17.

Commitments and contingencies:

Operating leases

Since November 2007, the Company has leased space for their corporate office. Lease expense for the corporate office was $0.3 million for each of the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016, 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, 2018 is as follows:


Years ending December 31,
2019	$	351
2020		360
2021		370
2022		219

	$	1,300

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.

Post marketing requirements

On October 5, 2017, the Company entered a subsequent party acknowledgement relating to its participation in the Opioid PMR Consortium (the “OPC”). The participants are member companies, collectively undertaking various observational and clinical studies to satisfy certain post-marketing requirements by the FDA as holders of a NDA for extended-release and long-acting opioid analgesics. As a requirement of joining the OPC, the Company was required to pay its share of the previous expenses incurred and funded by the existing member companies. The Company’s pro-rata share of such expenses totaled approximately $4.3 million, which was paid during the fourth quarter of 2017. Ongoing expenses will be shared equally by the member companies and paid monthly from 2019 through 2020.

Certain rights of CDC IV

The Company and CDC IV are parties to the CDLA pursuant to which CDC IV has previously provided funds to the Company for the development of the Company’s ONSOLIS product. CDC IV 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 IV’s consent to the North American Mylan transaction, the Company, among other transactions with CDC IV, granted CDC IV a 1% royalty on net sales of the next BEMA product, which was BUNAVAIL. CDC IV’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 IV receives $0.02 million in three (3) consecutive quarters as payment for CDC IV’s one percent (1%) royalty during such calendar year.

The Company records such royalties as costs of sales occur.

In April 2016, CDC IV exercised its right pursuant to the Royalty Purchase and Amendment Agreement to exchange its royalty rights to the next BEMA product which was BUNAVAIL, in favor of royalty rights to the Substitute BEMA product which is BELBUCA (the CDC IV Option).

Indivior PLC (formerly RB Pharmaceuticals Ltd.) and Aquestive Therapeutics (formerly MonoSol Rx)

Litigation related to BUNAVAIL

Reckitt Benckiser, Inc., RB Pharmaceuticals Limited, and Aquestive (collectively, the RB Plaintiffs) (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 (the ‘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. On the Company’s motion, this case was transferred to the Eastern District of North Carolina. A Joint Motion to Stay the case was granted and the case is now stayed until a final resolution of the ‘167 IPRs discussed directly below. The Company will continue to vigorously defend this case.

On October 28, 2014, the Company filed multiple IPR petitions on certain claims of the ‘167 Patent. The USPTO instituted three of the four IPR petitions. The PTAB upheld the claims and denied collateral estoppel applied to the PTAB decisions in March 2016. The Company appealed to Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The USPTO intervened with respect to whether collateral estoppel applied to the PTAB. On June 19, 2018, the Company filed a motion to remand the case for further consideration by the PTAB in view of intervening authority. On July 31, 2018, the Federal Circuit vacated the decisions, and remanded the ‘167 Patent IPRs for further consideration on the merits.

Litigation related to BELBUCA

On January 13, 2017, Aquestive 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 July 25, 2017, the New Jersey Court administratively terminated the case pending the parties submission of a joint stipulation of transfer because the District of New Jersey was an inappropriate venue. This case was later transferred to the Delaware District Court. On October 31, 2017 the Company filed motions to dismiss the complaint and, in the alternative, to transfer the case to the EDNC. On October 16, 2018, denying the motion to dismiss as moot, the Delaware District Court granted the Company’s motion to transfer the case to the EDNC. The case is now pending in the EDNC. The Company strongly refutes as without merit Aquestive’s assertion of patent infringement and will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA (formerly Actavis)

On February 8, 2016, the Company received a notice relating to a Paragraph IV certification from Teva Pharmaceuticals USA (“Teva”) (formerly Actavis) seeking to find invalid three Orange Book listed patents relating specifically to BUNAVAIL. The Paragraph IV certification related to an Abbreviated New Drug Application (the “ANDA”) filed by Teva with the U.S Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) for a generic formulation of BUNAVAIL. The patents subject to Teva’s certification were U.S. Patent No. 7,579,019 (the “‘019 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,147,866 (the “‘866 Patent”) and 8,703,177 (the “‘177 Patent”).

On October 12, 2017, the Company announced that it had entered into a settlement agreement with Teva that resolved the Company’s BUNAVAIL patent litigation against Teva pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. As part of the Settlement Agreement, which is subject to review by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice, the Company had entered into a non-exclusive license agreement with Teva that permits Teva to first begin selling its generic version of BUNAVAIL in the U.S. on July 23, 2028 or earlier under certain circumstances. Other terms of the agreement are confidential.

