UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K/A

(Amendment No. 1)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017

OR

For the transition period from            to           

Commission File Number 000-50513

ACORDA THERAPEUTICS, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (914) 347-4300

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

 

 

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:  None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.    Yes  ☒    No  ☐

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.    Yes  ☐    No  ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    Yes  ☒    No  ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate website, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    Yes  ☒    No  ☐

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer," "smaller reporting company," and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).    Yes  ☐    No  ☒

As of June 30, 2017, the aggregate market value (based on the closing price on that date) of the registrant's voting stock held by non-affiliates was $342,832,579. For purposes of this calculation, shares of common stock held by directors, officers and stockholders whose ownership exceeds five percent of the common stock outstanding at June 30, 2017 were excluded. Exclusion of shares held by any person should not be construed to indicate that the person  possesses the power, direct or indirect, to direct or cause the direction of the management or policies of the registrant, or that the person is controlled by or under common control with the registrant.

As of February 20, 2018, the registrant had 46,913,767 shares of common stock, par value $0.001 per share, outstanding. The registrant does not have any non-voting stock outstanding.

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

The registrant intends to file a proxy statement for its 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders pursuant to Regulation 14A within 120 days of the end of the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. Portions of the proxy statement are incorporated herein by reference into the following parts of the Form 10-K:

Part III, Item 10, Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance.

Part III, Item 11, Executive Compensation.

Part III, Item 12, Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters.

Part III, Item 13, Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence.

Part III, Item 14, Principal Accounting Fees and Services.

 

 

EXPLANATORY NOTE

 

This Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A (this "Amendment") amends the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2018 (the "Original Form 10-K"). This Amendment is being filed for the sole purpose of correcting language in the second paragraph of Note 2 Recent Accounting Pronouncements – Adopted and in the third and fourth paragraphs of Note 2 Recent Accounting Pronouncements – Not Yet Adopted included in the notes to the consolidated financial statements.

 

In addition, as required by Rule 12b-15 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, new certifications by our principal executive officer and principal financial officer are filed as exhibits to this Amendment under Item 15 of Part IV hereof.

 

We have not updated the information contained herein for events occurring subsequent to March 1, 2018, the filing date of the Original Form 10-K. Except as noted in this Explanatory Note, this Amendment does not alter or amend any of our other disclosures contained in the Original Form 10-K.

 

 

 

---

 

ACORDA THERAPEUTICS, INC.

2017 FORM 10-K ANNUAL REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

---

 

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements relating to future events and our future performance within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Stockholders are cautioned that such statements involve risks and uncertainties, including: the ability to realize the benefits anticipated from acquisitions, among other reasons because acquired development programs are generally subject to all the risks inherent in the drug development process and our knowledge of the risks specifically relevant to acquired programs generally improves over time; we may need to raise additional funds to finance our operations and may not be able to do so on acceptable terms; our ability to successfully market and sell Ampyra (dalfampridine) Extended Release Tablets, 10 mg in the U.S., which will likely be materially adversely affected by the March 2017 court decision in our litigation against filers of Abbreviated New Drug Applications to market generic versions of Ampyra in the U.S.; the risk of unfavorable results from future studies of Inbrija (levodopa inhalation powder) or from our other research and development programs, or any other acquired or in-licensed programs; we may not be able to complete development of, obtain regulatory approval for, or successfully market Inbrija or any other products under development; third party payers (including governmental agencies) may not reimburse for the use of Ampyra, Inbrija or our other products at acceptable rates or at all and may impose restrictive prior authorization requirements that limit or block prescriptions; the occurrence of adverse safety events with our products; the outcome (by judgment or settlement) and costs of legal, administrative or regulatory proceedings, investigations or inspections, including, without limitation, collective, representative or class action litigation; competition; failure to protect our intellectual property, to defend against the intellectual property claims of others or to obtain third party intellectual property licenses needed for the commercialization of our products; and failure to comply with regulatory requirements could result in adverse action by regulatory agencies. These forward-looking statements are based on current expectations, estimates, forecasts and projections about the industry and markets in which we operate and management's beliefs and assumptions. All statements, other than statements of historical facts, included in this report regarding our strategy, future operations, future financial position, future revenues, projected costs, prospects, plans and objectives of management are forward-looking statements. The words "anticipates," "believes," "estimates," "expects," "intends," "may," "plans," "projects," "will," "would," and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words. Actual results or events could differ materially from the plans, intentions and expectations disclosed in the forward-looking statements we make, and investors should not place undue reliance on these statements. In addition to the risks and uncertainties described above, we have included important factors in the cautionary statements included in this Annual Report, particularly in the "Risk Factors" section, that we believe could cause actual results or events to differ materially from the forward-looking statements that we make. Our forward-looking statements do not reflect the potential impact of any future acquisitions, mergers, dispositions, joint ventures or investments that we may make. Forward-looking statements in this report are made only as of the date hereof, and we do not assume any obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statements as a result of developments occurring after the date of this report.

We and our subsidiaries own several registered trademarks in the U.S. and in other countries. These registered trademarks include, in the U.S., the marks “Acorda Therapeutics,” our stylized Acorda Therapeutics logo, “Biotie Therapies,” “Ampyra,” “Qutenza” and “ARCUS.” Also, our mark “Fampyra” is a registered mark in the European Community Trademark Office and we have registrations or pending applications for this mark in other jurisdictions. Our trademark portfolio also includes several registered trademarks and pending trademark applications (e.g., “Inbrija”) in the U.S. and worldwide for potential product names or for disease awareness activities. Third party trademarks, trade names, and service marks used in this report are the property of their respective owners.

 

 

 

---

 

PART I

Item 1. Business.

Company Overview

We are a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing therapies that restore function and improve the lives of people with neurological disorders. We market two U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved therapies, including Ampyra (dalfampridine) Extended Release Tablets, 10mg, a treatment to improve walking in adult patients with multiple sclerosis, or MS, as demonstrated by an increase in walking speed. Ampyra 2017 net revenue was $543 million, an increase of approximately 10% over 2016. We have a pipeline of novel neurological therapies addressing a range of disorders, including Parkinson’s disease and MS.

We currently derive substantially all our revenue from the sale of Ampyra. In March 2017, we announced a decision by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in litigation with certain generic drug manufacturers upholding our Ampyra Orange Book-listed patent set to expire on July 30, 2018, but invalidating our four other Orange Book-listed patents pertaining to Ampyra that were set to expire between 2025 and 2027. Under this decision, we expect to maintain patent exclusivity with respect to Ampyra at least through July 30, 2018, depending on the outcome of appeal of the District Court’s decision. The defendant generic drug manufacturers have appealed the District Court’s decision upholding the patent that expires in July 2018, and we have appealed the ruling on the four invalidated patents. We expect the appeals process to take approximately 12 to 18 months from the filing of the appeal in May 2017. The date for oral argument will be scheduled by the appellate court, which we expect will be in the first half of 2018.

We expect to experience a rapid and significant decline in Ampyra sales beyond July 2018 due to competition from generic versions of Ampyra that may be marketed after the expiration of our remaining Ampyra patent, unless the District Court’s decision on the four invalidated patents is overturned on appeal, which could include reversal or remand by the appeals court back to the District Court. If the appeals court does not overturn the District Court’s decision by July 30, 2018, multiple ANDA filers may be able to launch generic versions of Ampyra absent injunctive relief. In April 2017, following the District Court’s decision, we implemented a corporate restructuring to reduce our cost structure and focus our resources on our most important and valuable initiatives, including our Inbrija (levodopa inhalation powder) development program and maximizing Ampyra value. As part of this restructuring, we reduced headcount by approximately 20%. The majority of the reduction was completed in April 2017.

Inbrija, our most advanced development program, is a self-administered, inhaled formulation of levodopa, or L-dopa, being investigated for the treatment of OFF periods in people with Parkinson’s disease who are taking a carbidopa/levodopa regimen. Inbrija is based on our proprietary ARCUS platform, a dry-powder pulmonary drug delivery technology that we believe has potential applications in multiple disease areas. We announced positive Phase 3 efficacy and safety data for this program in 2017. In June 2017, we submitted a New Drug Application, or NDA, for Inbrija to the FDA. In August 2017, we announced that we received a Refusal to File, or RTF, letter from the FDA regarding the Inbrija NDA. Upon its preliminary review, the FDA determined that the NDA was not sufficiently complete to permit a substantive review. The FDA specified two reasons for the RTF: first, the date when the manufacturing site would be ready for inspection; and second, a question regarding the submission of the drug master production record. The FDA also requested additional information at resubmission, which was not part of the basis for the RTF. We resubmitted the NDA in December 2017. The resubmission addressed the two issues raised in the RTF and included all additional information requested by the FDA in the RTF. On February 20, 2018, we announced that the resubmitted NDA was accepted for filing by the FDA, and that under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, the FDA has set a target date of October 5, 2018. Our commercial preparations for the launch of Inbrija continue. We are projecting that, if approved, annual peak net revenue of Inbrija in the U.S. alone could exceed $800 million. We expect to file a Marketing Authorization Application, or MAA, with the European Medicines Agency in the first quarter of 2018. We are in discussions with potential partners regarding Inbrija outside of the U.S.

In November 2017, we discontinued our clinical development program for tozadenant, an investigational treatment for reduction of OFF time in people with Parkinson’s that we acquired with our 2016 acquisition of Biotie Therapies. We made this decision based on new information obtained from our Phase 3 clinical trials related to agranulocytosis and associated serious adverse events.

In November 2017, we completed a $40 million Fampyra royalty monetization with HealthCare Royalty Partners, or HCRP. In return for the payment to us, HCRP obtained the right to receive Fampyra royalties payable to us by Biogen, up to an agreed upon threshold of royalties. After this threshold is met, if ever, we will continue to receive Fampyra royalty

1

---

 

revenue from Biogen until this revenue stream ends. The transaction does not include potential future milestones to be paid by Biogen. In November 2017, we also completed a $13 million Selincro royalty monetization with Lundbeck. In exchange for the payment from Lundbeck, we agreed to amend the Selincro license with Lundbeck to eliminate future royalty and milestone obligations on sales of Selincro outside of the U.S. Also, we sold our Zanaflex franchise for $4 million.

As of December 31, 2017, we had cash and cash equivalents of approximately $307.1 million and we are projecting a 2018 year-end cash balance in excess of $300 million. We have $345 million of convertible senior notes due in 2021 with a conversion price of $42.56. We believe that operating expense reductions from the restructuring, as well as additional expense reductions due to termination of the tozadenant development program, will enable us to fund operations through launch of Inbrija in the U.S., pending approval from the FDA. Importantly, we have kept our commercial team intact despite the restructuring. We believe we have built a leading neuro-specialty sales and marketing team through our commercialization of Ampyra, and that our commercial launch of Inbrija in the U.S., if approved, will benefit from the experiences and capabilities of this team.

Our strategy is to continue growing as a fully integrated biopharmaceutical company. Our priorities for 2018 include advancing our Inbrija program toward approval and commercialization, maximizing the value of Ampyra, including our appeal of the District Court decision invalidating certain Ampyra patents as described above, and focusing on financial discipline and maintaining a strong balance sheet.

Company Highlights

Ampyra

Ampyra is the first product for which we completed clinical development. Ampyra, an extended release tablet formulation of dalfampridine (4-aminopyridine, 4-AP), was approved by the FDA in January 2010. Ampyra demonstrated efficacy in people with all four major types of MS (relapsing remitting, secondary progressive, progressive relapsing and primary progressive). To our knowledge, Ampyra is the first and only product indicated to improve walking in adults with MS. Ampyra was made commercially available in the U.S. in March 2010, using our own specialty sales force, and had net revenue of $543 million for the year ended December 31, 2017. Since the March 2010 launch of Ampyra, approximately 130,000 people with MS in the U.S. have tried Ampyra. We believe that Ampyra is increasingly considered by many physicians a standard of care to improve walking in adults with MS. Eight years after approval, Ampyra continues to grow, reflecting the continued unmet medical need among adults with MS for a treatment to improve walking. Our 60-day free trial program provides eligible patients with two months of Ampyra at no cost.

Three of the largest national health plans in the U.S. – Aetna, Cigna and United Healthcare – have listed Ampyra on their commercial formulary. Approximately 75% of insured individuals in the U.S. continue to have no or limited prior authorizations, or PA’s, for Ampyra. We define limited PAs as those that require only an MS diagnosis, documentation of no contraindications, and/or simple documentation that the patient has a walking impairment; such documentation may include a Timed 25-Foot Walk (T25W) test. The access figure is calculated based on the number of pharmacy lives reported by health plans.

Approximately 400,000 people in the U.S. suffer from MS, and each year approximately 10,000 people in the U.S. are newly diagnosed. In a poll of more than 2,000 people with MS, 87% said they experienced some limitation to their walking ability and limited activities that involved walking. Among MS patients diagnosed within the last 5 years, 58% report experiencing mobility issues at least twice a week. In the European Union, over 700,000 people suffer from MS, and an additional 100,000 people in Canada are also diagnosed with this disease.

Ampyra is marketed as Fampyra outside the U.S. by Biogen International GmbH, or Biogen, under a 2009 license and collaboration agreement. Fampyra has been approved in a number of countries across Europe, Asia and the Americas. Under our agreement with Biogen, we are entitled to receive double-digit tiered royalties on sales of Fampyra and we are also entitled to receive additional payments based on achievement of certain regulatory and sales milestones. In November 2017, we announced a $40 million Fampyra royalty monetization transaction with HealthCare Royalty Partners, or HCRP. In return for the payment to us, HCRP obtained the right to receive these Fampyra royalties up to an agreed-upon threshold. Until this threshold is met, if ever, we will not receive Fampyra royalty revenue although we have retained the right to receive any potential future milestone payments. The next expected milestone payment would be $15 million, due when ex-U.S. net sales exceed $100 million over four consecutive quarters.

2

---

 

Ampyra/Fampyra Patents and Legal Proceedings

We have five issued patents listed in the Orange Book for Ampyra, four of which were held invalid in litigation in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware with certain generic drug manufacturers, as further described below in this report. The first is U.S. Patent No. 5,540,938, the claims of which relate to methods for treating a neurological disease, such as MS, and cover the use of a sustained release dalfampridine formulation, such as Ampyra (dalfampridine) Extended Release Tablets, 10 mg for improving walking in people with MS. In April 2013, this patent received a five year patent term extension under the patent restoration provisions of the Hatch-Waxman Act. With a five year patent term extension, this patent will expire on July 30, 2018. We have an exclusive license to this patent from Alkermes (originally with Elan, but transferred to Alkermes as part of its acquisition of Elan’s Drug Technologies business). This patent was held valid by the District Court in the litigation, although in June 2017 the defendant generic drug manufacturers with whom we have not reached settlements appealed the District Court’s decision upholding this patent.

The other four Orange Book-listed patents were held invalid by the District Court in the litigation with generic drug manufacturers. These patents, which had been set to expire in 2025 through 2027, consist of U.S. Patent No. 8,007,826, with claims relating to methods to improve walking in patients with MS by administering 10 mg of sustained release 4-aminopyridine (dalfampridine) twice daily; U.S. Patent No. 8,354,437, which includes claims relating to methods to improve walking, increase walking speed, and treat walking disability in patients with MS by administering 10 mg of sustained release 4-aminopyridine (dalfampridine) twice daily; U.S. Patent No. 8,440,703, which includes claims directed to methods of improving lower extremity function and walking and increasing walking speed in patients with MS by administering less than 15 mg of sustained release 4-aminopyridine (dalfampridine) twice daily; and U.S. Patent No. 8,663,685 with claims relating to methods to improve walking in patients with MS by administering 10 mg of sustained release 4-aminopyridine (dalfampridine) twice daily.

The patent litigation referenced above relates to Paragraph IV Certification Notices received from ten generic drug manufacturers in 2014 and 2015, who submitted Abbreviated New Drug Applications, or ANDAs, with the FDA seeking marketing approval for generic versions of Ampyra (dalfampridine) Extended Release Tablets, 10mg. The ANDA filers challenged the validity of our Orange Book-listed patents for Ampyra, and they also asserted that generic versions of their products do not infringe certain claims of these patents. In 2015 and 2016, we reached settlement agreements with six of the generic companies. A bench trial against the remaining four generic companies was completed in September 2016. In February 2017, we announced that we had reached a settlement agreement with one of those four generic companies. In March 2017, the District Court rendered a decision upholding our Orange-Book listed patent for Ampyra set to expire in July 2018, but invalidating our four other Orange Book-listed patents. In May 2017, we appealed the ruling on these four patents, and as described above, in June 2017 the other non-settling parties appealed the decision on the patent set to expire in July 2018. We expect the appeals process to take approximately 12 to 18 months from the filing of the appeal in May 2017. Both the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) filed amicus briefs in support of our appeal, raising important issues in conjunction with biopharmaceutical innovation. The date for oral argument will be scheduled by the appellate court, which we expect will be in the first half of 2018. We expect to experience a rapid and significant decline in Ampyra sales beyond July 2018 due to competition from generic versions of Ampyra that may be marketed after the expiration of our remaining Ampyra patent, unless the District Court’s decision on the four invalidated patents is overturned on appeal, which could include reversal or remand by the appeals court back to the District Court. If the appeals court does not overturn the District Court’s decision by July 30, 2018, multiple ANDA filers may be able to launch generic versions of Ampyra absent injunctive relief.

In April 2017, we received a Paragraph IV Certification Notice from an additional generic drug manufacturer, Micro Labs Ltd. (“Micro”), advising that it had submitted an ANDA to the FDA seeking marketing approval for a generic version of Ampyra (dalfampridine) Extended Release Tablets, 10mg. Micro challenged the validity of four of our five Orange Book-listed patents for Ampyra, and also asserted that a generic version of its product does not infringe certain claims of these patents. In response to the filing of the ANDA, in May 2017 we filed a lawsuit against Micro in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In January 2018, we reached a settlement agreement with Micro, which is further described below in Part I, Item 3 of this report.

In 2011, the European Patent Office, or EPO, granted EP 1732548, with claims relating to, among other things, use of a sustained release aminopyridine composition, such as dalfampridine (known under the trade name Fampyra in the European Union), to increase walking speed. In March 2012, Synthon B.V. and neuraxpharm Arzneimittel GmBH filed oppositions with the EPO challenging the EP 1732548 patent. We defended the patent, and in December 2013, we announced that the EPO Opposition Division upheld amended claims in this patent covering a sustained release formulation of dalfampridine for increasing walking in patients with MS through twice daily dosing at 10 mg. Both Synthon B.V. and neuraxpharm

3

---

 

Arzneimittel GmBH have appealed the decision. In December 2013, Synthon B.V., neuraxpharm Arzneimittel GmBH and Actavis Group PTC EHF filed oppositions with the EPO challenging our EP 2377536 patent, which is a divisional of the EP 1732548 patent. In February 2016, the EPO Opposition Division rendered a decision that revoked the EP 2377536 patent. We believe the claims of this patent are valid and we have appealed the decision. Both European patents, if upheld as valid, are set to expire in 2025, absent any additional exclusivity granted based on regulatory review timelines. Fampyra also has 10 years of market exclusivity in the European Union that is set to expire in 2021.

Inbrija (levodopa inhalation powder)/Parkinson’s Disease

Inbrija is a self-administered, inhaled formulation of levodopa, or L-dopa, for the treatment of OFF periods in people with Parkinson’s disease who are taking a carbidopa/levodopa regimen. Parkinson’s disease is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder resulting from the gradual loss of certain neurons in the brain responsible for producing dopamine. The disease causes a range of symptoms such as impaired ability to move, muscle stiffness and tremor. The standard of care for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease is oral carbidopa/levodopa, but oral medication can be associated with wide variability in the timing and amount of absorption and there are significant challenges in creating a regimen that consistently maintains therapeutic effects as Parkinson’s disease progresses. The re-emergence of symptoms is referred to as an OFF period, and despite optimized regimens with current therapeutic options and strategies, OFF periods remain one of the most challenging aspects of the disease.

Inbrija delivers a precise dose of dry-powder formulation of L-dopa to the lung using a breath-actuated proprietary inhaler. Oral medication can be associated with slow and variable onset of action, as the medicine is absorbed through the gastrointestinal (digestive) tract before reaching the brain. Inhaled treatments enter the body through the lungs and reach the brain shortly thereafter, bypassing the digestive system. Inbrija is based on our proprietary ARCUS platform, a dry-powder pulmonary drug delivery technology that we believe has potential applications in multiple disease areas. A key feature of our ARCUS technology is the large porous particles that allow for consistent and precise delivery of significantly larger doses of medication than are possible with conventional dry powder pulmonary systems. This in turn provides the potential for pulmonary delivery of a much wider variety of pharmaceutical agents. We have worldwide rights to our ARCUS drug delivery technology, which is protected by extensive know-how and trade secrets and various U.S. and foreign patents, including patents that protect the Inbrija dry powder capsules beyond 2030.

In 2016, we completed a Phase 3 efficacy and safety clinical trial of Inbrija for the treatment of OFF periods in Parkinson’s disease. In February 2017, we announced efficacy and safety data from this clinical trial, showing a statistically significant improvement in motor function in people with Parkinson’s experiencing OFF periods. The clinical trial had three arms: Inbrija 84 mg and 60 mg doses (equivalent to 50 mg and 35 mg fine particle doses, respectively), and placebo. The trial met its primary outcome measure of improvement in motor function as measured by the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale-Part 3 (UPDRS Part III) in people with Parkinson’s experiencing OFF periods. UPDRS III is a validated scale, which measures Parkinson’s disease motor impairment. The primary endpoint was measured at 30 minutes post-treatment for the 84 mg dose at the 12-week visit. UPDRS Part III change was -9.83 compared to -5.91 for placebo with a p value of 0.009. The magnitude of Inbrija’s benefit versus baseline was consistent with the data from the prior Phase 2b clinical trial, further described below, and represents a statistically significant, clinically meaningful improvement in motor function. The placebo-adjusted difference was lower in the Phase 3 clinical trial than the Phase 2b clinical trial but still represented a clinically important difference. In June 2017, we announced additional data from the Inbrija Phase 3 efficacy and safety trial at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders (MDS). The secondary endpoints of achievement of an ON state with maintenance through 60 minutes (statistically significant), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), and reduction in UPDRS III score at 10 minutes were supportive of the primary endpoint result.

The safety profile of Inbrija in the trial was consistent with that observed in a prior Phase 2b clinical trial:

4

---

 

Results from a separate Phase 3 study to assess the long-term safety profile of Inbrija in people with Parkinson’s showed no statistical difference in pulmonary function between the group receiving Inbrija and an observational control group. These results are consistent with the previously reported Phase 2b and Phase 3 clinical trials. In March 2017, we announced results from separate clinical studies that assessed the safety profile of Inbrija in people with asthma, smokers and early morning OFF.

In June 2017, we submitted an NDA for Inbrija to the FDA. In August 2017, we announced that we received a Refusal to File, or RTF, letter from the FDA regarding the Inbrija NDA. Upon its preliminary review, the FDA determined that the NDA was not sufficiently complete to permit a substantive review. The FDA specified two reasons for the RTF: first, the date when the manufacturing site would be ready for inspection; and second, a question regarding the submission of the drug master production record. The FDA also requested additional information at resubmission, which was not part of the basis for the RTF. We resubmitted the NDA in December 2017. The resubmission addressed the two issues raised in the RTF and included all additional information requested by the FDA in the RTF. On February 20, 2018, we announced that the resubmitted NDA was accepted for filing by the FDA, and that under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, the FDA has set a target date of October 5, 2018. The NDA was submitted under section 505(b)(2) of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, referencing data from the branded L-dopa product Sinemet®. We believe the Phase 3 efficacy and safety clinical trial, combined with data from additional Phase 3 long-term safety studies and supported by existing Phase 2b data, are sufficient for the NDA filing. Our commercial preparations for the launch of Inbrija continue. We are projecting that, if approved, annual peak net revenue of Inbrija in the U.S. alone could exceed $800 million. We expect to file a Marketing Authorization Application, or MAA, with the European Medicines Agency in the first quarter of 2018. We are in discussions with potential partners regarding Inbrija outside of the U.S.

ARCUS Product Development

In addition to Inbrija (levodopa inhalation powder), discussed above, we are exploring opportunities for other proprietary products in which inhaled delivery using our ARCUS drug delivery technology can provide a significant therapeutic benefit to patients.

Disorders of the central nervous system, or CNS, in addition to Parkinson’s disease, may be addressed by ARCUS products with the delivery of active agents to the CNS with rapid onset and reduced systemic exposure. For example, we are currently developing CVT-427, an inhaled triptan (zolmitriptan) intended for acute treatment of migraine by using the ARCUS drug delivery technology. Triptans are the class of drug most commonly prescribed for acute treatment of migraine. Oral triptans, which account for the majority of all triptan doses, can be associated with slow onset of action and gastrointestinal challenges. The slow onset of action, usually 30 minutes or longer, can result in poor response rates. Patients cite the need for rapid relief from migraine symptoms as their most desired medication attribute. Additionally, individuals with migraine may suffer from nausea and delayed gastric emptying which further impact the consistency and efficacy of the oral route of administration. Triptans delivered subcutaneously (injection) provide the most rapid onset of action, but are not convenient for patients. Many triptans are also available in nasally delivered formulations. However, based on available data, we believe that nasally delivered triptans generally have an onset of action similar to orally administered triptans. In December 2016, we completed a special population study to evaluate safe inhalation of CVT-427 in people with asthma and in smokers. Some subjects showed evidence of acute, reversible bronchoconstriction, post-inhalation. We plan to work on reformulating to move the program forward, once we have made more progress on the approval and launch of Inbrija.

In July 2015, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation awarded us a $1.4 million grant to support the development of a formulation and delivery system for a dry powder version of lung surfactant, a treatment for neonatal respiratory distress syndrome, or nRDS. In collaboration with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, we developed a novel formulation and delivery device based on our proprietary ARCUS drug delivery technology. nRDS is a condition affecting prematurely born infants in which their lungs are underdeveloped and thus lack a sufficient amount of lung surfactant. It can be fatal, or lead to severe, chronic health issues caused by a lack of oxygen getting to the baby’s brain and other organs. Delivering liquid surfactant to the lungs via intubation is the standard of care. We believe that our formulation and delivery system may present a more practical alternative for use in developing areas of the world, where intubation poses numerous problems. This program is not aimed at developing a commercial product, but our work on this program could potentially generate information that is useful for adapting the ARCUS drug delivery technology to commercial pediatric uses.

5

---

 

We are also beginning to formulate potential ARCUS products for two different rare lung diseases.

Other Research and Development Programs

Following is a description of our other research and development programs.

NP-1998 is a Phase 3 ready, 20% prescription strength capsaicin topical solution that we were previously assessing for the treatment of neuropathic pain. In 2013, we acquired development and commercialization rights in the U.S., Canada, Latin America and certain other territories. We believe NP-1998 has the potential to treat multiple neuropathies, but we have not invested in further development of NP-1998 for several years and we are seeking to partner or out-license this program.

Also, we were previously developing tozadenant, a potential adjunctive treatment to levodopa in Parkinson’s disease patients to reduce OFF time. We acquired this program with our 2016 acquisition of Biotie Therapies. In November 2017, we discontinued our tozadenant clinical development program based on new information obtained from our Phase 3 clinical trials related to agranulocytosis and associated serious adverse events.

