Form 10-Q PROGENICS PHARMACEUTICAL For: Jun 30

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q 

(Mark One)

Commission File No. 000-23143

PROGENICS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

One World Trade Center, 47^th Floor
New York, NY 10007
(Address of principal executive offices, including zip code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (646) 975-2500

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

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 every Interactive Data File required to be submitted 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 such files). Yes ☒No ☐

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 August 5, 2019, a total of 86,421,634 shares of common stock, par value $0.0013 per share, were outstanding.

PROGENICS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

INDEX

Note 1. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Business

Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (and its subsidiaries collectively the “Company,” “Progenics”, “we”, or “us”) is an oncology company focused on the development and commercialization of innovative targeted medicines and artificial intelligence to find, fight and follow cancer. Highlights of our recent progress include the first commercial revenue for AZEDRA^®, completion of enrollment of the PyL^TM pivotal Phase 3 trial, and dosing of the first patient in the 1095 open label Phase 2 trial. Our pipeline includes therapeutic agents designed to precisely target cancer (AZEDRA, 1095 and PSMA TTC), as well as prostate-specific membrane antigen (“PSMA”) targeted imaging agents for prostate cancer (PyL and 1404).

Recent and Continued Progress:

Corporate:

Strategic partnerships:

Our current principal sources of revenue from operations are royalty and development and commercial milestones from Bausch and Bayer. Royalty and further milestone payments from Bausch or Bayer depend on success in development and commercialization of RELISTOR and our PSMA antibody technology, respectively, which is dependent on many factors, such as Bausch or Bayer’s respective efforts, decisions by the FDA and other regulatory bodies, competition from drugs for the same or similar indications, and the outcome of clinical and other testing of the licensed products.

We commenced principal operations in 1988, became publicly traded in 1997, and throughout have been engaged primarily in research and development efforts, establishing corporate collaborations, launching AZEDRA and other related business activities. Certain of our intellectual property rights are held by wholly-owned subsidiaries. Our U.S. operations are presently conducted at our headquarters in New York and our manufacturing facility in Somerset, New Jersey. The operations of our wholly-owned foreign subsidiary, EXINI Diagnostics A.B. (“EXINI”), are conducted at our facility in Lund, Sweden. We operate under a single operating segment, which includes development, manufacturing and commercialization of pharmaceutical products and other technologies to target, diagnose and treat cancer. Our operating segment is regularly evaluated for financial performance by our chief operating decision maker, who is our Chief Executive Officer.

Liquidity

At June 30, 2019, we had $84.8 million of cash and cash equivalents, a decrease of $52.9 million from $137.7 million at December 31, 2018. We expect that this amount will be sufficient to fund operations as currently anticipated beyond one year from the filing date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. We have historically funded our operations to a significant extent from capital-raising and we expect to require additional funding in the future, the availability of which is never guaranteed and may be uncertain. We expect that we may continue to incur operating losses.

Basis of Presentation

Our unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with applicable presentation requirements, and accordingly, do not include all information and disclosures necessary for a presentation of our financial position, results of operations, and cash flows in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S. (“GAAP”). In the opinion of management, these financial statements reflect all adjustments, consisting primarily of normal recurring accruals necessary for a fair statement of results for the periods presented. The results of operations for interim periods are not necessarily indicative of the results for the full year.

Our unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and notes thereto contained in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018. The year-end consolidated balance sheet data in these financial statements were derived from audited financial statements but do not include all disclosures required by GAAP.

Principles of Consolidation

The condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Progenics as well as its wholly-owned subsidiaries. All material intercompany transactions and balances have been eliminated in consolidation.

Use of Estimates

The preparation of consolidated financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes. Actual results may differ from those estimates.

Revenue Recognition

We recognize revenue when our customers obtain control of the promised goods or services, in an amount that reflects the consideration which we expect to receive in exchange for those goods or services. To account for our revenue arrangements, we perform the following five steps: (i) identify the contract(s) with a customer; (ii) identify the performance obligations in the contract; (iii) determine the transaction price, including variable consideration, if any; (iv) allocate the transaction price to the performance obligations in the contract; and (v) recognize revenue when (or as) we satisfy our performance obligations.

