About EDGAR Online | Login
 
The following is an excerpt from a S-1 SEC Filing, filed by RELIANT PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. on 5/20/2005.
Next Section Next Section Previous Section Previous Section
RELIANT PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. - S-1 - 20050520 - BUSINESS

BUSINESS

 

Overview

 

We are a pharmaceutical company with integrated sales, marketing and development expertise, and we market a portfolio of branded cardiovascular pharmaceutical products. We focus on marketing promotionally sensitive pharmaceutical products to the high prescribing primary care, cardiovascular and specialist physician markets in the United States. We acquire rights to branded pharmaceutical products that typically have regulatory exclusivity or patent protection. We enhance the value of our product portfolio by applying highly focused marketing campaigns and by implementing strategies to extend the life cycle of the products we sell or market. In addition, we acquire rights to and develop product candidates in mid- to late-stage clinical development. This approach seeks to minimize many of the risks associated with early stage drug discovery.

 

We were founded in August 1999 and commenced commercial operations in the following year with the acquisition of rights to three marketed brands: DynaCirc, Axid and Lescol. Within our first six months of operations, these brands permitted the establishment of a sales force of more than 750 sales professionals. Since then, we have successfully identified and acquired rights to an additional marketed brand, Rythmol. To support the marketing of the Rythmol brand, we established our cardiovascular specialty sales force, which today consists of approximately 110 sales professionals who target specialty cardiologists. We have also received FDA approval for and market InnoPran XL and Antara, which we launched in January 2004 and February 2005, respectively. Additionally, we have received FDA approval for Omacor, which we expect to launch in late 2005.

 

Our sales infrastructure has grown with our product portfolio and is now comprised of nearly 1,000 sales professionals throughout the United States. As our product portfolio grows and we launch additional products, we intend to continue to expand our sales force. We believe that our sales force is highly effective relative to those of our peers, as evidenced in a recent independent survey conducted by Verispan. Compared to the specialty pharmaceutical companies that we consider our peers, we ranked second in sales force quality and familiarity among all physicians surveyed and second among cardiologists.

 

In addition to our marketing and promotion efforts, we use product life cycle management strategies to extend the life and marketing exclusivity of our owned products. For example, we conduct clinical trials to obtain additional FDA-approved uses. We also develop product enhancements that improve safety, convenience or compliance to enhance therapeutic value.

 

In 2004, we recorded strong growth in our owned product portfolio, driven principally by DynaCirc CR and the Rythmol family of products. We continue to expand our cardiovascular product offerings with the launch of Antara and the expected launch of Omacor. In addition to our owned products, we promote the Lescol family of products under a promotion agreement with Novartis. In 2004, we recorded $222.3 million in total revenues, of which $117.2 million was derived from net sales of our owned products and $105.1 million was promotion revenues, and we incurred a net loss of $106.2 million.

 

We believe that the experience, expertise and industry relationships of our senior management are vital to our success. Our Chief Executive Officer, Ernest Mario, Ph.D., served as Deputy Chairman and Chief Executive of Glaxo plc and Chairman and CEO of Alza Corporation. In addition, our Chief Operating Officer, Joseph S. Zakrzewski, served in various capacities over the past 17 years at Eli Lilly and Company, most recently as Vice President, Corporate Business Development. Many other members of our senior management team have also served in senior positions at leading pharmaceutical companies. Our Chief Financial Officer, Robert R. Ferguson III, also has significant public company experience, having served as Vice Chairman and CEO of Continental Airlines, as President, CEO and CFO of Continental Airlines Holdings, as well as Chairman and CEO of Midway Airlines.

 

70


Table of Contents

Our Strategy

 

Target the High Prescribing Primary Care, Cardiovascular and Specialist Physician Markets.     We believe the primary care and cardiovascular physician markets represent a highly attractive opportunity for us. Primary care and cardiovascular physicians represent only 34% of all prescribing physicians, yet they write approximately 68% of all prescriptions in the United States. We target our sales force promotional efforts to reach these physicians on a frequent basis. Our experience has shown that primary care and cardiovascular physicians respond well to direct pharmaceutical product promotion and education. Access to this market requires a relatively large sales force and significant investment. In addition, we target high prescribing specialist physicians through our cardiovascular specialty sales force, which provides additional marketing synergies among our various brands and an additional competitive advantage in seeking product opportunities.

 

Acquire, Develop and Market Novel Compounds in Mid- to Late-Stage Development.     To expand our owned product portfolio, we typically seek to acquire and develop product candidates in mid- to late-stage clinical development. This strategy seeks to minimize many of the risks associated with the early stage drug discovery process. These development opportunities typically originate with smaller pharmaceutical firms, biotechnology companies or international pharmaceutical companies having limited or no U.S. presence and that do not have the infrastructure necessary to take a drug through the FDA approval process or to market a product in the United States. For example, in August 2004, we acquired an exclusive license to develop, market and distribute Omacor in the United States, while it was in late-stage registration with the FDA. Omacor received FDA approval in November 2004 for the treatment of very high triglycerides (500 mg/dL and greater), and we expect to launch this product in late 2005.

 

Acquire Rights to Under-Promoted, Patent-Protected, Branded Pharmaceutical Products.     We seek to acquire rights to FDA-approved pharmaceutical products with well-established safety and efficacy profiles and annual sales potential of between $100 million and $500 million. Large pharmaceutical companies often view such products as having insufficient market potential to justify the time required and the investment necessary to promote these products. With our industry expertise, broad industry relationships and the capital from this offering, we expect to continue to have the ability to identify and act upon these acquisition opportunities. Once we acquire rights to a product, we endeavor to increase its sales by launching highly focused marketing campaigns that utilize our extensive sales force and marketing expertise.

 

Develop and Implement Life Cycle Management Strategies.     We implement life cycle management strategies for currently or previously marketed brands. These strategies typically involve seeking to expand the FDA-approved uses for our owned products, as well as develop line extensions that improve safety (such as fewer side effects), convenience (such as once daily dosing) or compliance (such as liquid formulations) to enhance therapeutic value. In the case of InnoPran XL, for example, we combined the active pharmaceutical ingredient, propranolol, with a proprietary drug release system licensed from Eurand to produce the first night-time dosed beta blocker. This life cycle development strategy enhanced the therapeutic value of propanolol by providing peak levels of the drug during the early morning hours, resulting in a new, patent protected product with three years of FDA-granted marketing exclusivity. We are currently evaluating life cycle management strategies for DynaCirc CR and Antara.

 

71


Table of Contents

Our Product Portfolio

 

We currently market five brands of cardiovascular products, four of which are primarily marketed to the high prescribing primary care and cardiovascular physician markets, while the Rythmol family of products is marketed to specialty cardiologists. In addition, we expect to launch Omacor in late 2005 and market it to primary care, cardiovascular and specialty physicians. We believe that our current focus on the cardiovascular market generates marketing synergies through increased sales force expertise and a high degree of overlap among the physicians we target. The following table summarizes our FDA-approved product portfolio:

 

Product Name


 

Approved Indication


 

Acquisition and/or Approval


  

Reliant Promotional
Launch Date


DynaCirc

DynaCirc CR

  High blood pressure (hypertension)   Licensed U.S. rights from Novartis in July 2000 and acquired these rights in March 2003    July 2000

Rythmol

Rythmol SR

  Irregular heart rhythms (arrhythmia)   Acquired U.S. rights from Abbott in December 2003    February 2004

InnoPran XL

  High blood pressure (hypertension)   Internally developed using a proprietary drug release system, the global rights to which were licensed from Eurand in January 2000; approved by FDA in March 2003    January 2004

Antara

  Cholesterol management (dyslipidemia)   Jointly developed with Ethypharm; licensed North American rights from Ethypharm in May 2001; approved by FDA in November 2004    February 2005

Omacor

  Very high triglyceride management (hypertriglyceridemia)   Acquired U.S. rights from Pronova in August 2004; approved by FDA in November 2004    Expected late 2005

Lescol

Lescol XL

  Cholesterol management (dyslipidemia)   Promotion agreement with Novartis commencing in November 2000; subsequently extended through December 2007    November 2000

 

DynaCirc and DynaCirc CR (isradipine)

 

Product Overview.     DynaCirc and DynaCirc CR (a controlled release, once daily formulation) contain isradipine, a dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker approved for the treatment of high blood pressure. Calcium channel blockers work by interrupting the movement of calcium into heart and blood vessel tissue, thereby reducing blood pressure. Isradipine has been proven to be an effective calcium channel blocker with a low incidence of side effects. DynaCirc CR, the product we actively promote, incorporates a patented drug delivery system that ensures accurate and consistent drug delivery over a 24-hour period. In addition, DynaCirc CR has been shown to reduce the risk of edema, or swelling of the legs and ankles, and is also well-tolerated in patients on multiple drug regimens.

 

In 2004, total U.S. sales of calcium channel blockers were approximately $4.5 billion, consistent with 2003 sales levels. The market leaders are Pfizer’s Norvasc (amlodipine) and AstraZeneca’s Plendil (felodipine). Total U.S. sales of Norvasc and Plendil in 2004 were approximately $2.4 billion and $216 million, respectively.

 

72


Table of Contents

In 2004, our net sales of the DynaCirc family of products were $56.3 million, representing a 42% increase over 2003. As a result of our promotional efforts, DynaCirc CR posted a 114% increase to $34.0 million in sales in 2004. Total U.S. prescriptions for DynaCirc CR grew 65% as compared to a 5% gain for Norvasc and 18% decline for Plendil in 2004 as compared to 2003.