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 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 were the ‘019 Patent and the ‘866 Patent. The Company filed complaints in Delaware against Teva on December 22, 2016 and February 3, 2017 in which the Company asserted against Teva the ‘019 Patent and the ‘866 Patent. Teva did not contest infringement of the claims of the ‘019 Patent and did not contest infringement of the claims of the ‘866 Patent.

In February 2018, the Company announced that it had entered into a settlement agreement with Teva that resolved the Company’s BELBUCA patent litigation against Teva pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. As part of the settlement agreement, which is subject to review by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice, the Company had granted Teva a non-exclusive license (for which the Company will receive no current or future payments) that permits Teva to first begin selling the generic version of the Company’s BELBUCA product in the U.S. on January 23, 2027 or earlier under certain circumstances (including, for example, upon (i) the delisting of the patents-in-suit from the U.S. FDA Orange Book, (ii) the granting of a license by the Company to a third party to launch another generic form of BELBUCA at a date prior to January 23, 2027, or (iii) the occurrence of certain conditions regarding BELBUCA market share). Other terms of the Agreement are confidential.

Alvogen

On September 7, 2018, the Company filed a complaint for patent infringement in Delaware against Alvogen Pb Research & Development LLC, Alvogen Malta Operations Ltd., Alvogen Pine Brook LLC, Alvogen, Incorporated, and Alvogen Group,

Incorporated (collectively, “Alvogen”), asserting that Alvogen infringes the Company’s Orange Book listed patents for BELBUCA, including U.S. Patent Nos. 8,147,866 and 9,655,843, both expiring in July of 2027, and U.S. Patent No. 9,901,539, expiring in December of 2032. This complaint follows receipt by the Company on July 30, 2018 of a Paragraph IV Patent Certification from Alvogen stating that Alvogen had filed an ANDA with the FDA for a generic version of BELBUCA Buccal Film (75 mcg, 150 mcg, 300 mcg, 450 mcg, 600 mcg, 750 mcg and 900 mcg). Because the Company initiated a patent infringement suit to defend the patents identified in the Paragraph IV notice within 45 days after receipt of the Paragraph IV Certification, the FDA is prevented from approving the ANDA until the earlier of 30 months or a decision in the case that each of the patents is not infringed or invalid. Alvogen’s notice letter also does not provide any information on the timing or approval status of its ANDA.

In its Paragraph IV Certification, Alvogen does not contest infringement of at least several independent claims of each of the ’866, ’843, and ’539 patents. Rather, Alvogen advances only invalidly arguments for these independent claims. The Company believes that it will be able to prevail on the Company’s claims of infringement of these patents, particularly as Alvogen does not contest infringement of certain claims of each patent. Additionally, as the Company has done in the past, it intends to vigorously defend its intellectual property against assertions of invalidity. Each of the three patents carry a presumption of validity, which can only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence.

2018 Arkansas Opioid Litigation

On March 15, 2018, the State of Arkansas, and certain counties and cities in that State, filed an action in the Circuit Court of Arkansas, Crittenden County against multiple manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and prescribers of opioid analgesics, including our Company. The Company was served with the complaint on April 27, 2018. The complaint specifically alleged that

the Company licensed its branded fentanyl buccal soluble film ONSOLIS to Collegium, and Collegium is also named as a defendant in the lawsuit. ONSOLIS is not presently sold in the United States and the license agreement with Collegium was terminated prior to Collegium launching ONSOLIS in the United States. Therefore, on June 28, 2018, the Company moved to dismiss the case against it and most recently, on July 6, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a notice to voluntarily dismiss the Company from the Arkansas case, without prejudice.

Chemo Research, S.L

On March 1, 2019, the Company filed a complaint for patent infringement in Delaware against Chemo Research, S.L., Insud Pharma S.L., IntelGenx Corp., and IntelGenx Technologies Corp. (collectively, “Defendants”), asserting that the Defendants infringe its Orange Book listed patents for BELBUCA, including U.S. Patent Nos. 8,147,866 and 9,655,843, both expiring in July of 2027, and U.S. Patent No. 9,901,539 expiring December of 2032. This complaint follows a receipt by the Company on January 31, 2019, of a Notice Letter from Chemo Research S.L. stating that it has filed with the FDA an ANDA containing a Paragraph IV Patent Certification, for a generic version of BELBUA Buccal Film in strengths 75 mcg, 150 mcg, 300 mcg, 450 mcg, and 900 mcg. Because the Company initiated a patent infringement suit to defend the patents identified in the Notice Letter within 45 days after receipt, the FDA is prevented from approving the ANDA until the earlier of 30 months or a decision in the case that each of the patents is not infringed or invalid. Chemo Research S.L.’s Notice Letter also does not provide any information on the timing or approval status of its ANDA.

The Company believes that it will be able to prevail in this lawsuit. As it has done in the past, the Company intends to vigorously defend its intellectual property against assertions of invalidity.