For contracts determined to be within the scope of ASU 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606) (“ASU 2014-09” or the “Topic 606”), we assess the goods or services promised within each contract for the purpose of identifying them as performance obligations. We must apply judgement in assessing whether each promised good or service is distinct. If a promised good or service is not distinct, we will combine that good or service with other promised goods or services until it identifies a bundle of goods or services that is distinct.

The transaction price is then determined and allocated to the identified performance obligations in proportion to their estimated fair value, which requires significant judgment. Variable consideration, which is estimated using the expected value method or the most likely amount method, is included in the transaction price only if, in our judgment, it is probable that a significant future reversal of cumulative revenue under the contract will not occur.

For arrangements that include development, regulatory or sales milestone payments, we evaluate whether the milestones are probable of being reached and estimate the amount to be included in the transaction price using the most likely amount method. If it is probable that a significant revenue reversal would not occur, the associated milestone value is included in the transaction price. Milestone payments that are not within our control or the licensee’s control, such as regulatory approvals, are generally not considered probable of being achieved until those approvals are received.

We then recognize as revenue the amount of the transaction price that is allocated to the respective performance obligation when (or as) the performance obligation is satisfied.

The following table summarizes our revenue streams from contracts with customers for the three and six months ended June 30, 2019 and 2018 (in thousands):

Product sales – represent revenue from sales of AZEDRA directly to hospitals. Our performance obligations are to provide AZEDRA based on sales orders from hospitals, which have been verified by our commercial team as properly credentialed to receive, handle, administer and dispose of radioactive materials. We recognize revenue after the customer takes title and has obtained control of the product. Our contracts with hospitals stipulate that product is shipped free on board destination. We invoice hospitals after the products have been delivered and invoice payments are generally due within 60 days of invoice date. We record sales to hospitals based on AZEDRA’s list price per mCi and the amount prescribed based upon a dosimetric assessment of each patient. We record product sales net of any variable consideration due to rebates and discounts provided under governmental and other programs, and other sales-related deductions, such as product returns and copay assistance programs. Shipping and handling costs associated with finished goods delivered to customers are recorded as a selling expense.

Royalty income – represents revenue from the sales-based royalties under our intellectual property licensing arrangements and is recognized upon net sales of the licensed products.

License and other revenue – represents revenue from upfront payments (fixed consideration) and development and sales milestones, sublicense payments, support and service payments and sales-based bonus payments (variable consideration) under our licensing or software arrangements. The fixed consideration will be recognized as revenue at the time when the transfer of know-how is completed. The variable consideration will be estimated using the most likely amount method and recognized only when we have “a high degree of confidence” that revenue will not be reversed in a subsequent reporting period. The other revenue also includes revenue from product sales of research reagents, that is recognized upon shipment to the end customer (i.e. control of the product is deemed to be transferred).

We had receivable contract balances of $10.6 million and $3.8 million as of June 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, respectively, primarily related to the royalty revenue and upfront and milestone payments under our partnerships, which are included in license and other revenue (see Note 5. Accounts Receivable).

Restricted Cash

Restricted cash included in long-term assets of $3.3 million and $1.5 million at June 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, respectively, represents collateral for a letter of credit securing a lease obligation (for both periods), collateral for a letter of credit related to equipment purchases and a security deposit with the German District Court related to the PSMA-617 litigation (for the 2019 period). We believe the carrying value of this asset approximates fair value.

Foreign Currency Translation

Our international subsidiaries generally consider their respective local currency to be their functional currency. Assets and liabilities of these international subsidiaries are translated into U.S. dollars at quarter-end exchange rates and revenues and expenses are translated at average exchange rates during the quarter and year-to-date period. Foreign currency translation adjustments for the reported periods are included in accumulated other comprehensive loss in our condensed consolidated statements of comprehensive loss, and the cumulative effect is included in the stockholders’ equity section of our condensed consolidated balance sheets. Realized gains and losses denominated in foreign currencies are recorded in operating expenses in our condensed consolidated statements of operations and were not material to our consolidated results of operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2019 or 2018.

Leases

We determine whether an arrangement is or contains a lease at its inception. We recognize lease liabilities based on the present value of the minimum lease payments not yet paid by using the lease term and discount rate determined at lease commencement. As most of our leases do not provide an implicit rate, we use our incremental borrowing rate to determine the present value of our lease payments. Our leases may include options to extend or terminate a lease when it is reasonably certain that we will exercise that option. We recognize the operating right-of-use (“ROU”) lease assets at amounts equal to the lease liability adjusted for prepaid or accrued rent, remaining balance of any lease incentives and unamortized initial direct costs.