 

Product Background.     DynaCirc was launched by Sandoz (a predecessor to Novartis) in 1991, but as a late market entrant with the relative disadvantage of twice daily dosing, its sales peaked in 1993 at $78.0 million. In 1996, DynaCirc CR was introduced as a once-a-day formulation. By 2000, net sales of the DynaCirc family of products had fallen to a combined total of $34.5 million, representing less than a 1% share of total prescriptions for the calcium channel blocker market. We believe that this decline was due primarily to the failure to manufacture and supply the product on a consistent basis causing periodic disruptions of trade and sample product, which resulted in a lack of promotional focus and support.

 

In July 2000, we acquired from Novartis an exclusive license to market, sell and distribute the DynaCirc family of products in the United States, with an option to purchase the brand. In March 2003, we completed the acquisition of the U.S. rights to DynaCirc and DynaCirc CR from Novartis. We now own all the NDAs and trademarks for, and sublicense the other intellectual property related to, DynaCirc CR. Other related intellectual property is licensed through Novartis. The composition of matter patent applicable to the DynaCirc products expired in August 2003. To date, no generic isradipine products have been approved by the FDA, but, we recently became aware that an ANDA was filed for isradipine in November 2004. DynaCirc CR has four formulation patents, three of which expire in October 2007 and one which expires in July 2008. We are currently in the early stages of formulating a line extension for the DynaCirc CR brand.

 

As discussed in “Business—Manufacturing,” we are in the process of transitioning the manufacture of DynaCirc CR from Novartis to Patheon Pharmaceuticals and Novartis Consumer Health. While Novartis is obligated to manufacture DynaCirc CR until the requirements under our supply agreement have been met, we expect Patheon and Novartis Consumer Health to manufacture DynaCirc CR going forward.

 

Product Differentiation.     DynaCirc CR has a number of favorable characteristics when compared to the market leading calcium channel blockers, Norvasc and Plendil. Two clinical studies in 2002, one with Norvasc published in The Journal of Clinical Hypertension and one with Plendil published in Congestive Heart Failure , established the superior efficacy of DynaCirc CR at 10 mg doses versus these two products. In those studies, patients who had been taking Norvasc or Plendil for a minimum of four to six months were given DynaCirc CR for six weeks and then returned to their original medications. These studies showed that:

 

  Ÿ   DynaCirc CR was more effective than Norvasc and Plendil in lowering systolic blood pressure; and

 

  Ÿ   Patients’ blood pressure returned to higher levels after returning to Norvasc and Plendil from DynaCirc CR.

 

DynaCirc CR was also observed to result in a reduced incidence of edema or swelling of the ankles and legs, consistent with the findings of a clinical study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology , which showed reduced incidence of edema with DynaCirc CR at 5 mg doses compared to Norvasc.

 

Rythmol and Rythmol SR (propafenone)

 

Product Overview.     Rythmol and Rythmol SR (a sustained release, twice daily formulation) contain propafenone, an anti-arrhythmic approved for the treatment of an irregular heart rhythm known as atrial fibrillation in patients without structural heart disease. In atrial fibrillation, abnormal electrical

 

73


Table of Contents

impulses cause spasms in the upper chambers of the heart that result in irregular and rapid beating of the heart. As a result, the heart pumps less efficiently, reducing blood flow to the body and to the heart muscle. Anti-arrhythmic drugs, with a local anesthetic effect, act as a stabilizing agent on the fibrillating membranes.

 

Unlike our other products, which are promoted to primary care and cardiovascular physicians generally, the Rythmol products are marketed to a small base of doctors, consisting mainly of the highest prescribing cardiologists and electro-physiologists. Our cardiovascular specialty sales force of approximately 110 sales professionals is promoting Rythmol SR in addition to our other products. We believe that our cardiovascular specialty sales force can effectively promote these products due to its expertise in promoting drugs that target cardiovascular disease. Rythmol SR is currently the only actively promoted drug in the anti-arrhythmic market.

 

In 2004, total U.S. sales of anti-arrhythmics were approximately $366 million, down 14% from 2003. The anti-arrhythmic market consists primarily of lower-priced generic drugs. Total prescriptions for anti-arrhythmic drugs grew 1% in 2004 compared to 2003.

 

In 2004, our net sales of the Rythmol family of products were $48.8 million, representing a 126% increase over net sales in the twelve months ended November 2003 prior to our acquisition of the brand. Total U.S. prescriptions for the Rythmol family of products decreased by 8.3% in 2004 compared to 2003. We launched Rythmol SR in February 2004 and recognized net sales of $26.1 million in 2004.

 

Product Background.     On December 3, 2003, we acquired the U.S. rights to the Rythmol family of products from Abbott for $93 million and entered into long term supply agreements with Abbott for the manufacture and supply of Rythmol and Rythmol SR. Rythmol is an anti-arrhythmic that has been marketed for over 12 years. Rythmol’s marketing exclusivity expired in November 2000. Rythmol SR, a sustained release formulation, was approved by the FDA in September 2003. We began promoting Rythmol SR in February 2004.

 

Rythmol SR has FDA-granted marketing exclusivity until September 2006 in the United States under the Hatch-Waxman Act and is protected by a formulation patent until October 2014.

 

Product Differentiation.     Rythmol SR is approved for the treatment of irregular heart rhythms in patients without structural heart disease. Rythmol SR provides greater convenience with twice daily dosing versus the three-times daily dosing of the original Rythmol. Repeated dosing with Rythmol SR leads to less fluctuation of blood levels versus the original Rythmol. According to the prescribing information for Rythmol SR, no liver function monitoring is required.

 

In 2003, Abbott completed the Rythmol SR Atrial Fibrillation Trial (RAFT) and European Rythmol SR Atrial Fibrillation Trial (ERAFT). The results of the RAFT and ERAFT studies, which are included in the product labeling for Rythmol SR, showed that Rythmol SR significantly increased the time to recurrence of irregular heart rhythms at all dosage levels studied.

 

In the RAFT study, the largest clinical evaluation of Rythmol SR, there were no reported incidences of proarrhythmia, a common side effect of anti-arrhythmics that is characterized by the more frequent occurrence of the existing irregular heart rhythm or the appearance of a new irregular heart rhythm that is as bad as or worse than the condition being treated, and which side effect is required to be included in the Rythmol SR label.

 

InnoPran XL (propranolol)

 

Product Overview.     InnoPran XL is an extended release once daily formulation of propranolol, a beta blocker approved for the treatment of high blood pressure. Beta blockers reduce heart rate and blood pressure by blocking the effects of adrenaline.

 

74


Table of Contents

In 2004, total U.S. sales of beta blockers were approximately $1.9 billion, a 20% increase over 2003 sales. The market leader is AstraZeneca’s Toprol XL (metoprolol). Total U.S. sales of Toprol XL in 2004 were approximately $1.2 billion. We began active promotion of InnoPran XL in January 2004 and reported net sales of $7.0 million in 2004.

 

Product Background.     Propranolol, the first FDA-approved beta blocker, was originally developed for the treatment of high blood pressure, angina and migraine headaches. Inderal LA, a long acting once-a-day version of propranolol, is dosed in the morning. We submitted the NDA for InnoPran XL to the FDA in November 2001. On March 12, 2003, we received FDA approval for InnoPran XL. Shipments of the product commenced in the second quarter of 2003. Largely due to our existing obligations under our co-promotion agreements, as discussed in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” we were unable to commit the sales force resources necessary to meaningfully launch InnoPran XL until January 2004.

 

InnoPran XL has FDA-granted marketing exclusivity in the United States under the Hatch-Waxman Act until March 2006 and is protected by a formulation patent until October 4, 2021. Additional patents are pending.

 

Product Differentiation.     InnoPran XL is the first and only beta blocker designed to provide 24-hour control of blood pressure and heart rate with additional protection in the early morning hours. We developed InnoPran XL as an extended release formulation that enables patients to take a single nightly dose of the drug. This formulation incorporates a proprietary drug release system that delivers the highest concentrations of the drug and results in maximum anti-hypertensive protection during the early morning period. The Sixth Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure from the National Institutes of Health published in November 1997 noted that a risk of heart attack and stroke exists during the early morning period due to abrupt increases in blood pressure after rising from overnight sleep.

 

Antara (fenofibrate)

 

Product Overview.     Antara is a once daily formulation of fenofibrate approved for use in combination with a diet restricted in saturated fat and cholesterol to reduce elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL or “bad” cholesterol), triglyceride and Apolipoprotein B (free floating fats in the blood) levels, and to increase high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL or “good” cholesterol) in adult patients with high cholesterol or an abnormal concentration of lipids in the blood. Fenofibrates work primarily to lower triglycerides and increase HDL cholesterol, which makes the drugs an attractive alternative for those patients whose LDL cholesterol is well controlled. Antara is approved and marketed in a 43 mg and 130 mg dose.

 

In 2004, total U.S. sales of fibrates were approximately $972 million, a 31% increase over 2003 sales. The market leader is Abbott’s Tricor (fenofibrate). According to IMS, total U.S. sales of Tricor in 2004 were approximately $854 million, up 37% from 2003. The remaining market for fibrates consists primarily of the branded and generic forms of gemfibrozil, which had U.S. sales of approximately $111 million in 2004. Sales of Antara for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 were $4.4 million, primarily resulting from the wholesaler and retailer inventory stocking process typically associated with a product launch.