Corporate Update

In August 2017, our Board of Directors adopted a stockholder rights plan to preserve the ability of the Board to protect the interests of stockholders in transactions that may result in an acquisition of control of the Company, including tender offers and open market purchases of our securities. In general terms, the rights plan works by significantly diluting the stock ownership of any person or group that acquires 15% or more of our outstanding common stock without the approval of the Board. The rights plan exempts any person or group owning 15% or more of the Company’s outstanding common stock when we announced the rights plan, however the exemption does not apply to additional shares acquired after the

6

---

 

announcement. The rights plan also provides, among other things, that when specified events occur, our stockholders will be entitled to purchase from us shares of junior preferred stock. The rights plan will expire on August 31, 2018. The preferred stock purchase rights are triggered ten business days after the date of a public announcement that a person or group acting in concert has acquired, or has obtained the right to acquire, beneficial ownership of 15% or more of our outstanding common stock. The preferred stock purchase rights would cause dilution to a person or group that attempts to acquire us on terms that are not approved by our Board. While we believe our rights plan enables our Board to help ensure that our stockholders are not deprived of the opportunity to realize the full and fair value of their investments, the rights plan may inhibit a change in control by a third party in a transaction not approved by our Board. If a change in control is inhibited or delayed in this manner, it may adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

Our Strategy

Our strategy is to continue to grow as a fully integrated biopharmaceutical company and to become a leading neurology company dedicated to the identification, development and commercialization of therapies that restore function and improve the lives of people with neurological disorders. We are seeking to leverage our scientific, clinical and commercial expertise in neurology. Following are our 2018 strategic priorities:

7

---

 

Our Products and Product Pipeline

 

 

 

* In November 2017, we announced a $40 million Fampyra royalty monetization transaction with HealthCare Royalty Partners, or HCRP. In return for the payment to us, HCRP obtained the right to receive royalties on Fampyra payable to us by Biogen, up to an agreed-upon threshold of royalties. Until this threshold is met, if ever, we will not receive Fampyra royalty revenue although we have retained the right to receive any potential future milestone payments from Biogen.

 

** In November 2017, we announced a royalty monetization with Lundbeck pursuant to which we received a $13 million payment from Lundbeck in exchange for an amendment to its Selincro license eliminating Lundbeck’s future royalty and milestone obligations on sales of Selincro outside of the U.S. Selincro is not approved for use in the U.S. and is not under development for use in the U.S.

 

Background on Neurological Conditions

We are a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing therapies that restore function and improve the lives of people with neurological disorders. Where our neurology programs may also show promise for disorders outside of the nervous system, we may elect to pursue these opportunistically as well. Currently, we are focused on developing and marketing therapeutics targeted to the conditions described below. We believe there is significant unmet medical need for these conditions, which can severely impact the lives of those who suffer from them.

Multiple Sclerosis

Multiple Sclerosis, or MS, is a chronic, usually progressive disease in which the immune system attacks and degrades the function of nerve fibers in the brain and spinal cord. These nerve fibers consist of long, thin fibers, or axons, surrounded by a myelin sheath, which facilitates the transmission of electrical impulses, much as insulation facilitates conduction in an electrical wire. In MS, the myelin sheath is damaged by the body's own immune system, causing areas of myelin sheath loss, also known as demyelination. This damage, which can occur at multiple sites in the central nervous system, blocks or diminishes conduction of electrical impulses. Patients with MS may suffer impairments in a wide range of neurological functions. These impairments vary from individual to individual and over the course of time, depending on which parts of the brain and spinal cord are affected, and often include difficulty walking. Individuals vary in the severity of the impairments they suffer on a day-to-day basis, with impairments becoming better or worse depending on the activity of the disease on a given day.

8

---

 

Approximately 400,000 people in the U.S. suffer from MS, and each year approximately 10,000 people in the U.S. are newly diagnosed. In a poll of more than 2,000 people with MS, 87% said they experienced some limitation to their walking ability and limited activities that involved walking. Among MS patients diagnosed within the last 5 years, 58% report experiencing mobility issues at least twice a week. In the European Union, over 700,000 people suffer from MS, and an additional 100,000 people in Canada are also diagnosed with this disease.

Parkinson’s Disease

Parkinson’s disease is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder resulting from the gradual loss of certain neurons responsible for producing dopamine, which causes motor complications, including impaired ability to move, muscle stiffness and tremors. Approximately one million Americans and 1.2 million Europeans suffer from Parkinson’s disease. There is no cure or disease-modifying treatment currently available for Parkinson’s disease. Current treatment strategies are focused on the management and reduction of the major symptoms of the disease and related disabilities. These therapies either aim to supplement dopamine levels in the brain, mimic the effect of dopamine in the brain by stimulating dopamine receptors or prevent the enzymatic breakdown of dopamine. The standard of care for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease symptoms is oral carbidopa/levodopa. Approximately 70% of people with Parkinson’s disease in the U.S. are treated with oral carbidopa/levodopa. Effective control of Parkinson’s disease symptoms is referred to as an ON state.

As Parkinson’s disease progresses, even optimized regimens of oral carbidopa/levodopa are associated with increasingly wide variability in the timing and amount of absorption into the bloodstream. This results in the unreliable control of symptoms, leading to motor complications including OFF periods. OFF periods, which are characterized by a re-emergence of Parkinson’s disease symptoms, can increase in frequency and severity during the course of the disease. OFF periods remain one of the most challenging aspects of the disease despite optimized regimens with current therapeutic options and strategies. About half of people with Parkinson’s disease treated with L-dopa therapy experience OFF periods within five years of initiating treatment. For the approximately 350,000 people in the U.S. and 420,000 in Europe who experience them, OFF periods are inadequately addressed by available therapies and are considered one of the greatest unmet medical needs facing people with Parkinson’s disease. OFF periods can be very disruptive to the lives of people with Parkinson’s disease, their families and caregivers. In a survey of 3,000 people with Parkinson’s conducted by the Michael J. Fox Foundation, 64% of respondents reporting having at least two hours of OFF time per day.

According to recent studies following people with Parkinson’s disease over the entire course of their illness, approximately 50-80% may experience dementia. Some studies have reported that the average time from onset of Parkinson’s disease to developing dementia is about 10 years. Dementia is a physical change in the brain that causes a decline in the brain’s ability to process and understand information, and can affect thinking, perception, and mood. As Parkinson’s disease progresses over time, Parkinson’s disease-related dementia can cause problems with: memory loss and forgetfulness; speaking and communicating with others; problem solving and understanding of complex ideas; paying attention; emotional control, mood, and motivation; confusion, anxiety, and hallucinations.

Migraine

Migraine is a neurological syndrome characterized by pain, nausea, abnormal sensitivity to sound and abnormal sensitivity to light. It is believed to affect over 10% of the global population. In the U.S., the National Institutes of Health estimates 12% of the population, or approximately 37 million people, suffer from migraine, with women being nearly three times more affected than men. Triptans are the class of drug most commonly prescribed for acute treatment of migraine. Oral triptans, which account for the majority of all triptan doses, can be associated with slow onset of action and gastrointestinal challenges. The slow onset of action, usually 30 minutes or longer, can result in poor response rates. Patients cite the need for rapid relief from migraine symptoms as their most desired medication attribute. Additionally, individuals with migraine may suffer from nausea and delayed gastric emptying which further impact the consistency and efficacy of the oral route of administration. Triptans delivered subcutaneously (injection) provide the most rapid onset of action, but are not convenient for patients. Many triptans are also available in nasally delivered formulations. However, based on available data, we believe that nasally delivered triptans generally have an onset of action similar to orally administered triptans.

Ampyra

Ampyra (dalfampridine) is an oral drug approved by the FDA on January 22, 2010 as a treatment to improve walking in patients with MS. This was demonstrated by an increase in walking speed. Ampyra demonstrated efficacy in people with all four major types of MS (relapsing remitting, secondary progressive, progressive relapsing and primary progressive). Ampyra can be used alone or with concurrent medications, including immunomodulatory drugs. The majority of patients in

9

---

 

our two Phase 3 clinical trials for Ampyra (63%) were taking immunomodulatory drugs (interferons, glatiramer acetate, or natalizumab). Ampyra is an extended release tablet formulation of dalfampridine (4-aminopyridine, 4-AP), which was previously referred to as fampridine.

We have five issued patents listed in the Orange Book for Ampyra, which are described below in the “Intellectual Property” section of this report. In March 2017, we announced a decision by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in litigation with certain generic drug manufacturers upholding our Ampyra Orange Book-listed patent set to expire on July 30, 2018, but invalidating our four other Orange Book-listed patents pertaining to Ampyra that were set to expire between 2025 and 2027. Under this decision, we expect to maintain patent exclusivity with respect to Ampyra at least through July 30, 2018, depending on the outcome of appeal of the District Court’s decision. The defendant generic drug manufacturers with whom we have not reached settlements have appealed the District Court’s decision upholding the patent that expires in July 2018, and we have appealed the ruling on the four invalidated patents. We expect the appeals process to take approximately 12 to 18 months from the filing of the appeal in May 2017. Both the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) filed amicus briefs in support of our appeal, raising important issues in conjunction with biopharmaceutical innovation. The date for oral argument will be scheduled by the appellate court, which we expect will be in the first half of 2018. We expect to experience a rapid and significant decline in Ampyra sales beyond July 2018 due to competition from generic versions of Ampyra that may be marketed after the expiration of our remaining Ampyra patent, unless the District Court’s decision on the four invalidated patents is overturned on appeal, which could include reversal or remand by the appeals court back to the District Court. If the appeals court does not overturn the District Court’s decision by July 30, 2018, multiple ANDA filers may be able to launch generic versions of Ampyra absent injunctive relief.

Ampyra is marketed as Fampyra outside the U.S. by Biogen under a 2009 license and collaboration agreement. Fampyra has been approved in a number of countries across Europe, Asia and the Americas.

Background

Dalfampridine is a potassium channel blocker. In animal studies, dalfampridine has been shown to increase conduction of nerve signals in demyelinated axons through blocking of potassium channels. The mechanism by which dalfampridine exerts its therapeutic effect has not been fully elucidated.

Clinical Studies and Safety Profile

Our New Drug Application, or NDA, for Ampyra was based on data from a comprehensive development program assessing the safety and efficacy of Ampyra, including two Phase 3 trials that involved 540 people with MS. The primary measure of efficacy in our two Phase 3 MS trials was walking speed (in feet per second) as measured by the Timed 25-foot Walk (T25FW), using a responder analysis. A responder was defined as a patient who showed faster walking speed for at least three visits out of a possible four during the double-blind period than the maximum speed achieved in the five non-double-blind, no treatment visits (four before the double-blind period and one after). A significantly greater proportion of patients taking Ampyra 10 mg twice daily were responders compared to patients taking placebo, as measured by the T25FW (Trial 1: 34.8% vs. 8.3%; Trial 2: 42.9% vs. 9.3%). The increased response rate in the Ampyra group was observed across all four major types of MS. During the double-blind treatment period, a significantly greater proportion of patients taking Ampyra 10 mg twice daily had increases in walking speed of at least 10%, 20%, or 30% from baseline, compared to placebo. In both trials, the consistent improvements in walking speed were shown to be associated with improvements on a patient self-assessment of ambulatory disability, the 12 item Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale (MSWS-12), for both drug and placebo treated patients. However, a drug vs. placebo difference was not established for that outcome measure.

In October 2015, we presented 5-year post-marketing safety data for dalfampridine extended release tablets in MS at the 31^st Congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS) annual meeting. The data presented continue to be consistent with those reported in double-blind clinical trials, with incidence of reported seizure remaining stable over time.

10

---

 

The FDA’s approval letter included certain post-marketing study requirements and confirmed certain commitments made by us with respect to Ampyra, all of which we have now completed. The post-marketing requirements included additional animal toxicology studies to evaluate certain impurities, in-vitro receptor binding and abuse potential studies in animals, and an evaluation of clinical adverse events related to abuse potential. We completed these studies and timely submitted the results to the FDA. Also, we committed to the FDA that we would conduct a placebo-controlled trial to evaluate a 5 mg twice-daily dosing regimen of Ampyra, as well as a pharmacokinetic evaluation of a 7.5 mg dosage strength in patients with mild or moderate renal impairment. We also committed to report all post-marketing seizure events on an expedited basis to the FDA. We completed the renal impairment study and timely submitted the results to the FDA, but the FDA may require additional studies. In August 2012, we announced results of the 5mg efficacy study. The study failed to confirm efficacy of the 5mg dose. We believe that this study, together with Ampyra registration studies, continue to show that 10mg twice daily is the appropriate, safe, and effective dose. The study results were provided to the FDA, which subsequently confirmed that we have satisfied this post-marketing requirement.

In our two Phase 3 clinical studies of Ampyra in spinal cord injury, which were completed in 2004, the results did not reach statistical significance on their primary endpoints.

Qutenza

Qutenza is a dermal patch containing 8% prescription strength capsaicin the effects of which can last up to three months and is approved by the FDA for the management of neuropathic pain associated with post-herpetic neuralgia, also known as post-shingles pain. We acquired commercialization rights to Qutenza in July 2013 from NeurogesX, Inc. These rights include the U.S., Canada, Latin America and certain other territories. Grunenthal GmbH (as the assignee of Astellas Pharma Europe Ltd.) has exclusive commercialization rights for Qutenza in the European Economic Area (EEA) including the 28 countries of the European Union, Iceland, Norway, and Liechtenstein as well as Switzerland, certain countries in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

Inbrija (levodopa inhalation powder)/Parkinson’s Disease

Inbrija is a self-administered, inhaled formulation of levodopa, or L-dopa, for the treatment of OFF periods in people with Parkinson’s disease who are taking a carbidopa/levodopa regimen. Parkinson’s disease is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder resulting from the gradual loss of certain neurons in the brain responsible for producing dopamine. The disease causes a range of symptoms such as impaired ability to move, muscle stiffness and tremor. The standard of care for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease is oral carbidopa/levodopa, but oral medication can be associated with wide variability in the timing and amount of absorption and there are significant challenges in creating a regimen that consistently maintains therapeutic effects as Parkinson’s disease progresses. The re-emergence of symptoms is referred to as an OFF period, and despite optimized regimens with current therapeutic options and strategies, OFF periods remain one of the most challenging aspects of the disease.

Inbrija delivers a precise dose of dry-powder formulation of L-dopa to the lung using a breath-actuated proprietary inhaler. Oral medication can be associated with slow and variable onset of action, as the medicine is absorbed through the gastrointestinal (digestive) tract before reaching the brain. Inhaled treatments enter the body through the lungs and reach the brain shortly thereafter, bypassing the digestive system. Inbrija is based on our proprietary ARCUS platform, a dry-powder pulmonary drug delivery technology that we believe has potential applications in multiple disease areas. A key feature of our ARCUS technology is the large porous particles that allow for consistent and precise delivery of significantly larger doses of medication than are possible with conventional dry powder pulmonary systems. This in turn provides the potential for pulmonary delivery of a much wider variety of pharmaceutical agents. We have worldwide rights to our ARCUS drug delivery technology, which is protected by extensive know-how and trade secrets and various U.S. and foreign patents, including patents that protect the Inbrija dry powder capsules beyond 2030.

In 2016, we completed a Phase 3 efficacy and safety clinical trial of Inbrija for the treatment of OFF periods in Parkinson’s disease. In February 2017, we announced efficacy and safety data from this clinical trial, showing a statistically significant improvement in motor function in people with Parkinson’s experiencing OFF periods. The clinical trial had three arms: Inbrija 84 mg and 60 mg doses (equivalent to 50 mg and 35 mg fine particle doses, respectively), and placebo. The trial met its primary outcome measure of improvement in motor function as measured by the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale-Part 3 (UPDRS Part III) in people with Parkinson’s experiencing OFF periods. UPDRS III is a validated scale, which measures Parkinson’s disease motor impairment. The primary endpoint was measured at 30 minutes post-treatment for the 84 mg dose at the 12-week visit. UPDRS Part III change was -9.83 compared to -5.91 for placebo with a p value of 0.009. The

11

---

 

magnitude of Inbrija’s benefit versus baseline was consistent with the data from the prior Phase 2b clinical trial, further described below, and represents a statistically significant, clinically meaningful improvement in motor function. The placebo-adjusted difference was lower in the Phase 3 clinical trial than the Phase 2b clinical trial but still represented a clinically important difference. In June 2017, we announced additional data from the Inbrija Phase 3 efficacy and safety trial at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders (MDS). The secondary endpoints of achievement of an ON state with maintenance through 60 minutes (statistically significant), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), and reduction in UPDRS III score at 10 minutes were supportive of the primary endpoint result.

The safety profile of Inbrija in the trial was consistent with that observed in a prior Phase 2b clinical trial:

Results from a separate Phase 3 study to assess the long-term safety profile of Inbrija in people with Parkinson’s showed no statistical difference in pulmonary function between the group receiving Inbrija and an observational control group. These results are consistent with the previously reported Phase 2b and Phase 3 clinical trials. In March 2017, we announced results from separate clinical studies that assessed the safety profile of Inbrija in people with asthma, smokers and early morning OFF.

In June 2017, we submitted an NDA for Inbrija to the FDA. In August 2017, we announced that we received a Refusal to File, or RTF, letter from the FDA regarding the Inbrija NDA. Upon its preliminary review, the FDA determined that the NDA was not sufficiently complete to permit a substantive review. The FDA specified two reasons for the RTF: first, the date when the manufacturing site would be ready for inspection; and second, a question regarding the submission of the drug master production record. The FDA also requested additional information at resubmission, which was not part of the basis for the RTF. We resubmitted the NDA in December 2017. The resubmission addressed the two issues raised in the RTF and included all additional information requested by the FDA in the RTF. On February 20, 2018, we announced that the resubmitted NDA was accepted for filing by the FDA, and that under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, the FDA has set a target date of October 5, 2018. The NDA was submitted under section 505(b)(2) of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, referencing data from the branded L-dopa product Sinemet®. We believe the Phase 3 efficacy and safety clinical trial, combined with data from additional Phase 3 long-term safety studies and supported by existing Phase 2b data, are sufficient for the NDA filing. Our commercial preparations for the launch of Inbrija continue. We believe we have built a leading neuro-specialty sales and marketing team through our commercialization of Ampyra, and that our commercial launch of Inbrija in the U.S., if approved, will benefit from the experiences and capabilities of this team. We are projecting that, if approved, annual peak net revenue of Inbrija in the U.S. alone could exceed $800 million. We expect to file a Marketing Authorization Application, or MAA, with the European Medicines Agency in the first quarter of 2018. We are in discussions with potential partners regarding Inbrija outside of the U.S.

In June 2015, we presented data from a Phase 2b clinical trial of Inbrija at the 19th International Congress of Parkinson's Disease and Movement Disorders (MDS). The data showed that patients experiencing an OFF period, treated with Inbrija, experienced significantly greater improvements in motor function than patients treated with an inhaled placebo; the difference in improvement was already apparent 10 minutes after dosing and was durable for at least an hour, the longest time point at which patients were measured. In April 2016, data from this clinical trial were one of six platform presentations highlighted during the Movement Disorders Invited Science Session at the 68^th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. In June 2016, data from this clinical trial was also presented in three posters during the 20th International Congress of Parkinson's Disease and Movement Disorders (MDS). In October 2016, we announced that results from Phase 1, Phase 2a and preclinical studies of Inbrija were featured in the current edition of Science Translational Medicine.

12

---

 

ARCUS Product Development

In addition to Inbrija, discussed above, we are exploring opportunities for other proprietary products in which inhaled delivery using our ARCUS drug delivery technology can provide a significant therapeutic benefit to patients.

Disorders of the central nervous system, or CNS, in addition to Parkinson’s disease, may be addressed by ARCUS products with the delivery of active agents to the CNS with rapid onset and reduced systemic exposure. For example, we are currently developing CVT-427, an inhaled triptan (zolmitriptan) intended for acute treatment of migraine by using the ARCUS drug delivery technology. Triptans are the class of drug most commonly prescribed for acute treatment of migraine. Oral triptans, which account for the majority of all triptan doses, can be associated with slow onset of action and gastrointestinal challenges. The slow onset of action, usually 30 minutes or longer, can result in poor response rates. Patients cite the need for rapid relief from migraine symptoms as their most desired medication attribute. Additionally, individuals with migraine may suffer from nausea and delayed gastric emptying which further impact the consistency and efficacy of the oral route of administration. Triptans delivered subcutaneously (injection) provide the most rapid onset of action, but are not convenient for patients. Many triptans are also available in nasally delivered formulations. However, based on available data, we believe that nasally delivered triptans generally have an onset of action similar to orally administered triptans.

In December 2015, we initiated and completed a Phase 1 safety/tolerability and pharmacokinetic clinical trial of CVT-427 for acute treatment of migraine. In June 2016, at the 58th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Headache Society, we presented pharmacokinetic data from the Phase 1 trial which showed increased bioavailability and faster absorption compared to oral and nasal administration of the same active ingredient in healthy adults. In particular, the data showed that CVT-427 had a median Tmax of about 12 minutes for all dose levels compared to 1.5 hours for the oral tablet and 3.0 hours for the nasal spray. There were no serious adverse events, dose-limiting toxicities, evidence of bronchoconstriction or discontinuations due to adverse events reported in this study. The most commonly reported treatment-emergent adverse events were cough, chest discomfort, headache, and feeling hot. Apart from cough, single dose CVT-427 tolerability was generally consistent with the known safety profile of zolmitriptan. In December 2016, we completed a special population study to evaluate safe inhalation of CVT-427 in people with asthma and in smokers. Some subjects showed evidence of acute, reversible bronchoconstriction, post-inhalation. We plan to work on reformulating CVT-427 to move the program forward, once we have made more progress on the approval and launch of Inbrija.

In July 2015, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation awarded us a $1.4 million grant to support the development of a formulation and delivery system for a dry powder version of lung surfactant, a treatment for neonatal respiratory distress syndrome, or nRDS. In collaboration with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, we developed a novel formulation and delivery device based on our proprietary ARCUS drug delivery technology. nRDS is a condition affecting prematurely born infants in which their lungs are underdeveloped and thus lack a sufficient amount of lung surfactant. It can be fatal, or lead to severe, chronic health issues caused by a lack of oxygen getting to the baby’s brain and other organs. Delivering liquid surfactant to the lungs via intubation is the standard of care. We believe that our formulation and delivery system may present a more practical alternative for use in developing areas of the world, where intubation poses numerous problems. This program is not aimed at developing a commercial product, but our work on this program could potentially generate information that is useful for adapting the ARCUS drug delivery technology to commercial pediatric uses.

We are also beginning to formulate potential ARCUS products for two different rare lung diseases.

Other Research and Development Programs

Following is a description of our other research and development programs.

13

---

 

NP-1998 is a Phase 3 ready, 20% prescription strength capsaicin topical solution that we were previously assessing for the treatment of neuropathic pain. In 2013, we acquired development and commercialization rights in the U.S., Canada, Latin America and certain other territories. We believe NP-1998 has the potential to treat multiple neuropathies, but we have not invested in further development of NP-1998 for several years and we are seeking to partner or out-license this program.

Also, we were previously developing tozadenant, a potential adjunctive treatment to levodopa in Parkinson’s disease patients to reduce OFF time. We acquired this program with our 2016 acquisition of Biotie Therapies. In November 2017, we discontinued our tozadenant clinical development program based on new information obtained from our Phase 3 clinical trials related to agranulocytosis and associated serious adverse events.

Sales, Marketing and Market Access

Ampyra

Since the March 2010 launch of Ampyra, approximately 130,000 people with MS in the U.S. have tried Ampyra. We believe that Ampyra is increasingly considered by many physicians a standard of care to improve walking in adults with MS. Eight years after approval, Ampyra continues to grow, reflecting the continued unmet medical need among adults with MS for a treatment to improve walking. As of December 31, 2017, approximately 70% of all people with MS who were prescribed Ampyra received a first refill, and approximately 40% of all people with MS who were prescribed Ampyra have been dispensed at least six months of the medicine through refills, consistent with previously reported trends. These refill rates exclude patients who started Ampyra through our 60-day free trial program. Our 60-day free trial program provides eligible patients with two months of Ampyra at no cost. During 2017, on average, approximately 80% of new Ampyra patients enrolled in 60-day free trial. The program is in its seventh year, and data show that 60-day free trial participants have higher compliance and persistency rates over time compared to patients not in the program. Approximately 50% of patients who initiate therapy with the 60-day free trial free trial program convert to paid prescriptions.

We have established our own specialty sales force and commercial infrastructure in the U.S. to market Ampyra. We currently have approximately 90 sales representatives in the field calling on a priority target list of approximately 7,000 physicians. We also have established teams of Medical Science Liaisons, Regional Reimbursement Directors, and Market Access Account Directors who provide information and assistance to payers and physicians on Ampyra; a National Trade Account Director who works with our limited network of specialty pharmacies; and Market Development Managers who work collaboratively with field teams and corporate personnel to assist in the execution of our strategic initiatives.

We have contracted with a third-party organization with extensive experience in coordinating patient benefits to run Ampyra Patient Support Services, or APSS, a dedicated resource of support services that coordinates the prescription process among healthcare providers, people with MS and insurance carriers. Prescriptions for Ampyra are processed through the APSS center, where dedicated and experienced customer care agents are responsible for helping healthcare professionals

14

---

 

process prescriptions; working with insurance carriers to facilitate coverage; and working with a limited network of specialty pharmacy providers that deliver the medication directly to a patient’s home. In addition, APSS assists in directing patients to available copay and patient assistance programs, where permitted by law. The process begins when a prescription is submitted by a physician to APSS through a Service Request Form, or SRF. Processing of most incoming requests for prescriptions by APSS begins within 24 hours of receipt. Patients will experience a range of times to receive their first shipment based on the processing times for insurance requirements. As with any prescription product, patients who are members of benefit plans that have restrictive prior authorizations may experience delays in receiving their prescription. If insurance coverage is confirmed, APSS will transmit the prescription information to the specialty pharmacy provider that has contracted with the patient’s insurance carrier. The specialty pharmacy provider will then mail the prescription directly to the patient. In some cases, the specialty pharmacy provider will coordinate the insurance benefits investigation on behalf of the patient or will receive a prescription directly from a prescribing physician. Also we have established a program to assist individuals who have private insurance in managing their copayment costs through a copay mitigation program, where permitted by law.

We believe that, in general, people with MS are knowledgeable about their conditions, actively seek new treatments, and are directly involved with their prescriber's evaluation of treatment options. We have existing relationships with the major advocacy groups that focus on MS. As an example of our commitment, each year Acorda sponsors numerous National Multiple Sclerosis Society's Walk MS events around the country. These sponsorships allow us to engage thousands of people with MS, as well as their families, physicians and caregivers, in a discussion about the impact of walking impairment on their lives. In addition to these efforts, we have implemented educational and promotional programs to support Ampyra.

Ampyra is distributed in the U.S. exclusively through a limited network of specialty pharmacy providers that deliver the medication to patients by mail; Kaiser Permanente, which distributes Ampyra to patients through a closed network of on-site pharmacies; and ASD Specialty Healthcare, Inc. (an AmerisourceBergen affiliate), which distributes Ampyra to the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, or VA, and other federal agencies. The distribution process through specialty pharmacy providers is well established within the MS community, and physicians and patients are familiar with this model. This distribution process is intended to provide the best possible patient experience, improve patient adherence to the required drug regimen, including dosage, and assist in educating patients regarding the risks associated with Ampyra. The specialty pharmacy providers that deliver Ampyra by mail, and Kaiser Permanente, are contractually obligated to hold no more than 20 days of inventory, and some have agreed to hold a minimum of 8 to 10 business days of inventory. Three of the largest national health plans in the U.S. – Aetna, Cigna and United Healthcare – have listed Ampyra on their commercial formulary. Approximately 75% of insured individuals in the U.S. continue to have no or limited prior authorizations, or PA’s, for Ampyra. We define limited PAs as those that require only an MS diagnosis, documentation of no contraindications, and/or simple documentation that the patient has a walking impairment; such documentation may include a Timed 25-Foot Walk (T25W) test. The access figure is calculated based on the number of pharmacy lives reported by health plans.

Qutenza

Qutenza is distributed in the U.S. by Besse Medical, Inc., a specialty distributor that furnishes the medication to physician offices, and by ASD Specialty Healthcare, Inc., a specialty distributor that furnishes the medication to hospitals and clinics. As a product that must be administered only by a health care professional in an office, clinic, or hospital setting, many commercial health plans and government insurance programs reimburse for Qutenza under the patient’s medical benefit rather than the patient’s pharmacy benefit. As a result of this, most utilization of Qutenza is handled on a “buy-and-bill” basis in which one of the distributors listed above (Besse Medical, Inc. or ASD Specialty Healthcare, Inc.) ships the medication to a physician’s office, hospital or clinic to be administered. In those limited number of cases where a payer covers the medication under a patient’s pharmacy benefit, a specialty pharmacy purchases Qutenza from ASD Specialty Healthcare, Inc., and then ships the medication directly to the physician’s office, rather than dispensing Qutenza to the patient.

Inbrija (levodopa inhalation powder)

We believe we have built a leading neuro-specialty sales and marketing team through our commercialization of Ampyra, and that our launch of Inbrija in the U.S., if approved, will benefit from the experiences and capabilities of this team.