The operating lease liabilities are reported in other current liabilities and other noncurrent liabilities and the related ROU lease assets are reported in other noncurrent assets on our condensed consolidated balance sheets. Lease expense for our operating leases is calculated on a straight-line basis over the lease term and is reported in research and development and selling, general and administrative expenses on our condensed consolidated statements of operations. We do not recognize a lease liability or ROU lease assets for leases whose lease terms, at commencement, are twelve months or less, or for leases which are below the established capitalization threshold.

Property and Equipment

Property and equipment is recorded at historical cost, net of accumulated depreciation and amortization of $3.1 million and $2.7 million as of June 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, respectively. The following table summarizes our property and equipment (in thousands):

Note 2. New Accounting Pronouncements 

Recently Adopted

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-02 (“ASU 2016-02”), Leases (Topic 842). This standard established a right-of-use model that requires all lessees to recognize right-of-use assets and liabilities on their balance sheet that arise from leases with terms longer than 12 months as well as provide disclosures with respect to certain qualitative and quantitative information related to their leasing arrangements.

The FASB has subsequently issued the following amendments to ASU 2016-02, which have the same effective date and transition date of January 1, 2019, and which we collectively refer to as the new leasing standards:

We adopted the new leasing standards on January 1, 2019, using a modified retrospective transition approach to be applied to leases existing as of, or entered into after, January 1, 2019 and did not adjust comparative periods. We also elected the package of practical expedients permitted under this standard, which among other things, allowed us to carry forward the lease classification for our existing leases. In preparation for the adoption of this standard and to enable preparation of the required financial information, we implemented new internal controls and processes.

The adoption of this standard impacted our 2019 opening consolidated balance sheet as we recorded operating lease liabilities of $15.3 million and ROU lease assets of $13.5 million, which equals the lease liabilities net of deferred rent and lease incentives previously recorded on our balance sheet under the old guidance. The adoption of this standard did not have an impact on our consolidated statements of operations or cash flows.

Recently Issued 

In August 2018, the FASB issued ASU 2018-13 (“ASU 2018-13”), Fair Value Measurement - Disclosure Framework (Topic 820): Disclosure Framework – Changes to the Disclosure Requirements for Fair Value Measurement. The updated guidance improves the disclosure requirements on fair value measurements. ASU 2018-13 is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2019. Early adoption is permitted for any removed or modified disclosures. We are currently assessing the timing of adopting the updated provisions and the impact of the updated provisions on our consolidated financial statements.

In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-13, Financial Instruments - Credit Losses (Topic 326): Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments. In November 2018, the FASB issued ASU 2018-19, Codification Improvements to Topic 326, Financial Instruments-Credit Losses and in April 2019, the FASB issued ASU 2019-04, Codification Improvements to Topic 326, Financial Instruments—Credit Losses, Topic 815, Derivatives and Hedging, and Topic 825, Financial Instruments, which amend the scope and transition requirements of ASU 2016-13. The standard requires a financial asset (or a group of financial assets) measured at amortized cost basis to be presented at the net amount expected to be collected. The measurement of expected credit losses is based on relevant information about past events, including historical experience, current conditions and reasonable and supportable forecasts that affect the collectability of the reported amount. In May 2019, the FASB issued ASU 2019-05, Financial Instruments—Credit Losses (Topic 326): Targeted Transition Relief. This ASU addresses certain stakeholders’ concerns by providing an option to irrevocably elect the fair value option for certain financial assets previously measured at amortized cost basis. For those entities, the targeted transition relief will increase comparability of financial statement information by providing an option to align measurement methodologies for similar financial assets. Furthermore, the targeted transition relief also may reduce the costs for some entities to comply with the amendments in Update 2016-13 while still providing financial statement users with decision-useful information. The standard is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2019. We are currently evaluating the impact this guidance will have on our consolidated financial statements.

Note 3. Net Loss Per Share

Our basic net loss per share amounts have been computed by dividing net loss by the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding during the period. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2019 and 2018, we reported net losses and, accordingly, potential common shares were not included since such inclusion would have been anti-dilutive.

