COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	10. Commitments and Contingencies From time to time, the Company may face legal claims or actions in the normal course of business. Except as disclosed below, the Company is not currently a party to any litigation and, accordingly, does not have any amounts recorded for any litigation related matters. The Company’s NDA filing for Xtampza is a 505(b)(2) application, which allows the Company to reference data from an approved drug listed in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (commonly known as the “Orange Book”), in this case OxyContin OP. In connection with the 505(b)(2) process, the Company certified to the FDA and notified Purdue Pharma, L.P. (“Purdue”), as the holder of the NDA and any other Orange Book-listed patent owners, that the Company does not infringe any of the patents listed for OxyContin OP in the Orange Book. Under the Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984 (the “Hatch-Waxman Act”), Purdue had the option to sue the Company for infringement and receive a stay of up to 30 months before the FDA could issue a final regulatory approval for Xtampza, unless the stay was earlier terminated. Purdue exercised its option and elected to sue the Company for infringement in the District of Delaware in March 2015 asserting infringement of three of Purdue’s Orange Book‑listed patents and one non-Orange Book-listed patent. In October 2015, the Delaware case was transferred to Massachusetts. After the Company filed a partial motion for judgment on the pleadings relating to the Orange Book-listed patents, the District Court of Massachusetts ordered judgment in favor of the Company on those three patents, and dismissed the claims asserting infringement of those patents with prejudice. Upon dismissal of those claims, the 30-month stay of FDA approval was lifted. As a result, the Company obtained final approval of its Xtampza ER products and has launched the products commercially. In November 2015, Purdue filed a follow-on suit asserting infringement of another patent, Patent No. 9,073,933, which was late-listed in the Orange Book and therefore could not trigger any stay of FDA approval. In June 2016, Purdue filed another follow-on suit asserting infringement of another non-Orange Book listed patent, Patent No. 9,155,717. These suits were consolidated by the District of Massachusetts into the original action where Purdue’s infringement claim relating to the ’497 patent remains pending. Purdue continues to assert infringement of these three patents against the Company, none of which is associated with any stay of FDA approval. Purdue has made a demand for monetary relief but has not quantified their alleged damages. Purdue has also requested a judgment of infringement and an injunction on the sale of the Company’s products accused of infringement. The Company has denied all claims and seeks a judgment that the patents are invalid and/or not infringed by the Company, and seeks a judgment that the case is exceptional, with an award to the Company of its fees for defending the case. In April 2017, Purdue filed another suit asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,522,919, related to the previously asserted ’933 patent, which recently issued and was late-listed in the Orange Book and therefore could not trigger any stay of FDA approval. Purdue has similarly made a demand for monetary relief and has requested judgment of infringement and an injunction on the sale of the Company’s accused products. The Company will oppose this action. In September 2017, Purdue filed another suit in the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,693,961 (the “’961” patent). The ʼ961 patent is not Orange Book-listed and is unrelated to the patents asserted in the lead case. Because the ʼ961 patent is not Orange Book-listed, it cannot trigger any stay of FDA approval. Purdue has similarly made a demand for monetary relief and has requested judgment of infringement and an injunction on the sale of the Company’s accused products. The Company has not yet filed an answer or otherwise responded to this Complaint. In October 2017, and in response to the filing of the Company’s supplemental New Drug Application (“NDA”), Purdue filed another suit in the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, asserting infringement of the ʼ933 and ʼ919 patent. At this time, it is unclear if the suit will trigger an additional stay of FDA approval of the Company’s label change proposed by its supplemental NDA. The Company has not yet filed an answer or otherwise responded to this Complaint. Purdue continues to assert infringement of four remaining patents by the Company in the lead case, which are the ʼ919 patent, the ʼ933 patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,652,497, U.S. and U.S. Patent No. 9,155,717. The parties are in the early stages of fact discovery. Written discovery has commenced with depositions expected to commence in the fourth quarter of 2017. The parties are also in the claims construction stage of the patent litigation. The parties have briefed their proposed construction. The Company has also filed a motion for summary judgment that the asserted claims of the ’933, ’497, and ’717 patents are invalid and not infringed. The Court heard argument on the claims construction issues and on the Company’s summary judgment motion on June 1, 2017. The Company is not able to predict with certainty when the Court will decide claim construction or the Company’s motion. No trial date has been scheduled. The Company is, and plans to continue, defending this case vigorously. At this stage, we are unable to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or estimate the amount or range of potential loss, if any. At this time the Company is unable to provide meaningful quantification of how this potential litigation may impact its future financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

10. Commitments and Contingencies

From time to time, the Company may face legal claims or actions in the normal course of business. Except as disclosed below, the Company is not currently a party to any litigation and, accordingly, does not have any amounts recorded for any litigation related matters.