 

 

15

---

 

Material and Other Collaborations and License Agreements

Biogen (Fampyra)

In 2009, we entered into a Collaboration Agreement with Biogen, pursuant to which we and Biogen have agreed to collaborate on the development and commercialization of products containing aminopyridines, including Ampyra, initially directed to the treatment of MS (licensed products). The Collaboration Agreement includes a sublicense of our rights under an existing license agreement with Alkermes (formerly Elan). We have also entered into a related Supply Agreement pursuant to which we supply Biogen with its requirements for the licensed products through our existing supply agreement with Alkermes. Biogen Inc., the parent of Biogen, has guaranteed the performance of Biogen's obligations under the Collaboration Agreement and the Supply Agreement.

Under the Collaboration Agreement, Biogen, itself or through its affiliates, has the exclusive right to commercialize licensed products in all countries outside of the U.S., while we retain the exclusive right to commercialize licensed products in the U.S. Each party has the exclusive right to develop licensed products for its commercialization territory, although the parties may also decide to jointly carry out mutually agreed future development activities under a cost-sharing arrangement. Under the Collaboration Agreement, we participate in overseeing the development and commercialization of Ampyra and other licensed products in markets outside the U.S. in part through our participation in joint committees with Biogen. If Biogen does not participate in the development of licensed products for certain indications or forms of administration, it may lose the right to develop and commercialize the licensed products for such indication or form of administration. Biogen may sublicense its rights to certain unaffiliated distributors. During the term of the Collaboration Agreement and for two years after the Collaboration Agreement terminates, neither party nor its affiliates may, other than pursuant to the Collaboration Agreement, research, develop, manufacture or commercialize any competing product, defined as one that contains aminopyridine or any other compound that acts at least in part through direct interaction with potassium channels to improve neurological function in MS, SCI or other demyelinating conditions, except that we may exploit the licensed products anywhere in the world following termination of the Collaboration Agreement.

Ampyra is marketed as Fampyra outside the U.S. by Biogen. Fampyra has been approved in a number of countries across Europe, Asia and the Americas.

In consideration for the rights granted to Biogen under the Collaboration Agreement, we were entitled to a non-refundable upfront payment of $110.0 million as of June 30, 2009, which was received in July 2009. Also, in August 2011, we received a $25 million milestone payment from Biogen for approval of Fampyra in the EU. Under our separate license and supply agreements with Alkermes, in 2009 we paid Alkermes $7.7 million of the $110 million upfront Biogen payment and in 2011 we paid Alkermes $1.8 million of the $25 million Biogen milestone payment. We are entitled to receive additional payments from Biogen of up to $10 million based on the successful achievement of future regulatory milestones and up to $365 million based on the successful achievement of future sales milestones. The next expected milestone payment from Biogen would be $15 million, due when ex-U.S. net sales exceed $100 million over four consecutive quarters.

Under the Collaboration Agreement, we are also entitled to receive double-digit tiered royalties on sales of licensed products by Biogen, its affiliates or certain distributors outside of the U.S. Such royalties for products combining a licensed compound with at least one other clinically active therapeutic, prophylactic or diagnostic ingredient are determined based on the contribution of the licensed compound to the overall sales or value of the combination product. Biogen may offset against the royalties payable to us a portion of certain royalties that it may need to pay to third parties. In November 2017, we announced a $40 million Fampyra royalty monetization transaction with HealthCare Royalty Partners, or HCRP. In return for the payment to us, HCRP obtained the right to receive these Fampyra royalties up to an agreed-upon threshold. Until this threshold is met, if ever, we will not receive Fampyra royalty revenue although we have retained the right to receive any potential future milestone payments, described above.

Biogen exclusively purchases all of Biogen's, its affiliates' and its sublicensees' requirements of the licensed products from us. The purchase price paid by Biogen for licensed products under the Collaboration Agreement and Supply Agreement reflects the prices owed to our suppliers under our supply arrangements with Alkermes or other suppliers. In addition, Biogen pays us, in consideration for its purchase and sale of the licensed products, any amounts due to Alkermes for ex-U.S. sales, including royalties owed under the terms of our existing agreements with Alkermes.

The Collaboration Agreement will terminate upon the expiration of Biogen's royalty payment obligations, which occurs, on a licensed product-by-licensed product and country-by-country basis, upon the latest of expiration of the last-to-expire patent covering a licensed product, fifteen years following first commercial sale of such licensed product, the

16

---

 

expiration of regulatory exclusivity and the existence of certain levels of sales by competing products. The Collaboration Agreement and the Supply Agreement will automatically terminate upon the termination of our license agreement with Alkermes in its entirety or with respect to all countries outside of the U.S. We cannot terminate our license agreement with Alkermes without Biogen's prior written consent under certain circumstances. Biogen may terminate the Collaboration Agreement in its entirety or on a country-by-country basis at any time upon 180 days' prior written notice, subject to our right to accelerate such termination. The Collaboration Agreement may also be terminated by either party if the other party fails to cure a material breach under the agreement, which termination will be limited to a particular country or region under certain circumstances. However, if Biogen has the right to terminate the Collaboration Agreement due to our material uncured breach, Biogen may instead elect to keep the agreement in effect, but decrease the royalty rates they pay us by a specified percentage. We may also terminate the Collaboration Agreement if Biogen does not commercially launch a licensed product within a specified time period after receiving regulatory approval for such licensed product or otherwise fails to meet certain commercialization obligations. In addition, we may terminate the Collaboration Agreement under certain circumstances if (i) Biogen, its affiliates or its sublicensees challenge certain of our patents or (ii) there is a change in control of Biogen or its parent company or certain dispositions of assets by Biogen, its parent or its affiliated companies, followed by a change in the sales and marketing personnel responsible for the licensed products in Biogen's territory of more than a specified percentage within a certain period of time after such change in control or disposition. The Supply Agreement may be terminated by either party if the other party fails to cure a material breach under the Supply Agreement. In addition, the Supply Agreement will terminate automatically upon termination of the Collaboration Agreement, and the Collaboration Agreement will terminate automatically if the Supply Agreement is terminated for any reason other than for a material breach that we are responsible for. To the extent permitted by law, each party may terminate the Collaboration Agreement and the Supply Agreement if the other party is subject to bankruptcy proceedings.

If the Supply Agreement is terminated by Biogen for an uncured material breach, we will waive our right for Alkermes to exclusively supply the licensed products to us solely to permit Biogen to negotiate terms with Alkermes for the supply of licensed products to Biogen. If the Supply Agreement is otherwise terminated, Biogen will not have any future obligations to purchase licensed products from us and we will not have any future obligations to supply Biogen with licensed products. If the Collaboration Agreement is terminated, Biogen will assign to us all regulatory documentation and other information necessary or useful to exploit the licensed products in the terminated countries and will grant us a license under Biogen's and its affiliates' relevant patent rights, know-how and trademarks to exploit the licensed products in the terminated countries. Such assignment and license will be at no cost to us unless the Collaboration Agreement is terminated by Biogen for a material uncured breach that we are responsible for, in which case the parties will negotiate a payment to Biogen to reflect the net value of such assigned and licensed rights.

Neither party may assign the agreements without the prior written consent of the other, except to an affiliate or, in certain cases, to a third party acquirer of the party.

In connection with the entry into the Collaboration Agreement, Biogen and Alkermes entered into a Consent Agreement with us. Under the Consent Agreement, Alkermes consented to our sublicense of rights to Biogen, and the three parties agreed to set up a committee to coordinate activities under our agreements with Alkermes with respect to the development, supply and commercialization of the licensed products for Biogen's territory. The Consent Agreement also amended our agreements with Alkermes by, among other things, permitting us to allow Biogen to grant sublicenses to certain unaffiliated distributors; permitting us to allow Biogen to package the licensed products and to work directly with Alkermes with respect to certain supply-related activities; and, requiring Alkermes to facilitate the qualification of an alternate supplier of the licensed products under certain circumstances.

Alkermes (Ampyra)

We have entered into agreements with Elan Corporation plc, including those described immediately below and elsewhere in this report. In September 2011, Alkermes plc acquired Elan’s Drug Technologies business and Elan transferred our agreements to Alkermes as part of that transaction. Throughout this report, references to “Alkermes” include Alkermes plc and also, as the context may require, Elan Corporation plc as the predecessor to Alkermes plc under our agreements.

In September 2003, we entered into an amended and restated license agreement with Elan that replaced two prior license agreements for Ampyra in oral sustained release dosage form. Under this agreement, Elan granted us exclusive worldwide rights to Ampyra for all indications, including SCI, MS and all other indications. We agreed to pay Elan milestone payments of up to $15.0 million, of which we have reached and paid $5.0 million, and royalties based on net sales of products with dalfampridine as the active ingredient. We also agreed to pay Elan 7% of any upfront and milestone payments that we receive from the sublicensing of rights to Ampyra or other aminopyridine products. As a result of our Collaboration

17

---

 

Agreement with Biogen, described above, in 2009 we paid Elan $7.7 million of a $110 million upfront payment we received from Biogen, and in 2011 we paid Elan $1.8 million of a $25 million milestone payment we received from Biogen.

Alkermes (now the licensor under this agreement due to its 2011 acquisition of Elan’s Drug Technologies business) is also obligated under this agreement to supply us with our commercial requirements for Ampyra in the U.S., as well as to supply Biogen under the Supply Agreement and Consent Agreement with Fampyra for Biogen’s clinical trials and for Biogen’s commercial requirements.

Alkermes may terminate our license in countries in which we have a license, if we fail to file for regulatory approvals within a commercially reasonable time after completion and receipt of positive data from all preclinical and clinical studies required for the related NDA equivalent. We could also lose our rights under the license agreement if we fail to launch a product in such countries within 180 days of NDA or equivalent approval and receipt of other needed regulatory approvals, or if we fail to fulfill our payment obligations under the license agreement. If Alkermes terminates our license in any applicable country, Alkermes is entitled to license from us our patent rights and know-how relating to the product and to market the product in the applicable country, subject to royalty payments to us.

We have the right to terminate the Alkermes license at any time by written notice. In addition, the Alkermes license may be immediately terminated by either party following an incurable breach of any term or provision by the other party. The Alkermes license may also be terminated by either party following notice and the expiration of a cure period with respect to an uncured breach by either party.

Subject to the early termination provisions, the Alkermes license terminates on a country-by-country basis on the last to occur of fifteen years from the date of the agreement (2018), the expiration of the last to expire Alkermes patent or the existence of competition in that country.

Rush-Presbyterian St. Luke's Medical Center (dalfampridine)

In 1990, Elan licensed from Rush-Presbyterian St. Luke's Medical Center, or Rush, know-how relating to dalfampridine for the treatment of MS. We subsequently licensed this know-how from Elan. In September 2003, we entered into an agreement with Rush and Elan terminating the Rush license to Elan and providing for mutual releases. We also entered into a license agreement with Rush in 2003 in which Rush granted us an exclusive worldwide license to its know-how relating to dalfampridine for the treatment of MS.

We agreed to pay Rush a license fee, milestone payments of up to $1.1 million and royalties based on net sales of the product for neurological indications. We have made or accrued an aggregate of $1.1 in milestone payments and $59.9 million in royalties under this agreement through December 31, 2017. In 2014, with our consent Rush sold its right to receive these royalties along with certain related rights to a third party, though this transfer did not materially change any of our obligations under the license. The FDA approval of Ampyra triggered the final milestone of $750,000, which was paid in 2010. The Rush license may be terminated by either party following an uncured material breach by the other party and notice. The Rush license may also be terminated upon the filing or institution of bankruptcy, reorganization, liquidation or receivership proceedings, or upon an assignment of a substantial portion of the assets for the benefit of creditors by the other party. We also entered into an agreement with Elan relating to the allocation of payments between us and Elan of certain payments to Rush under the Rush license. Subject to the early termination provisions, the Rush license terminates upon expiration of the royalty obligations, which expire fifteen years from the date of the agreement (2018).

Alkermes (ARCUS products)

On December 27, 2010, Civitas, our wholly-owned subsidiary, entered into an Asset Purchase and License Agreement with Alkermes, Inc. pursuant to which Alkermes assigned, sold and transferred to Civitas certain of its rights in certain pulmonary delivery patents and patents applications, certain equipment and instruments relating to pulmonary drug delivery, copies of certain documents and reports relating to pulmonary delivery, certain pulmonary drug delivery inhalers and certain pulmonary drug delivery INDs filed with the FDA. Alkermes also granted to Civitas a non-exclusive sublicense to know-how for the purpose of development and commercialization of ARCUS products. Civitas is permitted to license and sublicense the pulmonary patents, patent applications and know-how, subject to certain restrictions, as necessary for our business. Without the prior written consent of Alkermes, Civitas is prohibited from assigning the intellectual property acquired from Alkermes, except to an affiliate or to a person that acquires all or substantially all of its business to which the agreement relates, whether by acquisition, sale, merger or otherwise.

18

---

 

Civitas is required to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop ARCUS products. Civitas is obligated to pay to Alkermes royalties for each licensed product. For licensed products sold by Civitas or an affiliate, Civitas will pay Alkermes a royalty in the mid-single digit percentages in the aggregate. For licensed products sold by a collaboration partner, Civitas will pay Alkermes the lower of either (1) a royalty in the mid-single digit percentage of net sales of licensed products in any given year, or (2) a percentage in the low-to-mid-double digits of all collaboration partner revenue received. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event shall the royalty paid be less than a low-single digit percentage of net sales of a licensed product in any given calendar year. Civitas must pay these royalties on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis until the later of: (1) the expiration of all patents acquired pursuant to the Alkermes agreement containing valid claims covering such licensed products in such country, or (2) a certain number of years after the launch of such licensed product in each specific country.

The Alkermes agreement remains in effect until expiration of Civitas’s royalty obligations to Alkermes. Royalties are payable to Alkermes on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis until the later of (i) the expiration of the patents acquired from Alkermes containing a valid claim covering a product in a particular country and (ii) 12 years and six months after the launch of a product in a country. Either party may terminate the agreement for default of the other party. Civitas may terminate the Alkermes agreement for convenience upon 90 days’ prior written notice to Alkermes.

Other License Agreements

In addition to the material license and collaboration agreements described above, we have entered into numerous other license agreements to support our research and development programs. These other license agreements include the following:

Our Neuronex, Inc. subsidiary was previously a party to a license agreement with SK Biopharmaceuticals Co., Ltd., relating to Plumiaz, a proprietary nasal spray formulation of diazepam that we were developing as a treatment for certain epilepsy patients. In 2016 we announced that we were discontinuing our Plumiaz development program, and the license was terminated in 2017.

19

---

 

Manufacturing and Supply

Ampyra

We are party to a September 2003 agreement with Elan (now Alkermes, following Alkermes’s 2011 acquisition of Elan’s Drug Technologies business) for our clinical and commercial supply of Ampyra. Under that agreement, we are required to purchase at least 75% of our annual commercial requirements of Ampyra from Alkermes unless Alkermes is unable or unwilling to meet our requirements. In addition, the agreement also obligates us to make compensatory payments if we do not purchase 100% of our requirements from Alkermes.

As permitted by our agreement with Alkermes, we have designated Patheon, Inc. as a second manufacturing source of Ampyra. In connection with that designation, we entered into a manufacturing agreement with Patheon, and Alkermes assisted us in transferring manufacturing technology to Patheon. We and Alkermes have agreed that we may purchase up to 25% of our annual requirements from Patheon if we make compensatory payments to Alkermes. In addition, Patheon may supply us with Ampyra if Alkermes is unable or unwilling to meet our requirements.

Under a Consent Agreement among Elan (now Alkermes, following Alkermes’s acquisition of Elan’s Drug Technologies business), Biogen and us, Alkermes consented to our sublicense of our rights under our agreements with Alkermes to Biogen. The three parties agreed to set up a committee to coordinate activities under these agreements with respect to the development, supply and commercialization of the licensed products for Biogen's territory. The Consent Agreement also amended our agreements with Alkermes by, among other things, permitting us to allow Biogen to grant sublicenses to certain unaffiliated distributors, permitting us to allow Biogen to package the licensed products and to work directly with Alkermes with respect to certain supply-related activities, and requiring Alkermes to facilitate the qualification of an alternate supplier of the licensed products under certain circumstances.

We rely on two third-party manufacturers, Regis Technologies, Inc. and CU Chemie Uetikon (GmbH), to supply 4-aminopyridine, the active pharmaceutical ingredient in Ampyra. If these companies experience any disruption in their operations, a delay or interruption in the supply of our Ampyra product could result until the problem is solved or we locate an alternate source of supply. We may not be able to enter into alternative supply arrangements on terms that are commercially favorable, if at all. Any new supplier would also be required to qualify under applicable regulatory requirements. We could experience substantial delays before we are able to qualify any new supplier.

Inbrija (levodopa inhalation powder), CVT-427 and ARCUS Technology

Our 2014 acquisition of Civitas included its 90,000 square foot subleased manufacturing facility located in Chelsea, Massachusetts. The facility was built specifically for the commercial-scale manufacture of ARCUS products. Prior to Civitas’s acquisition of this facility from Alkermes, the facility produced more than 36 million human doses of ARCUS-based products for use in clinical trials by Alkermes’s collaborator in indications other than Parkinson’s disease. Civitas subsequently took steps to recommission the facility, which has been certified by the EU regulatory authority (known as the Qualified Person, or QP, audit). Civitas produced current good manufacturing practices, or cGMP-quality human doses of Inbrija for Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials.

We have developed mature quality systems to support commercial production. As described above, we have manufactured drug product at research and development scale and we believe that we have the expertise to transfer to large, commercial scale while maintaining all relevant drug product attributes. Consequently, we believe that we will be able to ensure reliable production that meets the requirements of the FDA and other regulatory agencies.

As we are already at commercial scale, we believe that our Chelsea manufacturing facility will support rapid commercialization should we receive marketing approval from the FDA. However, if we obtain approval from the FDA, we anticipate the need to expand our manufacturing capacity at the Chelsea facility after product launch to meet demand depending on the timing and extent of sales growth. The ARCUS dry powder aerosol particles are generated by applying our proprietary and multi-step spray drying process to active pharmaceutical ingredient. The application of spray drying in the pharmaceutical industry is highly specialized, and the process of manufacturing ARCUS particles requires significant expertise in dry powder manufacture and handling and capsule filling. Expanding our manufacturing capacity will require substantial additional expenditures and various regulatory approvals and permits. Further, we may need to hire and train additional employees and managerial personnel to staff our expanding manufacturing operations. Manufacturing scale-up entails significant risks related to process development and manufacturing yields. In addition, we may face difficulties or

20

---

 

delays in developing or acquiring the necessary production equipment and technology. Our expanded Chelsea facility will have to continue to comply with cGMP requirements as well as other applicable environmental, safety, and other governmental permitting requirements.

All Inbrija dry powder inventory has been manufactured in-house using our cGMP process. Current data supports Inbrija as a room temperature stable product. We have finalized drug formulation and fill weight and have also implemented final design changes for the inhaler, for which commercial molds have been produced. All raw materials used for Inbrija manufacture are standard in pharmaceutical production. Our manufacturing team is led by individuals who are highly experienced with manufacturing of ARCUS products and other commercial products. Many of the individuals who lead our manufacturing previously manufactured ARCUS products at this facility for Alkermes.

Our proprietary inhalers are manufactured by contract manufacturers using standard manufacturing processes. We own the molds and design history files for the inhalers. The inhalers are shipped fully assembled to us. Final design changes for the inhaler for our anticipated commercial launch have been implemented, and the molds have been produced.

rHIgM22

We contracted with BioVest International, now Cell Culture Company, and CMC Biologics in 2009 for production and purification, respectively, of rHIgM22. All manufacturing was performed under cGMPs. Acorda and CMC Biologics developed analytical methods and characterization assays to support manufacturing and stability testing of the drug substance. A pilot lot of drug substance was tested in GLP studies for safety and toxicology.

The final drug product for rHIgM22 for clinical studies was produced at Althea Technologies, now Ajinomoto Althea, Inc., using material produced by CMC Biologics as described above. The manufacturing process for drug substance and drug product, along with initial stability data for both, was submitted to FDA as part of an IND application originally filed in August 2012.

Intellectual Property  

We have patent portfolios relating to: Ampyra/aminopyridines; Inbrija (levodopa inhalation powder), CVT-427 and the ARCUS drug delivery technology; SYN120, BTT1023; cimaglermin alfa/neuregulins; remyelinating antibodies/antibodies relating to nervous system disorders; Qutenza and NP-1998/topical capsaicin formulations. These portfolios are comprised of both our own and in-licensed patents and patent applications. Our intellectual property also includes copyrights, confidential and trade secret information as well as a portfolio of trademarks.

The intellectual property relating to our programs is owned or licensed either directly by Acorda or indirectly through subsidiaries, including for example subsidiaries we acquired in connection with our 2014 acquisition of Civitas Therapeutics, Inc. and our 2016 acquisition of Biotie Therapies Corp. Throughout this report, we may refer to any and all such intellectual property, and the corresponding research and development programs as, “our” or “Acorda’s” programs.

Ampyra/aminopyridines

We have five issued patents listed in the Orange Book for Ampyra, four of which were held invalid in litigation in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware with certain generic drug manufacturers, as further described in this report. The first is U.S. Patent No. 5,540,938, the claims of which relate to methods for treating a neurological disease, such as MS, and cover the use of a sustained release dalfampridine formulation, such as Ampyra (dalfampridine) Extended Release Tablets, 10 mg for improving walking in people with MS. In April 2013, this patent received a five year patent term extension under the patent restoration provisions of the Hatch-Waxman Act. With a five year patent term extension, this patent will expire on July 30, 2018. We have an exclusive license to this patent from Alkermes (originally with Elan, but transferred to Alkermes as part of its acquisition of Elan’s Drug Technologies business). This patent was held valid by the District Court in the litigation, although in June 2017 the defendant generic drug manufacturers with whom we have not reached settlements appealed the District Court’s decision upholding this patent.

The other four Orange Book-listed patents were held invalid by the District Court in the litigation with generic drug manufacturers. These patents, which had been set to expire in 2025 through 2027, consist of U.S. Patent No. 8,007,826, with claims relating to methods to improve walking in patients with MS by administering 10 mg of sustained release 4-aminopyridine (dalfampridine) twice daily; U.S. Patent No. 8,354,437, which includes claims relating to methods to improve

21

---

 

walking, increase walking speed, and treat walking disability in patients with MS by administering 10 mg of sustained release 4-aminopyridine (dalfampridine) twice daily; U.S. Patent No. 8,440,703, which includes claims directed to methods of improving lower extremity function and walking and increasing walking speed in patients with MS by administering less than 15 mg of sustained release 4-aminopyridine (dalfampridine) twice daily; and U.S. Patent No. 8,663,685 with claims relating to methods to improve walking in patients with MS by administering 10 mg of sustained release 4-aminopyridine (dalfampridine) twice daily.

The patent litigation referenced above relates to Paragraph IV Certification Notices received from ten generic drug manufacturers in 2014 and 2015, who submitted Abbreviated New Drug Applications with the FDA seeking marketing approval for generic versions of Ampyra (dalfampridine) Extended Release Tablets, 10mg. The ANDA filers challenged the validity of our Orange Book-listed patents for Ampyra, and they also asserted that generic versions of their products do not infringe certain claims of these patents. In 2015 and 2016, we reached settlement agreements with six of the generic companies. A bench trial against the remaining four generic companies was completed in September 2016. In February 2017, we announced that we had reached a settlement agreement with one of those four generic companies. In March 2017, the District Court rendered a decision upholding our Orange-Book listed patent for Ampyra set to expire in July 2018, but invalidating our four other Orange Book-listed patents. In May 2017, we appealed the ruling on these four patents, and as described above, in June 2017 the other non-settling parties appealed the decision on the patent set to expire in July 2018. We expect the appeals process to take approximately 12 to 18 months from the filing of the appeal in May 2017. Both the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) filed amicus briefs in support of our appeal, raising important issues in conjunction with biopharmaceutical innovation.

In 2011, the European Patent Office, or EPO, granted EP 1732548, with claims relating to, among other things, use of a sustained release aminopyridine composition, such as dalfampridine (known under the trade name Fampyra in the European Union), to increase walking speed. In March 2012, Synthon B.V. and neuraxpharm Arzneimittel GmBH filed oppositions with the EPO challenging the EP 1732548 patent. We defended the patent, and in December 2013, we announced that the EPO Opposition Division upheld amended claims in this patent covering a sustained release formulation of dalfampridine for increasing walking in patients with MS through twice daily dosing at 10 mg. Both Synthon B.V. and neuraxpharm Arzneimittel GmBH have appealed the decision. In December 2013, Synthon B.V., neuraxpharm Arzneimittel GmBH and Actavis Group PTC EHF filed oppositions with the EPO challenging our EP 2377536 patent, which is a divisional of the EP 1732548 patent. On February 24, 2016, the EPO Opposition Division rendered a decision that revoked the EP 2377536 patent. We believe the claims of this patent are valid and we have appealed the decision. Both European patents, if upheld as valid, are set to expire in 2025, absent any additional exclusivity granted based on regulatory review timelines. Fampyra also has 10 years of market exclusivity in the European Union that is set to expire in 2021.

We will vigorously defend our intellectual property rights.

Legal proceedings relating to our Ampyra patents are described in further detail in Part II, Item 1 of this report.

Inbrija (levodopa inhalation powder), CVT-427 and ARCUS Technology

The intellectual property portfolio that we acquired with Civitas has over 100 issued U.S. and foreign patents relating to Inbrija and the ARCUS drug delivery technology. This includes over 15 issued U.S. patents relating to Inbrija directed to compositions of the drug product, the inhaler, the capsule for the drug product, methods of delivery of L-dopa, and manufacturing processes. The latest of the issued patents expires in 2032. The CVT-427 program, which also utilizes the ARCUS drug delivery technology, has pending applications directed to formulations, which, if granted would expire in 2036 absent any patent term adjustment. These applications are for our current CVT-427 formulation, and we plan to work on reformulating CVT-427 to move the program forward.

SYN120

We have an exclusive license from Roche for patents and patent applications relating to SYN120. This includes four granted U.S. patents set to expire in 2025 and 2026. The license also includes foreign counterparts, including two granted European patents, set to expire in 2025. The claims are directed to compositions of matter and methods of use.

BTT1023

The BTT1023 portfolio includes two patent families. The first family is owned by Biotie and includes two granted U.S. patents set to expire in 2028 and foreign counterparts including a granted European patent set to expire in 2028. The claims

22

---

 

are directed to composition of matter and methods of use. The second family is co-owned by Biotie with the University of Birmingham and includes a granted U.S. and European patent set to expire in 2030. This family also includes pending and granted counterparts in other countries. The claims of this family are directed to use of VAP-1 inhibitors for treatment of fibrotic conditions. The University of Birmingham has licensed their rights in this patent family back to Biotie.

Remyelinating Antibodies/Antibodies Related to Nervous System Disorders

Acorda is the exclusive licensee of a portfolio of patents and patent applications related to a series of remyelinating antibodies and their use discovered by scientists at the Mayo Clinic. This portfolio also includes granted and pending U.S. and foreign patent applications directed to additional antibodies and their use. With regard to remyelinating antibodies, the portfolio includes granted European patents as well as other granted foreign counterparts.

Cimaglermin alfa/Neuregulins

We are the exclusive licensee under a license agreement with Paion AG (formerly CeNeS Pharmaceuticals, plc), of its worldwide portfolio of patents, patent applications and IP rights related to products of neuregulin genes, including cimaglermin alfa. Collectively, these patents claim the use of particular neuregulins to treat various pathophysiological conditions, particularly uses to stimulate myelinating cells in order to treat conditions of the central and peripheral nervous system that involve demyelination. These patents also claim a number of additional potential uses of neuregulins, including stimulation of growth in cardiac and mammalian muscle cells, as well as treating cardiac failure, peripheral neuropathy and nerve injury.

Our neuregulin portfolio includes a granted U.S. patent directed to using specified neuregulin sequences to treat congestive heart failure.

Qutenza and NP-1998/Topical Capsaicin Formulations

We have commercialization and development rights for Qutenza and NP-1998 in the U.S., Canada, Latin America and certain other territories. In the U.S., we have one Orange Book-listed patent for Qutenza, which is U.S. Patent No. 6,239,180. The original expiration date for Patent No. 6,239,180 was November 6, 2016. In October 2017, this patent received 1,671 days of patent term extension under the patent restoration provisions of the Hatch-Waxman Act. With that patent term extension, this patent will expire on June 4, 2021.