The calculations of net loss per share, basic and diluted, are as follows (amounts in thousands, except per share data):

The following table summarizes anti-dilutive common shares or common shares where performance conditions have not been met, that were excluded from the calculation of diluted net loss per share (in thousands):

⁽¹⁾ Calculated as follows: (a) the contingent consideration liability balance divided by (b) the closing stock price of our common stock.

Note 4. Fair Value Measurements

To estimate the fair values of our financial assets and liabilities, we use valuation approaches within a hierarchy that maximizes the use of observable inputs and minimizes the use of unobservable inputs by requiring that observable inputs be used when available. Observable inputs are inputs that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability based on market data obtained from sources independent of us. Unobservable inputs are inputs that reflect our assumptions about the inputs that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability and are developed based on the best information available in the circumstances. The fair value hierarchy is divided into three levels based on the source of inputs as follows:

The availability of observable inputs can vary among the various types of financial assets and liabilities. To the extent that the valuation is based on models or inputs that are less observable or unobservable in the market, the determination of fair value requires more judgment. In certain cases, the inputs used for measuring fair value may fall into different levels of the fair value hierarchy. In such cases, for financial statement disclosure purposes, the level in the fair value hierarchy within which the fair value measurement is categorized is based on the lowest level of input used that is significant to the overall fair value measurement.

We believe the carrying amounts of our cash equivalents, restricted cash, accounts receivable, other current assets, other assets, accounts payable and accrued expenses approximated their fair values as of June 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018.

We record the contingent consideration liability resulting from our acquisition of Molecular Insight Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“MIP”) at fair value in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 820 (Topic 820, Fair Value Measurement).

The following tables summarize each major class of our financial assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis as of the dates indicated, classified by valuation hierarchy (in thousands):

The contingent consideration liability of $4.8 million as of June 30, 2019 represents the estimated fair value of the future potential milestone payments to former MIP stockholders (shown in the tables below).

Milestone payments due upon first commercial sale and/or from proceeds received from license revenue (in thousands):

Net sales milestone payments due upon first achievement of specified net sales target in any single calendar year across all MIP-related programs (in thousands):

We consider this liability a Level 3 instrument (one with significant unobservable inputs) in the fair value hierarchy. The estimated fair value was determined based on probability adjusted discounted cash flow and Monte Carlo simulation models that included significant estimates and assumptions pertaining to commercialization events and sales targets. The most significant unobservable inputs are the probabilities of achieving regulatory approval of the development projects and subsequent commercial success.

Significant changes in any of the probabilities of success or the probabilities as to the periods in which milestones will be achieved would result in a significantly higher or lower fair value measurement. We record the contingent consideration liability at fair value with changes in estimated fair values recorded in change in contingent consideration liability in our condensed consolidated statements of operations.

The following table summarizes quantitative information and assumptions pertaining to the fair value measurement of the Level 3 inputs at June 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018 (in thousands). The decrease in the contingent consideration liability of $6.2 million during the six months ended June 30, 2019 was primarily due to an $8.0 million payment for the AZEDRA first commercial sale milestone, which was partially offset by an increase in the AZEDRA sales forecasts associated with the planned initiation of a basket study to expand the label for AZEDRA and a decrease in the discount period used to calculate the present value of the contingent consideration liability.

For those financial instruments with significant Level 3 inputs, the following table summarizes the activities for the periods indicated (in thousands):

Note 5. Accounts Receivable

Our accounts receivable represent amounts due to us from royalties, collaborators, product sales and, to a small extent, sales of research reagents, and consisted of the following at June 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018 (in thousands):

Note 6. Recent Acquisition, Goodwill, In-Process Research and Development and Other Intangible Assets

Recent Acquisition

In February 2019, we acquired the AZEDRA manufacturing assets for $8.0 million cash consideration and entered into a sublease agreement for the radiopharmaceutical manufacturing facility located in Somerset, New Jersey. The Somerset site serves as the launch facility for AZEDRA and will also provide manufacturing support for the Company’s development stage radiopharmaceuticals, including 1095. The production of AZEDRA uses a proprietary Ultratrace^® process which concentrates the MIBG targeted radiolytic activity by eliminating non-therapeutic “cold” MIBG molecules, giving AZEDRA a uniquely high specific activity.

