Commitments and Contingencies

Operating Leases

The Company leases office space and equipment under various operating lease agreements. Rent expense for office space under operating leases amounted to $19.3 million, $18.5 million and $16.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

The Company leases approximately 78,500 square feet of office and laboratory space at 675 West Kendall Street in Cambridge, Massachusetts from Vertex Pharmaceuticals. Annual rental payments are approximately $4.8 million. The lease expires on April 30, 2018.

In February 2013, the Company and BMR-Rogers Street LLC, or BMR, entered into a lease agreement to lease approximately 105,000 square feet of office and laboratory space at 320 Bent Street in Cambridge, Massachusetts, or the Bent Premises. Annual rental payments are approximately $8.1 million and are subject to annual rent escalation. The lease expires on February 28, 2027. Pursuant to the lease agreement with BMR, the Company also leases approximately 52,000 square feet of office and laboratory space on the fourth floor of 301 Binney Street in Cambridge, Massachusetts, or the Fourth Floor Binney Premises. Annual rental payments for the Fourth Floor Binney Premises are approximately $3.8 million and are subject to annual rent escalation. The lease expires on March 31, 2028. The lease agreement contains various provisions for renewal at the Company’s option as well as free rent periods for both premises.

In September 2016, the Company and Biogen MA Inc., or Biogen, entered into to a sublease agreement to lease approximately 80,000 square feet of office and laboratory space on the fifth floor of 301 Binney Street in Cambridge, Massachusetts, or the Fifth Floor Binney Premises. Annual rental payments are approximately $6.1 million and are subject to various annual rent escalations over the lease term, which began on January 1, 2018 and expires on June 29, 2025.

Pursuant to the lease with BMR, the Company was provided allowances from the landlord totaling approximately $14.9 million as reimbursement of certain laboratory and office improvements at both the Fourth and Fifth Floor Binney Premises as well as the Bent Premises.

The Company records rent expense, inclusive of the escalating rent payments and free rent periods, on a straight-line basis over the terms of the lease. Tenant reimbursement amounts are recorded upon payment as deferred rent on the consolidated balance sheets and are amortized as a reduction to rent expense over the lease term. The Company capitalizes the cost of normal tenant improvements as leasehold improvements as the costs are incurred.

Total operating lease commitments as of December 31, 2017 are as follows (in thousands):



Operating lease commitments	Total
2018	$	19,013
2019	18,848
2020	19,380
2021	19,856
2022	20,319
2023 and beyond	82,541
Total future minimum lease payments	$	179,957

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 40 mg/mL-Related Litigation

On September 10, 2014, Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. and related entities, or Teva, and Yeda Research and Development Co., Ltd., or Yeda, filed a suit against the Company and Sandoz in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in response to the filing by Sandoz of the ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification for GLATOPA 40 mg/mL. The suit initially alleged infringement related to two Orange Book-listed patents for COPAXONE 40 mg/mL, each expiring in 2030, and sought declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting the launch of the Company's product until the last to expire of these patents. In April 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 COPAXONE 40 mg/mL, which issued in March 2015 and expires in 2030. In May 2015, this suit was consolidated with the initial suit that was filed in September 2014. In November 2015, Teva and Yeda filed a suit against the Company and Sandoz in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement related to a fourth Orange Book-listed patent for COPAXONE 40 mg/mL, which issued in October 2015 and expires in 2030. In December 2015, this suit was also consolidated with the initial suit that was filed in September 2014. Teva and Yeda seek declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting the launch of GLATOPA 40 mg/mL until the expiration of the patents at issue. On January 30, 2017, the District Court found the four patents to be invalid due to obviousness. In February 2017, Teva and Yeda appealed the District Court's January 30, 2017, decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Briefing was completed in the third quarter of 2017, and a decision is pending oral argument.

On January 31, 2017, Teva filed a suit against the Company and Sandoz in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging infringement related to an additional patent for COPAXONE 40 mg/mL, U.S. Patent No. 9,155,775, which issued in October 2015 and expires in October 2035. The Company and Sandoz filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to transfer the suit to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. On January 31, 2017, Teva voluntarily dismissed the Company from the New Jersey suit for U.S. Patent No. 9,155,775, maintaining the suit against Sandoz. On May 23, 2017, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the motion to transfer the suit to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. A claim construction hearing was held on November 2, 2017, and a claim construction opinion issued on December 1, 2017. A seven day trial is scheduled to commence before the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on October 9, 2018.