There are granted U.S. patents which include claims directed to NP-1998 providing coverage until September 2027. There are also cases granted in Canada and Japan set to expire in 2024. There is also a pending U.S. patent application and a pending Japanese patent application which, if granted, would expire in 2024.

Trademarks

In addition to patents, our intellectual property portfolio includes registered trademarks, along with pending trademark applications. We own several registered trademarks in the U.S. and in other countries. These registered trademarks include, in the U.S., the marks “Acorda Therapeutics,” our stylized Acorda Therapeutics logo, “Biotie Therapies,” “Ampyra,” “Qutenza” and “ARCUS.” We also have trademark registrations for “Fampyra” and “Kampyra” and pending trademark applications therefore, in numerous foreign jurisdictions. In addition, our trademark portfolio includes several trademark registrations and pending trademark applications for potential product names and for disease awareness activities.

Competition

The market for developing and marketing pharmaceutical products is highly competitive. We are aware of many biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies that are engaged in development and/or marketing of therapeutics for a broad range of central nervous system conditions, including multiple sclerosis, or MS and Parkinson’s disease. Many of our competitors have substantially greater financial, research and development, human and other resources than we do. Furthermore, many of these companies have significantly more experience than we do in preclinical testing, human clinical trials, regulatory approval procedures and sales and marketing.

23

---

 

Ampyra/MS

Current disease management approaches to MS are classified either as relapse management, disease course management, or symptom management approaches. For relapse management, the majority of neurologists treat sudden and severe relapses with a four-day course of intravenous high-dose corticosteroids. Many of these corticosteroids are available generically. For disease course management, there are a number of FDA-approved MS therapies that seek to modify the immune system. These treatments attempt to reduce the frequency and severity of exacerbations or slow the accumulation of physical disability for people with certain types of MS, though their precise mechanisms of action are not known. These products include Avonex, Tysabri, Plegridy and Tecfidera from Biogen, Betaseron from Bayer AG, Copaxone from Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Rebif from Merck Serono, Gilenya and Extavia from Novartis AG, Aubagio and Lemtrada from Genzyme Corporation (a Sanofi company), Glatopa from Sandoz International GmbH (a Novartis AG company), Zinbryta from Biogen and AbbieVie, and Rituxan from F. Hoffman-La Roche AG.

To our knowledge, Ampyra is the first and only product that is approved as a treatment to improve walking in adult patients with MS. This was demonstrated by an increase in walking speed. Several biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, as well as academic laboratories, are involved in research and/or product development for various neurological diseases, including MS. Other companies also have products in clinical development, including products approved for other indications in MS, to address improvement of walking ability in people with MS. We are aware that Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is developing ADS-5102 (amantadine hydrochloride) in patients with MS who have walking impairment, which may compete with Ampyra. Catalyst Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is developing a 3,4-diaminopyridine product, licensed from Biomarin, that also may compete with Ampyra.

Several companies are engaged in developing products that include novel immune system approaches and cell therapy approaches to remyelination for the treatment of people with MS. These programs are in early stages of development and may compete with Ampyra or our preclinical candidates in the future.

In addition, in certain circumstances, pharmacists are not prohibited from formulating certain drug compounds to fill prescriptions on an individual patient basis, which is referred to as compounding. We are aware that at present compounded dalfampridine is used by some people with MS, and it is possible that some people will want to continue using compounded formulations even though Ampyra is commercially available.

We believe that Ampyra is complementary to both the relapse management and disease course management therapies that are commercially available. Nonetheless, Ampyra may compete for market acceptance with these current treatments because they have been accepted and regularly prescribed to adults with MS by physicians, or because physicians may think that these products also improve walking or other neurological functions.

Ampyra could become subject to competition from generic drug manufacturers. In March 2017, we announced a decision by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in litigation with certain generic drug manufacturers upholding our Ampyra Orange Book-listed patent set to expire on July 30, 2018, but invalidating our four other Orange Book-listed patents pertaining to Ampyra that were set to expire between 2025 and 2027. Under this decision, we expect to maintain patent exclusivity with respect to Ampyra at least through July 30, 2018, depending on the outcome of appeal of the District Court’s decision. The defendant generic drug manufacturers have appealed the District Court’s decision upholding the patent that expires in July 2018, and we have appealed the ruling on the four invalidated patents. We expect the appeals process to take approximately 12 to 18 months from the filing of the appeal in May 2017. We expect to experience a rapid and significant decline in Ampyra sales beyond July 2018 due to competition from generic versions of Ampyra that may be marketed after the expiration of our remaining Ampyra patent, unless the District Court’s decision on the four invalidated patents is overturned on appeal, which could include reversal or remand by the appeals court back to the District Court. Our litigation with these generic drug manufacturers is described in further detail in Part I, Item 3 of this report. We will need to continue devoting significant resources to this litigation, and we can provide no assurance concerning its duration or outcome.

Inbrija (levodopa inhalation powder)/Parkinson’s disease

If approved for the treatment of OFF periods (re-emergence of symptoms), Inbrija would compete against on-demand therapies that aim to specifically address Parkinson’s disease symptoms. Apokyn, an injectable formulation of apomorphine, is approved for the treatment of OFF periods. Apokyn was approved for this use in the U.S. in 2004 and in Europe in 1993. Also, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc. is developing a sublingual, or under the tongue, formulation of apomorphine. This program is in Phase 3 clinical development and could potentially be commercially launched ahead of Inbrija. In January

24

---

 

2018, Sunovion announced positive topline results from their pivotal Phase 3 study, which will be used in support of their submission of a New Drug Application expected in spring 2018.

The standard of care for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease is oral carbidopa/levodopa, but oral medication can be associated with wide variability in the timing and the amount of absorption and there are significant challenges in creating a regimen that consistently maintains therapeutic effects as Parkinson’s disease progresses. Inbrija may face competition from therapies that can limit the occurrence of OFF periods. Approaches to achieve consistent levodopa plasma concentrations include new formulations of carbidopa/levodopa, such as extended-release and intestinal infusions, and therapies that prolong the effect of levodopa. Impax Laboratories has received FDA approval for RYTARY, an extended-release formulation of oral carbidopa/levodopa, and extended release formulations of oral and patch carbidopa/levodopa are being developed by others including Impax Depomed Inc., Intec Pharma and NeuroDerm Ltd. Also, Abbvie Inc. has developed a continuous administration of a gel-containing levodopa through a tube that is surgically implanted into the intestine. This therapy, known as Duopa, has been approved by the FDA and is approved in the EU.

Qutenza/Post-Herpetic Neuralgia

Qutenza faces significant competition from various other oral and topical products that are indicated to treat post-herpetic neuralgia and/or other forms of neuropathic pain, as well as other prescription and over the counter pain medications not specifically indicated for neuropathic pain that patients may use to address their symptoms. Many of the prescription pain medications that may compete with Qutenza are available in generic forms. Although we have no current plans to develop and commercialize NP-1998, this product would similarly face significant competition from these other products if we were to do so.

Also, unlike our other products, Qutenza may be administered only by a health care professional in an office, clinic, or hospital setting. For this reason, it is treated as a “buy-and-bill” product by most payers, including most Medicare programs, Medicaid programs, and private payers. Buy-and-bill products must be purchased by health care providers before they can be administered to patients. Health care providers subsequently must seek reimbursement for the product from the applicable third party payer such as Medicaid or a health insurance company. Health care providers may be reluctant to administer Qutenza because they would have to fund the purchase of the product and then seek reimbursement (which may differ somewhat from their purchase price), or because they do not want the additional administrative burden required for the product.

Government Regulation

FDA Regulation of Drugs and Drug Product Approval

The FDA and comparable regulatory agencies in state and local jurisdictions and in foreign countries impose substantial requirements upon the preclinical testing, clinical development, manufacture, distribution and marketing of pharmaceutical products. These agencies and other federal, state and local entities regulate research and development activities and the testing, manufacture, quality control, safety, effectiveness, labeling, storage, distribution, record keeping, approval, advertising, sale, promotion, import and export of our products and product candidates.

In the U.S., Ampyra, Qutenza, and our product candidates are regulated by the FDA as drugs. Some of our product candidates are potentially regulated both as drugs, drug/medical device combinations and as biological products. Drugs, biologics, and medical devices primarily are regulated under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended, the Public Health Service Act, as amended, and the regulations of the FDA. These products are also subject to other federal, state, and local statutes and regulations. Violations of regulatory requirements at any stage may result in various adverse consequences, including the FDA's and other health authorities' delay in approving or refusal to approve a product. Violations of regulatory requirements also may result in enforcement actions, including withdrawal of approval, labeling restrictions, seizure of products, fines, injunctions and/or civil or criminal penalties. Similar civil or criminal penalties could be imposed by other government agencies or agencies of the states and localities in which our products are tested, manufactured, sold or distributed.

25

---

 

The process required by the FDA under these laws before our drug and biological product candidates may be marketed in the U.S. generally involves the following:

The research, development and approval process requires substantial time, effort, and financial resources, and we cannot be certain that any approval will be granted on a timely or commercially viable basis, if at all.

Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of the product candidate, its chemistry, formulation and stability, as well as animal studies to assess its safety and potential efficacy. The results of the preclinical studies, together with manufacturing information, analytical data and any available clinical data or literature must be submitted to the FDA as part of an IND application. The IND sponsor may initiate clinical trials 30 days after filing the IND application, unless the FDA, within the 30-day time period, raises concerns or questions about the conduct of the proposed clinical trial. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. Further, an independent Institutional Review Board, or IRB, charged with protecting the welfare of human subjects involved in research at each medical center proposing to conduct the clinical trials must review and approve any clinical trial before it commences at that center. The IRB(s) must continue to monitor the trial until its completion. Many studies also employ a data safety monitoring board, or DSMB, with experts who are otherwise independent of the conduct of the study and are given access to the unblinded study data periodically during the study to determine whether the study should be halted. For example, a DSMB might halt a study if an unacceptable safety issue emerges, or if the data showing the effectiveness of the study drug would make it unethical to continue giving patients placebo. Study subjects must provide informed consent before their participation in the research study.

Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases, which may overlap:

In the case of product candidates for severe or life-threatening diseases such as MS, the initial human testing is often conducted in affected patients rather than in healthy volunteers. Since these patients already have the target condition, these clinical trials may provide initial evidence of efficacy traditionally obtained in Phase 2 clinical trials and thus these clinical trials are frequently referred to as Phase 1b clinical trials.

Before proceeding with a Phase 3 trial, sponsors may seek a written agreement from the FDA regarding the design and size of clinical trials intended to form the primary basis of an effectiveness claim. This is known as a Special Protocol Assessment, or SPA. SPAs help establish up front agreement with the FDA about the adequacy of the design of a clinical trial, but the agreement does not guarantee FDA approval even if the SPA is followed. For example a substantial scientific issue essential to determining the safety or effectiveness of the drug could be identified after the testing has begun. In addition, even if an SPA remains in place and the trial meets its endpoints with statistical significance, the FDA could determine that the overall balance of risks and benefits for the product candidate is not adequate to support approval, or only

26

---

 

justifies approval for a narrow set of clinical uses, or approval with restricted distribution or other burdensome post-approval requirements or limitations.

Federal and state law requires the submission of registry and results information for most clinical trials to a publicly available database at www.clinicaltrials.gov. These requirements generally do not apply to Phase 1 clinical trials.

U.S. law requires that trials conducted to support approval for product marketing be "adequate and well controlled." This entails a number of requirements, including that there is a clear statement of objects and methods in the protocol, the study design permits a valid comparison with a control (e.g., a placebo, another drug already approved for the studied condition, or a non-concurrent control such as historical data), and that the statistical methods used to analyze the data are adequate to assess the effects of the drug. Studies must also be conducted in compliance with Good Clinical Practice, or GCP, requirements.

We cannot be certain that we will successfully complete Phase 1, Phase 2 or Phase 3 testing of our product candidates within any specific time period, if at all. Furthermore, the FDA, the IRBs or the DSMB may prevent clinical trials from beginning or may place clinical trials on hold or terminate them at any point in this process if, among other reasons, they conclude that study subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk.

In the U.S., for most drugs and biologics, the results of product development, preclinical studies and clinical trials must be submitted to the FDA for review and approval prior to marketing and commercial distribution of the product candidate. If the product candidate is regulated as a drug, an NDA must be submitted and approved before commercial marketing may begin. If the product candidate, such as an antibody, is regulated as a biologic, a BLA must be submitted and approved before commercial marketing may begin. The NDA or BLA must include a substantial amount of data and other information concerning safety and effectiveness (for a drug) and safety, purity and potency (for a biologic) of the compound from laboratory, animal and clinical testing, as well as data and information on manufacturing, product stability, and proposed product labeling.

Each domestic and foreign manufacturing establishment, including any contract manufacturers we may decide to use, must be listed in the NDA or BLA and must be registered with the FDA. The application will not be approved until the FDA conducts a manufacturing inspection, approves the applicable manufacturing process for the drug or biological product, and determines that the facility is in compliance with current Good Manufacturing Practice, or cGMP, requirements. If the manufacturing facilities and processes fail to pass the FDA inspection, we will not receive approval to market these products, or approval may be delayed until the manufacturing issues are resolved. The FDA may also inspect clinical trial sites and/or the clinical sponsor for compliance with Good Clinical Practice, or GCP. If the FDA determines that one or more of our clinical trials were not conducted in accordance with GCP, the agency may determine not to consider effectiveness data generated from such clinical trials in support of our applications for marketing approval.

Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, as amended, the FDA receives fees for reviewing a BLA or NDA and supplements thereto, as well as annual fees for commercial manufacturing establishments and for approved products. These fees could be significant.

Once an NDA or BLA is submitted for FDA approval, the FDA will accept the NDA or BLA for filing if deemed complete, thereby triggering substantive review of the application. The FDA can refuse to file any NDA or BLA that it deems incomplete or not properly reviewable. The FDA has established performance goals for the review of NDAs and BLAs: six months for priority applications and 10 months for regular applications, with two additional months added to each period for new molecular entities. However, the FDA is not legally required to complete its review within these periods and these performance goals may change over time. Moreover, the outcome of the review, even if favorable, often is not an actual approval but an “action letter” or “complete response letter” that describes additional work that must be done before the application can be approved. This additional work could include substantial additional clinical trials. The FDA's review of an application may involve review and recommendations by an independent FDA advisory committee.

The FDA may deny an NDA or BLA if the applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied or may require additional preclinical or clinical data. Even if such data are submitted, the FDA may ultimately decide that the NDA or BLA does not satisfy the criteria for approval. If the FDA approves a product, it will limit the approved therapeutic uses for the product as described in the product labeling, may require that contraindications or warning statements be included in the product labeling, may require that additional post-approval studies or clinical trials be conducted as a condition of the approval, may impose restrictions and conditions on product distribution, prescribing or dispensing in the form of a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, or may otherwise limit the scope of any approval. Under a REMS, the FDA may impose

27

---

 

significant restrictions on distribution and use of a marketed product, may require the distribution of medication guides to patients and/or healthcare professionals or patient communication plans, and may impose a timetable for submission of assessments of the effectiveness of a REMS. Once issued, the FDA may withdraw product approval if compliance with regulatory standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market.

Satisfaction of the above FDA requirements or similar requirements of state, local and foreign regulatory agencies typically takes several years or more and the actual time required may vary substantially, based upon the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidate. Government regulation may delay or prevent marketing of potential products for a considerable period of time or permanently and impose costly procedures upon our activities. Even if a product candidate receives regulatory approval, the approval may be significantly limited to specific indications. Further, even after regulatory approval is obtained, later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product may result in restrictions on the product, labeling changes or even complete withdrawal of the product from the market. Delays in obtaining, or failures to obtain and maintain regulatory approvals would harm our business. Marketing our product candidates abroad will require similar regulatory approvals and is subject to similar risks. In addition, we cannot predict what adverse governmental regulations may arise from future U.S. or foreign governmental action.

Post-Approval Regulation

Any products manufactured or distributed in the U.S. by us pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including requirements relating to record-keeping, labeling, packaging, reporting of adverse experiences and other reporting, advertising and promotion, distribution, cGMPs, and import/export, as well as any other requirements imposed by the applicant’s NDA or BLA. The FDA's rules for advertising and promotion require, among other things, that our promotion be truthful, fairly balanced and adequately substantiated, and that our labeling bears adequate directions for all intended uses of the product. We must also submit appropriate new and supplemental applications and obtain FDA approval for certain changes to the approved product, product labeling or manufacturing process. On its own initiative, the FDA may require changes to the labeling of an approved drug, require post-approval studies or clinical trials, or impose a REMS post-approval if it becomes aware of new safety information that the agency believes impacts the drug’s safety profile. Drug manufacturers and their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMPs, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon us and our third-party manufacturers. Foreign drug manufacturers must comply with similar local requirements and may be subject to inspections by the FDA or local regulatory agencies. We cannot be certain that we or our present or future suppliers will be able to comply with cGMPs and other regulatory requirements. The FDA also enforces the requirements of the Prescription Drug Marketing Act, or PDMA, which, among other things, imposes various requirements in connection with the distribution of product samples to physicians.

In addition to inspections related to manufacturing, we are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and other regulatory bodies related to the other regulatory requirements that apply to marketed drugs manufactured or distributed by us. The FDA also may conduct periodic inspections regarding our review and reporting of adverse events, or related to compliance with the requirements of the PDMA concerning the handling of drug samples. When the FDA conducts an inspection, the inspectors will identify any deficiencies they believe exist in the form of a notice of inspectional observations on FDA Form 483. The observations may be more or less significant. If we receive a notice of inspectional observations, we likely will be required to respond in writing, and may be required to undertake corrective and preventive actions in order to address the FDA's concerns. Failure to address the FDA’s concerns may result in the issuance of a warning letter or other enforcement or administrative actions.

We and our product candidates are also subject to a variety of state laws and regulations in those states or localities where they are or will be marketed, or where we may have operations. For example, we must comply with state laws that require the registration of manufacturers and wholesale distributors of pharmaceutical products in that state, including, in certain states, manufacturers and distributors who ship products into the state even if such manufacturers or distributors have no place of business within the state. Federal law and some states also impose requirements on manufacturers and distributors to establish the pedigree of product in the chain of distribution, including requirements for the development of systems capable of tracking and tracing product as it moves through the distribution chain. Any applicable federal, state or local regulations may hinder our ability to market, or increase the cost of marketing, our products in those states or localities.

The FDA's policies may change and additional U.S. or foreign government laws and/or regulations may be enacted which could impose additional burdens or limitations on our ability to obtain approval of our product candidates or market our products after approval. Moreover, increased attention to the containment of healthcare costs in the U.S. and in foreign

28

---

 

markets could result in government scrutiny or new regulations that could harm our business. For example, significant price increases in recent years by certain drug manufacturers have received considerable scrutiny from U.S. Congress, in some cases forcing those companies to dramatically reduce those prices. There continues to be political pressure at both the U.S. federal and state levels related to drug pricing and drug transparency, particularly given the dynamics around upcoming elections, that could result in legislative or administrative actions, such as the State of California’s passage of SB 17 in 2017, or at a minimum continued scrutiny. California SB 17, for example, put in place new state reporting and notification requirements for manufacturers related to drug pricing, which became effective January 1, 2018. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of adverse governmental regulation that might arise from future legislative or administrative action, either in the U.S. or abroad.

Orphan Drugs

Under the Orphan Drug Act, special incentives exist for sponsors to develop products for rare diseases or conditions, which are defined to include those diseases or conditions that affect fewer than 200,000 people in the U.S. Requests for orphan drug designation must be submitted before the submission of an NDA, BLA, or supplemental NDA or BLA for the orphan use. We received an orphan drug designation for Ampyra for the treatment of both MS and incomplete spinal cord injury. The number of people affected by MS now exceeds 200,000. However, this does not affect Ampyra’s orphan drug designation in the United States, as it was granted prior to the increase in prevalence above 200,000.

Products designated as orphan drugs are eligible for special grant funding for research and development, FDA assistance with the review of clinical trial protocols, potential tax credits for research, and reduced filing fees for marketing applications. If a product that has an orphan drug designation is the first such product to receive FDA approval for the disease for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity for that use. This means that, subsequent to approval, the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug for the same disease, except in limited circumstances, for seven years. The FDA may approve a subsequent application from another sponsor if the FDA determines that the application is for a different drug or different use, or if the FDA determines that the subsequent product is clinically superior or demonstrates a major contribution to patient care, or that the holder of the initial orphan drug approval cannot assure the availability of sufficient quantities of the drug to meet the public's need. If the FDA approves another sponsor’s application for a drug that is the same as a drug with orphan exclusivity, but for a different use, the competing drug could be prescribed by physicians outside its approved use, including for the orphan use, notwithstanding the existence of orphan exclusivity. A grant of an orphan designation is not a guarantee that a product will be approved. If a sponsor receives orphan drug exclusivity upon approval, there can be no assurance that the exclusivity will prevent another person from receiving approval for the same or a similar drug for the same or other uses.

Some other jurisdictions have orphan drug rules and offer similar incentives. In the EU, for example, a designated orphan drug benefits from free scientific advice and reduced application fees. Moreover, an approved orphan drug benefits from a 10-year exclusivity period, during which regulators can neither accept nor approve applications for similar medicinal products for the same indication, unless there are insufficient supplies of the approved orphan drug or the similar product is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior than the approved orphan drug. Under the EU system, however, the Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products, or COMP, will reassess orphan status in parallel with the European Medicines Agency’s assessment of the marketing authorization application and the COMP can recommend that orphan status is removed if the product no longer meets the relevant criteria.

Generic Drugs, AB Ratings and Pharmacy Substitution

Generic drugs are approved through an abbreviated regulatory process, which differs in important ways from the process followed for innovative products. For generic versions of drugs subject to an NDA, an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, is filed with the FDA. The ANDA must seek approval of a product candidate that has the same active ingredient(s), dosage form, strength, route of administration, and conditions of use (labeling) as a so-called "reference listed drug" that has already been approved pursuant to a full NDA. Only limited exceptions exist to this ANDA sameness requirement, including certain limited variations approved by the FDA through a special suitability petition process. ANDA applicants are not required to submit clinical data to demonstrate safety and efficacy. Instead, FDA relies on its findings of safety and effectiveness of the reference listed drug to approve the ANDA. As a result, the law requires the ANDA applicant submit only limited clinical data to demonstrate that the product covered by the ANDA is absorbed in the body at a rate and extent consistent with that of the reference listed drug. This is known as bioequivalence. In addition, the ANDA must contain information regarding the manufacturing processes and facilities that will be used to ensure product quality. It also must contain certifications with respect to all patents that are listed for the reference listed drug in the FDA’s publication, “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” commonly known as the “Orange Book.”

29

---

 

Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, drugs that are new chemicals entities, or NCEs, are eligible for a five-year data exclusivity period. During this period, the FDA may not accept for review an ANDA submitted by another company that relies on any of the data submitted by the innovator company. This exclusivity period also applies to “505(b)(2)” applications, which are hybrid applications that rely in-part on pioneer data and in-part on new clinical data submitted to account for differences between the 505(b)(2) product and the reference listed drug. ANDA applicants and 505(b)(2) applicants must certify to all patents listed in the Orange Book for the reference listed drug (i.e., the innovator NDA). An ANDA (or 505(b)(2) application) may be submitted to FDA after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement to one of those listed patents. The statute also provides three years of data exclusivity for an NDA (or NDA supplement) that is not an NCE if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed essential to approval. During this period, the FDA will not approve an application filed by a third party for the protected conditions of use that relies on any of the data that was submitted by the innovator company. Neither exclusivity period blocks the approval of full applications (i.e., full NDAs) submitted to the FDA because full NDAs do not rely on a pioneer’s data.

Special procedures apply when an ANDA contains one or more certifications stating that a listed patent is invalid or not infringed. This is known as a “Paragraph IV” certification. If the owner of the patent or the NDA for the reference listed drug brings a patent infringement suit within a specified time after receiving notice of the Paragraph IV certification, an automatic stay bars FDA approval of the ANDA for 30 months, which period may be extended under certain circumstances. The length of the automatic stay depends on whether the FDA classifies the reference listed drug as an NCE, as follows:

If the stay is either lifted or expires and the FDA approves the ANDA, the generic manufacturer may decide to begin selling its product even if patent litigation is pending. However, if the generic manufacturer launches before patent litigation is resolved, the launch is at the risk of the generic manufacturer being later held liable for patent infringement damages.

Many states require or permit pharmacists to substitute generic equivalents for brand-name prescriptions unless the physician has prohibited substitution. Managed care organizations often urge physicians to prescribe drugs with generic equivalents, and to authorize substitution, as a means of controlling costs of prescriptions. They also may require lower copayments as an incentive to patients to ask for and accept generics.

While the question of substitutability is one of state law, most states look to the FDA to determine whether a generic is substitutable. The FDA lists therapeutic equivalence ratings in the “Orange Book.”  In general, a generic drug that is listed in the Orange Book as therapeutically equivalent to the branded product will be substitutable under state law and, conversely, a generic drug that is not so listed will not be substitutable. Drug products that the FDA considers to be therapeutically equivalent to other drug products receive one of various types of “A” ratings. For example, solid oral dosage form drug products that are considered therapeutically equivalent are generally rated “AB” in the Orange Book, while therapeutically equivalent solutions and powders for aerosolization generally receive an “AB” or an “AN” rating depending on how bioequivalence was demonstrated.

To be considered therapeutically equivalent, a generic drug must first be a pharmaceutical equivalent of the branded drug. This means that the generic has the same active ingredient, dosage form, strength or concentration and route of administration as the branded drug. Tablets and capsules are currently considered different dosage forms that are pharmaceutical alternatives and therefore are not substitutable pharmaceutical equivalents. In addition to being pharmaceutical equivalents, therapeutic equivalents must be bioequivalent to their branded counterparts. Bioequivalence for this purpose is defined in the same manner as for ANDA approvals, and usually requires a showing of comparable rate and extent of absorption in a small human study.

30

---

 

The process described above is not applicable to drugs where the pioneer product was approved pursuant to a BLA, rather than an NDA. A separate process exists for follow-on versions of such products and is discussed in the section entitled “Biosimilars,” below.

Requirements Applicable to Medical Devices in the United States

The FDA regulates, among other things, the development, testing, manufacturing, labeling, safety, effectiveness, storage, record keeping, marketing, import, export, and distribution of medical devices. The level of regulation applied by the FDA generally depends on the class into which the medical device falls: Class I, II, or III. Class I medical devices present the lowest risk, and Class III medical devices present the highest risk. In general, the higher class of device, the greater the degree of regulatory control. All devices, for example, are subject to “General Controls,” which include:

Class II medical devices are subject to General Controls, but also Special Controls, including special labeling requirements, mandatory performance standards, additional post market surveillance, and specific FDA guidance. Most Class III medical devices are assessed individually through an extensive Premarket Review application, or PMA. As a result, although they are subject to General Controls, they generally are not subject to Special Controls. Instead, most Class III devices have additional requirements and conditions of use imposed on them through the individualized PMA review and approval process.

Although we do not manufacture or market stand-alone medical devices, some of our product candidates rely on device components to deliver drug product to patients. In general, the FDA regulates such products as “combination products.” The FDA assigns combination products for review by the drug or device center based on a determination of the product’s “primary mode of action.”  If the FDA determines that the product achieves its therapeutic effect through drug component, it will be assigned to the Center for Drugs (CDER) or the Center for Biologics (CBER) for review and approval. By contrast, if the FDA determines that the device component is the primary mode of action, then the product will be reviewed and approved by the center for devices (CDRH). CDER will be the lead review division for Inbrija. We anticipate that to the extent that any of our other pipeline products are regulated as combination products, the FDA likely will find that the primary mode of action is through the drug component, and therefore the product will be reviewed by CDER. In that case, however, CDER/CBER will consult with CDRH on the drug component and we will still have to comply with certain requirements applicable to medical devices.

