Commitments and Contingencies

Indemnification

In the normal course of business, we enter into agreements that contain a variety of representations and warranties and provide for general indemnification, including indemnification associated with product liability or infringement of intellectual property rights. Our exposure under these agreements is unknown because it involves future claims that may be made but have not yet been made against us. To date, we have not paid any claims or been required to defend any action related to these indemnification obligations.

We have agreed to indemnify our executive officers, directors and certain other employees for losses and costs incurred in connection with certain events or occurrences, including advancing money to cover certain costs, subject to certain limitations. The maximum potential amount of future payments we could be required to make under the indemnification obligations is unlimited; however, we maintain insurance policies that may limit our exposure and may enable us to recover a portion of any future amounts paid. Assuming the applicability of coverage and the willingness of the insurer to assume coverage, and subject to certain retention, loss limits and other policy provisions, we believe the fair value of these indemnification obligations is not significant. Accordingly, we did not recognize any liabilities relating to these obligations as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013. No assurances can be given that the covering insurers will not attempt to dispute the validity, applicability, or amount of coverage without expensive litigation against these insurers, in which case we may incur substantial liabilities as a result of these indemnification obligations.

Lease and Other Commitments

We have noncancelable operating leases for our office buildings and we are obligated to make payments under noncancelable operating leases for automobiles used by our sales force. Future minimum lease payments under our noncancelable operating leases at September 30, 2014 were as follows (in thousands):



Year Ending December 31,	Lease Payments
2014 (remainder)	$	2,577
2015	9,989
2016	7,467
2017	4,533
2018	1,334
Thereafter	772
Total	$	26,672

As of September 30, 2014, we had $25.7 million of noncancelable purchase commitments due within one year, primarily related to agreements with third party manufacturers.

Legal Proceedings

We are involved in several legal proceedings, including the following matters:

Xyrem ANDA Matters: On October 18, 2010, we received a Paragraph IV Patent Certification notice, or Paragraph IV Certification, from Roxane that it had submitted an ANDA to the FDA requesting approval to market a generic version of Xyrem^® (sodium oxybate) oral solution. Roxane’s initial Paragraph IV Certification alleged that all five patents then listed for Xyrem in the FDA’s publication “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” or Orange Book, on the date of the Paragraph IV Certification are invalid, unenforceable or not infringed by Roxane’s proposed generic product. On November 22, 2010, we filed a lawsuit against Roxane in response to Roxane’s Paragraph IV Certification in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, or the District Court. We are seeking a permanent injunction to prevent Roxane from introducing a generic version of Xyrem that would infringe our patents. In accordance with the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, or Hatch-Waxman Act, as a result of our having filed a timely lawsuit against Roxane, FDA approval of Roxane’s ANDA had been stayed until April 18, 2013, which was 30 months after our October 18, 2010 receipt of Roxane’s initial Paragraph IV Certification, but that stay has expired. Additional patents covering Xyrem have issued since the original suit against Roxane was filed, and cases involving some of these patents have been consolidated with the original action.

In December 2013, the District Court permitted Roxane to amend its answer in the consolidated case to allege additional equitable defenses, and the parties were given additional time for discovery on those new defenses. In addition, in March 2014, the District Court granted our motion to bifurcate and stay the portion of the lawsuit regarding certain patents covering the distribution system for Xyrem. Although no trial date for the case has been scheduled, based on the District Court’s current scheduling order, we anticipate that trial on the patents that are not subject to the court’s stay could occur as early as the second quarter of 2015. We do not have any estimate of a possible trial date for trial on the stayed patents. The actual timing of events in this litigation may be significantly earlier or later than contemplated by the scheduling order or than we currently anticipate, and we cannot predict the specific timing or outcome of events in this litigation.

On April 1, 2014, we received an additional Paragraph IV Certification from Roxane alleging that a tenth patent listed in the Orange Book for Xyrem in December 2013 is invalid or not infringed. We have not yet responded to this Paragraph IV Certification and cannot predict the timing or outcome of this matter or its impact on the other ongoing proceedings with Roxane.

On December 10, 2012, we received a Paragraph IV Certification from Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, or Amneal, that it had submitted an ANDA to the FDA requesting approval to market a generic version of Xyrem. Amneal’s initial Paragraph IV Certification alleged that seven patents listed for Xyrem in the Orange Book are not infringed by Amneal’s proposed generic product and that an eighth patent listed in the Orange Book for Xyrem is invalid. On December 13, 2012, we received a supplemental Paragraph IV Certification alleging that a ninth patent listed in the Orange Book for Xyrem is invalid. On January 18, 2013, we filed a lawsuit against Amneal in response to Amneal’s Paragraph IV Certifications in the District Court seeking a permanent injunction to prevent Amneal from introducing a generic version of Xyrem that would infringe our patents.

On April 7, 2014, we received an additional Paragraph IV Certification from Amneal alleging that a tenth patent listed in the Orange Book for Xyrem in December 2013 is invalid. We filed suit against Amneal on this patent in the District Court on May 20, 2014 and cannot predict the timing or outcome of this matter or its impact on the other ongoing proceedings with Amneal.