Purchase Price Allocation: We accounted for this acquisition as a business combination by allocating the consideration we paid to the fair values of the assets acquired at the effective date of the acquisition, as summarized below. The difference between the fair value of the acquisition consideration and the estimated fair value of the identifiable assets represents potential future economic benefits arising from the acquisition, and has been recorded as goodwill.

The following table summarizes the allocation of the consideration paid to the estimated fair values of the assets acquired as of the acquisition date (in thousands):

The replacement cost method, a variation of the cost approach, was applied to assess the value of the assets acquired by Progenics. The principle behind this method is that the value represents the current cost of a similar new asset having the nearest equivalent utility as the asset being valued. It generally represents the maximum amount that a prudent investor will pay for a comparable asset. The cost approach provides a systematic framework for estimating the value of tangible or intangible assets based on the economic principle of substitution, and that no prudent investor will purchase an existing asset for more than it will cost to create a comparable asset. Under this approach, value is estimated by developing the cost to either replace or reproduce (replicate) the asset of similar utility.

The acquired Somerset intangible assets represent manufacturing know-how, which is comprised of documented technical data and information, formulae, standards, specifications, processes, methods, code books, as well as all information, knowledge, trade practices and secrets utilized by the Somerset facility in manufacturing of the AZEDRA. We estimate the remaining useful life of the Somerset intangible to be approximately six years.

Goodwill, In-Process Research and Development and Other Intangible Assets

The fair values of in-process research and development (“IPR&D”) and other identified intangible assets acquired in business combinations are capitalized. We utilize the “income method,” which applies a probability weighting that considers the risk of development and commercialization to the estimated future net cash flows that are derived from projected sales revenues and estimated costs or “replacement costs”, whichever is greater. These projections are based on factors such as relevant market size, patent protection, historical pricing of similar products and expected industry trends. The estimated future net cash flows are then discounted to the present value using an appropriate discount rate. This analysis is performed for each IPR&D project and other identified intangible assets, independently. IPR&D assets are treated as indefinite-lived intangible assets until completion or abandonment of the projects, at which time the assets are amortized over the remaining useful life or written off, as appropriate. Other identified intangible assets, which include the technology asset acquired as part of the EXINI business combination, AZEDRA product rights intangible and Somerset intangible, are amortized over the relevant estimated useful lives. The IPR&D assets are tested for impairment at least annually or when a triggering event occurs that could indicate a potential impairment and any impairment loss is recognized in our condensed consolidated statements of operations.

Goodwill represents excess consideration in a business combination over the fair value of identifiable net assets acquired. Goodwill is not amortized but is subject to impairment testing at least annually or when a triggering event occurs that could indicate a potential impairment. We determine whether goodwill may be impaired by comparing the fair value of the reporting unit (we have determined that we have only one reporting unit for this purpose), calculated as the product of shares outstanding and the share price as of the end of a period, to its carrying value (for this purpose, our total stockholders’ equity). No goodwill impairment has been recognized as of June 30, 2019 or 2018.

The following tables summarize the activity related to our goodwill and intangible assets (in thousands):

The following table reflects the components of the finite-lived intangible assets as of June 30, 2019 (in thousands):

Note 7. Accrued Expenses

The carrying value of our accrued expenses approximates fair value, as it represents amounts that will be satisfied within one year. Accrued expenses consisted of the following at June 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018 (in thousands):

Note 8. Commitments and Contingencies

We are or may be involved in disputes, governmental and/or regulatory inspections, inquiries, investigations, and proceedings that could result in litigation, and other litigation matters that arise from time to time. The process of resolving matters through litigation or other means is inherently uncertain and it is possible that an unfavorable resolution of these matters will adversely affect us, our results of operations, financial condition, and cash flows. While it is not possible to accurately predict or determine the eventual outcomes of these items, an adverse determination in one or more of these items currently pending could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.

Abbreviated New Drug Application Litigations

RELISTOR Subcutaneous Injection

Paragraph IV Certifications - Mylan

On or about October 6, 2015, November 20, 2015, December 22, 2015, and December 23, 2015, Progenics, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Salix”) and Wyeth LLC (“Wyeth”) received four separate notifications of a Paragraph IV certification for RELISTOR (methylnaltrexone bromide) subcutaneous injection, for certain patents that are listed in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, also known as “the Orange Book.” The certifications resulted from the filing by Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) with the FDA, challenging such patents for RELISTOR subcutaneous injection and seeking to obtain approval to market a generic version of RELISTOR subcutaneous injection before some or all of these patents expire.