 

Product Background.     We licensed the North American rights to Antara from Ethypharm in May 2001 and received FDA approval of our NDA in November 2004. In order to maintain the exclusivity of our rights, we must achieve minimum annual sales in the United States and Canada until February 2012 or pay amounts to Ethypharm to compensate for any shortfall. The license term expires in

 

75


Table of Contents

February 2020 and, absent notice of termination by either party, automatically renews for additional two year periods. Under the terms of the agreement, at our option, Ethypharm is obligated to either manufacture and deliver to us finished fenofibrate product or deliver bulk product to us for encapsulation and packaging. Ethypharm’s fenofibrate is protected through a formulation patent that expires in August 2007. As part of our life cycle management strategy, we have filed a utility patent for Antara. In addition, Ethypharm has filed two additional formulation patents for the product. If issued, we believe these patents may provide Antara with up to 20 years of additional patent protection. We also believe that these patents would be eligible for listing in the Orange Book. Additionally, we are evaluating clinical development strategies and possible acquisitions of line extensions for Antara.

 

In May 2005, Teva obtained final FDA approval to market a generic version of Abbott’s Tricor 160 mg tablet, which contains the same active pharmaceutical ingredient as Antara. In addition, three other companies have filed ANDAs seeking approval to manufacture generic versions of Abbott’s 160 mg Tricor tablet. The Teva product as well as the other generic products for which ANDAs have been filed are the subject of pending patent infringement actions, involving non-infringement, validity and/or enforceability of the Fournier Patents. We are also aware of two other companies who have filed 505(b)(2) applications with the FDA seeking approval to market 160 mg branded fenofibrate products. The FDA granted final approval in May 2005 for one of these branded products, which we expect to launch later this year, and the FDA granted tentative approval for the other product pending the earlier of the expiration of a 30 month stay imposed under Hatch-Waxman, to occur in March 2006, and a judgment of non-infringement or invalidity of the Fournier Patents.

 

Prior to receiving FDA approval, in June 2004, we filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware seeking a judicial determination that the manufacture, importation or sale of Antara would not infringe any valid claim of the Fournier Patents, which are licensed to Abbott. The complaint also seeks a determination that the Fournier Patents are unenforceable against us because of the inventors’ inequitable conduct in obtaining the patents in proceedings before the United States Patents and Trademark Office. In January 2005, Abbott and Fournier filed an answer to the complaint as well as a counterclaim alleging that Antara infringes two of the Fournier Patents. Additionally, Abbott and Fournier are continuing to prosecute a number of patents related to the Fournier Patents which, if issued, could also be included in their infringement counterclaim. The trial in this matter has been scheduled for August 2006. See “Business—Legal Proceedings.”

 

Product Differentiation.     Antara is the lowest therapeutic dose fenofibrate currently available with equivalent blood levels of the drug and efficacy equal to the market leader, Tricor. Antara is distributed in 130 mg and 43 mg formulations as compared to 145 mg and 48 mg formulations of Tricor. In clinical studies of patients with elevated triglyceride levels, Antara has proven to:

 

  Ÿ   reduce triglycerides on average by 36% versus a 1% increase with placebo;

 

  Ÿ   increase HDL cholesterol on average by 15% versus a 2% increase with placebo; and

 

  Ÿ   reduce LDL cholesterol on average by 20% versus a 7% decrease with placebo.

 

Omacor (omega-3 acid ethyl esters, predominantly EPA and DHA)

 

Product Overview.     Omacor is a highly purified and distilled formulation of the ethyl esters of a range of omega-3 acids, predominantly EPA and DHA, and approved by the FDA for the treatment of very high triglycerides (500 mg/dL and greater). According to the American Heart Association, evidence suggests that the consumption of EPA and DHA supplements significantly reduces the risk of death caused by cardiovascular disease. We believe that Omacor will be the only FDA-approved prescription omega-3 product available to physicians with demonstrated safety and efficacy.

 

76


Table of Contents

Based on data included in the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) expert panel on “Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III),” approximately 2.5% to 3.0% (5 to 6 million) of the adult U.S. population have levels of triglycerides of 500 mg/dL or higher. The same report estimates that 13% to 14% (25 to 27 million) of the adult U.S. population have levels of triglycerides greater than or equal to 200 mg/dL and less than 500 mg/dL.

 

Product Background.     Pronova developed Omacor through a patented manufacturing process yielding very pure extracts of EPA and DHA. In the United States, Abbott pursued the primary indication for elevated triglycerides pursuant to an agreement with Pronova, which was subsequently terminated. We entered into an exclusive license and supply agreement with Pronova in August 2004 for the U.S. rights to Omacor, which expires 15 years from the first commercial sale of the product. Omacor was approved by the FDA for the treatment of very high triglycerides (500 mg/dL and greater) in November 2004. Following the approval, the NDA was transferred to us. We also received a letter from the FDA citing the requirements that must be met for Omacor to be approved for the treatment of high triglycerides (from 200 mg/dL to 499 mg/dL). Omacor has previously been approved by relevant regulatory bodies and is actively marketed by others outside the United States, including Pfizer, SPA, Sigma Tau, Solvay and AstraZeneca.

 

We have entered into a long-term supply agreement with Pronova for the active pharmaceutical ingredients. In order to maintain the exclusivity of our rights, we must purchase minimum annual levels of active pharmaceutical ingredient following the first commercial sale of Omacor or pay amounts to Pronova to compensate for any shortfall. We have also entered into a manufacturing agreement with Cardinal to encapsulate and package the finished product, and we are currently validating the manufacturing process in anticipation of our planned commercial launch of Omacor in late 2005.

 

Omacor has FDA-granted marketing exclusivity in the United States under the Hatch-Waxman Act through November 2009 and is protected by method of use and formulation patents, the last of which expires in August 2014.

 

Product Differentiation.     As the only FDA-approved omega-3 product, Omacor has the following advantages over the omega-3 products available in the nutritional supplement category:

 

  Ÿ   the active pharmaceutical ingredient is manufactured under a patented process that yields extracts of omega-3 acid ethyl esters with a minimum of 90% purity levels and an absence of contaminants;

 

  Ÿ   Omacor has prescribing information with therapeutic claims supported by clinical data;

 

  Ÿ   the contents of an Omacor capsule are identified on the label and manufactured with consistent quantities and concentrations that are regulated and monitored by the FDA; and

 

  Ÿ   Omacor improves patient convenience by delivering more omega-3 acids in fewer capsules.

 

In the clinical studies of patients with elevated triglyceride levels, compared to placebo, Omacor has been proven to have the following favorable effects:

 

  Ÿ   reduce triglycerides up to 51.6%;

 

  Ÿ   reduce non-HDL cholesterol up to 10.2%;

 

  Ÿ   increase HDL (“good”) cholesterol up to 9.1%; and

 

  Ÿ   reduce very-low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (VLDL-C) up to 40.8%.

 

Utilization of Omacor for the treatment of very high triglyceride levels may result in elevations in LDL cholesterol in some individuals.

 

We are aware of multiple third-party clinical studies with Omacor and other omega-3 products that have been completed or are ongoing. These studies seek to identify additional

 

77


Table of Contents

indications and uses for the product. We do not control the design, administration or data analysis of these trials. In some of these trials we may not have access to the clinical results for use in seeking FDA approvals for the use of Omacor. As part of our life cycle management strategy for the brand, we will continue to evaluate the merits and utility of the data from these trials.

 

The Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell’Infarto miocardio (GISSI-Prevenzione) trial was completed in 1999. This 11,324 patient study demonstrated that Omacor reduced overall mortality by 20% and sudden death by 45% compared to the control group. This study and related analysis were published in the August 7, 1999 issue of Lancet and April 23, 2002 issue of Circulation . We believe this study is a major factor in the rapid growth of omega-3 product utilization. Despite the strong scientific credentials, it may not be possible to obtain an indication for secondary prevention of cardiac events based on this study alone. We believe that one or more of the clinical studies ongoing in Europe or that we may initiate could be the basis for a FDA filing for these indications.

 

According to an article published in the September 5, 2002 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine , substantial progress has been made with omega-3 nutritional supplements along with other modes of treatment, including ACE inhibitors and oral corticosteroids, in preventing IgA Nephropathy, a progressive kidney disease often resulting in the need for dialysis and kidney transplantation. According to the article, IgA Nephropathy may affect up to 1.3% of the population. Prior to our acquisition of the product, the FDA did not approve an NDA which had been filed seeking approval for this indication. We are evaluating the response from the FDA and exploring options for obtaining FDA approval for this indication.

 

Lescol and Lescol XL (fluvastatin)

 

Product Overview.     Lescol and Lescol XL, which contain fluvastatin, are members of the statin class of drugs approved for the treatment of high cholesterol. Statins are compounds that inhibit the liver enzyme HMG-CoA reductase, which is used in the body’s manufacture of cholesterol, and are effective in the reduction of cholesterol levels. Statins reduce levels of LDL cholesterol and triglycerides and increase levels of HDL cholesterol. Fluvastatin is a synthetic statin that has favorable safety and side-effect profiles.

 

In 2004, total U.S. sales of statins were approximately $15.7 billion, a 13.0% increase over 2003 sales. The market leaders are Pfizer’s Lipitor (atorvastatin) and Merck’s Zocor (simvastatin). U.S. sales of Lipitor and Zocor in 2004 were approximately $7.7 billion and $4.6 billion, respectively. The statin market became increasingly competitive as a result of the publication of clinical results demonstrating the benefits of higher potency statins, as well as the significant promotion spending by Pfizer (in support of the statin market leader, Lipitor), AstraZeneca (in support of Crestor) and Merck/Schering-Plough (in support of Vytorin).