Most Class I devices are exempt from the FDA premarket review or approval. With some exceptions, Class II devices may be marketed only if the FDA “clears” the medical device through the 510(k) process, which requires a company to show that the device is “substantially equivalent” to certain devices already on the market. Again with some exceptions, Class III devices are approved through a PMA, which generally requires an applicant to submit data from clinical trials that establish the safety and effectiveness of the device. Clinical data are sometimes required for a 510(k) application as well. Manufacturers conducting clinical trials with medical devices are subject to similar requirements as those conducting clinical trials with drugs or biologics. For example, a manufacturer must obtain an investigational device exemption, or IDE, to test a significant risk device in humans, must comply with GCPs, and must obtain IRB approval.

The FDA has broad post-market regulatory and enforcement powers with respect to medical devices, similar to those for drugs and biologics. For example, medical devices are subject to detailed manufacturing standards under the FDA’s quality systems regulations, or QSRs, and specific rules regarding labeling and promotion. Medical device manufacturers must also register their establishments and list their products with the FDA.

States also impose regulatory requirements on medical device manufacturers and distributors, including registration and record-keeping requirements. Failure to comply with the applicable federal and state medical device requirements could result in, among other things, refusal to approve or clear pending applications, withdrawal of an approval or clearance, warning letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement, or other civil or criminal penalties.

31

---

 

Biosimilars

The Affordable Care Act amended the Public Health Service Act to authorize the FDA to approve “biosimilars” (follow-on versions of pioneer products approved pursuant to a BLA) via a separate, abbreviated pathway. Under this abbreviated pathway, the biosimilar applicant must demonstrate that its product is “highly similar” to the “reference product,” and that there are no “clinically meaningful differences” between the biosimilar and the reference product. Unlike ANDAs, biosimilars are not, in general, automatically substitutable for the reference product at the pharmacy. Instead, the FDA must make a separate finding of “interchangeability.” To date, the trend in state law has been to permit or require substitution only of those biosimilars that have also been deemed by the FDA to be interchangeable.

The Affordable Care Act also established a period of 12 years of data exclusivity against biosimilars for reference products in order to preserve incentives for future innovation. Under this framework, data exclusivity protects the data in the BLA-holders’s regulatory application by prohibiting others, for a period of 12 years, from gaining FDA approval based in part on reliance on or reference to the reference product’s data in its approved BLA. In contrast to the provisions for NDAs, the biologics data exclusivity provisions do not change the duration of patents granted on biologic products, or otherwise create an “automatic stay” of FDA approval of a biosimilar. If our product candidates are approved as biologics, they may face significant competition from biosimilars in the future.

Foreign Regulation and Product Approval

Outside the U.S., our ability or the ability of our collaborator Biogen to market a product candidate is contingent upon receiving a marketing authorization from the appropriate regulatory authorities. The requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, marketing authorization, pricing and reimbursement vary widely from country to country. Foreign marketing authorizations can be applied for at a national level, although within the European Union, or EU, registration procedures are available to companies wishing to market a product in the entire European Economic Area, or EEA (through the “centralized procedure,” which is mandatory for certain products, including biotechnology and advanced therapy medicinal products, orphan medicines and new active substances for the treatment of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), cancer, neurodegenerative disorder, diabetes, auto-immune diseases and other immune dysfunctions and viral diseases), or in more than one individual EU member state (through the “mutual recognition procedure” or “decentralized procedure”). The foreign regulatory approval process involves all of the risks associated with FDA approval discussed above.

Other Regulations

In the U.S., the research, manufacturing, distribution, sale, and promotion of drug and biological products, as well as medical devices, are potentially subject to regulation and oversight by various federal, state and local authorities in addition to the FDA, including the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), other divisions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (e.g., the Office of Inspector General), the U.S. Department of Justice and individual U.S. Attorney offices within the Department of Justice, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and state and local governments. For example, controlled substances that are scheduled by the DEA are subject to additional regulatory requirements including, among other things, special security and handling requirements, and potential restrictions on distribution, sales, marketing. For example, sales, marketing, scientific/educational grant programs and other Acorda interactions with healthcare professionals, must comply with the anti-kickback and fraud and abuse provisions of the Social Security Act and the False Claims Act, and may be affected by the privacy provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, and similar state laws. Pricing and rebate programs must comply with the Medicaid rebate requirements of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, and/or the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992. For products to be covered by Medicaid, drug manufacturers must enter into a rebate agreement with the Secretary of Health and Human Services on behalf of the states and must regularly submit certain pricing information to CMS. Under the VHCA, we are required to offer certain drugs at a reduced price to a number of federal agencies including the Veterans Administration and the Department of Defense, or DOD, the Public Health Service and certain private Public Health Service designated entities in order to participate in other federal health care programs including Medicare and Medicaid. In addition, under legislative changes made in 2009, discounted prices must also be offered for certain DOD purchases for its TRICARE retail pharmacy program via a rebate system. Participation under the VHCA requires submission of pricing data and calculation of discounts and rebates pursuant to complex statutory formulas, as well as the entry into government procurement contracts governed by the Federal Acquisition Regulations.

Several states have enacted legislation requiring pharmaceutical companies to establish marketing compliance programs, file periodic reports with the state, make periodic disclosures on sales, marketing, pricing, and other activities, and/or register their sales representatives, and to prohibit certain other sales and marketing practices. In addition, our

32

---

 

activities are potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws.

Under the Sunshine Act provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), pharmaceutical manufacturers are subject to federal reporting requirements with regard to payments or other transfers of value made to physicians and teaching hospitals. Reports submitted under these requirements are placed on a public database. Pharmaceutical manufacturers are required to submit reports to CMS annually. Similarly, pharmaceutical manufacturers are required to annually report to FDA samples of prescription drugs requested by and distributed to healthcare providers. The law does not state whether these sample disclosures will be made publicly available, and the FDA has not provided any additional guidance as to how the data will be used.

Our research and development and manufacturing activities are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including, among other matters, those governing laboratory procedures and the use, generation, manufacture, distribution, storage, handling, treatment, remediation and disposal of hazardous substances; the exposure of persons to hazardous substances; the release of pollutants into the air and bodies of water; and the general health, safety and welfare of employees and members of the public. Our research and development and manufacturing activities and the activities of our third-party manufacturers involve the use of hazardous substances, and the risk of injury, contamination or noncompliance with the applicable environmental, health and safety requirements cannot be eliminated. We may incur significant costs to comply with such laws and regulations now or in the future. Although compliance with such laws and regulations has not had a material effect on our capital expenditures, earnings or competitive position, environmental, health and safety laws and regulations have tended to become increasingly stringent and, to the extent legal or regulatory changes occur in the future, they could result in, among other things, increased costs to us.

Reimbursement and Pricing Controls

In many of the markets where we or Biogen, our collaborator for Ampyra, would commercialize a product following regulatory approval, the prices of pharmaceutical products are subject to direct price controls, by law, and to drug reimbursement programs with varying price control mechanisms.

In the U.S., there has been an increased focus on drug pricing in recent years. Although there are currently no direct government price controls over private sector purchases in the U.S., federal legislation requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to pay prescribed rebates on certain drugs to certain public healthcare programs, such as Medicaid, in order for the drugs to be eligible for reimbursement under those programs. Various states have adopted further mechanisms under Medicaid and other programs that seek to control drug prices, including by disfavoring certain higher priced drugs and by seeking supplemental rebates from manufacturers. Managed care has also become a potent force in the market place that increases downward pressure on the prices of pharmaceutical products. Recent heightened scrutiny of the prices of several drug products have led to numerous other proposals, at both the federal and state level, to address perceived issues related to drug pricing and drug transparency. Several other states have adopted or are considering adopting laws that require pharmaceutical companies to provide notice prior to raising pricing and other information related to price increases.

Under the reimbursement methodology set forth in the Medicare Modernization Act, or MMA, physicians are reimbursed for drugs they administer to Medicare beneficiaries based on a product's "average sales price," or ASP. This ASP-based reimbursement methodology has generally led to lower reimbursement levels. The MMA also established the Medicare Part D outpatient prescription drug benefit, which is provided primarily through private entities that attempt to negotiate price concessions from pharmaceutical manufacturers. The ACA requires drug manufacturers to provide a 50% discount on prescriptions for branded products filled while the beneficiary is in the Medicare Part D coverage gap, also known as the “donut hole.”

The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 resulted in changes to the way average manufacturer price, or AMP, and best price are reported to the government and the formula for calculating required Medicaid rebates. The ACA increased the minimum basic Medicaid rebate for branded prescription drugs to 23.1% and requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to pay states rebates on prescription drugs dispensed to Medicaid managed care enrollees. In addition, the ACA increased the additional Medicaid rebate on “line extensions” (such as extended release formulations) of solid oral dosage forms of branded products, revised the definition of AMP by changing the classes of purchasers included in the calculation, and expanded the entities eligible for discounted 340B pricing.

33

---

 

The ACA imposes a significant annual fee on companies that manufacture or import branded prescription drug products. The fee (which is not deductible for federal income tax purposes) is based on the manufacturer’s market share of sales of branded drugs and biologics (excluding orphan drugs) to, or pursuant to coverage under, specified U.S. government programs. The ACA also contains a number of provisions, including provisions governing the way that healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, enrollment in federal healthcare programs, reimbursement changes, increased funding for comparative effectiveness research for use in the healthcare industry, and enhancements to fraud and abuse requirements and enforcement, that will affect existing government healthcare programs and will result in the development of new programs.

The U.S. President and the majority party in both Houses of the U.S. Congress have indicated their desire to repeal the ACA. It is unclear whether, when and how that repeal will be effectuated and what the effect on the healthcare sector will be. Changes in the law or regulatory framework that reduce our revenues or increase our costs could also have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations and cash flows.

Public and private healthcare payers control costs and influence drug pricing through a variety of mechanisms, including through negotiating discounts with the manufacturers and through the use of tiered formularies and other mechanisms that provide preferential access to certain drugs over others within a therapeutic class. Payers also set other criteria to govern the uses of a drug that will be deemed medically appropriate and therefore reimbursed or otherwise covered. In particular, many public and private healthcare payers limit reimbursement and coverage to the uses of a drug that are either approved by the FDA and/or appear in a recognized drug compendium. Drug compendia are publications that summarize the available medical evidence for particular drug products and identify which uses of a drug are supported or not supported by the available evidence, whether or not such uses have been approved by the FDA.

Different pricing and reimbursement schemes exist in other countries. In the EU, for example, there is extensive regulation of pharmaceutical pricing and reimbursement through health systems that fund a large part of the cost of such products to consumers. The approach taken varies from member state to member state. Some jurisdictions operate positive and/or negative list systems under which products may only be marketed once a reimbursement price has been agreed. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for medicines, but monitor and control company profits and may limit or restrict reimbursement based on the results of health economic assessments. Others control the price of pharmaceutical products through reference pricing approaches where the reimbursement price is determined by the price in other jurisdictions. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription drugs, has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products, as exemplified by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, or NICE, in the United Kingdom which evaluates the data supporting new medicines and passes reimbursement recommendations to the government. In addition, in some countries cross-border imports from low-priced markets (parallel imports) exert commercial pressure on pricing within a country.

EMPLOYEES

As of February 21, 2018, we had 484 employees. Of the 484 employees, 79 perform research and development activities, including preclinical programs, clinical trials, regulatory affairs, biostatistics, and drug safety, and 405 work in sales, marketing, managed markets, business development, manufacturing, technical operations, medical affairs, communications, and general and administrative.

CORPORATE INFORMATION

We were incorporated in 1995 as a Delaware corporation. Our principal executive offices are located at 420 Saw Mill River Road, Ardsley, New York 10502. Our telephone number is (914) 347-4300. Our website is www.acorda.com. The information contained on our website is not incorporated by reference into this report and should not be considered to be a part of this report. References to our website address in this report have been included as, and are intended to be, inactive textual references only that do not hyperlink to our website.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND WHERE TO FIND IT

Our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 are available on our website (http://www.acorda.com under the “Investors” and then "SEC Filings" captions) as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish them to, the Securities and Exchange Commission

34

---

 

(“SEC”). Also, the SEC allows us to “incorporate by reference” some information from our proxy statement for our 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, rather than repeating that information in this report. We intend to file our 2018 Proxy Statement within 120 days after the end of our 2017 fiscal year, in accordance with SEC rules and regulations, and we recommend that you refer to the information that we indicate will be contained in our 2018 Proxy Statement.

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

You should carefully consider the risks described below, in addition to the other information contained in this Annual Report, before making an investment decision. Our business, financial condition or results of operations could be harmed by any of these risks. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones we face. Additional risks not presently known to us or other factors not perceived by us to present significant risks to our business at this time also may impair our business operations.

Risks related to our business

We have a history of operating losses and were last profitable in 2015, and may not be able to achieve or sustain profitability in the future; we expect to continue to be substantially dependent on revenues from the sale of Ampyra for the foreseeable future and those revenues may rapidly and significantly decline due to potential generic competition.

We have been highly dependent on the commercial success of Ampyra in the U.S. We currently derive substantially all of our revenue from the sale of Ampyra. Our Orange Book-listed patents have been the subject of lawsuits relating to Paragraph IV Certification Notices received from generic drug manufacturers, who have submitted Abbreviated New Drug Applications, or ANDAs, with the FDA seeking marketing approval for generic versions of Amypra (dalfampridine) Extended Release Tablets, 10mg. The ANDA filers challenged the validity of our Orange Book-listed patents for Ampyra, and they also asserted that generic versions of their products do not infringe certain claims of these patents. In March 2017, we announced a decision by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware upholding our Ampyra Orange Book-listed patent set to expire on July 30, 2018, but invalidating our four other Orange Book-listed patents pertaining to Ampyra set to expire between 2025 and 2027. Under this decision, we expect to maintain patent exclusivity with respect to Ampyra at least through July 30, 2018, although the other parties to the lawsuit have appealed the District Court’s decision upholding the patent set to expire in July 2018. We may experience a significant decline in Ampyra revenues as a result of the announcement of the Court decision in 2017, and we expect to experience a rapid and significant decline in Ampyra sales beyond July 2018 due to competition from generic versions of Ampyra that may be marketed after the expiration of our remaining Ampyra patent, unless the District Court’s decision to invalidate the four other patents is overturned on appeal, which could include reversal or a remand by the appeals court back to the District Court. If the appeals court does not overturn the District Court’s decision by July 30, 2018, multiple ANDA filers may be able to launch generic versions of Ampyra absent injunctive relief. We may be unable to achieve profitability again or sustain profitability and positive cash flow from operations because of this development and also because we expect to continue investing significant amounts to continue product development and research and development activities, and, potentially, to acquire new products and product candidates.

As of December 31, 2017, we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $455.1 million. We had net losses of $223.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2017 and $34.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2016. Our prospects for achieving and sustaining profitability in the future will depend primarily on how successful we are in:

35

---

 

 

If we are not successful in executing our business plan, we may not achieve or sustain profitability and even if we do so, we may not meet sales expectations. Also, even if we are successful in executing our business plan, our profitability may fluctuate from period to period due to our level of investments in sales and marketing, research and development, and product and product candidate acquisitions. For example, in 2018 we expect to invest a significant amount to support our most advanced program, Inbrija.

The continued commercial success of Ampyra, and if approved the success of Inbrija (levodopa inhalation powder) and any other future products, are highly dependent on market acceptance among physicians, patients and the medical community, adequate reimbursement by government and other third-party payers, and other factors.

In general, the success of our products, including Inbrija, if approved, is subject to numerous factors, some of which are not within our control, including the following:

Market acceptance of our products and product candidates depends on the benefits of our products in terms of safety, efficacy, convenience, ease of administration and cost effectiveness and our ability to demonstrate these benefits to physicians, patients and payers. Market acceptance also depends on the pricing of our products and the reimbursement policies of government and third-party payers, as well as on the effectiveness of our sales and marketing activities. Physicians may not prescribe our products, and patients may determine, for any reason, that our products are not useful to them. For example, physicians may not believe that the benefits of Ampyra, Inbrija or our other products or product candidates are meaningful for patients. As described below in these risk factors, FDA-approved product labeling for Ampyra is limited and may harm its market acceptance. Also, if Ampyra, Inbrija, or other products are not listed on the preferred drug lists of third-party payers, or Ampyra, Inbrija or other products are on the preferred drug list but subject to unfavorable limitations or preconditions or in disadvantageous positions on tiered formularies, our sales may suffer.

Also, in the U.S., the federal government has provided significantly increased funding for comparative effectiveness research, which may compare our products with other treatments and may result in published findings that would, in turn, discourage use of our products by physicians and payments for our products by payers. Similar research is funded in other countries, including in some countries in Europe.

The failure of any of our products or product candidates, once approved, to achieve market acceptance would limit our ability to generate revenue and would harm our results of operations. If market acceptance of our products in the U.S., EU, or other countries does not meet expectations, our revenues or royalties from product sales would suffer and this could cause our stock price to decline or could otherwise adversely affect our stock price.

36

---

 

Our restructuring may not adequately reduce our expenses, and we may encounter difficulties associated with the related organizational change.

In April 2017, following a decision by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware to invalidate certain patents relating to Ampyra, we implemented a corporate restructuring to reduce our cost structure and focus our resources on Inbrija (levodopa inhalation powder) and our other strategic priorities. As part of this restructuring, we reduced headcount by approximately 20%. If our restructuring does not adequately reduce our expenses, further restructuring activities may be required in the future. In any event, the benefits of the restructuring are not expected to offset the loss of revenues from decreased long-term Ampyra sales following the invalidation of our patents. We expect this loss of revenues to be rapid and significant if and when generic versions of Ampyra are marketed.

Our restructuring may have other unintended consequences as well, including, for example, making it more difficult for us to attract and retain highly skilled personnel in a competitive environment. We may also experience operational disruptions from our reduction in personnel. The loss of key personnel such as regulatory or manufacturing functions could disrupt our operations and sales force attrition could harm our ability to maintain Ampyra sales and, if we obtain FDA approval for Inbrija, commercialize that product.

Our ability to use net operating loss carry forwards to reduce future tax payments may be limited if taxable income does not reach sufficient levels or there is a change in ownership of Acorda.

In general, under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), a corporation is subject to limitations on its ability to utilize net operating losses, or NOLs, to offset future taxable income. As of December 31, 2017, we had approximately $144 million of NOLs incurred during 2017 and earlier that have a 20 year carryforward available to reduce taxable income in future years. Federal income tax losses generated in tax years ending after January 1, 2018 can generally be carried forward indefinitely, due to recently enacted tax reform legislation. However, the ability to use net operating loss carryforwards will be dependent on our ability to generate taxable income and will be subject to an annual limitation of 80% of taxable income.

Our ability to utilize the NOL's may be further limited if we undergo an ownership change, as defined in section 382 of the Code. This ownership change could be triggered by substantial changes in the ownership of our outstanding stock, which are generally outside of our control. An ownership change would exist if the stockholders, or group of stockholders, who own or have owned, directly or indirectly, 5% or more of the value of our stock, or are otherwise treated as 5% stockholders under section 382 and the regulations promulgated thereunder, increase their aggregate percentage ownership of our stock by more than 50 percentage points over the lowest percentage of our stock owned by these stockholders at any time during the testing period, which is generally the three-year period preceding the potential ownership change. In the event of an ownership change, section 382 imposes an annual limitation on the amount of post-ownership change taxable income a corporation may offset with pre-ownership change NOL's. If an ownership change were to occur, the annual limitation under Section 382 could result in a material amount of our NOLs expiring unused. This would significantly impair the value of our NOL asset and, as a result, could have a negative impact on our financial position and results of operations.

We may have exposure to additional tax liabilities, which could have a material impact on our results of operations and financial position.

We are subject to income taxes, as well as non-income based taxes, in both the U.S. and Puerto Rico, as well as certain European countries where we have subsidiaries and/or subsidiary operations. Significant judgment is required in determining our tax liabilities. Although we believe our estimates are reasonable, the ultimate outcome with respect to the taxes we owe may differ from the amounts recorded in our financial statements. If the Internal Revenue Service, or other taxing authority, disagrees with the positions taken by us, we could have additional tax liability, and this could have a material impact on our results of operations and financial position. In addition, governments may adopt tax reform measures that significantly increase our worldwide tax liabilities, which could materially harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We operate in the highly-regulated pharmaceutical industry.

Our research, development, preclinical and clinical trial activities, as well as the manufacture and marketing of any products that we have developed or in the future may successfully develop, are subject to an extensive regulatory approval process by the FDA and other regulatory agencies abroad.

37

---

 

In order to conduct clinical trials to obtain FDA approval to commercialize any drug or biological product candidate, an investigational new drug, or IND, application must first be submitted to the FDA and must become effective before clinical trials may begin. Subsequently, if the product candidate is regulated as a drug, a new drug application, or NDA, must be submitted to the FDA and approved before commercial marketing may begin. The NDA must include the results of adequate and well-controlled clinical trials demonstrating, among other things, that the product candidate is safe and effective for use in humans for each target indication. If the product candidate, such as an antibody, is regulated as a biologic, a biologic license application, or BLA, must be submitted and approved before commercial marketing may begin. Extensive submissions of preclinical and clinical trial data are required to demonstrate the safety, potency and purity for each intended use. The FDA may refuse to accept our regulatory submissions for filing if they are incomplete. For example, in August 2017, we received a “Refuse to File,” or RTF, letter from the FDA regarding the NDA we had submitted in June 2017 for Inbrija (levodopa inhalation powder), to treat symptoms of OFF periods in people with Parkinson's disease taking a carbidopa/levodopa regimen. The FDA specified two reasons for the RTF: first, the date when the manufacturing site would be ready for inspection, and second, a question regarding the submission of the drug master production record. The FDA also requested that we submit additional information when we resubmit the NDA, though this was not part of the basis for the RTF. We resubmitted the Inbrija NDA in December 2017. On February 20, 2018, we announced that the resubmitted NDA was accepted for filing by the FDA, and that under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, the FDA has set a target date of October 5, 2018. Of the large number of drugs in development, only a small percentage result in the submission of an NDA or BLA to the FDA, and even fewer are approved for commercialization.

The process of obtaining required regulatory approvals for drugs is lengthy, expensive and uncertain. Any regulatory approvals may be for fewer or narrower indications than we request, may include distribution restrictions, or may be conditioned on burdensome post-approval study or other requirements, including the requirement that we institute and follow a special risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, to monitor and manage potential safety issues, all of which may eliminate or reduce the drug's market potential. Additional adverse events that could impact commercial success, or even continued regulatory approval, might emerge with more extensive post-approval patient use. Investigational products, such as Inbrija, are regulated as combination products and require that we satisfy FDA that both the drug and device component of the products satisfy FDA requirements. Failure to satisfy the FDA’s requirements for either the drug or device component of Inbrija or other such combination products could delay approval of these products or result in these products not receiving FDA approval.

Any product for which we currently have or may in the future obtain marketing approval is subject to continual post-approval requirements including, among other things, record-keeping and reporting requirements, packaging and labeling requirements, requirements for reporting adverse drug experiences, import/export controls, restrictions on advertising and promotion, cGMP requirements as well as any other requirements imposed by the applicants NDA or BLA. All of our products and operations are subject to periodic inspections by the FDA and other regulatory bodies. Regulatory approval of a product may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to other restrictive conditions of approval that limit our ability to promote, sell or distribute a product. Furthermore, any approval may contain requirements for costly post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the product. Post-market evaluation of a product could result in marketing restrictions or withdrawal from the market.

We may fail to comply with existing legal or regulatory requirements or be slow to adapt, or be unable to adapt, to new legal or regulatory requirements. We may encounter problems with our manufacturing processes, and we may discover previously unknown problems with our products. These circumstances could result in:

38

---

 

In addition, we are subject to regulation under other state and federal laws, including requirements regarding occupational safety, laboratory practices, environmental protection and hazardous substance control, controlled substances and we may be subject to other local, state, federal and foreign regulations. We cannot predict the impact of those regulations on us, although they could impose significant restrictions on our business and we may have to incur additional expenses to comply with them.

We have no manufacturing capabilities for our products or product candidates other than our Chelsea, Massachusetts facility used to manufacture Inbrija (levodopa inhalation powder) and other ARCUS inhaled therapy product candidates, and we are dependent upon Alkermes and other third-parties to supply the materials for, and to manufacture, Ampyra and our other commercial product and products in development.

We do not own or operate, and currently do not plan to own or operate, facilities for production and packaging of Ampyra or our other commercial product other than our Chelsea, Massachusetts facility used to manufacture Inbrija and other ARCUS product candidates. We rely and expect to continue to rely on third parties for the production and packaging of our commercial products, the active pharmaceutical ingredient, or API, in those products, the inactive ingredients in those products, the finished dosage forms of our products, and where relevant any medical devices that are part of our commercial products. We similarly rely and expect to continue to rely on third parties for the supply of materials for our research and development activities, particularly clinical trials. In addition, due to the unique manner in which our products are manufactured, in many cases we rely on single source providers for our commercial and investigational products, or components of those products. This dependence on others may harm our ability to develop and commercialize our products on a timely and competitive basis. Any such failure may result in decreased product sales and lower product revenue, which would harm our business.

We cannot be certain that we can reach agreement with (or renew existing agreements with) needed third party manufacturers or suppliers on reasonable terms, if at all. Manufacturers or suppliers may choose not to conduct business with us at all, for example if they determine that our particular business requirements would be unprofitable or otherwise not appropriate for their business. Even if we have agreements with third parties, they may not perform their obligations to us and/or they may be unable or unwilling to establish or increase production capacity commensurate with our needs. Also, third party manufacturers and suppliers are subject to their own operational and financial risks that are outside of our control, including macro-economic conditions that may cause them to suffer liquidity or operational problems and that could interfere with their business operations.

In addition, the manufacture and distribution of our products and product candidates, including product components such as API, and the manufacture of medical devices, are highly regulated, and any failure to comply with regulatory requirements could adversely affect our supply of products or our access to materials needed for product development. The third parties we rely on are subject to regulatory review, and any regulatory compliance problems could significantly delay or disrupt commercialization of our products. U.S. and foreign governments and regulatory authorities continue to propose legislative and other measures relating to the manufacture or distribution of pharmaceutical products, including revisions to current good manufacturing practices, or cGMPs. Third party manufacturers may be unable or unwilling to comply with new legislative or regulatory measures, and/or compliance with new requirements could increase the price we must pay for our products.

The manufacturing facilities used to produce our products, including those of our third-party manufacturers and suppliers, must comply with cGMPs and will likely have to pass a pre-approval FDA inspection. Third-party manufacturers and suppliers are also subject to periodic FDA inspection for cGMP compliance. Failure by our third-party manufacturers to pass such inspections and otherwise satisfactorily complete the FDA approval regimen with respect to our products or product candidates may result in regulatory actions such as the issuance of FDA Form 483 notices of observations, warning letters, injunctions, facility shut-downs, product seizures, loss of operating licenses, and other civil and criminal penalties. Based on the severity of the regulatory action, our clinical or commercial supplies could be interrupted or limited, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. In some cases, these third-party manufacturers may also be subject to GMP inspections by foreign regulatory authorities. Failure to pass such inspections by foreign regulatory authorities could impede our ability to manufacture product needed for clinical trials or impede our ability to secure product approvals.

39

---

 

If any of our third party manufacturers or suppliers fails to perform their obligations to us or otherwise have an interruption in or discontinues supply to us, we may be forced to seek supply from a different third party manufacturer or supplier. In such event, we may experience significant delays associated with finding an alternative manufacturer or supplier that is properly qualified to produce our products and product candidates or the API or other components of those products and product candidates in accordance with FDA requirements and our specifications. This could interfere with product sales or cause interruptions of, or delays in, our research and development programs. We may not be able to establish arrangements with an alternative manufacturer or supplier on reasonable terms, if at all. In some cases, the technical skills required to manufacture our products or product candidates or the API or other components of such products or product candidates may be unique or proprietary to the original manufacturer or supplier and we may have difficulty, or there may be contractual restrictions prohibiting us from, transferring such skills to a backup or alternative supplier, or we may be unable to transfer such skills at all.

We rely on Alkermes to supply us with our requirements for Ampyra. Under our supply agreement with Alkermes, we are obligated to purchase at least 75% of our yearly supply of Ampyra from Alkermes, and we are required to make compensatory payments if we do not purchase 100% of our requirements from Alkermes, subject to specified exceptions. We and Alkermes have agreed that we may purchase up to 25% of our annual requirements from Patheon, a mutually agreed-upon second manufacturing source, with compensatory payment. We and Alkermes also rely on two third-party manufacturers, Regis Technologies, Inc. and CU Chemie Uetikon (GmbH), to supply dalfampridine, the active pharmaceutical ingredient, or API, in Ampyra. If these companies experience any disruption in their operations, a delay or interruption in the supply of our Ampyra product could result until the problem is solved or we locate another source of supply.

