such, all claims remain finally rejected on multiple grounds. MonoSol failed to appeal the final decision and all claims were cancelled in a reexamination certificate issued May 9, 2017. 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, we believe 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, we filed a motion to withdraw the ‘378 Patent from the case on December 12, 2014. In addition, we 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 its commercial partner) relating to its 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 our 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 our commercial partner. The Court issued an opinion on July 21, 2015 granting the Company’s motion to transfer the venue to the ENDC but denying its motion to dismiss the case against the Company’s commercial partner as moot. The Company has also filed a Joint Motion to Stay the case in North Carolina at the end of April 2016, which was granted by the court on May 5, 2016. Thus, the case is now stayed until a final resolution of the ‘167 IPRs in the USPTO. The Company will continue to vigorously defend this case in the EDNC.

On January 13, 2017, MonoSol filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging BELBUCA^® infringes the ‘167 patent. In lieu of answering the complaint, the Company filed motions to dismiss the complaint and, in the alternative, to transfer the case to the EDNC on March 1, 2017. Briefing on the motions will be completed by May 22, 2017. The Company strongly refutes as without merit MonoSol’s assertion of patent infringement and will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Teva Pharmaceuticals (formerly Actavis)

On February 8, 2016, the Company received a 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 Actavis’ certification are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,579,019 (“the ’019 Patent”), 8,147,866 (“the ’866 Patent”) and 8,703,177 (“the ’177 Patent”). 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 did, bring a patent infringement suit in federal district court against Actavis within 45 days from the date of receipt of the certification notice. On March 18, 2016, the Company filed a complaint in Delaware against Actavis, thus the Company is entitled to receive a 30 month stay on the 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 the FDA on Actavis’ ANDA until at least August of 2018.

On January 31, 2017, the Company received a notice relating to a Paragraph IV certification from Teva Pharmaceuticals USA (“Teva”) relating to Teva’s ANDA on additional strengths of BUNAVAIL^®. Teva’s parent company, Teva Pharmaceuticals Ltd., recently acquired Actavis through an acquisition. The Company anticipates bringing suit against Teva and its parent company on these additional strengths within 45 days from the receipt of the notice.

A five (5) day bench trial is currently scheduled to begin on December 4, 2017.

Litigation related to BELBUCA^®

The Company received notices regarding Paragraph IV certifications from Teva on November 8, 2016, November 10, 2016, and December 22, 2016, seeking to find invalid two Orange Book listed patents (the “Patents”) relating specifically to BELBUCA^®. The Paragraph IV certifications relate to three ANDAs filed by Teva with the FDA for a generic formulation of BELBUCA^®. The Patents subject to Teva’s certification are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,579,019 (“the ’019 Patent”) and 8,147,866 (“the ’866 Patent”). Under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, after receipt of a valid Paragraph IV notice, the Company may, and in this case did, bring a patent infringement suit in federal district court against Teva within 45 days from the date of receipt of the certification notice. The Company filed complaints in Delaware against Teva on December 22, 2016 and February 3, 2017, thus the Company is entitled to receive a 30 month stay on the FDA’s ability to give final approval to any proposed products that reference BELBUCA^®. The 30 month stay is expected to preempt any final approval by the FDA on Teva’s ANDA Nos. 209704 and 209772 until at least May of 2019 and for Teva’s ANDA No. 209807 until at least June of 2019.

A five (5) day bench trial is currently scheduled to begin on November 19, 2018.