As of December 31, 2020, future fixed payments required under license agreements are $0.7 million. The Company may be required to pay additional amounts up to approximately $90.6 million in contingent payments under the Company’s license agreements. These contingent payments include potential milestone or contractual payment obligations contingent upon the achievement or occurrence of future milestones or events and the amounts and timing of such potential obligations are unknown or uncertain.

From time to time, the Company is a party to various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. In addition, the Company has in the past been, and may in the future be, subject to investigations by governmental and regulatory authorities, which expose it to greater risks associated with litigation, regulatory or other proceedings, as a result of which the Company could be required to pay significant fines or penalties. The costs and outcome of litigation, regulatory or other proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty, and some lawsuits, claims, actions or proceedings may be disposed of unfavorably to the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations or financial condition. In addition, intellectual property disputes often have a risk of injunctive relief which, if imposed against the Company, could materially and adversely affect its financial condition or results of operations. If a matter is both probable to result in material liability and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company estimates and discloses the possible material loss or range of loss. If such loss is not probable or cannot be reasonably estimated, a liability is not recorded in its consolidated financial statements.

Between November 19, 2015 and September 18, 2017, Progenics, Salix, Valeant (now Bausch) and Wyeth filed multiple lawsuits against Mylan Pharmaceuticals and certain of its affiliates (collectively, “Mylan”) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the “NJ Court”) for infringement of certain U.S. patents based upon Mylan’s filing of multiple ANDAs seeking to obtain approval to market a generic version of RELISTOR subcutaneous injection before some or all of those patents expire. These actions were later consolidated into two separate actions in the District of New Jersey.

On May 1, 2018, in the lead action, the NJ Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment as to the validity of a particular claim that Mylan had admitted it infringed. On May 23, 2018, the NJ Court entered an order for final judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Mylan on that particular claim. As a result, trial on the merits in the lead action was adjourned, allowing trial, if necessary, to be consolidated with the lagging, second action. On August 20, 2020, the parties agreed to dismiss all claims, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims in the lagging action and proceed to a full trial on the merits for the patents asserted in the lead action.

On May 25, 2018, Mylan filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”). On April 8, 2020, the CAFC issued its decision reversing the NJ Court’s grant of summary judgment and remanding for further proceedings. On June 22, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing/rehearing en banc, and on July 24, 2020, that petition was denied.

On December 23, 2020, Plaintiffs and Mylan entered into a Settlement and License Agreement (the “Mylan Settlement Agreement”) relating to the actions in the NJ Court. The Mylan Settlement Agreement provides for a full settlement and release by both Plaintiffs and Mylan for all claims that were or could have been asserted in the district court cases and all resulting damages or other remedies. Plaintiffs and Mylan filed a Stipulated Order of Dismissal after the execution of the Mylan Settlement Agreement, and the matter has been dismissed.

Between December 6, 2016 and December 8, 2017, Progenics, Salix, Bausch, and Wyeth filed suit against Actavis, Actavis LLC, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., and Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. (collectively, “Actavis”) in the NJ Court for infringement of certain U.S. patents based upon Actavis’s filing of an ANDA seeking to obtain approval to market a generic version of RELISTOR tablets before some or all of those patents expire. The actions were later consolidated into a single action in the NJ Court.

On May 6-9, 2019, a bench trial was held, and on July 17, 2019, the NJ Court issued an Order finding the asserted claims of a certain U.S. patent valid and infringed. The NJ Court additionally ordered that the effective date of any approval of Actavis’s ANDA may not be earlier than the expiration date of that patent. Actavis filed an appeal of the NJ Court’s decision with the CAFC on August 13, 2019. The matter is currently pending on appeal at the CAFC and merits briefing has concluded. Actavis’s opening brief was filed February 6, 2020. The Plaintiffs filed their responsive brief on September 15, 2020. Actavis’s reply brief was filed on December 7, 2020.

On June 13, 2019, Progenics, Salix, Bausch, and Wyeth filed another suit against Actavis in the NJ Court for infringement of a separate, and at that time, recently granted U.S. patent based upon Actavis’s filing of an ANDA seeking to obtain approval to market a generic version of RELISTOR tablets before this patent expires.

On February 12, 2021, Plaintiffs and Actavis entered into a Settlement and License Agreement (the “Actavis Settlement Agreement”) relating to the actions in the NJ Court and the related Federal Circuit appeal. The Actavis Settlement Agreement provides for a full settlement and release by both Plaintiffs and Actavis of all claims that were or could have been asserted in the NJ Court cases and all resulting damages or other remedies. Plaintiffs and Actavis have further agreed to file a Stipulation and Order to dismiss the pending district court action and a Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of the appeal.