 

In 2004, U.S. net sales of the Lescol family as publicly reported by Novartis were $284.0 million, a 9% decrease over 2003 sales. We earned promotion revenues attributed to the Lescol brand of $105.1 million in 2004, a decrease of 13% compared to 2003. Since its launch in 2001, we have focused our promotional efforts on Lescol XL because of its significant increase in efficacy versus the original Lescol. Total prescriptions for Lescol XL grew by only 2% in 2004 compared to 2003 due primarily to increased competition.

 

Product Background.     In November 2000, we acquired an exclusive license (other than with respect to Novartis) from Novartis to promote and market Lescol and Lescol XL in the United States. Under this agreement, we are entitled to receive a substantial percentage of Lescol and Lescol XL sales above certain contractually specified minimum sales levels through 2005. We have exceeded

 

78


Table of Contents

these minimum sales levels during each of the last four years. In 2006 and 2007, we are entitled to receive residual payments equal to 20% and 10% of Novartis’ net sales as reported to us, respectively.

 

In April 2005, we and Novartis extended the term of our promotion agreement with respect to the Lescol brand of products through December 31, 2007. Under the terms of the agreement, we will continue to promote the Lescol brand of products with our primary care and cardiovascular specialty sales forces. We will be compensated for our sales, marketing and promotional efforts at agreed levels. Under the agreement, beginning in January 2006, Novartis will be permitted to develop and independently promote products containing fluvastatin. In addition, both parties have the right to terminate the extended promotion agreement without cause upon 90 days advanced written notice with effect beginning as of January 1, 2006.

 

Patent exclusivity for Lescol expires in December 2011.

 

Product Differentiation.     The market research we conducted just prior to the launch of Lescol XL indicated that approximately two-thirds of cholesterol management prescriptions are written for patients requiring 30% to 40% reductions in LDL cholesterol. The FDA-approved product labeling for the once daily tablet formulation of Lescol XL shows that it reduces LDL cholesterol by a median of 35% to 38% which is comparable to the twice daily Lescol 40mg tablet formulation required to be taken twice a day. In addition to its convenient once daily dosing, Lescol XL has a well characterized safety and tolerability profile with low potential for drug to drug interaction and a low risk of muscle pain.

 

In 2002, Novartis completed the Lescol Intervention Prevention Study (LIPS). It was subsequently published in the June 26, 2002 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). This was the first prospective outcomes study of high-risk post-angioplasty patients. In the LIPS study, patients treated with Lescol as compared with placebo exhibited:

 

  Ÿ   a 22% reduction in the risk of recurrent major adverse cardiac events (MACE) post angioplasty;

 

  Ÿ   a 34% reduction in risk for MACE for patients with multi-vessel disease; and

 

  Ÿ   a 47% reduction in risk for MACE for patients with diabetes.

 

Based upon the LIPS results, the FDA approved in May 2003 the use of Lescol and Lescol XL in patients with coronary heart disease for secondary prevention of cardiovascular events.

 

Axid and Axid Oral Solution (nizatidine)

 

In October 2000, we acquired from Lilly rights to Axid (nizatidine) for the treatment of acid reflux disease. In April 2002, Axid’s patent protection expired, and in July 2002, the first generic version of nizatidine entered the market. As a result, we no longer actively market this product. We also internally developed Axid OS, which received FDA approval in July 2004. Since Axid OS is primarily prescribed by pediatricians, which are outside our target audience, we intend to divest the product in 2005.

 

79


Table of Contents

Product Development Projects

 

In addition to promoting our currently marketed products, we are pursuing several product development projects. To develop our product candidates, we use in-house expertise as well as third-party proprietary drug delivery systems, formulation technologies and clinical patient recruitment and monitoring services. Our research and development expenses were $37.7 million in 2004 and $6.8 million for the quarter ended March 31, 2005. The following table summarizes projects that we have in various stages of development and that we expect will serve as the basis for our future marketed products:

 

Projects


 

Potential Indication


 

Status


Antara label expansion

  Cholesterol management in the pre-diabetic population  

Ÿ  Supplemental NDA filed with the FDA in December 2004

Rythmol observational registry

  No additional indication being sought  

Ÿ  Initiated physician and patient enrollment in second quarter of 2005

Omacor label expansion/drug interaction

  Co-therapy with a statin  

Ÿ  Drug interaction studies initiated in first quarter 2005

Omacor label expansion/drug interaction

  Co-therapy with a fenofibrate  

Ÿ  Drug interaction studies to begin in the second half of 2005

Omacor-statin fixed dose combination

  Reduction of non-HDL cholesterol and triglycerides  

Ÿ  Pre-clinical—formulation development underway

Omacor-fenofibrate fixed dose combination

  Reduction of high triglycerides  

Ÿ  Pre-clinical—formulation development underway

DynaCirc CR reformulation

  Hypertension  

Ÿ  Pre-clinical—formulation development underway

Propranolol LA

  Generic product for high blood pressure, angina, and migraines  

Ÿ  Bioequivalency trials underway

RP-606

  Shingles and the subsequent pain (post-herpetic neuralgia)  

Ÿ  Evaluating clinical development strategies and other alternatives

 

Antara Label Expansion

 

In 2004, we completed a clinical trial entitled “Triglyceride Reduction in Metabolic Syndrome” (TRIMS Study) patients. According to NCEP guidelines, Metabolic Syndrome is defined as a collection of frequently associated cardiovascular risk factors that tend to aggregate in selected patient populations that increase coronary and cardiovascular mortality. The TRIMS Study looked at the effect, if any, of food on the efficacy of Antara. The data from the TRIMS Study is scheduled to be presented in June 2005 at the meeting of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and published in the June issue of Clinical Therapeutics . In December 2004, we filed a Supplemental NDA with the FDA seeking revisions to the Antara label incorporating the results of the TRIMS Study. The statutory deadline for FDA action on the Supplemental NDA is October 23, 2005.

 

Rythmol Observational Registry

 

In the second quarter of 2005, we initiated a physician education program and observational registry for patients with atrial fibrillation known as the AFFECTS Registry. We anticipate that approximately 500 physicians will participate in the program with a target enrollment of 5,000 patients. The program is expected to continue through late 2006.

 

80


Table of Contents

Omacor Related Projects

 

We believe that Omacor is a platform product. Clinical studies published in the scientific literature demonstrate that Omacor has potential beyond hypertriglyceridemia, creating a tangible basis for new indications and line extensions in the future. Additionally, we believe the development of combination products will expand the addressable market for this brand.

 

Omacor Label Expansion Projects

 

Ÿ      Co-therapy with a statin:     In November 2004, concurrent with the FDA approval of Omacor for treatment of very high triglyceride levels of 500 mg/dL and greater, the FDA issued a letter citing the requirements that must be met for Omacor to be approved for the treatment of patients with triglyceride levels from 200 mg/dL to 499 mg/dL. According to the NCEP guidelines, the treatment of LDL cholesterol and non-HDL cholesterol are the primary treatment objectives in this patient group. In the correspondence with the FDA, the FDA indicated that these patients have a high likelihood of being treated with a statin. The FDA requested additional data regarding the safety and efficacy of the combined use of Omacor and a statin. Although Omacor when taken on its own reduced triglyceride levels in this patient group, a 25% mean reduction as compared to baseline, the NDA originally submitted to the FDA only contained the data from one relatively small study of Omacor used together with a statin. We have initiated post approval clinical studies to pursue a label expansion for this treatment option.

 

Ÿ      Co-therapy with a fenofibrate:     For patients with high triglycerides, the use of a fenofibrate on a stand-alone basis may not provide the necessary efficacy to reach the treatment goal. We believe that a treatment program that includes Omacor taken in combination with a fenofibrate may be appropriate. We have developed a clinical program and intend to commence clinical trials in the second half of 2005 to pursue a label expansion for this treatment option. We are also exploring the effects of Omacor-fenofibrate co-therapy on other aspects of cholesterol management.

 

Omacor Combination Product Projects

 

Ÿ      Omacor-statin fixed dose combination:     We believe a portion of the patients currently prescribed for a statin to reduce their LDL cholesterol are not able to reduce their triglyceride levels further by adding a fibrate to their regimen due to the elevated risks of side effects. We believe that an Omacor-statin combination product may reduce the risk of side effects, while offering additional efficacy, dosing convenience and reduced out-of-pocket costs. As a result, we are currently developing an Omacor-statin fixed dose formulation.

 

Ÿ      Omacor-fenofibrate fixed dose combination:     In patients with high levels of triglycerides, the typical reduction of these levels by fibrates may not be enough to achieve the desired goals. We believe that an Omacor-fenofibrate fixed dose combination product may offer additional efficacy, dosing convenience and reduced out-of-pocket costs to these patients compared to taking each of these products on their own. As a result, we are currently developing an Omacor-fenofibrate fixed dose formulation.

 

DynaCirc CR Reformulation

 

As part of our life cycle management strategy for the DynaCirc CR brand, we are currently developing an improved controlled release isradipine formulation that would also allow for a more reliable manufacturing process that could be less expensive to produce. We are exploring the possibility of a broader range of available dosage strengths (6 mg, 12 mg and 18 mg), while remaining within the approved dosage range for controlled release isradipine of 5 mg to 20 mg per day.

 

81


Table of Contents

If we are successful in developing the new formulation, demonstrating clinical efficacy and receiving FDA approval for this new formulation, we would receive three years of Hatch-Waxman marketing exclusivity. We are also exploring the potential for additional indications for the new formulation, such as chronic stable angina. We filed a provisional patent application in March 2005 covering the formulation and method of administration for this new formulation of DynaCirc CR.