Under our supply agreement with Alkermes, we provide Alkermes with monthly written 18-month forecasts and with annual written five-year forecasts for our supply requirements of Ampyra. In each of the three months for Ampyra following the submission of our written 18-month forecast, we are obligated to purchase the quantity specified in the forecast, even if our actual requirements are greater or less. Alkermes is not obligated to supply us with quantities in excess of our forecasted amounts, although it has agreed to use commercially reasonable efforts to do so. If our forecasts of our supply requirements are inaccurate, we may have an excess or insufficient supply of Ampyra.

We similarly rely on other third parties for the manufacture of Qutenza. Also, we intend to rely on third-party manufacturers to make the inhaler and to supply the API in Inbrija, and any failure by a third-party manufacturer or supplier may delay or impair our ability to complete clinical trials or commercialize Inbrija. We have manufactured the capsules containing formulated levodopa, or L-dopa, for our preclinical studies, Phase 1 clinical trials, Phase 2 clinical trials, and Phase 3 clinical trials of Inbrija in our own manufacturing facility. We have relied, and we expect to continue to rely, on third-party plastic molding manufacturers for production of our Inbrija inhalers and third-party suppliers of L-dopa, the API in Inbrija. Our reliance on third parties for the manufacture of inhalers increases the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our inhalers or will not be able to obtain such quantities at an acceptable cost or quality, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts. If our third-party plastic molding manufacturer fails to supply the inhalers and we need to enter into alternative arrangements with a different supplier, it could delay our product development activities, as we would have to revalidate the molding and assembly processes pursuant to FDA requirements. If this failure of supply were to occur after we received approval for and commenced commercialization of Inbrija, we might be unable to meet the demand for this product and our business could be adversely affected. Similarly, we do not purchase the API for Inbrija under a supply contract and there is a risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of the API at an acceptable cost or quality, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts.

If we are unable to use our Chelsea manufacturing facility for any reason, we would be unable to manufacture clinical supply of Inbrija (levodopa inhalation powder) and, if this product is approved, commercial quantities of Inbrija or other ARCUS inhaled therapeutic candidates for a substantial amount of time, which would harm our business.

We currently manufacture all clinical supply of Inbrija at our Chelsea, Massachusetts manufacturing facility that we occupy under a lease that expires in December 2025, which we may extend for up to ten years. We intend to manufacture all commercial supplies of Inbrija, if approved for commercial sale, as well as supplies of all additional ARCUS inhaled therapeutic candidates that we may develop, in this manufacturing facility. However, our Chelsea manufacturing facility has not been inspected by the FDA. Prior to commercialization of Inbrija, the FDA will likely conduct a pre-approval inspection. If, during this inspection, the FDA determines that the systems or facility do not meet FDA current good manufacturing practices, or cGMP, requirements, the FDA may not grant marketing approval for our product. If we obtain approval from the FDA for Inbrija, we anticipate the need to expand our manufacturing operations at the Chelsea facility after product launch to meet demand depending on the timing and extent of sales growth.

40

---

 

Furthermore, if we were to lose the use of our facility or equipment, our manufacturing facility and manufacturing equipment would be difficult to replace and could require substantial replacement lead time and substantial additional funds. Our facility may be affected by natural disasters, such as floods or fire, or we may lose the use of our facility due to manufacturing issues that arise at our facility, such as contamination or regulatory concerns following a regulatory inspection of our facility. We do not currently have back-up capacity and there is only limited third-party manufacturing capacity that would be available to manufacture Inbrija or other ARCUS inhaled therapeutic products or product candidates. In the event of a loss of the use of all or a portion of our facility or equipment for the reasons stated above or any other reason, we would be unable to manufacture Inbrija or any other ARCUS inhaled therapeutic products or product candidates until such time as our facility could be repaired, rebuilt or we are able to address other manufacturing issues at our facility. Any such interruptions in our ability to manufacture these products or product candidates would harm our business.

Expanding our Chelsea manufacturing capacity will be costly and involves numerous risks, and if Inbrija receives FDA approval, our efforts to commercialize the product could be harmed if we cannot complete expansion of the facility in a timely manner.

If Inbrija receives FDA approval, we anticipate the need to expand our manufacturing capacity at the Chelsea facility after product launch to meet demand depending on the timing and extent of sales growth. The ARCUS dry powder aerosol particles are generated by applying our proprietary and multi-step spray drying process to active pharmaceutical ingredient. The application of spray drying in the pharmaceutical industry is highly specialized, and the process of manufacturing ARCUS particles requires significant expertise in dry powder manufacture and handling and capsule filling. Expanding our manufacturing capacity will require substantial additional expenditures and various regulatory approvals and permits. Further, we may need to hire and train additional employees and managerial personnel to staff our expanding manufacturing operations. Manufacturing scale-up entails significant risks related to process development and manufacturing yields. In addition, we may face difficulties or delays in developing or acquiring the necessary production equipment and technology. Our expanded Chelsea facility will have to continue to comply with cGMP requirements, as described above in these risk factors, as well as other applicable environmental, safety, and other governmental permitting requirements. These challenges could delay or prevent us from successfully expanding our Chelsea manufacturing capacity, which would adversely harm our ability to commercialize Inbrija.

We may incur significant liability if we fail to comply with stringent FDA marketing and promotion regulations.

Our advertising and promotion activities are subject to stringent FDA rules and oversight. Among other requirements, our advertising and promotional materials must not be false or misleading in any particular respect, and must be appropriately substantiated and fairly balanced with information on the safety risks and limitations of our products. We must submit all promotional materials to the FDA by the time of their first use. If the FDA raises concerns regarding our promotional materials or messages, we may be required to modify or discontinue using them and may be required to provide corrective information. Should we fail to comply with these requirements, we may be subject to significant liability including civil and administrative remedies as well as criminal sanctions.

Each of our products is approved with specific indications and other conditions of use that inform our ability to promote our products. For example, Ampyra is indicated “to improve walking in adult patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). This was demonstrated by an increase in walking speed.” The approved labeling also contains other limitations on use and warnings and precautions, the most common adverse reactions, and contraindications for risks. If potential purchasers or those influencing purchasing or prescribing decisions, such as physicians and pharmacists or third party payers, react negatively to Ampyra or other products because of their perception of the limitations or safety risks in the approved product labeling, it may result in lower product acceptance and lower product revenues.

We face significant risks if we promote our drugs “off-label,” i.e., for uses other than those that the FDA has approved for our products. Physicians may prescribe drug products for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those approved by the FDA. Similar rules apply in many countries outside the U.S. Off-label uses are common across medical specialties. Although the FDA does not regulate a physician’s choice of treatments, it traditionally has prohibited companies from promoting their drugs for off-label uses. Several federal court cases, based on First Amendment principles, have called into question the FDA’s ability to enforce against companies solely on the basis of truthful and non-misleading off-label promotion of their drugs. It is unclear, however, how the courts ultimately will resolve this issue or how the FDA’s policies may (or may not) change in light of developing case law. Furthermore, off-label promotion of our products could violate advertising and promotion requirements such as the prohibition against false or misleading advertising and/or labeling, or the requirement that approved labeling bear “adequate directions” for all of the product’s “intended uses.” Accordingly, we potentially face significant risk of enforcement should we promote Ampyra, Inbrija (levodopa inhalation powder) (if approved), or any other products in the U.S. for any uses that are not consistent with

41

---

 

the products’ approved labeling. The FDA and other regulatory and enforcement authorities actively enforce laws and regulations regulating promotion of approved drugs as well as the promotion of products for which marketing approval has not been obtained. A company that is found to have violated these requirements may be subject to significant liability, including civil and administrative remedies as well as criminal sanctions.

Notwithstanding the above-described regulatory restrictions, the FDA and other applicable regulatory authorities allow companies to engage in truthful, non-misleading, and non-promotional scientific exchange concerning their products. We engage in medical education activities and communicate with investigators and potential investigators regarding our clinical trials. Although we believe that all of our communications regarding our marketed and investigational products are in compliance with advertising and promotional regulations, the FDA or another regulatory or enforcement authority may disagree.

Any free samples we distribute to physicians must be carefully monitored and controlled, and must otherwise comply with the requirements of the Prescription Drug Marketing Act, as amended, and FDA regulations.

The identification of new side effects from Ampyra or any other marketed drug products, or side effects from those products that are more frequent or severe than in the past, would harm our business and could lead to a significant decrease in sales or to the FDA’s withdrawal of marketing approval.

Based on our clinical trials, the side effects of Ampyra include, among others, seizures, urinary tract infection, trouble sleeping (insomnia), dizziness, headache, nausea, weakness, back pain, and problems with balance. Since becoming commercially available in 2010, Ampyra has been used in a wider population than in clinical studies. Some patients exposed to Ampyra have reportedly experienced serious adverse side effects, including seizures. In July 2012, the FDA issued a safety communication relating to seizures based on post-marketing data from March 2010 through March 2011, which resulted in FDA safety updates and related changes to the Ampyra product labeling. We constantly monitor adverse event reports for signals regarding potential additional adverse events, which could drive further label changes, such as a September 2012 label change relating to reports of anaphylactic reactions, an October 2016 label change adding vomiting as a side effect of Ampyra, and a September 2017 label change adding information about a drug-drug interaction between Ampyra and Organic Cation Transporters (OCT2) such as cimetidine.

If we or others identify previously unknown side effects, if known side effects are more frequent or severe than in the past, or if we or others detect unexpected safety signals for Ampyra or any products perceived to be similar to Ampyra, then in any of these circumstances:

The above occurrences could impair our business by harming or possibly preventing sales of Ampyra, causing sales to fall below projections, and increasing our expenses. We will face similar risks with respect to Inbrija (levodopa inhalation powder), if we receive approval for and commercialize that product, and with respect to any other marketed products.

Regulatory approval of our products could be withdrawn and our business could be harmed if we fail to comply with safety and adverse event monitoring, documentation, investigation and reporting requirements.

Under FDA regulations, we are required to monitor the safety of Ampyra and inform healthcare professionals about the risks of drug-associated seizures with Ampyra. We are required to document and investigate reports of adverse events,

42

---

 

and to report them to the FDA in accordance with regulatory timelines based on their severity and expectedness. These requirements are applicable to all marketed drug products and will be applicable to Inbrija (levodopa inhalation powder), if approved. Failure to make timely safety reports and to establish and maintain related records could result in FDA withdrawal of marketing authorization or other regulatory action, civil actions against us, or criminal penalties, any of which could harm our business. If the specialty pharmacies that we rely upon to sell Ampyra in the U.S. or our marketing partners or collaborators fail timely to report adverse events and product complaints to us, or if we do not meet the requirements for safety reporting, our business may be harmed.

We are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and other regulatory bodies related to other regulatory requirements that apply to drugs manufactured or distributed by us.

If we receive a notice of inspectional observations or deficiencies on FDA Form 483, or inspectional observations from foreign regulatory authorities, we may be required to undertake corrective and preventive actions in order to address the FDA's concerns, which could be expensive and time-consuming to complete and could impose additional burdens and expenses. Failure to adequately address the FDA’s, or foreign regulatory agency’s, concerns could expose us to enforcement and administrative actions.

For example, between 2010 and 2014, FDA conducted a number of inspections focusing on our pharmacovigilance program. These inspections resulted in a series of FDA Form 483s with observations relating to timeliness of adverse event reporting and other aspects of our quality program. We also received a written warning letter, based on the inspections, and citing Acorda for violations of its pharmacovigilance obligations. We provided FDA with formal written responses to each 483 as well as the warning letter. These responses advised FDA of corrective actions we were taking to address all of the issues raised by the inspectional observations and the warning letter. These corrective actions have all been completed. In February 2016, the FDA conducted what it classified as a biennial routine inspection. The inspection focused on pharmacovigilance reporting and product complaint handling, and resulted in one FDA Form 483 observation related to Ampyra “lack of effect” complaint trends analysis. We responded to the Form 483, and have taken corrective actions.

We continue to monitor and enhance our adverse event and product complaint reporting systems to ensure continued adherence to regulatory requirements. However, the FDA has not yet issued a “close-out” letter to the 2012 warning letter. Although it does not always do so, the FDA may issue a close-out letter when it determines that a company has completed corrective actions that adequately address all of the issues raised by the warning letter. Therefore, the FDA may conclude in subsequent inspections that we have not demonstrated adequate control over our current processes or have not demonstrated adequate closure of our response commitments, and could take action against us without further notice. Action by the FDA against us could require us to take further corrective actions or even that we stop marketing Ampyra and/or result in administrative, civil, or criminal penalties. Any of such actions by the FDA could harm our business.

In addition, our third-party suppliers’ drug product manufacturing sites are subject to inspection by the FDA. Some of these sites have been inspected by the FDA and could be inspected by the FDA in the future. If the FDA inspects the process validation efforts and manufacturing process at these sites, the FDA might find what it considers to be deficiencies in the manufacturing process or process validation efforts, which could negatively impact the availability of product supply or, in the case of a potential new product, delay or prevent commercial launch of that product. In some cases, our third-party suppliers’ drug manufacturing sites may also be subject to inspection by foreign regulatory authorities. We face similar risks to our business if those third-party manufacturers are unable to comply with foreign regulatory requirements. We and our third-party suppliers are generally required to maintain compliance with cGMPs and are subject to inspections by the FDA or comparable agencies in other jurisdictions to confirm such compliance. In addition, the FDA must approve certain changes to our suppliers or manufacturing methods. If we or our third-party suppliers cannot demonstrate ongoing cGMP compliance, we may be required to withdraw or recall product and interrupt commercial supply of our products. Any delay, interruption or other issues that arise in the manufacture, fill-finish, packaging, or storage of our products as a result of a failure of our facilities or the facilities or operations of our third-party suppliers, to pass regulatory agency inspection could significantly impair our ability to develop and commercialize our products. Significant noncompliance could also result in the imposition of monetary penalties, shut-down of manufacturing facilities, or other civil or criminal sanctions. Non-compliance could increase our costs, cause us to lose revenue, and damage our reputation.

Even if our suppliers or manufacturing methods are in compliance with applicable requirements, we may encounter problems with the manufacture of our products. To investigate and/or resolve these problems, we may be required to withdraw or recall product and interrupt commercial supply of our products. These events could increase our costs, cause us to lose revenue, and damage our reputation. We are required to submit field alert reports to the FDA if we learn of certain

43

---

 

reported problems with our products, and we are required to investigate the causes of the reported problems. Issues identified in field alerts could lead to product recalls and interruption of supplies, which in turn could harm our business.

Also, the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act requires that trading partners such as our manufacturers, repackagers, wholesale distributors, and dispensers, take certain actions upon determining that a product in their possession or control is suspected to be: counterfeit; diverted; stolen; intentionally adulterated such that the product would result in serious adverse health consequences or death to humans; is the subject of a fraudulent transaction; or appears otherwise unfit for distribution such that the product would be reasonably likely to result in serious adverse health consequences to humans. The suspect product is required to be quarantined while an investigation is promptly conducted to determine whether the product meets any of the above criteria. Once a product is determined to meet any of the above-listed criteria, it will be deemed an illegitimate product. Upon such a determination, the FDA and all trading partners in the supply chain must be notified within 24 hours. The notification and quarantine of product during an investigation could impact product availability for commercial distribution and harm our business.

Our success in maintaining and increasing sales of Ampyra will depend on the continued customer support efforts of our network of specialty pharmacies.

A specialty pharmacy is a pharmacy that specializes in the dispensing of injectable, infused or certain other medications typically for complex or chronic conditions, which often require a high level of patient education and ongoing management. Specialty pharmacies are commonly used to dispense MS drugs, many of which are injectable. The use of specialty pharmacies involves risks, including, but not limited to, risks that these specialty pharmacies will:

We are dependent on our existing collaborations, and may need additional collaborations, to commercialize products outside of the U.S.

We have not yet developed the capabilities to commercialize products outside of the U.S. Pursuant to our Collaboration Agreement with Biogen, entered into in June 2009, we granted Biogen an exclusive license to develop and commercialize Ampyra and other products containing aminopyridines in all territories outside the U.S. We may enter into additional collaborations with third parties to develop and commercialize some of our product candidates in the future. For example, we expect that we will need to enter into collaborations to commercialize Inbrija (levodopa inhalation powder) outside of the U.S., if it receives marketing approval in any jurisdictions outside of the U.S., and similarly would need to rely on collaborations for commercializing any other potential products outside of the U.S. We cannot provide any assurance that we will be able to identify suitable collaboration partners for Inbrija or other potential products, or that we will be able to enter into collaboration agreements with proposed partners on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Our inability to identify collaboration partners or enter into collaborations could harm or delay our efforts to commercialize Inbrija or other potential products outside of the U.S.

Our dependence on Biogen for the development and commercialization of Ampyra outside the U.S., and our dependence on future collaborators for development and commercialization of additional product candidates outside the U.S., is and will subject us to a number of risks, including:

44

---

 

While we have negotiated some terms in the Collaboration Agreement with Biogen intended to assist in protecting our rights in certain of the circumstances listed above, there can be no assurance that these terms will provide us with adequate rights and remedies, and actions required to enforce such rights could be costly and time consuming.

We do not currently receive any royalties from Biogen for sales of Fampyra, and we cannot predict whether and when we will receive additional Fampyra royalties.

Under the terms of our Fampyra royalty monetization transaction with HealthCare Royalty Partners, we will not receive royalties from the sale of Fampyra until they receive an agreed upon threshold of royalties. After this threshold is met, if ever, we will continue to receive Fampyra royalty revenue under the terms of our collaboration agreement with Biogen. However, we cannot predict whether and when that threshold will be met, as this will depend on Biogen’s ability to commercialize Fampyra, which in turn will depend on factors such as Biogen’s ability to obtain and maintain regulatory approvals and obtaining adequate third-party reimbursement as described further in these risk factors.

Our collaborator, Biogen, will need to obtain and maintain regulatory approval in foreign jurisdictions where it seeks to market or is currently marketing Fampyra.

In order to market our products in the EU and other foreign jurisdictions, separate regulatory approvals must be obtained and maintained and numerous and varying regulatory requirements must be complied with. Approval procedures vary among countries and can involve additional clinical and non-clinical testing as well as additional regulatory agency inspections. The time required to obtain approval may differ from that required to obtain FDA approval. We and our collaborator may fail to obtain foreign regulatory approvals on a timely basis, if at all. In addition, individual countries, within the EU or elsewhere, may require additional steps after regulatory approval to gain access to national markets, such as agreements with pricing authorities and other agencies, that may harm the ability of us or our collaborator to market and sell products outside the U.S. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries, and approval by one foreign regulatory authority does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other foreign countries or by the FDA. Inability to obtain or maintain necessary regulatory approvals to commercialize Fampyra or other product candidates in foreign markets could materially harm our business prospects. In addition, we may face adverse legal and business consequences if Biogen does not comply with regulatory requirements.

Drug development programs, particularly those in early stages of development, may never be commercialized.

Our future success depends, in part, on our ability to select successful product candidates, complete preclinical development of these product candidates and advance them to and through clinical trials. We have research and development programs that are early-stage and either have not advanced to clinical trials or are only in Phase 1 trials. These early-stage

45

---

 

product candidates in particular will require significant development, preclinical studies and clinical trials, regulatory clearances and substantial additional investment before they can be commercialized, if at all.

Our research and development programs may not lead to commercially viable products for several reasons, and are subject to the risks and uncertainties associated with drug development described elsewhere in these risk factors. For example, we may fail to identify promising product candidates, our product candidates may fail to be safe and effective in preclinical tests or clinical trials, or we may have inadequate financial or other resources to pursue discovery and development efforts for new product candidates. In addition, because we have limited resources, we are focusing on product candidates that we believe are the most promising. As a result, we may delay or discontinue particular development programs, and we may instead pursue other product candidates. For example, in November 2017 we discontinued our clinical development program for tozadenant, an investigational drug we had been developing for the reduction of OFF time in Parkinson’s disease patients. We made this decision based on new information obtained from our Phase 3 clinical trials related to agranulocytosis and associated serious adverse events. We have no current plans to restart the tozadenant clinical development program. From time to time, we may establish and announce certain development goals for our product candidates and programs, including, for example, development goals for our product candidates and programs set forth in this report. However, given the complex nature of the drug discovery and development process, it is difficult to predict accurately if and when we will achieve these goals. If we are unsuccessful in advancing our research and development programs into clinical testing or in obtaining regulatory approval, our long-term business prospects will be harmed.

Our drug products in development must undergo rigorous clinical testing, the results of which are uncertain and could substantially delay or prevent us from bringing them to market.

Before we can obtain regulatory approval for any product candidate, we must undertake extensive clinical testing in humans to demonstrate safety and efficacy to the satisfaction of the FDA and other regulatory agencies. Clinical trials of new product candidates sufficient to obtain regulatory marketing approval are expensive and take years to complete, and the outcome of such trials is uncertain. Clinical development of any product candidate that we determine to take into clinical trials, including our clinical trials described in this report, may be curtailed, redirected, delayed or eliminated at any time for some or all of the following reasons:

A delay in or termination of any of our clinical development programs could harm our business.

Clinical trials are subject to oversight by institutional review boards (or similar ethics committees), data safety monitoring boards, the FDA, and similar foreign regulatory authorities to ensure compliance with good clinical practice requirements, as well as other requirements for the protection of clinical trial participants. We depend, in part, on third-party laboratories and medical institutions to conduct preclinical studies and clinical trials for our products and other third-party

46

---

 

organizations to perform data collection and analysis, all of which must maintain both good laboratory and good clinical practices required by regulators. If any of those standards are not complied with in a clinical trial, the resulting data from the clinical trial may not be usable or we, an institutional review board, the FDA, or a similar foreign regulatory authority may suspend or terminate a trial, which would severely delay our development and possibly end the development of the product candidate.

We rely on third-party contract research organizations, medical centers and others to perform our preclinical and non-clinical testing and clinical trials, our research and development programs could be harmed if they do not perform in an acceptable and legally compliant manner.

We do not have the ability to conduct all aspects of our preclinical or non-clinical testing or clinical trials ourselves. We rely and will continue to rely on clinical investigators, third-party contract research organizations and consultants to perform some or all of the functions associated with preclinical and non-clinical testing and clinical trials. Additionally, we have historically conducted clinical trials in the U.S. and Canada, and more recently we have conducted clinical trial activities into other jurisdictions, particularly Europe. Because we have limited experience conducting clinical trials outside the U.S. and Canada, we place even greater reliance on third-party contract research organizations to manage, monitor and carry out clinical trials in these other jurisdictions. The failure of any of these parties to perform in an acceptable and timely manner in the future, including in accordance with any applicable U.S. or foreign regulatory requirements, such as good clinical and laboratory practices, or preclinical testing or clinical trial protocols, could cause a delay or other adverse effect on our preclinical or non-clinical testing or clinical trials and ultimately on the timely advancement of our research and development programs. Similarly, we rely on medical centers to conduct our clinical trials, and if they fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements or clinical trial protocols, our research and development programs could be harmed.

If we market products in a manner that violates healthcare fraud and abuse laws, or if we violate false claims laws or fail to comply with our reporting and payment obligations under the Medicaid drug rebate program or other governmental pricing programs, or other applicable legal requirements, we may be subject to civil or criminal penalties or additional reimbursement requirements and sanctions, which could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

The distribution, sale and promotion of drug and biological products are subject to regulation by various federal, state and local authorities in addition to the FDA, including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Federal Trade Commission, other divisions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Department of Justice and individual U.S. Attorney offices within the Department of Justice, and state and local governments. For example, sales, marketing and scientific/educational grant programs must comply with the anti-kickback and fraud and abuse provisions of the Social Security Act, as amended, the False Claims Act, as amended, and are affected by the privacy regulations promulgated pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, as amended and similar state laws. Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of safe harbors under these laws, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of these laws. All of these activities are also subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws.

The federal healthcare program anti-kickback statute prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving remuneration to induce, or in return for, purchasing, leasing, ordering or arranging for the purchase, lease or order of any healthcare item or service reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid or other federally financed healthcare programs. This statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on the one hand and prescribers, purchasers and formulary managers on the other. Industry relationships with specialty pharmacies have also recently been scrutinized under these provisions. Although there are several statutory exemptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting certain common activities from prosecution, the exemptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly, and practices that involve remuneration intended to induce or facilitate prescribing, purchasing or recommending may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exemption or safe harbor. Our practices may not in all cases meet all of the criteria for safe harbor protection from anti-kickback liability.

Federal false claims laws prohibit any person from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment to the federal government or knowingly making, or causing to be made, a false statement to get a false claim paid. By statute, a violation of the federal antikickback statute may serve as the basis for a false claim under the false claims act. Numerous pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have been prosecuted under these laws for a variety of alleged promotional and marketing activities, such as: allegedly providing kickbacks, such as free trips, free goods, sham consulting fees and grants and other monetary benefits to prescribers; reporting to pricing services inflated average wholesale prices that

47

---

 

were then used by federal programs to set reimbursement rates; and engaging in off-label promotion that caused claims to be submitted to Medicaid for non-covered, off-label uses. Most states also have statutes or regulations similar to the federal anti-kickback law and false claims laws, which apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payer.

Sanctions under these federal and state laws may include requirements to make payments to government-funded health plans to correct for insufficient rebates paid by us or overpayments made to us, civil monetary penalties, exclusion of our products from reimbursement under government programs, criminal fines and imprisonment. We may also be subject to a corporate integrity agreement, deferred prosecution agreement, or similar arrangement.

Under the federal Sunshine Act, pharmaceutical manufacturers are required to collect information on payments or other transfers of value made to “covered recipients,” which are defined as physicians and teaching hospitals. The collected information has to be disclosed in annual reports that are placed on a public database. Similarly, pharmaceutical manufacturers are also required to annually report samples of prescription drugs requested by and distributed to healthcare providers. The law does not state whether these disclosures regarding samples will be made publicly available, and the FDA has not provided any guidance. If we fail to provide these reports, or if the reports we provide are not accurate, we could be subject to significant penalties.

We participate in the federal Medicaid drug rebate program established by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, as well as several state supplemental rebate programs. Under the Medicaid drug rebate program, we pay a rebate to each state Medicaid program for our products that are reimbursed by those programs. Federal law requires that any company that participates in the Medicaid drug rebate program extend comparable discounts to qualified purchasers under the Public Health Service Act pharmaceutical pricing program, which requires us to sell our products to certain customers at prices lower than we otherwise might be able to charge. The minimum basic Medicaid rebate for branded prescription drugs is 23.1%, and pharmaceutical manufacturers must pay states rebates on prescription drugs dispensed to Medicaid managed care enrollees. In addition, manufacturers must pay an additional Medicaid rebate on “line extensions” (such as extended release formulations) of solid oral dosage forms of branded products.

For products to be made available to authorized users of the Federal Supply Schedule, additional pricing laws and requirements apply, as do certain obligations imposed by the Federal Acquisition Regulations. Under the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992, as amended (VHCA), we are required to offer certain drugs at a reduced price to a number of federal agencies, including the Veterans Administration, the Department of Defense (DOD), the Public Health Service and certain private Public Health Service designated entities, in order to participate in other federal funding programs including Medicare and Medicaid. Also, legislative changes enacted in 2009 require that discounted prices be offered for certain DOD purchases for its TRICARE retail program via a rebate system. Participation under the VHCA requires submission of pricing data and calculation of discounts and rebates pursuant to complex statutory formulas, as well as the entry into government procurement contracts governed by the Federal Acquisition Regulations.

Pharmaceutical companies have been prosecuted under federal and state false claims laws for manipulating information submitted to the Medicaid drug rebate program or for knowingly submitting or using allegedly inaccurate pricing information in connection with federal pricing and discount programs.