On February 2, 2017, the Company filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware seeking a declaration that U.S. Patent No. 9,155,775 is invalid, not infringed or not enforceable against the Company. In March 2017, Teva filed a motion, which is currently pending, to stay further proceedings in the Delaware action.

Enoxaparin Sodium Injection-related Litigation

On September 21, 2011, the Company and Sandoz sued Amphastar and Actavis in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts for patent infringement. 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 Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, or CAFC, and in January 2012, the CAFC stayed the preliminary injunction. In August 2012, the CAFC vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded 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 which was denied in June 2013.

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 November 10, 2015, the CAFC affirmed the District Court summary judgment decision with respect to Actavis, reversed the District Court summary judgment decision with respect to Amphastar, and remanded the case against Amphastar to the District Court. On January 11, 2016, Amphastar filed a petition for rehearing by the CAFC, which was denied on February 17, 2016. On May 17, 2016, Amphastar filed a petition for writ of certiorari for review of the CAFC decision by the United States Supreme Court, which was denied on October 3, 2016. In April 2017, the Company, Sandoz and Actavis, or the Settling Parties, settled and signed reciprocal releases of all claims, and filed a voluntary stipulation with the District Court, pursuant to which the Settling Parties stipulated and agreed to dismiss with prejudice all claims and counterclaims among the Settling Parties, without fees or costs to any party, and with the Settling Parties waiving any and all right of appeal. The District Court trial was held in July 2017, and the jury verdict found the Company's patent to be infringed, but invalid and unenforceable. In February 2018, the District Court confirmed the jury’s opinion that the patent was infringed but invalid, and narrowed the jury’s recommendation on unenforceability by finding the patent to be unenforceable against only one of the two infringing methods used by Amphastar. The Company and Sandoz are considering all other available legal options to overturn the portions of the verdict finding the Company's patent to be invalid and partially unenforceable, including a potential appeal to the CAFC. In the event that the Company is not successful in further appeal or prosecution or settlement of this action against Amphastar, and Amphastar is 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. The Company posted $17.5 million as collateral for the security bond and classified the collateral as restricted cash in its consolidated balance sheet. Litigation involves many risks and uncertainties, and there is no assurance that the Company or Sandoz will prevail in this patent enforcement suit.

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, in connection with 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 and fees. In December 2015, the Company and Sandoz filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to transfer the case. In January 2016, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. In February 2016, Amphastar filed a writ of mandamus with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit requesting that the court reverse and review the District Court's grant of transfer and in May 2016, the writ requested by Amphastar was denied. On July 27, 2016, the Company's and Sandoz' motion to dismiss was granted by the District Court, and the case was dismissed. On August 25, 2016, Amphastar filed a notice of appeal from the dismissal with the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Briefing was completed in December 2016, and oral argument was held on February 9, 2017. On March 6, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the District Court’s dismissal and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. On April 6, 2017, the District Court held a scheduling conference to provide dates for the remanded case, and on April 20, 2017, the Company and Sandoz filed their renewed motion to dismiss. Trial is scheduled for April 2019, however, the parties have filed a joint motion seeking to reschedule the proceedings pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss.

On October 14, 2015, The Hospital Authority of Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, d/b/a Nashville General Hospital, or 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, in connection with 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, disgorgement of profits and unspecified damages and fees. In December 2015, the Company and Sandoz filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On March 21, 2017, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee dismissed NGH’s claim for damages against the Company and Sandoz, but allowed the case to move forward, in part, for NGH’s claims for injunctive and declaratory relief. In the same opinion, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee denied our motion to transfer. On June 9, 2017, NGH filed a motion to amend its complaint to add a new named plaintiff, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees District Council 37 Health & Security Plan, or DC37. NGH and DC37 seek to assert claims for damages under the laws of more than 30 different states, on behalf of a putative class of indirect purchasers of Lovenox or generic enoxaparin. On June 30, 2017, the Company and Sandoz filed a brief opposing the motion to amend the complaint. On December 14, 2017, the Court granted NGH's motion to amend. In January 2018, the Company and Sandoz filed three motions to dismiss the amended complaint. While the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain, the Company believes this suit is without merit, and intend to vigorously defend itself in this litigation.