 

Propranolol LA

 

While formulating InnoPran XL in 2000, an extended release formulation of propranolol, we began developing a generic equivalent of the branded, off-patent Inderal LA, a long-acting form of propranolol. Inderal LA, marketed by Wyeth, is a long-acting beta blocker, approved for the treatment of high blood pressure, angina and migraines.

 

We are continuing to develop a formulation of the generic equivalent to Inderal LA and expect to begin clinical trials to demonstrate bioequivalency. We expect to complete these clinical trials in 2006. If successful, we intend to file an ANDA seeking approval of this product. If approved by the FDA, we believe that, upon introduction, Propranolol LA would likely be the only generic form of Inderal LA that could be directly substituted at the pharmacy for prescriptions of Inderal LA.

 

While this product does not fit with our stated focus of developing and promoting branded prescription pharmaceuticals, U.S. sales of Inderal LA in 2004 were in excess of $220 million, and we believe this market represents a unique opportunity to generate cash flow.

 

RP-606

 

In February 2002, we entered into a license agreement with Medivir AB, to acquire the rights to develop, market and distribute RP-606, then known as MIV-606, in the United States and Canada. RP-606, a valomaciclovir stearate, is a broad spectrum, oral antiviral for the treatment of herpes zoster, commonly called shingles, and for the reduction of pain associated with shingles. The FDA has proposed that additional Phase II clinical trials should be performed before Phase III clinical trials may commence. Reliant and Medivir are currently investigating whether the request for additional Phase II clinical trials could be satisfied by a combined Phase II/III clinical trial. If Phase III clinical trials are commenced, we are required to finance them pursuant to the terms of our agreement with Medivir AB. We are currently in the process of evaluating our clinical development strategy and other strategic alternatives with respect to this compound.

 

Sales & Marketing

 

We have established a sales force consisting of nearly 1,000 full-time sales professionals, including approximately 90 sales force managers. We have organized our sales force into four groups to manage the national reach of our marketing and promotion efforts and to maximize calling frequency. The first and largest group, consisting of approximately 390 sales professionals, targets primary care and cardiovascular physicians on a national basis. The second group, consisting of approximately 380 sales professionals, increases the frequency of contact with high prescribing primary care and cardiovascular physicians that have already been called on by the first sales group. The third group, consisting of approximately 110 sales professionals, calls on specialty cardiologists, such as electrophysiologists and other high prescribers of our products. The fourth group consists of approximately 20 sales professionals that focus exclusively on managed-care, government and pharmaceutical benefit management organizations.

 

A recent independent survey conducted by Verispan entitled “Sales Force Structures and Strategies: Ranking Tables Study: 2004-2005” asked 7,250 doctors to rate the effectiveness of prescription pharmaceutical sales forces based upon the quality of their presentations and the physician’s overall familiarity with the sales representative. Sixty companies, including the largest pharmaceutical firms in the world, were mentioned by the physicians surveyed and included in the

 

82


Table of Contents

rankings. As noted in the report, we ranked 33 rd overall in sales force quality and familiarity among all physicians surveyed; 30 th among general practitioner and family medicine physicians, our largest target audience; and 17 th among cardiologists, our current specialist focus.

 

Compared to the specialty pharmaceutical companies that we consider our peers, we ranked second overall in sales force quality and familiarity among general practitioner and family medicine physicians and second among cardiologists. The identified peer group included Allergan, Andrx, Biovail, Elan, First Horizon, Forest Laboratories, Ivax, King Pharmaceuticals, Kos Pharmaceuticals, Sepracor, Shire Pharmaceuticals, and Watson Labs.

 

We have established a fully-integrated marketing strategy and sales support department consisting of over 50 professionals responsible for brand management, market research and sales operations. Our marketing strategy team develops and tests the brand-specific positioning messages that demonstrate the safety and efficacy advantages of our products and identifies and targets the high prescribing universe of primary care, cardiovascular and specialist physicians. Our sales operations group provides training, promotional material production, logistical support and management development for our sales force.

 

We also use third-party vendors, such as advertising agencies, market research firms and suppliers of marketing and other sales support related services.

 

Medical and Scientific Affairs Department

 

We have a Medical and Scientific Affairs Department consisting of approximately 20 professionals, which provides scientific and medical information regarding our products and related medical issues to the health care community. This information is communicated through a broad variety of channels in three functional areas, consisting of Medical Information, Medical Education and Medical Science Liason. The Medical Information group addresses unsolicited scientific and medical inquiries from physicians and other health care professionals. The Medical Education group educates physicians and other health care professionals regarding our products and related scientific and medical issues. The Medical Science Liason Group interacts with key opinion leaders in cardiovascular medicine and key decision makers in managed care.

 

Product Acquisition Model

 

We are focused on acquiring rights to branded pharmaceutical products and mid- to late-stage clinical development candidates. We do not conduct basic research for the creation or discovery of novel chemicals with the potential for development as new drug therapies. Instead, we replace the traditional drug research process with a drug search process. We typically focus on products that are either in the process of gaining FDA approval or are already FDA-approved.

 

We believe that our strong presence and track record in the primary care, cardiovascular and specialty physician markets, coupled with a national sales force, uniquely position us as an attractive partner for large- and mid-sized pharmaceutical companies, as well as biotech or international companies that lack U.S. marketing presence and expertise. We believe that we are becoming a logical business partner for many in the pharmaceutical and biotech industries because:

 

  Ÿ   consolidation within the pharmaceutical industry has caused large, multi-national pharmaceutical companies to focus on “blockbuster” products, resulting in smaller, under-promoted products becoming available for partnering, both at the commercial and developmental level; and

 

  Ÿ   biotechnology companies are often unable to afford the high cost of marketing their own products after conducting costly clinical trials and therefore seek to partner these products, and the lack of presence in and knowledge of the U.S. market leads international pharmaceutical companies to partner their products in lieu of spending the necessary capital.

 

83


Table of Contents

Our business development group has successfully negotiated for the rights to four marketed brands, two promotion agreements and three late-stage clinical development compounds. We are currently evaluating multiple opportunities across several therapeutic categories.

 

Competition

 

The pharmaceutical industry is highly competitive and characterized by a number of established, large pharmaceutical companies, as well as smaller emerging companies. Our products compete with a number of products manufactured and marketed by major pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies and manufacturers of generic drugs. Some of these companies have financial resources, marketing capabilities and experience in obtaining regulatory approvals for products, product-line acquisitions and market share substantially greater than ours. Our products may also compete with new products currently under development by others, as well as alternate therapies during the period of patent protection and thereafter from generic equivalents. We believe that competition in product sales is based on, among other things, product safety, efficacy, reliability, availability and price. For a discussion of specific products that compete with our products, we refer you to the product descriptions included in “Business” above.

 

In addition, the marketing of pharmaceutical products is increasingly affected by the growing role of managed care organizations and pharmaceutical benefit management companies in the provision of health services. Such organizations negotiate with pharmaceutical companies for highly competitive prices for pharmaceutical products in equivalent therapeutic categories, including certain of our marketed products. Failure to be included or to have a preferred position in a managed care organization’s drug formulary could result in decreased prescriptions of our products.

 

We also compete with other specialty pharmaceutical companies for new product acquisitions and licensing opportunities. Some of these competitors include Forest Laboratories, Shire Pharmaceuticals, Kos Pharmaceuticals, King Pharmaceuticals and First Horizon.

 

Patents and Proprietary Rights

 

We actively seek, when appropriate and available, protection for our products and proprietary information by means of domestic, and where applicable, foreign, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, copyrights and contractual arrangements. Patent protection in the pharmaceutical field, however, can involve complex legal and factual issues. Moreover, broad patent protection for new formulations or new methods of use of existing chemical entities is sometimes difficult to obtain, primarily because the active ingredient and many of the formulation techniques have been public for some time. Consequently, some patents claiming new formulations or new methods of use for old drugs may not provide meaningful protection against competition. Nevertheless, we intend to seek patent protection when appropriate and available and otherwise to rely on regulatory-related exclusivity and trade secret law to protect certain of our products, technologies and other scientific information. There can be no assurance, however, that any steps taken to protect such proprietary information will be effective.

 

Existing Patents and Patent Applications, Trademarks and Trademark Applications

 

In the United States, we own or have licensed rights to 27 issued patents and 22 pending applications. We also own or have licensed rights to 14 registered U.S. trademarks and 11 pending trademark applications.