On November 21, 2013, we received a Paragraph IV Certification from Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., or Par, that it had submitted an ANDA to the FDA requesting approval to market a generic version of Xyrem. Par’s Paragraph IV Certification alleged that ten patents listed in the Orange Book for Xyrem are invalid, unenforceable, and/or will not be infringed by Par’s proposed generic product. On December 27, 2013, we filed a lawsuit against Par in the District Court in response to Par’s Paragraph IV Certification seeking a permanent injunction to prevent Par from introducing a generic version of Xyrem that would infringe our patents, including an eleventh patent listed in the Orange Book for Xyrem for which Par later sent us a Paragraph IV Certification.

On April 23, 2014, Amneal asked the District Court to consolidate its case with the Par case, stating that both cases would proceed on the schedule for the Par case. The District Court granted this request on May 5, 2014. The order consolidating the cases provides that Amneal’s 30-month stay period will be extended to coincide with the date of Par’s 30-month stay period, calculated to be May 20, 2016. As a result, FDA’s approval of both ANDAs is stayed until the earlier of (i) May 20, 2016, or (ii) a District Court decision finding that the identified patents are invalid, unenforceable or not infringed. We cannot predict the timing or outcome of events in the consolidated case.

On July 3, 2014, we received an additional Paragraph IV Certification from Par alleging that a twelfth patent listed in the Orange Book for Xyrem in June 2014 is invalid, unenforceable, and/or will not be infringed by Par’s proposed generic product. On August 15, 2014, we filed a lawsuit against Par in the District Court in response to Par’s Paragraph IV Certification seeking a permanent injunction to prevent Par from introducing a generic version of Xyrem that would infringe this patent. We cannot predict the timing or outcome of events in this litigation.

On August 6, 2014, we received an additional Paragraph IV Certification from Par alleging that a thirteenth patent listed in the Orange Book for Xyrem in July 2014 is invalid, unenforceable, and/or will not be infringed by Par’s proposed generic product. On October 2, 2014, we filed a lawsuit against Par in the District Court in response to Par’s Paragraph IV Certification seeking a permanent injunction to prevent Par from introducing a generic version of Xyrem that would infringe this patent. We cannot predict the timing or outcome of events in this litigation.

On June 4, 2014, we received a Paragraph IV Certification from Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited, or Ranbaxy, that it had submitted an ANDA to the FDA requesting approval to market a generic version of Xyrem. Ranbaxy’s Paragraph IV Certification alleged that eleven patents listed in the Orange Book for Xyrem are invalid, unenforceable, and/or will not be infringed by Ranbaxy’s proposed generic product. On June 6, 2014, we received an amended Paragraph IV Certification from Ranbaxy adding a twelfth patent listed in the Orange Book for Xyrem. On July 15, 2014, we filed a lawsuit against Ranbaxy in the District Court in response to Ranbaxy’s Paragraph IV Certification seeking a permanent injunction to prevent Ranbaxy from introducing a generic version of Xyrem that would infringe our patents. On August 20, 2014, we received an additional Paragraph IV Certification from Ranbaxy alleging that a thirteenth patent listed in the Orange Book for Xyrem in July 2014 is invalid, unenforceable, and/or will not be infringed by Ranbaxy’s proposed generic product. On October 2, 2014, we filed a lawsuit against Ranbaxy in the District Court in response to Ranbaxy’s Paragraph IV Certification seeking a permanent injunction to prevent Ranbaxy from introducing a generic version of Xyrem that would infringe this patent. We cannot predict the timing or outcome of events in this litigation.

On October 30, 2014, we received a Paragraph IV Certification from Watson Laboratories, Inc., or Watson, that it has submitted an ANDA to the FDA requesting approval to market a generic version of Xyrem. Watson’s Paragraph IV Certification alleged that thirteen patents listed in the Orange Book for Xyrem are invalid, unenforceable, and/or will not be infringed by Watson’s proposed generic product.

Since late June 2014, petitions for CBM post-grant patent review by the PTAB of the USPTO have been filed by certain of the ANDA filers with respect to the validity of our patents covering the distribution system for Xyrem. To date, these petitions have not been accepted by the PTAB, and in October 2014, we filed preliminary responses to the petitions in which, among other things, we asserted that the challenged patents should not be subject to CBM review. We cannot predict the outcome of the PTAB’s decision on whether to institute any of the petitioned CBM review proceedings, whether additional post-grant patent review challenges will be filed, the outcome of any CBM review or other proceeding if the PTAB decides to institute one or more CBM review or other proceedings, or the impact any CBM review or other proceeding might have on ongoing ANDA litigation proceedings.