The Company’s NDA filing for Xtampza is a 505(b)(2) application, which allows the Company to reference data from an approved drug listed in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (commonly known as the “Orange Book”), in this case OxyContin OP. In connection with the 505(b)(2) process, the Company certified to the FDA and notified Purdue Pharma, L.P. (“Purdue”), as the holder of the NDA and any other Orange Book-listed patent owners, that the Company does not infringe any of the patents listed for OxyContin OP in the Orange Book. Under the Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984 (the “Hatch-Waxman Act”), Purdue had the option to sue the Company for infringement and receive a stay of up to 30 months before the FDA could issue a final regulatory approval for Xtampza, unless the stay was earlier terminated. Purdue exercised its option and elected to sue the Company for infringement in the District of Delaware in March 2015 asserting infringement of three of Purdue’s Orange Book‑listed patents and one non-Orange Book-listed patent. In October 2015, the Delaware case was transferred to Massachusetts. After the Company filed a partial motion for judgment on the pleadings relating to the Orange Book-listed patents, the District Court of Massachusetts ordered judgment in favor of the Company on those three patents, and dismissed the claims asserting infringement of those patents with prejudice. Upon dismissal of those claims, the 30-month stay of FDA approval was lifted. As a result, the Company obtained final approval of its Xtampza ER products and has launched the products commercially.

In November 2015, Purdue filed a follow-on suit asserting infringement of another patent, Patent No. 9,073,933, which was late-listed in the Orange Book and therefore could not trigger any stay of FDA approval. In June 2016, Purdue filed another follow-on suit asserting infringement of another non-Orange Book listed patent, Patent No. 9,155,717. These suits were consolidated by the District of Massachusetts into the original action where Purdue’s infringement claim relating to the ’497 patent remains pending. Purdue continues to assert infringement of these three patents against the Company, none of which is associated with any stay of FDA approval. Purdue has made a demand for monetary relief but has not quantified their alleged damages. Purdue has also requested a judgment of infringement and an injunction on the sale of the Company’s products accused of infringement. The Company has denied all claims and seeks a judgment that the patents are invalid and/or not infringed by the Company, and seeks a judgment that the case is exceptional, with an award to the Company of its fees for defending the case.

In April 2017, Purdue filed another suit asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,522,919, related to the previously asserted ’933 patent, which recently issued and was late-listed in the Orange Book and therefore could not trigger any stay of FDA approval. Purdue has similarly made a demand for monetary relief and has requested judgment of infringement and an injunction on the sale of the Company’s accused products. The Company will oppose this action.

In September 2017, Purdue filed another suit in the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,693,961 (the “’961” patent). The ʼ961 patent is not Orange Book-listed and is unrelated to the patents asserted in the lead case. Because the ʼ961 patent is not Orange Book-listed, it cannot trigger any stay of FDA approval. Purdue has similarly made a demand for monetary relief and has requested judgment of infringement and an injunction on the sale of the Company’s accused products. The Company has not yet filed an answer or otherwise responded to this Complaint.

In October 2017, and in response to the filing of the Company’s supplemental New Drug Application (“NDA”), Purdue filed another suit in the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, asserting infringement of the ʼ933 and ʼ919 patent. At this time, it is unclear if the suit will trigger an additional stay of FDA approval of the Company’s label change proposed by its supplemental NDA. The Company has not yet filed an answer or otherwise responded to this Complaint.

Purdue continues to assert infringement of four remaining patents by the Company in the lead case, which are the ʼ919 patent, the ʼ933 patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,652,497, U.S. and U.S. Patent No. 9,155,717.

The parties are in the early stages of fact discovery. Written discovery has commenced with depositions expected to commence in the fourth quarter of 2017. The parties are also in the claims construction stage of the patent litigation. The parties have briefed their proposed construction. The Company has also filed a motion for summary judgment that the asserted claims of the ’933, ’497, and ’717 patents are invalid and not infringed. The Court heard argument on the claims construction issues and on the Company’s summary judgment motion on June 1, 2017. The Company is not able to predict with certainty when the Court will decide claim construction or the Company’s motion. No trial date has been scheduled.

The Company is, and plans to continue, defending this case vigorously. At this stage, we are unable to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or estimate the amount or range of potential loss, if any. At this time the Company is unable to provide meaningful quantification of how this potential litigation may impact its future financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.