9. Commitments and Contingencies

Operating Leases

The Company leases office space and equipment under various operating lease agreements.

In September 2004, the Company entered into an agreement with Vertex Pharmaceuticals, or Vertex, to lease 53,323 square feet of office and laboratory space located on the fourth and fifth floors at 675 West Kendall Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts, for an initial term of 80 months, or the West Kendall Sublease. In November 2005, the Company amended the West Kendall Sublease to lease an additional 25,131 square feet through April 2011. In April 2010, the Company exercised its right to extend the West Kendall Sublease for one additional term of 48 months, ending April 2015, or on such other earlier date as provided in accordance with the West Kendall Sublease. During the extension term, which commenced on May 1, 2011, annual rental payments increased by approximately $1.2 million over the previous annual rental rate. On July 15, 2014, the Company and Vertex entered into an agreement to extend the term of the West Kendall Sublease through April 2018, or such other earlier date as provided in accordance with the West Kendall Sublease. During the extension term, which commenced on May 1, 2015, annual rental payments are approximately $4.8 million.

In December 2011, the Company entered into an agreement to lease 68,575 square feet of office and laboratory space located on the first and second floors at 320 Bent Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts, for a term of approximately 18 months, or the First Bent Street Sublease. The Company gained access to the subleased space in December 2011 and, consequently, the Company commenced expensing the applicable rent on a straight-line basis beginning in December 2011. Annual rental payments due under the First Bent Street Sublease were approximately $2.3 million.

On February 5, 2013, the Company and BMR-Rogers Street LLC, or BMR, entered into a lease agreement, or the Second Bent Street Lease, to lease 104,678 square feet of office and laboratory space located in the basement and first and second floors at 320 Bent Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts, beginning on September 1, 2013 and ending on August 31, 2016. Annual rental payments due under the Second Bent Street Lease are approximately $6.1 million during the first lease year, $6.2 million during the second lease year and $6.3 million during the third lease year. BMR agreed to pay the Company a tenant improvement allowance of $0.7 million for reimbursement of laboratory and office improvements made by the Company (and subsequently reimbursed by BMR). The Company has recorded short and long-term liabilities for the construction allowance in its consolidated balance sheet, which is being amortized on a straight-line basis through a reduction to rental expense over the term of the lease.

The Company has two consecutive options to extend the term of the Second Bent Street Lease for one year each at the then-current fair market value. In addition, the Company has two additional consecutive options to extend the term of the Second Bent Street Lease for five years each for the office and laboratory space located in the basement portion of the leased space at the then-current fair market value. See Note 10 “Subsequent Event” for further information.

Total operating lease commitments as of September 30, 2015 are as follows (in thousands):

	Operating Leases
October 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015	$	2,820
2016	9,189
2017	4,924
2018	1,608


Total future minimum lease payments	$	18,541

Legal Contingencies

The Company is involved in various litigation matters that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of business. The process of resolving matters through litigation or other means is inherently uncertain and it is possible that an unfavorable resolution of these matters will adversely affect the Company, its results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. The Company’s general practice is to expense legal fees as services are rendered in connection with legal matters, and to accrue for liabilities when losses are probable and reasonably estimable. The Company evaluates, on a quarterly basis, developments in legal proceedings and other matters that could cause an increase or decrease in the amount of any accrual on its consolidated balance sheets.

Glatopa-and M356 (40 mg)-Related Litigation

On August 28, 2008, Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. and related entities, or Teva, and Yeda Research and Development Co., Ltd., or Yeda, filed suit against the Company and Sandoz in the United States Federal District Court in the Southern District of New York in response to the filing by Sandoz of the ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification for Glatopa. The suit alleged infringement related to four of the seven Orange Book-listed patents for Copaxone and sought declaratory and injunctive relief that would prohibit the launch of the Company’s product until the last to expire of these patents. The Orange Book is a publication of the FDA that identifies drug products approved on the basis of safety and effectiveness by the FDA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and includes patents that are purported by the drug application owner to protect each drug. If there is a patent listed for the branded drug in the Orange Book at the time of submission of an ANDA, or at any time before an ANDA is approved, a generic manufacturer’s ANDA must include one of four types of patent certifications with respect to each listed patent. See Part I, Item 1. “Business—Regulatory and Legal Matters” in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014. The Company and Sandoz asserted various defenses and filed counterclaims for declaratory judgments to have all seven of the Orange Book-listed patents, as well as two additional patents, in the same patent family adjudicated in that lawsuit. Another company, Mylan Inc., or Mylan, also has an ANDA for generic Copaxone under FDA review. In October 2009, Teva sued Mylan for patent infringement related to the Orange Book-listed patents for Copaxone, and in October 2010, the Court consolidated the Mylan case with the case against the Company and Sandoz. A trial on the issue of inequitable conduct occurred in July 2011 and the trial on the remaining issues occurred in September 2011 in the consolidated case. In June 2012, the Court issued its opinion and found all of the claims in the patents to be valid, enforceable and infringed. In July 2012, the Court issued a final order and permanent injunction prohibiting Sandoz and Mylan from infringing all of the patents in the suit. In July 2012, the Company appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, or CAFC, and in July 2013, the CAFC issued a written opinion invalidating several of the nine patents, including one non-Orange Book-listed patent which is set to expire in September 2015. The other patents expired on May 24, 2014. The CAFC remanded the case to the District Court to modify the injunction in light of the CAFC decision. In September 2013, Teva filed a petition for rehearing of the CAFC decision, and in October 2013 the CAFC denied the petition. Teva filed a petition for review by the Supreme Court of the United States in January 2014, and in March 2014 the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case in order to review the appropriate standard for deference to district court findings in claim construction. Briefing was completed in September 2014, and oral argument was held in October 2014. On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court vacated the 2013 decision of the CAFC and remanded the case to the CAFC for additional findings to determine the validity of the relevant patent claims that had previously been determined to be invalid. The parties filed briefs with the CAFC on March 2, 2015. On April 16, 2015, upon FDA approval of Glatopa, the Company requested an expedited decision with a full opinion to follow later. On June 18, 2015, the CAFC issued a decision and found the one remaining patent at issue in the suit invalid. The CAFC decision is final and not subject to further legal review.