In addition to the above described ANDA notifications, in October 2015, Progenics received notices of opposition to three European patents relating to methylnaltrexone. Notices of opposition were filed separately by each of Actavis Group PTC ehf and Fresenius Kabi Deutschland GmbH. Between May 11, 2017 and July 4, 2017, the opposition division provided notice that the three European patents would be revoked. Each of these matters were appealed to the European Patent Office. Oral proceedings for EP1615646 were held on September 22, 2020. The decision under appeal was set aside and the case was remitted to the opposition division for further prosecution. The deadline for written submissions prior to an oral hearing is July 27, 2021. The oral hearing is set for September 27, 2021. On November 13, 2020, Progenics withdrew the appeal for EP2368553 and EP2368554. Notices of

On November 8, 2018, Molecular Insight Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a subsidiary of Progenics (“MIP”), filed a complaint against the University of Heidelberg (the “University”) in the District Court in Mannheim, Germany (the “German District Court”). In this Complaint, MIP claimed that the discovery and development of PSMA-617 was related to work performed under a research collaboration sponsored by MIP. MIP alleged that the University breached certain contracts with MIP and that MIP is the co-owner of inventions embodied in certain worldwide patent filings related to PSMA-617 that were filed by the University. On February 27, 2019, Endocyte, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Novartis AG, filed a motion to intervene in the German litigation. Endocyte is the exclusive licensee of the patent rights that are the subject of the German proceedings.

On November 27, 2018, MIP requested that the European Patent Office (“EPO”) stay the examination of a certain European Patent (EP) and related Divisional Applications, pending a decision from the German District Court on MIP’s Complaint. On December 10, 2018, the EPO granted MIP’s request and stayed the examination of the patent and patent applications effective November 27, 2018. MIP filed a Confirmation of Ownership with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) in corresponding U.S. patent applications (U.S. Serial Nos. 15/131,118; 15/805,900; 16/038,729, 16/114,988, 16/510,495, 16/551,198). MIP’s filing with the USPTO takes the position that, in light of the collaboration and contracts between MIP and the University, MIP is the co-owner of these pending U.S. patent applications (U.S. Serial Nos. 16/510,495, 16/551,198). On March 6, 2020, MIP filed with the USPTO a notice stating that the Power of Attorney in certain pending U.S. patent applications was signed by less than all applicants or owners of the applications.

On February 27, 2019, the German District Court set €0.4 million as the amount MIP must deposit with the German District Court as security in the event of an unfavorable final decision on the merits of the dispute. The German District Court held the first oral hearing in the case on August 6, 2019. The German District Court considered procedural matters and granted the parties the right to make further submissions. A further oral hearing occurred July 23, 2020, during which the German District Court heard live testimony from several witnesses, testifying on behalf of the defendants. On August 24, 2020, the German District Court issued its decision dismissing MIP’s claims, stating that MIP failed to discharge its burden of proof in the matter.

MIP filed a Notice of Appeal of the German District Court’s decision on September 24, 2020 and filed its appeal brief on November 26, 2020. Responsive briefs are due on March 12, 2021. MIP is also considering its legal and procedural alternatives against the defendants in other jurisdictions and proceedings. If MIP is not successful in its appeal, it will be responsible for the German court fees and fees and disbursements of defendant’s and intervenor’s counsel, both at first instance and on appeal. Most of such fees and disbursements at first instance are covered by the aforementioned cash security deposited with the German District Court. Because the outcome of litigation is uncertain, the Company cannot predict how or when this matter will ultimately be resolved.

In July 2019, Progenics received notification of a complaint submitted by Dr. Syed Mahmood, the former Vice President of Medical Affairs for Progenics, to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the United States Department of Labor (“DOL”), alleging that the termination of his employment by Progenics was in violation of Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”). Dr. Mahmood sought reinstatement to his former position of Vice President of Medical Affairs, back pay, front pay in lieu of reinstatement, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs incurred, and special damages. In March 2020, Dr. Mahmood filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (as permitted by SOX because the DOL had not issued a decision within 180 days). Dr. Mahmood’s federal complaint asserted claims of violation of Section 806 of SOX. The DOL action has been dismissed. Progenics filed an answer to Dr. Mahmood’s complaint on August 26, 2020 and the initial pre-trial conference was held on September 16, 2020. The parties entered into mediation in connection with Dr. Mahmood’s complaint on December 8, 2020, and the matter was settled pursuant to a Confidential Negotiated Settlement Agreement dated December 30, 2020. A Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice was then filed with the court, and the matter was dismissed with prejudice.