 

84


Table of Contents

In general, the U.S. patents and patent applications owned by or licensed to us are directed to the formulation of the products as well as the drug delivery technologies incorporated in the products. Patent protection is no longer available for the chemical entities that comprise the active ingredients in DynaCirc, Rythmol, Antara, InnoPran XL, Axid and Omacor. The active pharmaceutical ingredients in each of these products, with the exception of DynaCirc, are all currently sold in generic formulations, other branded pharmaceutical products or in the case of Omacor, as nutritional supplements. The following table sets forth each of the material patents issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for each of our products that we actively promote:

 

Product


 

U.S. Patent


 

Expiration Date


DynaCirc CR

 

4816263

4946687

4950486

5030456

 

October 2, 2007

October 2, 2007

October 2, 2007

July 9, 2008

Rythmol SR

  5681588   October 28, 2014

InnoPran XL

  6500454   October 4, 2021

Antara

  4800079   August 10, 2007

Omacor

 

5502077

5656667

5698594

 

March 26, 2013

August 12, 2014

August 4, 2009

 

Protection of Intellectual Property

 

Because the patent positions of pharmaceutical companies are highly uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions, the patents we own and license, or any future patents we may own or license, may not prevent other companies from developing similar or therapeutically equivalent products or ensure that others will not be issued patents that may prevent the sale of our products or require licensing and the payment of significant fees or royalties. Furthermore, to the extent that any of our future products or methods are not patentable, infringe upon the patents of third parties, or in the event our patents or future patents fail to give us an exclusive position in the subject matter claimed by those patents, our business could be adversely affected. We may be unable to avoid infringement of third-party patents and may have to obtain a license, defend an infringement action, or challenge the validity of the patents in court. A license may be unavailable on terms and conditions acceptable to us, if at all. Patent litigation is costly and time consuming, and we may be unable to prevail in any such patent litigation or devote sufficient resources to even pursue such litigation. If we do not obtain a license under such patents, are found liable for infringement, or are not able to have such patents declared invalid, we may be liable for significant money damages, encounter significant delays in bringing products to market, or be precluded from participating in the manufacture, use, or sale of products or methods of treatment requiring such licenses.

 

We also rely on trade secrets and other unpatented proprietary information in our product development activities. To the extent we maintain a competitive technological position by relying on trade secrets and unpatented know-how, such competitive technological position may be compromised if others independently develop the same or similar technologies. We seek to protect our trade secrets and proprietary knowledge in part through confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, advisors and collaborators. Nevertheless, these agreements may not effectively prevent disclosure of our confidential information and may not provide us with an adequate remedy in the event of unauthorized disclosure of such information. If our employees, consultants, advisors, or collaborative partners develop inventions or processes independently that may be applicable to our products under development, disputes may arise about ownership or proprietary rights to those inventions and processes. Such inventions and processes will not necessarily become our property, but may remain

 

85


Table of Contents

the property of those persons or their employers. Protracted and costly litigation could be necessary to enforce and determine the scope of our proprietary rights. Failure to obtain or maintain patent and trade secret protection, for any reason, could have a material adverse effect on our business.

 

We engage in collaborations, sponsored research agreements, and other arrangements with academic researchers and institutions that have received and may receive funding from U.S. government agencies. As a result of these arrangements, the U.S. government or other third parties may have rights in inventions developed during the course of the performance of such collaborations and agreements as required by law or such agreements. Several legislative bills affecting patent rights have been introduced in the U.S. Congress. These bills address various aspects of patent law, including publication, patent term, re-examination of subject matter, and enforceability. It is not certain whether any of these bills will be enacted into law or what form such new laws may take. Accordingly, the effect of such potential legislative changes on our intellectual property estate is uncertain.

 

Manufacturing

 

Third parties manufacture all of our products, and we do not have manufacturing facilities or personnel to independently manufacture our products or active pharmaceutical ingredients. The following is a description of our manufacturing and supply arrangements for our owned products that we actively promote:

 

  Ÿ   DynaCirc CR :     We currently obtain DynaCirc CR from Novartis pursuant to a supply agreement, which is scheduled to expire upon the earlier of March 2006 and the fulfillment by Novartis of its contractual obligations to supply specified quantities under our supply agreement. We are in the process of transitioning the manufacturing of DynaCirc CR from Novartis to Patheon and Novartis Consumer Health. To that end, in March 2004, we signed a five year supply and manufacturing agreement with Novartis Consumer Health to granulate the active pharmaceutical ingredient, isradipine, and to package the bulk product. In addition, in April 2004, we entered into a five year manufacturing services agreement with Patheon to press the granulated isradipine into tablets. Novartis Consumer Health is currently the FDA-approved manufacturer. The FDA approved Patheon to manufacture the 5 mg dosage form of DynaCirc CR in February 2005, which Patheon is currently providing. The FDA approved Patheon to manufacture the 10 mg dosage form of DynaCirc CR in April 2005. While Novartis will continue to manufacture DynaCirc CR until the requirements under the supply agreement have been met, we expect Patheon and Novartis Consumer Health to manufacture DynaCirc CR going forward.

 

  Ÿ   Rythmol SR :     Pursuant to a manufacturing agreement, Abbott GmbH & Co. KG manufactures our Rythmol SR product. This agreement is scheduled to expire in December 2008, with an option to extend the agreement for up to four additional years at our discretion.

 

  Ÿ   InnoPran XL :     Eurand manufactures InnoPran XL pursuant to the terms of a development, license and supply agreement, which expires in May 2013.

 

  Ÿ   Antara :     Pursuant to a development, license and supply agreement, Ethypharm manufactures our Antara product. This agreement expires in February 2020.

 

  Ÿ   Omacor :     We utilize Cardinal Health to encapsulate and package Omacor, the raw materials for which are supplied by Pronova pursuant to a 15 year supply agreement. Our manufacturing agreement with Cardinal Health expires fifteen years after our first commercial sale of the product in the United States.

 

Except for any contractual rights and remedies that we may have against our manufacturers, we have no control over the availability of our products or the quality of the products supplied to us. We rely solely on the manufacturers listed above to manufacture our actively promoted products and we do not have alternative manufacturing sources for any of such products. We may not be able to locate alternative manufacturers on commercially acceptable terms in the event of a manufacturing

 

86


Table of Contents

interruption or termination of an existing manufacturing agreement. In addition, a change in manufacturer requires formal approval by the FDA before the new manufacturer may produce commercial supplies of our products. An interruption in the supply of our products will adversely affect, and has from time to time adversely affected, our ability to generate revenue and will adversely affect our ability to proceed with clinical trials of products we are developing.

 

Government Regulation and Patent Law

 

As a pharmaceutical company, our activities are governed by two principal areas of the law in the United States: patent law and the laws, rules and regulations promulgated and administered by the FDA. Among the laws administered by the FDA, two statutes, the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, which we refer to as the FDC Act, and the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, are most important to us and our activities. The FDC Act and its implementing regulations set forth, among other things, the procedures and requirements for the clinical development, manufacture, quality control, safety, effectiveness, labeling, storage, record keeping, approval, advertising and promotion of our drug products. The Hatch-Waxman Act amended the FDC Act and is intended to promote the development of new drugs, including both novel drugs and generic equivalents to branded drugs. The Hatch-Waxman Act also promotes the development of new usages of existing drugs, as well as the procedures we are required to follow to gain approval for new formulations of existing drugs.

 

Both the Hatch-Waxman Act as well as the body of patent law may provide us and other pharmaceutical companies with certain legal and regulatory protections from competition. In the case of the Hatch-Waxman Act, this protection comes in the form of FDA-granted marketing exclusivity, which is a period of time during which the FDA prohibits others from, among other things, manufacturing and marketing a drug for which we have gained FDA approval to treat a particular disease. The FDA also grants marketing exclusivity when a pharmaceutical company develops and gains approval for a novel compound, or new chemical entity, which is a drug that has not previously been approved by the FDA. Pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, you are entitled to receive five years of marketing exclusivity upon first approval of a New Chemical Entity for a drug in which neither the active ingredient nor any salt or ester of the drug has previously been approved as a new drug (New Chemical Entity) and three years of marketing exclusivity for any new dosage form or indication of a previously approved drug where the approval is based on new clinical data. In the case of patent law, this protection comes in the form of a legally defined period of time during which others may not infringe upon our intellectual property through, for example, the copying and subsequent sale of products for which we have been granted patents by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

 

The following table describes when our FDA-marketing exclusivity expires under the Hatch-Waxman Act for each of our products which are owned or licensed by us:

 

Product


     Hatch-Waxman Act
Exclusivity
Expiration Date


DynaCirc CR

    

Rythmol SR

     September 2006

InnoPran XL

     March 2006

Antara

    

Omacor

     November 2009

Axid OS

     May 2006

 

Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act

 

Under the FDC Act, all new and generic drugs are subject to extensive pre- and post-market regulation by the FDA, including regulations that govern the testing, manufacturing, safety, efficacy, labeling, storage, record keeping, advertising and promotion of such products. FDA approval is

 

87


Table of Contents

required before any new drug or dosage form, including a generic equivalent of a previously approved drug, can be marketed in the United States. There are three types of applications that we can submit to the FDA in order to gain approval for our products. The type of application that we file will depend on the compound for which we are seeking approval, whether it has previously received approval from the FDA, whether it has any remaining patent protection, the extent to which we have conducted our own safety and efficacy trials and the disease indications for which we are seeking approval. All applications for FDA approval must contain, among other things, information relating to pharmaceutical formulation, stability, manufacturing, processing, packaging, labeling, and quality control.

 

New Drug Applications

 

The FDA must approve a new drug application, or NDA, before a new drug that is not equivalent to a previously approved drug may be marketed in the United States. NDAs require extensive studies and submission of a large amount of data by the applicant.

 

The process of obtaining approval of an NDA principally involves the following steps:

 

  Ÿ   Completion of extensive pre-clinical toxicology and pharmacology studies performed in compliance with FDA’s current Good Laboratory Practice, or cGLP, regulations. Pre-clinical studies generally include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry and formulation, as well as toxicological and pharmacological animal studies, to assess the quality and safety of the new product. These studies provide the basis for the design of the human clinical trials.

 

  Ÿ   Submission to the FDA of an Investigational New Drug, or IND, application, which must become effective before human clinical trials can commence. Once the pre-clinical studies are completed, the applicant submits the results (including the chemistry, manufacturing and control information) along with pharmacology and toxicology data to support its proposed clinical study design, to the FDA as a part of an IND. The FDA must review the IND prior to the commencement of human clinical trials. Unless the FDA raises concerns (such as concerns that human research subjects will be exposed to unreasonable risks), the IND will become effective 30 days following its receipt by the FDA.