On September 10, 2014, Teva and Yeda filed suit against the Company and Sandoz in the United States Federal District Court in the District of Delaware in response to the filing by Sandoz of the ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification for M356 (40 mg). The suit alleges infringement related to two Orange Book-listed patents for 40 mg/mL Copaxone, each expiring in 2030, and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting the launch of the Company’s product until the last to expire of these patents. The Company and Sandoz have asserted various defenses and filed counterclaims for declaratory judgments of non-infringement, invalidity and unenforceability of both patents. On April 10, 2015, Teva and Yeda filed an additional suit against the Company and Sandoz in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement related to a third Orange Book-listed patent for 40 mg/mL Copaxone, which issued in March 2015 and expires in 2030. In May 2015, this suit was consolidated with the initial suit filed in September 2014. A pre-trial claim construction hearing is anticipated to be held in January 2016 and the trial is scheduled to begin in September 2016.

Enoxaparin Sodium Injection-related Litigation

On September 21, 2011, the Company and Sandoz sued Amphastar, International Medical Systems, Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of Amphastar and, together with Amphastar (“Amphastar”) and Actavis in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts for infringement of two of the Company’s patents. Also in September, 2011, the Company filed a request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent Amphastar and Actavis from selling their enoxaparin product in the United States. In October 2011, the District Court granted the Company’s motion for a preliminary injunction and entered an order enjoining Amphastar and Actavis from advertising, offering for sale or selling their enoxaparin product in the United States until the conclusion of a trial on the merits and required the Company and Sandoz to post a security bond of $100 million in connection with the litigation. Amphastar and Actavis appealed the decision to the CAFC, and in January 2012, the CAFC stayed the preliminary injunction. In August 2012, the CAFC issued a written opinion vacating the preliminary injunction and remanding the case to the District Court. In September 2012, the Company filed a petition with the CAFC for a rehearing by the full court en banc, which was denied. In February 2013, the Company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari for review of the CAFC decision by the United States Supreme Court and in June 2013 the Supreme Court denied the petition.

In July 2013, the District Court granted a motion by Amphastar and Actavis for summary judgment. The Company filed a notice of appeal of that decision to the CAFC. In February 2014, Amphastar filed a motion to the CAFC for summary affirmance of the District Court ruling, which the CAFC denied in May 2014. On May 4, 2015, the CAFC held a hearing on the Company’s appeal of summary judgment, and requested the views of the United States Solicitor General on certain issues raised in the suit. The U.S. Solicitor General filed its brief on July 13, 2015. On July 24, 2015, Amphastar and Actavis filed a brief in response to the brief of the U.S. Solicitor General. On August 4, 2015, the Company and Sandoz filed a brief in response to the responsive brief of Amphastar and Actavis. The Company expects the CAFC to issue a decision in 2015. The collateral for the security bond posted in the litigation remains outstanding. In the event that the Company is not successful in any appeal, and Amphastar and Actavis are able to prove they suffered damages as a result of the preliminary injunction, the Company could be liable for damages for up to $35 million of the security bond. Amphastar has filed motions to increase the amount of the security bond, which the Company and Sandoz have opposed.

On September 17, 2015, Amphastar filed a complaint against the Company and Sandoz in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges that, by filing the September 2011 patent infringement suit against Amphastar and Actavis, the Company and Sandoz sought to prevent Amphastar from selling generic enoxaparin sodium injection and thereby exclude competition for generic enoxaparin sodium injection in violation of federal and California anti-trust laws and California unfair business laws. Amphastar is seeking unspecified damages. While the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain, the Company believes the complaint is without merit, and the Company intends to vigorously defend itself in any resulting litigation should the suit be served on the defendants.

On October 14, 2015, The Hospital Authority of Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, d/b/a Nashville General Hospital (“NGH”) filed a class action suit against the Company and Sandoz in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of certain purchasers of Lovenox or generic enoxaparin sodium injection. The complaint alleges that, by filing the September 2011 patent infringement suit against Amphastar and Actavis, the Company and Sandoz sought to prevent Amphastar from selling generic enoxaparin sodium injection and thereby exclude competition for generic enoxaparin sodium injection in violation of federal anti-trust laws. NGH is seeking injunctive relief and unspecified damages. While the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain, the Company believes the complaint is without merit, and it intends to vigorously defend itself in this litigation.