Pricing and rebate calculations vary among products and programs. The laws and regulations governing the calculations are complex and are often subject to interpretation by us or our contractors, governmental or regulatory agencies and the courts. Our methodologies for calculating these prices could be challenged under false claims laws or other laws. We or our contractors could make a mistake in calculating reported prices and required discounts, revisions to those prices and discounts, or determining whether a revision is necessary, which could result in retroactive rebates (and interest and penalties, if any). Governmental agencies may also make changes in program interpretations, requirements or conditions of participation, some of which may have implications for amounts previously estimated or paid. If we make these mistakes or if governmental agencies make these changes, we could face, in addition to prosecution under federal and state false claims laws, substantial liability and civil monetary penalties, exclusion of our products from reimbursement under government programs, criminal fines or imprisonment or prosecutors may impose a Corporate Integrity Agreement, Deferred Prosecution Agreement, or similar arrangement.

Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), drug manufacturers are required to provide a 50% discount on prescriptions for branded products filled while the beneficiary is in the Medicare Part D coverage gap, also known as the “donut hole.” In addition, the ACA imposes a significant annual fee on companies that manufacture or import branded prescription drug products. The fee (which is not deductible for federal income tax purposes) is based on the manufacturer’s market share of

48

---

 

sales of branded drugs and biologics (excluding orphan drugs) to, or pursuant to coverage under, specified U.S. government programs.

Also, Qutenza differs from Ampyra because it may be administered only by a healthcare professional. For this reason, it is treated as a “buy-and-bill” product by most payers, including Medicare, most Medicaid programs, and private payers. Buy-and-bill products must be purchased by healthcare providers before they can be administered to patients. Under the buy-and-bill model, healthcare providers subsequently bill the product to the patient’s insurer, which may be a government healthcare program or private health plan. Purchasers of buy-and-bill products that are administered to Medicare patients are reimbursed under that program’s Average Sales Price, or ASP, payment model. Because reimbursement for these patients is based on ASP and not the healthcare provider’s actual purchase price for the prescription drug, the reimbursement often differs somewhat from the actual price paid by the healthcare provider. Acorda does not sell Qutenza directly to healthcare providers, but rather, healthcare providers purchase this drug from a specialty distributor, who in turn acquires the product from us.

Historically, some pharmaceutical manufacturers have been accused by the government of “marketing the spread” between the healthcare provider’s purchase price and the reimbursement price, by allegedly promoting the potential to earn profit on each administration of the drug. Alternatively, other manufacturers have been alleged to have “manipulated” that spread by manipulating the determination of reimbursement rates by artificially inflating reported prices. We have adopted policies and training programs for our employees intended to prevent marketing or manipulating the spread between the price at which Qutenza is purchased and the price reimbursed by federal healthcare programs. However, if our actions are viewed by government regulators or qui tam relators as inappropriately marketing or manipulating that spread, we could be investigated and, potentially, charged with violations of the anti-kickback and fraud and abuse provisions of the Social Security Act, as amended, the False Claims Act, as amended, the Medicaid drug rebate statute, and similar state laws.

In addition, if the actions we take by providing background educational material and other information to healthcare providers concerning billing for Qutenza are viewed as encouraging healthcare providers to misrepresent the professional services provided to beneficiaries of federal healthcare programs or to otherwise submit claims to federal healthcare programs that are designed to maximize reimbursement inappropriately, this could result in investigations, and possible charges of violating, these same laws.

Legislative or regulatory reform of the healthcare system may affect our ability to sell our products profitably.

The U.S. President and the majority party in both Houses of the U.S. Congress have indicated their desire to repeal the Affordable Care Act. It is unclear whether, when and how that repeal will be effectuated and what the effect on the healthcare sector will be. In addition to the potential repeal of the Affordable Care Act, there are indications that the Medicaid program may be restructured, which could lead to revisions in Medicaid coverage for prescription drugs. The outlook for the healthcare sector is unclear, and we are unable to predict the future course of federal or state healthcare legislation and regulations. Changes in the law or regulatory framework that reduce our revenues or increase our costs could also harm our business, financial condition and results of operations and cash flows.

Our existing or potential products may not be commercially viable if we fail to obtain or maintain an adequate level of reimbursement for these products by Medicaid, Medicare or other third-party payers.

Our ability to maintain and increase sales and profitability will depend in part on third-party payers, such as government or government-sponsored health administrative authorities, including Medicaid and Medicare Parts B and D, private health insurers and other such organizations, agreeing to reimburse patients for the cost of our products. Significant uncertainty exists as to the reimbursement status of newly approved drug products. Third-party payers are increasingly challenging the pricing of medical products and services and their reimbursement practices may affect the price levels for Ampyra or potential products such as Inbrija (levodopa inhalation powder) if it receives marketing approval. Our business could be materially harmed if the Medicaid program, Medicare program or other third-party payers were to deny reimbursement for our products or provide reimbursement only on unfavorable terms. Our business could also be harmed if the Medicaid program, Medicare program or other reimbursing bodies or payers limit the indications for which our products will be reimbursed to a smaller set of indications than we believe is appropriate or limit the circumstances under which our products will be reimbursed to a smaller set of circumstances than we believe is appropriate.

Third-party payers frequently require that drug companies negotiate agreements with them that provide discounts or rebates from list prices. We have agreed to provide such discounts and rebates to some third-party payers in relation to

49

---

 

Ampyra. We expect increasing pressure to offer larger discounts and discounts to a greater number of third-party payers to maintain acceptable reimbursement levels and access for patients at copay levels that are reasonable. There is no guarantee that we would be able to negotiate agreements with third-party payers at price levels that are profitable to us, or at all. A number of third-party payers also implement utilization management techniques, such as prior authorization or quantity limits for Ampyra, or even refuse to provide reimbursement for Ampyra, and others may do so in the future. Patients who cannot meet the conditions of prior authorizations are often prevented from obtaining the prescribed medication, because they cannot afford to pay for the medication without reimbursement. If we are unsuccessful in maintaining reimbursement for our products at acceptable levels, or if reimbursement for our products by third-party payers is subject to overly restrictive utilization management, our business will be harmed. In addition, if our competitors reduce the prices of their products, or otherwise demonstrate that they are better or more cost effective than our products, this may result in a greater level of reimbursement for their products relative to our products, which would reduce our sales and harm our results of operations.

The Medicare Part D outpatient prescription drug benefit is provided primarily through private entities, which attempt to negotiate price concessions from pharmaceutical manufacturers. These negotiations increase pressure to lower prescription drug prices or increase rebate payments to offset price. While the law specifically prohibits the U.S. government from interfering in price negotiations between manufacturers and Medicare drug plan sponsors, some members of Congress support legislation that would permit the U.S. government to use its enormous purchasing power to demand discounts from pharmaceutical companies. In addition, the Affordable Care Act contains triggers for Congressional consideration of cost containment measures for Medicare in the event Medicare cost increases exceed a certain level. These cost containment measures could include limitations on prescription drug prices. The Affordable Care Act requires drug manufacturers to provide a 50% discount on prescriptions for branded products filled while the beneficiary is in the Medicare Part D coverage gap, also known as the “donut hole.” Legislative or regulatory revisions to the Medicare Part D outpatient prescription drug benefit, as well as additional healthcare legislation that may be enacted at a future date, could reduce our sales and harm our results of operations.

The success of our existing and potential products in the EU substantially depends on achieving adequate government reimbursement.

The commercial success in the EU of products approved there, including Fampyra, primarily depends on obtaining and maintaining government reimbursement because, in many European countries, patients may not have access to prescription drugs that are not reimbursed by their governments. In addition, participation in pricing and reimbursement procedures and negotiating prices with government authorities can delay commercialization. Even if reimbursement is available, reimbursement policies may negatively impact revenue from sales of our products and therefore our ability or that of our collaborators, such as Biogen, to sell our products on a profitable basis. Furthermore, cross-border imports from lower-priced markets (parallel imports) into higher-priced markets could harm sales of products by us or our collaborators, such as Biogen, and exert commercial pressure on pricing within a country.

In response to the downturn in global economic conditions in recent years, governments in a number of international markets have announced or implemented measures aimed at reducing healthcare costs to constrain the overall level of government expenditures. This includes Germany and other countries in the EU, where Biogen has obtained regulatory approval for Fampyra. The measures vary by country and include, among other things, mandatory rebates and discounts, reimbursement limitations and reference pricing, price reductions and suspensions on pricing increases on pharmaceuticals. These measures may negatively impact net revenue from Biogen’s sales of Fampyra and therefore both the timing of when, if ever, we receive any further royalty revenue from Biogen under the terms of our Fampyra royalty monetization transaction with HealthCare Royalty Partners, and the amount of the royalty we would then receive from Biogen. Furthermore, the adverse financial impact of these measures in any particular country, in addition to related reimbursement or regulatory constraints, could prevent the commercial launch or continued commercialization of Fampyra in that country.

If Inbrija (levodopa inhalation powder) receives marketing approval, the factors described above could prevent or harm the commercial launch of that product in the EU.

50

---

 

If our competitors develop and market products that are more effective, safer or more convenient than our approved products, or obtain marketing approval before we obtain approval of future products, our commercial opportunity will be reduced or eliminated.

Competition in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries is intense and is expected to increase. Many biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, as well as academic laboratories, are involved in research and/or product development for various neurological conditions, including Parkinson’s disease, or PD, and multiple sclerosis, or MS.

Our competitors may succeed in developing products that are more effective, safer or more convenient than our products or the ones we have under development or that render our approved or proposed products or technologies noncompetitive or obsolete. In addition, our competitors may achieve product commercialization before we do. If any of our competitors develops a product that is more effective, safer or more convenient for patients, or is able to obtain FDA approval for commercialization before we do, we may not be able to achieve market acceptance for our products, which would harm our ability to generate revenues and recover the substantial development costs we have incurred and will continue to incur.

Our products may be subject to competition from lower-priced versions of such products and competing products imported into the U.S. from Canada, Mexico and other countries where there are government price controls or other market dynamics that cause the products to be priced lower.

Ampyra. In addition to the potential introduction of generic versions of Ampyra after July 30, 2018, further described below, we are aware of other companies developing products that may compete with Ampyra. These include Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which is developing ADS-5102 (amantadine hydrochloride) for patients with MS who have walking impairment, and Catalyst Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which is developing a 3,4-diaminopyridine product, licensed from Biomarin. Furthermore, several companies are engaged in developing products that include novel immune system approaches and cell therapy approaches to remyelination for the treatment of people with MS. These programs are in early stages of development and may compete in the future with Ampyra or some of our product candidates. In addition, in certain circumstances, pharmacists are not prohibited from formulating certain drug compounds to fill prescriptions on an individual patient basis, which is referred to as compounding. We are aware that at present compounded dalfampridine is used by some people with MS and it is possible that some people will want to continue to use compounded formulations even though Ampyra is commercially available.

Ampyra could become subject to competition from generic drug manufacturers. In March 2017, we announced a decision by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in litigation with certain generic drug manufacturers upholding our Ampyra Orange Book-listed patent set to expire on July 30, 2018, but invalidating our four other Orange Book-listed patents pertaining to Ampyra that were set to expire between 2025 and 2027. Under this decision, we expect to maintain patent exclusivity with respect to Ampyra at least through July 30, 2018, depending on the outcome of appeal of the District Court’s decision. The defendant generic drug manufacturers have appealed the District Court’s decision upholding the patent that expires in July 2018, and we have appealed the ruling on the four invalidated patents. We expect the appeals process to take approximately 12 to 18 months from the filing of the appeal in May 2017. We expect to experience a rapid and significant decline in Ampyra sales beyond July 2018 due to competition from generic versions of Ampyra that may be marketed after the expiration of our remaining Ampyra patent, unless the District Court’s decision on the four invalidated patents is overturned on appeal, which could include reversal or remand by the appeals court back to the District Court. Our litigation with these generic drug manufacturers is described in further detail in Part I, Item 3 of this report. We will need to continue devoting significant resources to this litigation, and we can provide no assurance concerning its duration or outcome.

Inbrija (levodopa inhalation powder). If approved for the treatment of OFF periods, (re-emergence of symptoms) Inbrija would compete against on-demand therapies that aim to specifically address Parkinson’s disease symptoms. Apokyn, an injectable formulation of apomorphine, is approved for the treatment of OFF periods. Apokyn was approved for this use in the U.S. in 2004 and in Europe in 1993. Also, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc. is developing a sublingual, or under the tongue, formulation of apomorphine. This program is in Phase 3 clinical development and could potentially be commercially launched ahead of Inbrija. In January 2018, Sunovion announced positive topline results from their pivotal Phase 3 study, which will be used in support of their submission of a New Drug Application expected in spring 2018.

The standard of care for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease is oral carbidopa/levodopa, but oral medication can be associated with wide variability in the timing and the amount of absorption and there are significant challenges in creating a regimen that consistently maintains therapeutic effects as Parkinson’s disease progresses. Inbrija may face competition from

51

---

 

therapies that can limit the occurrence of OFF periods. Approaches to achieve consistent levodopa plasma concentrations include new formulations of carbidopa/levodopa, such as extended-release and intestinal infusions, and therapies that prolong the effect of levodopa. Impax Laboratories has received FDA approval for RYTARY, an extended-release formulation of oral carbidopa/levodopa, and extended release formulations of oral and patch carbidopa/levodopa are being developed by others including Impax Depomed Inc., Intec Pharma and NeuroDerm Ltd. Also, Abbvie Inc. has developed a continuous administration of a gel-containing levodopa through a tube that is surgically implanted into the intestine. This therapy, known as Duopa, has been approved by the FDA and is approved in the EU.

One or more of our competitors may utilize their expertise in pulmonary delivery of drugs to develop and obtain approval for pulmonary delivery products that may compete with Inbrija and any other of our other ARCUS drug delivery technology product candidates. These competitors may include smaller companies such as Alexza Pharmaceuticals, Inc., MannKind Corporation, Pulmatrix, Inc. and Vectura Group plc and larger companies such as Allergan, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline plc and Novartis AG. If approved, our product candidates may face competition in the target commercial areas.

We may expand our business through the acquisition of companies or businesses or in-licensing product candidates that could disrupt our business and harm our financial condition.

We may in the future seek to expand our products and capabilities by acquiring one or more companies or businesses or in-licensing one or more product candidates. Acquisitions and in-licenses involve numerous risks, including:

We cannot assure you that any acquisition or in-license will result in short-term or long-term benefits to us. We may incorrectly judge the value or worth of an acquired company or business or in-licensed products or product candidates, for example by underestimating the investment required to advance research and development programs, or overestimating approvability by the FDA or the market potential of acquired or in-licensed products or product candidates. In addition, our future success would depend in part on our ability to manage the rapid growth associated with some of these acquisitions and in-licenses. Any acquisition might distract resources from and otherwise harm sales of Ampyra or our other marketed products. We cannot assure you that we would be able to make the combination of our business with that of acquired businesses or companies or in-licensed products or product candidates work or be successful. Furthermore, the development or expansion of our business or any acquired business or company or in-licensed product or product candidate may require a substantial capital investment by us. We may not have these necessary funds or they might not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. We may also seek to raise funds by selling shares of our stock, which could dilute our current shareholders’ ownership interest, or securities convertible into our stock, which could dilute current shareholders’ ownership interest upon conversion. Also, although we may from time to time announce that we have entered into agreements to acquire other companies or assets, we cannot assure you that these acquisitions will be completed in a timely manner or at all. These transactions are subject to an inherent risk that they may not be completed, for example because required closing conditions cannot be met at all or within specified time periods, termination rights may be exercised such as due to a breach by one of the parties, or other contingencies may arise that affect the transaction.

52

---

 

We face an inherent risk of liability in the event that the use or misuse of our products results in personal injury or death.

If the use or misuse of Ampyra, Qutenza, or any other approved products we may sell in the future (including for example Inbrija, if it receives approval) harms people, we may be subject to costly and damaging product liability claims brought against us by consumers, healthcare providers, pharmaceutical companies, third-party payers or others. The use of our product candidates in clinical trials could also expose us to product liability claims. We currently maintain a product liability insurance policy that includes coverage for our marketed products as well as for our clinical trials. The total insurance limit is $50 million per claim, and the aggregate amount of claims under the policy is also capped at $50 million. We cannot predict all of the possible harms or side effects that may result from the use of our products or the testing of product candidates and, therefore, the amount of insurance coverage we currently have may not be adequate to cover all liabilities or defense costs we might incur. A product liability claim or series of claims brought against us could give rise to a substantial liability that could exceed our resources. Even if claims are not successful, the costs of defending such claims and potential adverse publicity could be harmful to our business.

Additionally, we have entered into various agreements where we indemnify third parties such as manufacturers and investigators for certain product liability claims related to our products. These indemnification obligations may require us to pay significant sums of money for claims that are covered by these indemnification obligations.

State pharmaceutical compliance and reporting requirements may expose us to regulatory and legal action by state governments or other government authorities.

Many states have enacted laws governing the licensure of companies that manufacture and/or distribute prescription drugs, although the scope of these laws varies, particularly where out-of-state distributors are concerned. We have obtained licenses in all of the jurisdictions in which we believe we are required to be licensed. However, there can be no assurance that one or more of these states will not take action under these licensure laws.

Several states have also enacted legislation regarding promotional and other activities conducted by pharmaceutical companies. The specifics of these laws vary, but in general they require companies to establish marketing compliance programs; disclose various sales and marketing expenses and pricing information; refrain from providing certain gifts or other payments to healthcare providers; and/or ensure that their sales representatives in that state are licensed. Some states, including California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Vermont, and the District of Columbia have passed laws of varying scope that ban or limit the provision of gifts, meals and certain other payments to healthcare providers and/or impose reporting and disclosure requirements upon pharmaceutical companies pertaining to drug pricing, payments and/or costs associated with pharmaceutical marketing, advertising and other promotional activities. Other states also have laws that regulate, directly or indirectly, various pharmaceutical sales and marketing activities, and new legislation is being considered in many states.

Many of the state requirements continue to evolve, and the manner in which they will be enforced going forward is uncertain. In some cases, the penalties for failure to comply with these requirements are unclear. We are continually updating our compliance infrastructure and standard operating procedures to comply with such laws, but we cannot eliminate the risk created by these uncertainties. Unless we are in full compliance with these laws, we could face enforcement action, fines and other penalties, including government orders to stop selling drugs into a state until properly licensed, and could receive adverse publicity.

Our operations could be curtailed if we are unable to obtain any necessary additional financing on favorable terms or at all.

As of December, 2017, we had approximately $307.1 million in cash and cash equivalents. We have product candidates in various stages of development, and each will require significant further investment to develop, test and obtain regulatory approval prior to commercialization. In connection with our corporate restructuring announced in 2017, we are focusing our resources on Inbrija (levodopa inhalation powder) and other strategic priorities. While we believe that the cost savings from the restructuring and subsequent operating expense reductions, as well as the cost savings from the discontinuation of our tozadenant program, will enable us to fund operations through the commercial launch of Inbrija, if approved by the FDA, there can be no guarantee that we will have sufficient funding to do so. In particular, if there are delays in the approval of Inbrija or a greater than expected decline in sales of Ampyra, we may need to seek additional equity or debt financing or strategic collaborations to complete our product development activities, and could require substantial

53

---

 

funding to commercialize any products that we successfully develop. We may not be able to raise additional capital on favorable terms or at all.

To the extent that we are able to raise additional capital through the sale of equity securities, the issuance of those securities would result in dilution to our stockholders. Holders of such new equity securities may also have rights, preference or privileges that are senior to yours. If additional capital is raised through the incurrence of indebtedness, we may become subject to various restrictions and covenants that could limit our ability to respond to market conditions, provide for unanticipated capital investments or take advantage of business opportunities. To the extent funding is raised through collaborations or intellectual property-based financings, we may be required to give up some or all of the rights and related intellectual property to one or more of our products, product candidates or preclinical programs. If we are unable to obtain sufficient financing on favorable terms when and if needed, we may be required to reduce, defer or discontinue one or more of our product development programs or devote fewer resources to marketing Ampyra or our other commercial products.

Servicing our debt requires a significant amount of cash, and we may not have sufficient cash flow from our business to pay our substantial debt.

Our ability to make scheduled payments of the principal of, to pay interest on or to refinance our indebtedness, including our convertible senior notes, depends on our future performance, which is subject to economic, financial, competitive and other factors beyond our control. Our business may not continue to generate cash flow from operations in the future sufficient to service our debt and make necessary capital expenditures. For example, we expect to experience a rapid and significant decline in Ampyra revenue following the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware’s decision to invalidate certain Ampyra patents, if and when generic versions of Ampyra are marketed. If we are unable to generate such cash flow, we may be required to adopt one or more alternatives, such as selling assets, restructuring debt or obtaining additional equity capital on terms that may be onerous or highly dilutive. Our ability to refinance our indebtedness will depend on the capital markets and our financial condition at such time. We may not be able to engage in any of these activities or engage in these activities on desirable terms, which could result in a default on our debt obligations.

We may not have the ability to raise the funds necessary to settle conversions of our convertible senior notes or to repurchase the notes upon a fundamental change.

Holders of our convertible senior notes will have the right to require us to repurchase their notes upon the occurrence of a fundamental change at a repurchase price equal to 100% of the principal amount of the notes to be repurchased, plus accrued and unpaid interest, if any. In addition, upon conversion of the notes, unless we elect to deliver solely shares of our common stock to settle such conversion (other than paying cash in lieu of delivering any fractional share), we will be required to make cash payments in respect of the notes being converted. However, we may not have enough available cash or be able to obtain financing at the time we are required to make repurchases of notes surrendered therefor or notes being converted. In addition, our ability to repurchase the notes or to pay cash upon conversion of the notes may be limited by law, by regulatory authority or by agreements governing our future indebtedness. Our failure to repurchase notes at a time when the repurchase is required by the indenture pursuant to which the notes were issued, or to pay any cash payable on future conversions of the notes as required by the indenture, would constitute a default under the indenture.

The conditional conversion feature of our convertible senior notes, if triggered, may adversely affect our financial condition and operating results. In addition, if our notes are converted into common stock, you may experience significant dilution.

Our convertible senior notes are only convertible, prior to December 15, 2020, in certain limited circumstances. This conditional conversion feature may not be effective in delaying conversion of our notes. In the event that the conditional conversion feature of our convertible senior notes is triggered, holders of notes will be entitled to convert the notes at any time during specified periods at their option. If one or more holders elect to convert their notes, we may elect to satisfy our conversion obligation by delivering solely shares of our common stock, solely cash, or a combination of cash and common stock. If we elect to settle a portion or all of our conversion obligation through the payment of cash, our liquidity and financial position could be adversely affected. If we elect to settle all or a portion of our conversion obligation in common stock, our stockholders could experience significant dilution. In addition, even if holders do not elect to convert their notes, we could be required under applicable accounting rules to reclassify all or a portion of the outstanding principal of the notes as a current rather than long-term liability, which would result in a material reduction of our net working capital.

54

---

 

The loss of our key management and scientific personnel may hinder our ability to execute our business plan.

Our success depends on the continuing contributions of our management team and scientific personnel, and maintaining relationships with our scientific and medical network. We are highly dependent on the services of Dr. Ron Cohen, our President and Chief Executive Officer, as well as the other principal members of our management and scientific staff. Our success depends in large part upon our ability to attract and retain highly qualified personnel. We face intense competition in our hiring efforts with other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, as well as universities and nonprofit research organizations, and we may have to pay higher salaries to attract and retain qualified personnel. We do not maintain "key man" life insurance policies on the lives of our officers, directors or employees. The loss of one or more of our key employees, or our inability to attract additional qualified personnel, could substantially impair our ability to implement our business plan. In addition, the discontinuation of our tozadenant program, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware’s decision to invalidate certain Ampyra patents and our 2017 reduction in force may impede our ability to attract and retain highly qualified personnel.

We and our third-party contract manufacturers must comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, and failure to comply with these laws and regulations could expose us to significant costs or liabilities.

Our research and development activities are subject to numerous and increasingly stringent environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those which govern laboratory procedures and the use, generation, manufacture, distribution, storage, handling, treatment, remediation and disposal of hazardous substances. Also, we operate a manufacturing facility, which is subject to further environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those laws and regulations which govern the exposure of persons to hazardous substances, the emission of pollutants into the air, the discharge of pollutants into bodies of water, and the general health, safety and welfare of employees and members of the public. We may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future such laws and regulations, which may also impair our research, development and/or manufacturing efforts.

In connection with our R&D and manufacturing activities, we cannot completely avoid the risk of contamination or injury, and in such cases of contamination or injury, or in cases of failure to comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we could be held liable, and in some cases strictly liable, for any resulting damages. Moreover, the existence, investigation and/or remediation of contamination at properties currently or formerly owned, leased or operated by us may result in costs, fines or other penalties. Furthermore, our third-party manufacturers are subject to the same or similar environmental, health and safety laws and regulations as those to which we are subject. It is possible that if our third-party manufacturers fail to operate in compliance with the applicable environmental, health and safety laws and regulations or properly dispose of wastes associated with our products, we could be held liable for any resulting damages and/or experience a disruption in the manufacture and supply of our product candidates or products. Any such liability may result in substantial civil or criminal fines, penalties or other sanctions, which could exceed our assets and resources, as well as reputational harm.

We may be the subject of litigation, which, if adversely determined, could harm our business and operating results.

From time to time, we may be subject to a variety of claims and lawsuits. For example, and as described more fully in “Item 3. Legal Proceedings,” of Part I of this report, we are engaged in responding to a class action lawsuit that was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The costs of defending any litigation, whether in cash expenses or in management time, could harm our business and materially and adversely affect our operating results and cash flows, even if we ultimately win the litigation. An unfavorable outcome on any litigation matter could require that we pay substantial damages, or, in connection with any intellectual property infringement claims, could require that we pay ongoing royalty payments or prohibit us from selling certain of our products. In addition, we may decide to settle any litigation, which could cause us to incur significant settlement costs. A settlement or an unfavorable outcome on any litigation matter could have a material and adverse effect on our business, operating results, financial condition and cash flows.

We depend on sophisticated information technology systems to operate our business and a cyber attack or other breach of these systems could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

Similar to other large companies, the size and complexity of our information technology systems makes them vulnerable to a cyber attack, malicious intrusion, breakdown, destruction, loss of data privacy, or other significant disruption. Our systems have been and are expected to continue to be the target of malware and other cyber attacks. We have invested in its systems and the protection of our data to reduce the risk of an invasion or interruption and we monitor our systems on an

55

---

 

ongoing basis for any current or potential threats. There can be no assurance that these measures and efforts will prevent interruptions or breakdowns that could have a significant effect on our business.

Risks related to our intellectual property

If we cannot protect, maintain and, if necessary, enforce our intellectual property, our ability to develop and commercialize our products will be severely limited.

Our success will depend in part on our and our licensors' ability to obtain, maintain and enforce patent and trademark protection for the technologies, compounds and products, if any, resulting from our licenses and research and development programs. Without protection for the intellectual property we use or intend to use, other companies could offer substantially identical products for sale without incurring the sizable discovery, research, development and licensing costs that we have incurred. Our ability to recover these expenditures and realize profits upon the sale of products could be diminished.

We have patent portfolios relating to Ampyra/aminopyridines, Inbrija (levodopa inhalation powder), CVT-427 and our ARCUS drug delivery technology, SYN120, BTT1023, cimaglermin alfa/neuregulins, remyelinating antibodies/antibodies relating to nervous system disorders, Qutenza and NP-1998/topical capsaicin formulations, comprised of both our own and in-licensed patents and patent applications. For some of our proprietary technologies, for example our ARCUS drug delivery technology, we rely on a combination of patents, trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect our intellectual property rights. Our intellectual property also includes copyrights and a portfolio of trademarks.

The process of obtaining patents and trademarks can be time consuming and expensive with no certainty of success. Even if we spend the necessary time and money, a patent or trademark may not issue, it may not issue in a timely manner, or it may not have sufficient scope or strength to protect the technology it was intended to protect or to provide us with any commercial advantage. We may never be certain that we were the first to develop the technology or that we were the first to file a patent application for the particular technology because patent applications are confidential until they are published, and publications in the scientific or patent literature lag behind actual discoveries. The degree of future protection for our proprietary rights will remain uncertain if our pending patent applications are not allowed or issued for any reason or if we are unable to develop additional proprietary technologies that are patentable. Furthermore, third parties may independently develop similar or alternative technologies, duplicate some or all of our technologies, design around our patented technologies or challenge our issued patents or trademarks or the patents or trademarks of our licensors.