FazaClo ANDA Matters: Azur Pharma Public Limited Company, or Azur Pharma, received Paragraph IV Certifications from three generics manufacturers, Barr Laboratories, Inc., or Barr, Novel Laboratories, Inc., or Novel, and Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or Mylan, indicating that ANDAs had been filed with the FDA requesting approval to market generic versions of FazaClo^® (clozapine, USP) LD orally disintegrating clozapine tablets. Azur Pharma and CIMA Labs Inc., or CIMA, a subsidiary of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, or Teva, our licensor and the entity whose drug-delivery technology is incorporated into FazaClo LD, filed a lawsuit in response to each certification claiming infringement based on such certification against Barr on August 21, 2008, against Novel on November 25, 2008 and against Mylan on July 23, 2010. Each case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, or the Delaware Court. On July 6, 2011, CIMA, Azur Pharma and Teva, which had acquired Barr, entered into an agreement settling the patent litigation and Azur Pharma granted a sublicense to an affiliate of Teva of Azur Pharma’s rights to have manufactured, market and sell a generic version of both FazaClo LD and FazaClo HD, as well as an option for supply of authorized generic product. The sublicense for FazaClo LD commenced in July 2012, and the sublicense for FazaClo HD will commence in May 2015, or earlier upon the occurrence of certain events. Teva exercised its option for supply of an authorized generic product for FazaClo LD and launched the authorized generic product at the end of August 2012. The Novel and Mylan matters had been stayed pending reexamination of the patents in the lawsuits. In September 2013 and January 2014, reexamination certificates were issued for the two patents-in-suit, and the patentability of the claims of the patents confirmed. The Delaware Court lifted the stay of litigation in the two cases in March 2014. Trial is currently set for the third quarter of 2015, but we cannot predict the specific timing or outcome of this litigation.

Cutler Matter: On October 19, 2011, Dr. Neal Cutler, one of the original owners of FazaClo, filed a complaint against Azur Pharma and one of its subsidiaries, as well as Avanir Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or Avanir, in the California Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles, or the Superior Court. The complaint alleges that Azur Pharma and its subsidiary breached certain contractual obligations. Azur Pharma acquired rights to FazaClo from Avanir in 2007. The complaint alleges that as part of the acquisition of FazaClo, Azur Pharma’s subsidiary agreed to assume certain contingent payment obligations to Dr. Cutler. The complaint further alleges that certain contingent payments are due because revenue thresholds have been achieved, entitling Dr. Cutler to a $10.5 million and an additional $25.0 million contingent payment, plus unspecified punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. In March 2012, the Superior Court granted our petition to compel arbitration of the dispute in New York and stayed the Superior Court litigation. In July 2012, the arbitrator dismissed the arbitration on the grounds that the parties’ dispute falls outside of the scope of the arbitration clause in the applicable contract. That ruling was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal in January 2014, and the case was remanded to Superior Court for discovery and trial. Trial has been scheduled for October 2015. We cannot predict the specific timing or outcome of this litigation.

Shareholder Litigation Matter: In January 2014, we became aware of a purported class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in connection with the Gentium Acquisition. The lawsuit, captioned Xavion Jyles, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Gentium S.P.A. et al., names Gentium, each of the Gentium’s directors, us and our Italian subsidiary as defendants. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that Gentium’s directors breached their fiduciary duties to Gentium’s shareholders in connection with the Gentium tender offer agreement that Gentium entered into with us and our Italian subsidiary valuing Gentium ordinary shares and ADSs at $57.00 per share, and that we and our Italian subsidiary violated Sections 14(e) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by allegedly overseeing Gentium’s preparation of an allegedly false and misleading Section 14D-9 Solicitation/Recommendation Statement. The lawsuit seeks, among other relief, class action status, rescission, and unspecified costs, attorneys’ fees and other expenses. Since the initial filing, a lead plaintiff was named for the class, and the case has been recaptioned Adjit Sodhi, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Gentium S.P.A. et al. Only one individual defendant has been served, and the defendant has moved to dismiss the suit. We cannot predict the specific timing or outcome of this litigation.

From time to time we are involved in legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. We believe there is no other litigation pending that could have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition.

Other Contingencies

We have not previously submitted pricing data for two radiopharmaceutical products, ProstaScint^® (capromab pendetide) and Quadramet^® (samarium sm 153 lexidronam injection), for Medicaid and 340B programs. We have been engaged in interactions with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, and a trade group, the Council on Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals, or CORAR, regarding the reporting of Medicaid pricing data and paying Medicaid rebates for radiopharmaceutical products. For ProstaScint, we plan to begin making any required reports when CMS issues guidance on any requirements and reporting methodologies. We sold Quadramet to a third party in December 2013, but have retained any liabilities related to sales of the product during prior periods. In addition to the discussions with CMS as part of CORAR, we have had separate discussions with CMS directly regarding Quadramet. We are currently unable to predict whether price reporting and rebates will be required for ProstaScint and Quadramet and, if so, for what period they will be required. The initiation of any reporting of Medicaid pricing data for ProstaScint and Quadramet could result in retroactive 340B ceiling price liability for these two products as well as prospective 340B ceiling price obligations for ProstaScint. We are currently unable to reasonably estimate an amount or range of a contingent loss. Any material liability resulting from radiopharmaceutical price reporting would negatively impact our financial results.