 

  Ÿ   Performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials to establish the safety and effectiveness of the product for each proposed indication. Such trials are typically conducted in three overlapping studies, which may overlap:

 

Phase I :

     Studies are initially conducted in a limited population to test the product candidate for safety, dose tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution and excretion in healthy humans or, on occasion, in patients, such as cancer patients.

Phase II:

     Studies are generally conducted in a limited patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, to determine the efficacy of the product for specific targeted indications and to determine dose tolerance and optimal dosage.

Phase III:

     These are commonly referred to as pivotal studies. When Phase II evaluations demonstrate that a dose range of the product is effective and has an acceptable safety profile, Phase III trials are undertaken in large patient populations to further evaluate dosage, to provide substantial evidence of clinical efficacy and to further test for safety in an expanded and diverse patient population at multiple, geographically-dispersed clinical trial sites.

 

  Ÿ   Submission of an NDA to the FDA;

 

  Ÿ   Satisfactory completion of an FDA preapproval inspection of the manufacturing facilities at which the product is produced to assess compliance with cGMP regulations; and

 

  Ÿ   FDA review and approval of the NDA prior to any commercial sale or shipment of the product.

 

88


Table of Contents

The conduct of the clinical trials is subject to extensive regulation, including compliance with good clinical practice, or GCP, regulations, obtaining informed patient consent, sponsor monitoring and auditing of the clinical, laboratory and product manufacturing sites, and review and approval of each study by an independent Institutional Review Board, or IRB, for each medical center proposing to conduct the clinical trial. The FDA, the IRB, or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk.

 

Once the FDA accepts an NDA for filing, by law the FDA has 180 days to review the application and respond to the applicant. The review process is often significantly extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification. The FDA may deny approval of an NDA if the applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied, or it may require additional clinical data and/or an additional pivotal Phase III clinical trial. Even if such data are submitted, the FDA may ultimately decide that the NDA does not satisfy the criteria for approval. Data from clinical trials are not always conclusive and FDA may interpret data differently than we or our collaborators interpret data. Once issued, the FDA may withdraw product approval if ongoing regulatory requirements are not met or if safety problems occur after the product reaches the market. In some cases, the FDA may condition approval of an NDA on the completion, within a specified time period, of additional clinical studies referred to as Phase IV clinical studies. The FDA may require such studies, also called post-marketing studies, to obtain additional safety and efficacy data, to detect potential new uses for or abuses of a drug, or to determine effectiveness for the approved indications under conditions of widespread usage. Drugs may be marketed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. Further, if there are any modifications to the drug, including changes in indications, labeling, or manufacturing processes or facilities, we may be required to submit and obtain FDA approval of a new or supplemental NDA, which may require us to develop additional data or conduct additional preclinical studies and clinical trials.

 

Section 505(b)(2) New Drug Applications

 

Another, less-burdensome, form of an NDA is the so-called “505(b)(2) NDA”, which applicants submit pursuant to Section 505(b)(2) of the FDC Act. A Section 505(b)(2) NDA presents an alternate path to FDA approval of modifications to formulations of products previously approved by the FDA. Section 505(b)(2) was enacted as part of the Hatch-Waxman Act and permits the filing of an NDA where at least some of the information required for approval comes from studies not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference. The 505(b)(2) NDA is similar to a full NDA, except that, under conditions prescribed by the FDA, it may be supported in whole or in part by one or more animal and human study investigations in the originator NDA or those published in scientific literature in lieu of the applicant’s clinical trials. We filed with the FDA, and subsequently gained approval for, a 505(b)(2) NDA covering InnoPran XL, which is a new formulation of a previously approved compound (propranolol). We have also filed and received FDA approval for our NDA for Antara, which was filed pursuant to Section 505(b)(2). We intend to submit this type of NDA application to market potential product line extensions or new uses of already-approved products that are manufactured by other pharmaceutical companies.

 

To the extent that a Section 505(b)(2) NDA relies on studies conducted for a previously approved drug product, the applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the approved product in the Orange Book. Specifically, the applicant must certify that (1) the required patent information has not been filed; (2) the listed patent has expired; (3) the listed patent has not expired, but will expire on a particular date and approval is sought after patent expiration; or (4) the listed patent is invalid, unenforceable or will not be infringed by the new product. A certification that the new product will not infringe the already approved product’s listed patents or that such patents are invalid is known as a Paragraph IV certification. If the applicant does not challenge the listed patents, the Section 505(b)(2) application will not be approved until all the listed patents claiming the referenced

 

89


Table of Contents

product have expired. The Section 505(b)(2) application also will not be approved until any non-patent exclusivity, such as exclusivity for obtaining approval of a new chemical entity, listed in the Orange Book for the referenced product, has expired.

 

If the applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the NDA and patent holders once the NDA has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA and patent holders may then initiate a legal challenge to the Paragraph IV certification. Under the FFDCA, the filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days of their receipt of a Paragraph IV certification automatically prevents the FDA from approving the Section 505(b)(2) NDA until the earlier of 30 months, expiration of the patent, settlement of the lawsuit, or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the Section 505(b)(2) applicant. Thus, the Section 505(b)(2) applicant may invest a significant amount of time and expense in the development of its products only to be subject to significant delay and patent litigation before its products may be commercialized. Alternatively, if the listed patent holder does not file a patent infringement lawsuit within the required 45-day period, the applicant’s NDA will not be subject to the 30-month stay.

 

Generic Drug Approval

 

The Hatch-Waxman Act established abbreviated FDA approval procedures for drugs that are no longer protected by patents and which are shown to be equivalent to proprietary drugs previously approved by the FDA through its New Drug Application, or NDA, process. Approval to market and distribute these drugs is obtained by filing an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, with the FDA. An ANDA is a comprehensive submission that contains, among other things, data and information pertaining to the active pharmaceutical ingredient, drug product formulation, specifications and stability of the generic drug, as well as analytical methods, manufacturing process validation data, and quality control procedures. Pre-market applications for generic drugs are termed abbreviated because they generally do not include preclinical and clinical data to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. Instead, in order to gain approval from the FDA for an ANDA, an applicant must establish that its product is bioequivalent to an existing approved drug and that it is identical to the approved drug with respect to the active ingredient(s), route of administration, dosage form, strength, and conditions of use recommended on the product’s labeling. A product is considered bioequivalent to an existing approved drug if testing demonstrates that the rate and extent of absorption of the proposed generic drug is not significantly different from the rate and extent of absorption of the existing approved drug when administered under similar experimental conditions. In certain situations, an applicant may obtain ANDA approval of a generic product with a strength or dosage form that differs from a referenced innovator drug pursuant to the filing and approval of an ANDA Suitability Petition. The FDA will approve the generic product as suitable for an ANDA application if it finds that the generic product does not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness as compared to the innovator product. A product is not eligible for ANDA approval if the FDA determines that it is not equivalent to the referenced innovator drug or if it is intended for a different use. However, such a product might be approved under an NDA, with supportive data from clinical trials. Upon completion of bioequivalency studies of Propranolol LA, and assuming these studies are successful, we intend to apply for approval to market Propranolol LA pursuant to an ANDA. The patents on the previously approved product, Inderal LA, have expired.

 

Similar to the rules governing Section 505(b)(2) NDAs, any applicant who files an ANDA seeking approval of a generic equivalent version of a drug listed in the Orange Book before expiration of the referenced patent(s), must certify to the FDA that (1) no patent information on the drug product that is the subject of the ANDA has been submitted to the FDA; (2) that such patent has expired; (3) the date on which such patent expires; or (4) that such patent is invalid or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use, or sale of the drug product for which the ANDA is submitted. Before the enactment of the Medicare Prescription Drugs Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, also known as the Medicare Act, which amended the Hatch-Waxman Act, if the NDA owner or patent holder asserted a

 

90


Table of Contents

patent challenge within 45 days of its receipt of notice of the ANDA applicant’s Paragraph IV certification, the FDA was prevented from approving that ANDA until the earlier of 30 months from the patent owner’s receipt of the notice of the Paragraph IV certification, the expiration of the patent, when the infringement case concerning each such patent was favorably decided in an ANDA applicant’s favor, or such shorter or longer period as may be ordered by a court. This prohibition is generally referred to as the 30-month stay. In some cases, NDA owners and patent holders have obtained additional patents for their products after an ANDA had been filed but before that ANDA received final marketing approval, and then initiated a new patent challenge, which resulted in more than one 30-month stay.

 

The Medicare Act amended the Hatch-Waxman Act to eliminate certain unfair advantages of patent holders in the implementation of the Hatch-Waxman Act. As a result, the NDA owner remains entitled to an automatic 30-month stay if it initiates a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days of its receipt of notice of a Paragraph IV certification, but only if the patent infringement lawsuit is directed to patents that were listed in the Orange Book before the ANDA was filed. An ANDA applicant is now permitted to take legal action to enjoin or prohibit the listing of certain of these patents as a counterclaim in response to a claim by the NDA owner that its patent covers its approved drug product.