For example, in 2014 and 2015, ten generic drug manufacturers filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications, or ANDAs, for generic versions of Ampyra with the FDA. Since 2015, we reached settlement agreements with seven of the generic companies. In filing these ANDAs for Ampyra, the generic drug manufacturers challenged all of the Orange Book-listed patents that protect the Ampyra franchise. As such, to protect our intellectual property rights we filed lawsuits against the ANDA filers, which were consolidated into a single case, asserting the challenged Orange Book-listed patents against these generic drug manufacturers. A bench trial against four generic companies was conducted in September 2016 (we have since reached a settlement agreement with one of those four companies). In March 2017, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware rendered a decision in the lawsuit upholding our Orange Book-listed patent for Ampyra set to expire on July 30, 2018, but invalidated our four other Orange Book-listed patents set to expire between 2025 and 2027. We appealed the ruling on these four patents, and we expect the appeals process to take approximately 12 to 18 months from the filing of the appeal in May 2017. If we are not successful in overturning the ruling, which could include reversal or a remand by the appeals court back to the District Court, then Ampyra will not have patent protection after July 30, 2018. If the appeals court does not overturn the District Court’s decision by July 30, 2018, multiple ANDA filers may be able to launch generic versions of Ampyra absent injunctive relief. Also, the defendant ANDA filers appealed the District Court’s decision upholding the patent set to expire in July 2018. In April 2017, we received a Paragraph IV Certification Notice from an additional drug manufacturer, advising that it had submitted an ANDA to the FDA seeking marketing approval for a generic version of Ampyra (dalfampridine) Extended Release Tablets, 10mg. In response to the filing of the ANDA, in May 2017, we filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, asserting infringement of our U.S. Patent Nos. 8,007,826, 8,354,437, 8,440,703, and 8,663,685. In January 2018, we reached a settlement agreement with the additional drug manufacturer.

Also, the validity of our patents can be challenged by third parties pursuant to procedures introduced by American Invents Act, specifically inter partes review and/or post grant review before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. For example, in February 2015, a hedge fund (acting with affiliated entities and individuals and proceeding under the name of the Coalition for Affordable Drugs) filed two separate inter partes review (IPR) petitions with the U.S. Patent and Trademark

56

---

 

Office, challenging two of the five Ampyra Orange Book-listed patents. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trials and Appeals Board, or PTAB, chose not to institute inter partes review of these patents. The hedge fund filed motions for reconsideration requesting that the denial to institute these two IPRs be reversed, but the motions were denied in April 2016. In addition, in September 2015 the same hedge fund filed four additional IPR petitions challenging four of the five Orange Book-listed patents, including two of the same patents that were the subject of the February 2015 IPR petitions. We opposed the requests to institute these IPRs, but in March 2016 the PTAB decided to institute the IPR proceedings on all four patents. In March 2017 the PTAB issued a ruling and upheld all four of the challenged patents. The ruling has become final, as the hedge fund did not appeal the ruling before the May 2017 appeal deadline. However, the PTAB decision does not prevent parties from filing additional IPR petitions challenging our patents. Also, the PTAB’s decision does not affect the District Court’s decision invalidating the four patents in the ANDA litigation described above.

Patent litigation, IPR proceedings, and other legal proceedings involve complex legal and factual questions. We need to devote significant resources to the existing ANDA and IPR legal proceedings, and we may need to devote significant resources to other legal proceedings that arise in the future. If we are not successful, we could lose some or all of our Orange Book listed patents and our business could be materially harmed. We can provide no assurance concerning the duration or the outcome of any such lawsuits and legal proceedings.

We may initiate actions to protect our intellectual property (including, for example, in connection with the filing of an ANDA as described above) and in any litigation in which our intellectual property or our licensors' intellectual property is asserted, a court may determine that the intellectual property is invalid or unenforceable. Even if the validity or enforceability of that intellectual property is upheld by a court, a court may not prevent alleged infringement on the grounds that such activity is not covered by, for example, the patent claims. In addition, effective intellectual property enforcement may be unavailable or limited in some foreign countries for a variety of legal and public policy reasons. From time to time we may receive notices from third parties alleging infringement of their intellectual property rights. Any litigation, whether to enforce our rights to use our or our licensors' patents or to defend against allegations that we infringe third party rights, would be costly, time consuming, and may distract management from other important tasks.

As is commonplace in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, we employ individuals who were previously employed at other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. To the extent our employees are involved in areas that are similar to those areas in which they were involved at their former employers, we may be subject to claims that such employees and/or we have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed the alleged trade secrets or other proprietary information of the former employers. Litigation may be necessary to defend against such claims, which could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and which could have an adverse effect on us, even if we are successful in defending such claims.

We also rely in our business on trade secrets, know-how and other proprietary information. We seek to protect this information, in part, through the use of confidentiality agreements with employees, consultants, collaborators, advisors and others. Nonetheless, those agreements may not provide adequate protection for our trade secrets, know-how or other proprietary information and prevent their unauthorized use or disclosure. To the extent that consultants, collaborators, key employees or other third parties apply technological information independently developed by them or by others to our proposed products, joint ownership may result, which could undermine the value of the intellectual property to us or disputes may arise as to the proprietary rights to such information which may not be resolved in our favor. The risk that other parties may breach confidentiality agreements or that our trade secrets become known or independently discovered by competitors, could harm us by enabling our competitors, who may have greater experience and financial resources, to copy or use our trade secrets and other proprietary information in the advancement of their products, methods or technologies. Policing unauthorized use of our or our licensors' intellectual property is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and we may be unable to determine the extent of any unauthorized use. Adequate remedies may not exist in the event of unauthorized use or disclosure.

Our business could be harmed by requirements to publicly disclose our clinical trial data.

There is an increasing trend across multiple jurisdictions, including the United States and the EU, towards requiring greater transparency, particularly in the area of clinical trial results. In many jurisdictions, including the U.S. and the EU, we are required to register most of our clinical trials as well as disclose summaries of the results of those clinical trials. Further requirements for transparency could result in the disclosure of data down to the individual patient level. In the EU, for example, the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, has since 2015 implemented a  policy on transparency of clinical trial data submitted to the agency in applications for marketing authorization. These data traditionally were regarded as confidential commercial information not subject to disclosure. According to this policy, the EMA proactively publishes

57

---

 

anonymized clinical data submitted by pharmaceutical companies to support their regulatory applications submitted after January 1, 2015 (subject to certain company redactions agreed with the EMA during the application review process). Possible redactions include commercially confidential information, identifiable information about study participants and study staff and patient level data (i.e., line listings including patient data against individual patient codes). The EMA plans to release patient level data in the future, but needs to address some data privacy concerns before doing so. The EMA may release clinical data submitted before this date on request, subject to the company having the opportunity to make similar redactions. The precise implementation of the EMA’s policy remains in flux and subject to legal challenge. This could harm our business in a variety of ways, including for example through disclosure of our trade secret methodologies for clinical development of our products, and/or by potentially enabling competitors to use our clinical data to gain approvals for their own products in the same or other jurisdictions. Regardless of the precise details of the EMA’s policy, the trend across governments is for increased transparency, which could diminish our ability to protect our confidential commercial information.

If third parties successfully claim that we infringe their patents or proprietary rights, our ability to continue to develop and successfully commercialize our product candidates could be delayed or prevented.

Third parties may claim that we or our licensors or suppliers are infringing their patents or are misappropriating their proprietary information. In the event of a successful claim against us or our licensors or suppliers for infringement of the patents or proprietary rights of others relating to any of our marketed products or product candidates, we may be required to:

In addition, from time to time, we may become aware of third parties who have, or claim to have, intellectual property rights covering matters such as methods for doing business, conducting research, diagnosing diseases or prescribing medications that are alleged to be broadly applicable across sectors of the industry, and we may receive assertions that these rights apply to us. The existence of such intellectual property rights could present a risk to our business.

A license required under any patents or proprietary rights held by a third party may not be available to us, or may not be available on acceptable terms. If we or our licensors or suppliers are sued for infringement we could encounter substantial delays in, or be prohibited from developing, manufacturing and commercializing our product candidates and advancing our preclinical or clinical programs. In addition, any such litigation would be costly, time consuming, and might distract management from other important tasks.

We are dependent on our license agreements and if we fail to meet our obligations under these license agreements, or our agreements are terminated for any reason, we may lose our rights to our in-licensed patents and technologies.

We are dependent on licenses for intellectual property related to Ampyra, Qutenza, and all of our research and development programs such as our Inbrija (levodopa inhalation powder) and SYN120 development programs. Our failure to meet any of our obligations under these license agreements could result in the loss of our rights to this intellectual property. If we lose our rights under any of these license agreements, we may be unable to commercialize, or continue commercializing, a product that uses licensed intellectual property.

We could lose our rights to dalfampridine under our license agreement with Alkermes in countries in which we have a license, if we fail to file for regulatory approvals within a commercially reasonable time after completion and receipt of positive data from all preclinical and clinical studies required for the NDA-equivalent. We could also lose our rights under our license agreement with Alkermes in markets outside the U.S. if we fail to launch a product within 180 days of NDA-equivalent approvals and receipt of other needed regulatory approvals in those countries. Alkermes could also terminate our license agreement if we fail to make payments due under the license agreement. If we lose our rights to dalfampridine, our

58

---

 

prospects for generating revenue would be materially harmed as we currently derive substantially all of our revenue from Ampyra.

Risks relating to our common stock

Our stock price may be volatile and you may lose all or a part of your investment.

Our stock price could fluctuate significantly due to a number of factors, including:

Many of these factors are beyond our control, and we believe that period-to-period comparisons of our financial results will not necessarily be indicative of our future performance. If our revenues in any particular period do not meet expectations, we may not be able to adjust our expenditures in that period, which could cause our operating results to suffer. If our operating results in any future period fall below the expectations of securities analysts or investors, our stock price may fall by a significant amount.

In addition, the stock markets in general, and the Nasdaq Global Market and the market for biopharmaceutical companies in particular, have recently and can in the future experience extreme price and volume fluctuations. These fluctuations often have been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of these companies. These broad market and industry factors may adversely affect the market price of our common stock, regardless of our actual operating performance.

Future sales of our common stock could cause our stock price to decline.

If our existing stockholders sell a large number of shares of our common stock, or the public market perceives that existing stockholders might sell shares of common stock, the market price of our common stock could decline significantly. Sales of substantial amounts of shares of our common stock in the public market by our executive officers, directors, 5% or greater stockholders or other stockholders, or the prospect of such sales, could adversely affect the market price of our common stock. As of February 20, 2018, we had outstanding 46,913,767 shares of voting common stock. Also, options to acquire 8,813,598 shares of common stock were outstanding as of February 20, 2018, exercisable at an average exercise price of $29.53 per share, issued under our 2006 Employee Incentive Plan, our 2015 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan, or our 2016 Inducement Plan. Additional shares of common stock are authorized for issuance pursuant to options and other stock-based awards under our 2015 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan, and additional stock-based awards could be issued under our 2016 Inducement Plan. To the extent that option holders exercise outstanding options, there may be further dilution and the sales of shares issued upon such exercises could cause our stock price to drop further.

59

---

 

If our officers, directors and largest stockholders choose to act together, they may be able to control the outcome of stockholder vote.

As of December 31, 2017, our officers, directors and holders of 5% or more of our outstanding common stock beneficially owned approximately 81% of our common stock. As a result, these stockholders, acting together, will be able to significantly influence all matters requiring approval by our stockholders, including the election of directors and the approval or mergers or other business combination transactions. The interests of this group of stockholders may not always coincide with the interests of other stockholders, and they may act in a manner that advances their best interests and not necessarily those of other stockholders.

Certain provisions of Delaware law, our certificate of incorporation, our bylaws and our shareholder rights plan may delay or prevent an acquisition of us that stockholders may consider favorable or may prevent efforts by our stockholders to change our directors or our management, which could decrease the value of your shares.

Our certificate of incorporation and bylaws contain provisions that could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire us, and may have the effect of preventing or hindering any attempt by our stockholders to replace our current directors or officers. These provisions include:

In addition, we have adopted a shareholder rights plan, which provides, among other things, that when specified events occur, our stockholders will be entitled to purchase from us shares of junior preferred stock. The rights plan will expire on August 31, 2018. The preferred stock purchase rights are triggered ten business days after the date of a public announcement that a person or group acting in concert has acquired, or has obtained the right to acquire, beneficial ownership of 15% or more of our outstanding common stock. The rights plan exempts any person or group owning 15% or more of the Company’s outstanding common stock when we announced the rights plan, however the exemption does not apply to additional shares acquired after the announcement. The preferred stock purchase rights would cause dilution to a person or group that attempts to acquire the Company on terms that are not approved by our board of directors. While we believe our rights plan enables our board of directors to help ensure that our stockholders are not deprived of the opportunity to realize the full and fair value of their investments, the rights plan may inhibit a change in control of the Company by a third party in a transaction not approved by our board of directors. If a change in control is inhibited or delayed in this manner, it may adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

As a Delaware corporation, we are also subject to certain anti-takeover provisions of Delaware law. Under Delaware law, a corporation may not engage in a business combination with any holder of 15% or more of its capital stock unless the holders has held the stock for three years or, among other things, the board of directors has approved the transaction. Our board of directors could rely on Delaware law to prevent or delay an acquisition of us, which could have the effect of reducing your ability to receive a premium on your common stock.

60

---

 

Because we do not intend to pay dividends in the foreseeable future, you will benefit from an investment in our common stock only if it appreciates in value.

We have not paid cash dividends on any of our classes of capital stock to date, and we currently intend to retain our future earnings, if any, to fund the development and growth of our business. As a result, we do not expect to pay any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. The success of your investment in our common stock will depend entirely upon any future appreciation. There is no guarantee that our common stock will appreciate in value or even maintain the price at which you purchased your shares.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.

Not applicable.

Item 2. Properties.

Ardsley, New York

In June 2011, we entered into a 15-year lease for an aggregate of approximately 138,000 square feet of state-of-the art office and laboratory space in Ardsley, New York. We relocated our headquarters to this facility in July 2012. In 2014, we exercised our option to expand into an additional 25,405 square feet of office space, which we occupied in January 2015. We have options to extend the term of the lease for three additional five-year periods, and we have an option to terminate the lease after 10 years subject to payment of an early termination fee. Also, we have right of first refusal until mid-2020 to lease up to approximately 95,000 additional square feet of space in additional buildings at the same location. Our extension, early termination, and expansion rights are subject to specified terms and conditions, including specified time periods when they must be exercised, and are also subject to limitations including that we not be in default under the lease.

The Ardsley lease provides for monthly payments of rent during the term. These payments consist of base rent, which takes into account the costs of the facility improvements being funded by the facility owner prior to our occupancy, and additional rent covering customary items such as charges for utilities, taxes, operating expenses, and other facility fees and charges. Our base rent is currently $4.5 million per year, which reflects an annual 2.5% escalation factor as well as our expansion, described above.

Chelsea, Massachusetts

Through our Civitas subsidiary, we lease a manufacturing facility in Chelsea, Massachusetts with commercial-scale capabilities. The approximately 90,000 square foot facility also includes office and laboratory space. Civitas leases this facility from North River Everett Ave, LLC pursuant to a lease with a term that expires on December 31, 2025, and Civitas has two additional extension options of five years each. The base annual rent under the lease is currently $1.5 million per year, which reflects an annual 2.5% escalation factor as well as our lease of additional property next to the Chelsea, Massachusetts facility for parking and warehouse space.

Additional Facilities

In October 2016, we entered into a 10-year lease agreement commencing in January 2017 for approximately 26,000 square feet of lab and office space in Waltham, MA. We entered into this lease primarily to relocate certain personnel from our Chelsea, Massachusetts facility to enable the expansion of manufacturing operations in Chelsea. The base rent under the lease is currently $1.0 million per year.

Also, through Biotie and its U.S. subsidiary we indirectly lease office space in Turku, Finland and South San Francisco, California. We have exercised our right to terminate the Turku, Finland lease which will be effective in the second quarter of 2018, and we are evaluating our options for the South San Francisco, California office space upon our vacancy of this space, which is planned for the second quarter of 2018.

61

---

 

Item 3. Legal Proceedings.

Ampyra ANDA Litigation

Overview. As further described below, our Orange Book-listed patents for Ampyra are the subject of lawsuits relating to Paragraph IV Certification Notices received from ten generic drug manufacturers in 2014 and 2015, who submitted Abbreviated New Drug Applications, or ANDAs, with the FDA seeking marketing approval for generic versions of Ampyra (dalfampridine) Extended Release Tablets, 10mg. In 2015 and 2016, we reached settlement agreements with six of the generic companies, and in February 2017, we announced that we had reached a settlement agreement with one additional generic company. As to the remaining three generic manufacturers, in March 2017, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (the “District Court”) rendered a decision from a bench trial held in September 2016. The District Court upheld our Orange-Book listed patent for Ampyra set to expire in July 2018, but invalidated our four other Orange Book-listed patents for Ampyra. We have appealed the decision on the four invalidated patents, and the non-settling generic drug manufacturers have appealed the decision upholding the patent set to expire in July 2018. As further described below, in April 2017 we received a Paragraph IV Certification Notice from an additional generic drug manufacturer, who submitted an ANDA with the FDA seeking marketing approval for a generic version of Ampyra (dalfampridine) Extended Release Tablets, 10mg., but we have reached a settlement with this generic drug manufacturer.

First ANDA Filers. In June and July of 2014, we received eight separate Paragraph IV Certification Notices from Accord Healthcare, Inc., Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. ("Actavis"), Alkem Laboratories Ltd. and its affiliate Ascend Laboratories, LLC ("Alkem"), Apotex Inc., Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. ("Aurobindo"), Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Roxane Laboratories, Inc., and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., advising that each of these companies had submitted an ANDA to the FDA seeking marketing approval for generic versions of Ampyra (dalfampridine) Extended Release Tablets, 10 mg. The ANDA filers challenged the validity of our Orange Book-listed patents for Ampyra, and they also asserted that generic versions of their products do not infringe certain claims of these patents. In response to the filing of these ANDAs, in July 2014, we filed lawsuits against these generic pharmaceutical manufacturing companies and certain affiliates in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware asserting infringement of our U.S. Patent Nos. 5,540,938, 8,007,826, 8,354,437, 8,440,703, and 8,663,685. Requested judicial remedies included recovery of litigation costs and injunctive relief, including a request that the effective date of any FDA approval for these generic companies to make, use, offer for sale, sell, market, distribute, or import the proposed generic products be no earlier than the dates on which the Ampyra Orange-Book listed patents expire, or any later expiration of exclusivity to which we are or become entitled. These lawsuits with the ANDA filers were consolidated into a single case. A bench trial was completed in September 2016, and the District Court issued a decision in March 2017. The District Court upheld U.S. Patent No. 5,540,938 (the ‘938 patent), which is set to expire in July 2018. The claims of the ‘938 patent relate to methods for treating a neurological disease, such as MS, and cover the use of a sustained release dalfampridine formulation, such as AMPYRA (dalfampridine) Extended Release Tablets, 10 mg for improving walking in people with MS. The District Court invalidated U.S. Patent Nos. 8,663,685, 8,007,826, 8,440,703, and 8,354,437 which pertain to AMPYRA. In May 2017, we appealed the ruling on these patents. As a result of the District Court’s ruling, no generic version of Ampyra will be marketed in the U.S. at least until July 31, 2018, although in June 2017 the non-settling ANDA filers appealed the District Court’s decision upholding the ‘938 patent. Generic versions of Ampyra may be further delayed if the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Appellate Court”) overturns the District Court’s decision on the four invalidated patents, which could include reversal or remand of the case back to the District Court. If the Appellate Court does not overturn the District Court’s decision by July 30, 2018, multiple ANDA filers may be able to launch generic versions of Ampyra absent injunctive relief. We expect the appeals process to take approximately 12 to 18 months from the filing of the appeal in May 2017. Both the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) filed amicus briefs in support of our appeal, raising important issues in conjunction with biopharmaceutical innovation. The date for oral argument will be scheduled by the appellate court, which we expect will be in the first half of 2018.

In October and December 2015, we entered into settlement agreements with Actavis and Aurobindo to resolve the patent litigation that we brought against them in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, described above. As a result of the settlement agreements, Actavis and Aurobindo will be permitted to market generic versions of Ampyra in the U.S. at a specified date in 2027, or potentially earlier under certain circumstances. The District Court entered an order dismissing the case against Actavis without prejudice in October 2015. As a result of the settlement agreement with Aurobindo, and upon the request of the parties, the District Court entered a Consent Order, in which it dismissed our litigation against Aurobindo in December 2015. The parties have submitted the agreements to the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice, as required by federal law. In August 2016, we entered into a settlement agreement with Alkem to resolve the patent litigation that we brought against Alkem in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, described above. As a result of the settlement agreement, Alkem will be permitted to market a generic version of Ampyra in

62

---

 

the U.S. at a specified date in 2027, or potentially earlier under certain circumstances. As a result of the settlement agreement with Alkem, and upon the request of the parties, the District Court entered a Consent Order, in which it dismissed our litigation against Alkem in August of 2016. The parties have submitted the agreement to the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice, as required by Federal law. In August 2016, we entered into a settlement agreement with Accord Healthcare, Inc. and Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited (collectively "Accord") to resolve the patent litigation that we brought against Accord in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, described above. As a result of the settlement agreement, Accord will be permitted to market a generic version of Ampyra in the U.S. at a specified date in 2027, or potentially earlier under certain circumstances. As a result of the settlement agreement with Accord, and upon the request of the parties, the District Court entered a Consent Order, in which it dismissed our litigation against Accord in August of 2016. The parties have submitted the agreement to the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice, as required by state law. The settlements with Actavis, Aurobindo, Alkem and Accord do not resolve the patent litigation that we brought against the other ANDA filers, as described in this report.

In February 2017, we entered into a settlement agreement with Apotex Inc. and its subsidiary Apotex Corporation (collectively “Apotex”) to resolve the patent litigation that we brought against them in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, described above. As a result of the settlement agreement, Apotex will be permitted to market a generic version of Ampyra in the U.S. at a specified date in 2025, or potentially earlier under certain circumstances. The District Court has entered a Consent Order, in which it has dismissed our litigation against Apotex referred to above. The parties have submitted the agreement to the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice, as required by federal law. The settlement with Apotex does not resolve the patent litigation that we brought against other ANDA filers, as described in this report.

Second ANDA Filers. In May 2015, we received a Paragraph IV Certification Notice from Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited and Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Inc. ("Sun") advising that they had submitted an ANDA to the FDA seeking marketing approval for a generic version of Ampyra (dalfampridine) Extended Release Tablets, 10 mg. Sun challenged the validity of four of our five Orange Book-listed patents for Ampyra, and did not file against our U.S. Patent No. 5,540,938, and also asserted that generic versions of its products may not infringe certain claims of these patents. In response to the filing of the ANDA, in May 2015 we filed a lawsuit against Sun in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware asserting infringement of our U.S. Patent Nos. 8,007,826, 8,354,437, 8,440,703, and 8,663,685. In October 2015, we entered into a settlement agreement with Sun to resolve this patent litigation. As a result of the settlement agreement, Sun will be permitted to market a generic version of Ampyra in the U.S. at a specified date in 2027, or potentially 181 days after a first ANDA filer has entered the market. As a result of the settlement agreement, and upon request of the parties, the District Court entered a Consent Order, in which it dismissed our litigation against Sun in October 2015. The parties have submitted the agreement to the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice, as required by federal law. The settlement with Sun does not resolve the patent litigation that we brought against the other ANDA filers, described in this report.

In September 2015, we received a Paragraph IV Certification Notice from Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. ("Par") advising that it had submitted an ANDA to the FDA seeking marketing approval for a generic version of Ampyra (dalfampridine) Extended Release Tablets, 10 mg. Par challenged the validity of four of our five Orange Book-listed patents for Ampyra, and did not file against our U.S. Patent No. 5,540,938, and it also asserted that generic versions of its products may not infringe certain claims of these patents. In response to the filing of the ANDA, in September 2015 we filed a lawsuit against Par in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware asserting infringement of our U.S. Patent Nos. 8,007,826, 8,354,437, 8,440,703, and 8,663,685. In January 2016, we entered into a settlement agreement with Par to resolve this patent litigation. As a result of the settlement agreement, Par will be permitted to market a generic version of Ampyra in the U.S. at a specified date in 2027, or potentially 181 days after a first ANDA filer has entered the market. As a result of the settlement agreement, and upon the request of the parties, the District Court entered a Consent Order, in which it dismissed our litigation against Par in January 2016. The parties have submitted the agreement to the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice, as required by federal law. The settlement with Par does not resolve the patent litigation that we brought against the other ANDA filers, described in this report.

In April 2017, we received a Paragraph IV Certification Notice from Micro Labs Ltd. (“Micro”) advising that it had submitted an ANDA to the FDA seeking marketing approval for a generic version of Ampyra (dalfampridine) Extended Release Tablets, 10mg. Micro has challenged the validity of four of our five Orange Book-listed patents for Ampyra, and did not file against our U.S. Patent No. 5,540,938, and it also asserted that a generic version of its product does not infringe certain claims of these patents. In response to the filing of the ANDA, in May 2017 we filed a lawsuit against Micro in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, asserting infringement of our U.S. Patent Nos. 8,007,826, 8,354,437, 8,440,703, and 8,663,685. In January 2018, we entered into a settlement agreement with Micro to resolve this patent litigation. As a result of the settlement agreement, Micro will be permitted to market a generic version of Ampyra in the U.S.

63

---

 

at a specified date in 2026, or potentially earlier under certain circumstances. As a result of the settlement agreement, and upon the request of the parties, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey entered a Dismissal Order, in which it dismissed our litigation against Micro in January 2018. The parties have submitted the agreement to the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice, as required by federal law. The settlement with Micro does not resolve the patent litigation that we brought against the other ANDA filers, described in this report.

We will vigorously defend our intellectual property rights.

Shareholder Litigation

On November 17, 2017, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against us and certain of our current and former officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, by Michael Hague on behalf of stockholders who purchased or otherwise acquired our common stock between April 18, 2016 through November 14, 2017, which we refer to as the purported class period. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, including allegations that our stock was artificially inflated during the class period because we and certain current and former officers allegedly made misrepresentations or did not make proper disclosures regarding tozadenant, a pharmaceutical product candidate we acquired with Biotie Therapies in 2016. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that we failed to disclose, throughout the class period, tozadenant’s safety risks and approval prospects, and also that we overstated the benefits of the Biotie Therapies acquisition. The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, expert fees and other costs. We believe we have valid defenses to the claims in the lawsuit, will deny liability and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. However, the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain, and there can be no assurance that we will be successful. An adverse outcome of the lawsuit could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results, financial condition and cash flows. The defense of this case will require management attention and resources.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.

Not applicable.

 

 

64

---

 

PART II

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.

Our common stock has been quoted on the NASDAQ Global Market under the symbol ACOR since our initial public offering on February 9, 2006. Prior to that date, there was no public market for our common stock. The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, the high and low bid prices per share of our common stock as reported on the NASDAQ Global Market.

 

 

 

Computershare is the transfer agent and registrar for our common stock. As of February 20, 2018, we had approximately 20 registered holders of record of our common stock.

65

---

 

Stock Price Performance Graph

The graph below matches Acorda Therapeutics, Inc.’s cumulative 5-Year total shareholder return on common stock with the cumulative total returns of the NASDAQ Composite index and the NASDAQ Biotechnology index. The graph tracks the performance of a $100 investment in our common stock and in each index (with the reinvestment of all dividends) from 12/31/2012 to 12/31/2017.

 

 

 

 

 

The stock price performance included in this graph is not necessarily indicative of future stock price performance.

 

 

66

---

 

Dividend Policy

We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our common stock. We do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our capital stock in the foreseeable future. We currently intend to retain all available funds and any future earnings to fund the development and growth of our business.

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

Acorda did not repurchase any shares of its Common Stock during the fourth quarter of 2017. Acorda has not announced any plans or programs for the repurchase of its Common Stock.

Item 6. Selected Financial Data.

The following selected consolidated financial data for each of the five years in the period ended December 31, 2017 are derived from our audited consolidated financial statements. This data should be read in conjunction with our audited consolidated financial statements and related notes that are included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, with the exception of 2014 and 2013 data which are included in previously filed annual reports and with “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” included in Item 7 below.

 

 

 

 

67

---