XML 46 R24.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT

Legal Proceedings

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2012

17. Legal Proceedings

We and certain of our subsidiaries are involved in various patent, trademark, commercial and other claims; government investigations; and other legal proceedings that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of business. These legal proceedings and other matters are complex in nature and have outcomes that are difficult to predict and could have a material adverse effect on us.

Patent proceedings include challenges to scope, validity or enforceability of our patents relating to our various products or processes. Although we believe we have substantial defenses to these challenges with respect to all our material patents, there can be no assurance as to the outcome of these matters, and a loss in any of these cases could result in a loss of patent protection for the drug at issue, which could lead to a significant loss of sales of that drug and could materially affect future results of operations.

Among the principal matters pending to which we are party to are the following:

In the fourth quarter of 2009, we received a Civil Investigative Demand, or CID, from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, or the FTC. The FTC requested documents and other information relating to requests by generic companies to purchase our patented REVLIMID® and THALOMID® brand drugs in order to evaluate whether there is reason to believe that we have engaged in unfair methods of competition. In the first quarter of 2010, the State of Connecticut referenced the same issues as those referenced in the 2009 CID and issued a subpoena. In the fourth quarter of 2010, we received a second CID from the FTC relating to this matter. We continue to respond to requests for information.

In the first quarter of 2011, the United States Attorney for the Central District of California informed us that we were under investigation relating to our promotion of the drugs THALOMID® and REVLIMID® regarding alleged off-label marketing and improper payments to physicians. We are cooperating with the United States Attorney in connection with this investigation.

REVLIMID®: We have publicly announced that we have received a notice letter dated August 30, 2010, sent from Natco Pharma Limited of India (“Natco”) notifying us of Natco’s Abbreviated New Drug Application, or ANDA, which contains Paragraph IV certifications alleging that certain claims of certain patents listed for REVLIMID® in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (the “Orange Book”) are invalid, unenforceable, and/or not infringed (the “Notice Letter”). The Notice Letter was sent pursuant to Natco having filed an ANDA seeking permission from the FDA to market a generic version of 25mg, 15mg, 10mg and 5mg capsules of REVLIMID®. Under the federal Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984, any generic manufacturer may file an ANDA containing a certification (a “Paragraph IV certification”) challenging the validity or infringement of a patent listed in the Orange Book. On October 8, 2010, we filed an infringement action in the United States District Court of New Jersey against Natco in response to the Notice Letter with respect to United States Patent Nos. 5,635,517 (the “’517 patent”), 6,045,501 (the “’501 patent”), 6,281,230 (the “’230 patent”), 6,315,720 (the “’720 patent”), 6,555,554 (the “’554 patent”), 6,561,976 (the “’976 patent”), 6,561,977 (the “’977 patent”), 6,755,784 (the “’784 patent”), 7,119,106 (the “’106 patent”), and 7,465,800 (the “’800 patent”). If Natco is successful in challenging our patents listed in the Orange Book, and the FDA were to approve the ANDA with a comprehensive education and risk management program for a generic version of lenalidomide, sales of REVLIMID® could be significantly reduced in the United States by the entrance of a generic lenalidomide product, potentially reducing our revenue.

Natco responded to our infringement action on November 18, 2010, with its Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims. Natco has alleged (through Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims) that the patents are invalid, unenforceable and/or not infringed by Natco’s proposed generic products. After filing the infringement action, we learned the identity of Natco’s U.S. partner, Arrow International Limited, or Arrow, and filed an amended complaint on January 7, 2011, adding Arrow as a defendant. On January 14, 2011, an amended complaint was filed identifying additional defendants including Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.(Arrow’s parent), Watson Pharma, Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) and Anda, Inc. (another wholly owned subsidiary of Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.). On March 25, 2011, Celgene filed a second amended complaint naming only Natco, Arrow, and Watson Laboratories, Inc. (another wholly owned subsidiary of Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) as Defendants. Those three entities remain the current Defendants in this action.

We believe that Natco’s counterclaims are unlikely to be sustainable and intend to vigorously defend our patent rights. We believe it unlikely that Natco will prevail on each and every patent and patent claim subject to the lawsuit and that all of the patent claims would be deemed to be invalid, unenforceable and/or non-infringed. Accordingly, we believe that the ultimate outcome is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

ABRAXANE®: On December 14, 2011, Cephalon, Inc. and Acusphere, Inc. filed a complaint against us in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging, among other things, that the making, using, selling, offering to sell, and importing of ABRAXANE® brand drug infringes claims of United States Patent No. RE40.493. Plaintiffs are seeking damages and injunctive relief. We intend to vigorously defend against this infringement suit. If the suit against us is successful, we may have to pay damages, ongoing royalties and may have to license rights from plaintiffs. However, we believe (a) that it is unlikely that the plaintiffs in this matter will prevail and (b) that the ultimate outcome will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations. We filed motions to dismiss on February 20, 2012.