 

If an ANDA applicant is the first to file an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification and provides appropriate notice to the FDA, the NDA holder, and all patentees for a particular generic product, the applicant may be awarded a 180-day period of marketing exclusivity against other companies that subsequently file ANDAs for that same product. The Medicare Act also modified the rules governing when generic products are eligible for 180-day marketing exclusivity periods and when the 180-day marketing exclusivity period is triggered or forfeited. Prior to the legislation, the 180-day marketing exclusivity period was triggered upon the first commercial marketing of the ANDA or a court decision holding the patent invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed. For ANDAs filed after the effective date of the Medicare Act (December 2003), the marketing exclusivity period is only triggered upon the first commercial marketing of the ANDA product, but that exclusivity may be forfeited under certain circumstances, including, if the ANDA is not marketed within 75 days after a final and nonappealable court decision by the first-to-file or other ANDA applicant, or if the FDA does not tentatively approve the first-to-file applicant’s ANDA within 30 months.

 

Manufacturing Requirements

 

We and our third-party manufacturers must comply with applicable FDA regulations relating to cGMP requirements. The cGMP regulations include requirements relating to organization of personnel, buildings and facilities, equipment, control of components and drug product containers and closures, production and process controls, packaging and labeling controls, holding and distribution, laboratory controls, records and reports, and returned or salvaged products. A failure to comply with these regulations could result in sanctions being imposed the manufacturer, including fines, injunctions, civil penalties, suspension or withdrawal of FDA approvals, seizures or recalls of products, operating restrictions, and criminal prosecutions. While we periodically monitor the FDA compliance of our third-party manufacturers, we cannot be certain that our present or future third-party manufacturers will be able to comply with the cGMP regulations and other ongoing FDA regulatory requirements. If our present or future third-party manufacturers or suppliers are not able to comply with these requirements, the FDA may halt our clinical trials, require us to recall a drug from distribution, or withdraw approval of the drug product at issue.

 

Other Regulatory Requirements

 

Any products manufactured or distributed by us or our collaborators pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including recordkeeping requirements and reporting of adverse experiences associated with the drug. The FDA closely regulates the post-approval marketing

 

91


Table of Contents

and promotion of drugs, including standards and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, off-label promotion, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities and promotional activities involving the Internet. A company can make only those claims relating to safety and efficacy that are approved by the FDA. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in adverse publicity, warning letters, corrective advertising and potential civil and criminal penalties. Physicians may prescribe legally available drugs for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those tested by us and approved by the FDA. Such off-label uses are common across medical specialties. Physicians may believe that such off-label uses are the best treatment for many patients in varied circumstances. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments. The FDA does, however, impose stringent restrictions on manufacturers’ communications regarding off-label use.

 

Foreign Regulatory Approval

 

At this time, we focus primarily on the U.S. marketplace. However, we have rights to develop and register certain of our products outside the United States. If we elect to develop a product for a market outside the United States, we must obtain approval by governmental regulatory authorities similar to the FDA in those countries prior to the commencement of clinical trials and subsequent marketing. The approval procedure varies from country to country, and the time required may be longer or shorter than that required for U.S. FDA approval.

 

Third-Party Payor Coverage and Reimbursement

 

Sales of pharmaceutical products depend in significant part on the availability of coverage and reimbursement from government and other third-party payors, including the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the pricing of pharmaceutical products and may not consider our products cost-effective or may not provide coverage of and reimbursement for our products in whole or in part. In the United States, there have been and we expect there will continue to be a number of legislative and regulatory proposals to change the healthcare system in ways that could significantly affect our business. For instance, on December 8, 2003, President Bush signed into law the Medicare Act, which, among other things, establishes a new prescription drug benefit beginning January 1, 2006. It remains difficult to predict the impact that the Medicare Act will have on us and our industry. Furthermore, we cannot predict the impact on our business of any legislation or regulations that may be enacted or adopted in the future.

 

Anti-Kickback and Fraud Laws

 

We are subject to various federal and state laws pertaining to health care “fraud and abuse.” The federal Anti-Kickback Statute makes it illegal for any person, including a pharmaceutical company (or a party acting on its behalf) to knowingly and willfully solicit, offer, receive or pay any remuneration, directly or indirectly, in exchange for, or to induce, the referral of business, including the purchase, order or prescription of a particular drug, for which payment may be made under federal healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. In 1996, under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), the Anti-Kickback Statute was expanded to be made applicable to most federal and state health care programs. The definition of “remuneration” has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value, such as gifts, discounts, the furnishing of supplies or equipment, credit arrangements, cash payments, and waivers of payments. Violations of this law are punishable by up to five years in prison, criminal fines, administrative civil money penalties, and exclusion from participation in federal health care programs.

 

The broad language of the Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted by the courts and governmental enforcement agencies in a manner which could impose liability on health care providers for engaging in a wide variety of business transactions that would otherwise be considered lawful

 

92


Table of Contents

practices outside of the health care industry. Limited regulatory “safe harbors” exempt certain practices from enforcement action under the Anti-Kickback Statute prohibitions. There are safe harbors available for certain discounts to purchasers, and other relationships. However, safe harbor protection is only available for transactions that fall entirely within the narrowly defined safe harbor provisions applicable to the particular remunerative relationship. Conduct and business arrangements that do not strictly comply with all the provisions of an applicable safe harbor, while not necessarily illegal, face an increased risk of scrutiny by government enforcement authorities and an ongoing risk of prosecution.

 

In addition, many states have adopted laws similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. Some of these state prohibitions apply to referral of patients for healthcare services reimbursed by any source, not only the Medicare and Medicaid programs or other governmental payors. Certain states also have adopted compliance obligations for pharmaceutical companies which require compliance with the industry’s voluntary guidelines and related federal government compliance guidance to prevent fraud and abuse. While we believe we have structured our business arrangements to comply with these laws, it is possible that the government could find that such arrangements violate these laws, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

 

HIPAA created two new federal crimes: health care fraud, and false statements relating to health care matters. The health care fraud statute prohibits knowingly and willfully executing a scheme to defraud any health care benefit program, including private payors. A violation of this statute is a felony and may result in fines, imprisonment or exclusion from federal and state health care programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. The false statements statute prohibits knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for health care benefits, items or services. A violation of this statute is a felony and may result in fines or imprisonment. Additionally, HIPAA granted expanded enforcement authority to HHS and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and provided enhanced resources to support the activities and responsibilities of the OIG and DOJ by authorizing large increases in funding for investigating fraud and abuse violations relating to health care delivery and payment.

 

False Claims Laws

 

Under separate statutes, the submission of false or fraudulent claims for payment may lead to civil money penalties, criminal fines and imprisonment, and/or exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federally funded health care programs. These false claims statutes include the federal False Claims Act, which allows the federal government or private individuals to bring suit alleging that an entity or person knowingly submitted (or caused to submit or conspired to submit) a false or fraudulent claim for payment to the federal government or knowingly used (or caused to be used) a false record or statement to obtain payment from the federal government. A person who files suit may be able to share in amounts paid by the entity to the government in fines or settlement. Such suits, known as qui tam actions, have increased significantly in recent years and have increased the risk that a health care company will have to defend a false claims action, pay fines or be excluded from the Medicare and/or Medicaid programs as a result of an investigation arising out of such an action. In addition, a number of states have enacted similar laws prohibiting the submission of false or fraudulent claims. We are not aware of any qui tam actions pending against us. However, no assurance can be given that such actions may not be filed against us in the future, or that any non-compliance with such laws would not have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

 

The foregoing description of laws and regulations affecting health care companies is not meant to be an all-inclusive discussion of aspects of federal and state regulation which may affect our business, results of operations and financial condition. Health care companies operate in a complicated regulatory environment. These or other statutory or regulatory initiatives may affect our revenues or

 

93


Table of Contents

operations. We have a compliance officer and retain, when necessary, special counsel for guidance on applicable laws and regulations (including fraud and abuse laws). However, no assurance can be given that our practices, if reviewed, would be found to be in compliance with applicable fraud and abuse laws (including false claims laws and anti-kickback prohibitions), as such laws ultimately may be interpreted, or that any non-compliance with such laws or government investigations of alleged non-compliance with such laws would not have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

 

Employees

 

As of March 31, 2005, we had 1,152 employees, 1,036 of whom are in sales and marketing, 25 of whom are in research and development and 91 of whom are in administration, finance and legal. None of our employees are represented by collective bargaining agreements. We have not experienced any work stoppages and believe our relationship with our employees to be good.

 

Facilities

 

We lease our principal executive offices in Liberty Corner, New Jersey, which consist of approximately 96,260 square feet. This lease expires in July 2011, but may be extended at our option for two additional five year terms.

 

Legal Proceedings

 

On June 1, 2004, we filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware seeking a judicial determination that the manufacture, importation and sale of Antara would not infringe any valid claim of four patents owned by Fournier and licensed to Abbott. The complaint also seeks a judicial determination that the Fournier Patents are unenforceable against us because of the alleged inventors’ inequitable conduct in obtaining the patents in proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. In January 2005, Abbott and Fournier filed answers to the complaint as well as counterclaims alleging that Antara infringes two of the Fournier Patents. Additionally, Abbott and Fournier are continuing to prosecute a number of additional patents related to the Fournier Patents, which, if issued, could also be included in their infringement counterclaim. In February 2005, we filed an answer to the counterclaims denying the infringement allegations. Discovery in this matter is ongoing. A trial date has been scheduled for August 2006, and a hearing to determine the scope of the claims of the Fournier Patents has been scheduled for April 2006. Our expenses in the matter are not covered by insurance. An adverse outcome in this litigation could result in our being unable to market Antara as well as being liable for monetary damages.

 

In addition to the matter described above, we are party to various pending legal actions that we believe to be incidental to the operation of our business. We believe that the outcome of these proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.

 

94


Table of Contents