District Court Actions

Progenics, Salix, Valeant (now Bausch Health Companies Inc., “Bausch”), and Wyeth filed suit against Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Mylan Inc. in the District of New Jersey on November 19, 2015 (2:15-cv-8180-SRC-CLW) seeking declaratory judgment of infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,247,425, 8,420,663, 8,552,025, and 8,822,490 based upon Mylan Pharmaceutical Inc.’s filing of its ANDA seeking to obtain approval to market a generic version of RELISTOR vials before some or all of these patents expire. On February 4, 2016, Progenics, Salix, Bausch, and Wyeth filed an amended complaint, identifying Mylan Laboratories Ltd. as an additional Defendant, and further seeking declaratory judgment of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,180,125. Progenics, Salix, Bausch, and Wyeth filed suit against Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Mylan Laboratories Ltd., and Mylan Inc. in the District of New Jersey on January 4, 2016 (2:16-cv-00035-SRC-CLW) seeking declaratory judgment of infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,247,425, 8,420,663, 8,552,025, and 8,822,490 based upon Mylan Pharmaceutical Inc.’s filing of its ANDA seeking to obtain approval to market a generic version of RELISTOR prefilled syringes before some or all of these patents expire. On January 25, 2016, Progenics, Salix, Bausch, and Wyeth filed an amended complaint, further seeking declaratory judgment of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,180,125. Progenics, Salix, Bausch, and Wyeth filed suit against Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Mylan Laboratories Ltd., and Mylan Inc. in the District of New Jersey on September 1, 2017 (2:17-cv-06714-SRC-CLW) seeking declaratory judgment of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,669,096 based upon Mylan Pharmaceutical Inc.’s filing of ANDAs seeking to obtain approval to market generic versions of RELISTOR vials and prefilled syringes before the patents expires. On September 18, 2017, Progenics, Salix, Bausch, and Wyeth filed an amended complaint, further seeking declaratory judgment of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,492,445.

The 2:15-cv-8180-SRC-CLW, 2:16-cv-00035-SRC-CLW, 2:15-cv-08353-SRC-CLW, and 2:16-cv-00889-SRC-CLW actions were consolidated into a single action in the District of New Jersey (2:15-cv-08180-SRC-CLW). On May 1, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment as to the validity of claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 8,552,025. On May 23, 2018, the Court entered an order for final judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) in favor of Plaintiffs and against Mylan as to claim 8 of the ’025 patent.

Litigation in the 2:17-cv-06714-SRC-CLW action is underway. Fact discovery in this action has closed and expert discovery deadlines have not yet been set. This action has been consolidated for purposes of trial only with the 2:15-cv-8180 action.

Federal Circuit Appeal

On May 25, 2018, Mylan filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The matter is currently pending on appeal at the Federal Circuit.

On July 9, 2018, Bausch and Salix filed a motion to disqualify Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP as counsel for Mylan. On July 17, 2018, an order was issued stating the briefing on the merits of Mylan’s appeal pending the disposition of the motion to disqualify. Oral argument was held on September 12, 2018. A decision disqualifying Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP as counsel for Mylan was issued on February 8, 2019, by the Federal Circuit. Merits briefing is currently underway. Mylan submitted its opening brief on April 9, 2019. Plaintiffs filed their responsive brief on July 2, 2019. Mylan filed its reply brief on August 6, 2019.

Paragraph IV Certification – Actavis

On or about October 27, 2015, January 5, 2016, and January 8, 2016, Progenics, Salix and Wyeth received three separate notifications of a Paragraph IV certification for certain patents for RELISTOR (methylnaltrexone bromide) subcutaneous injection, for certain patents that are listed in the FDA’s Orange Book. The certifications resulted from the filing by Actavis LLC of an ANDA with the FDA, challenging such patents for RELISTOR subcutaneous injection and seeking to obtain approval to market a generic version of RELISTOR subcutaneous injection before some or all of these patents expire.

Settlement Agreement - Actavis

On May 25, 2018, Progenics, Bausch, Salix, Wyeth (Progenics, Bausch and Salix, each “Plaintiff” and collectively “Plaintiffs”) and Actavis LLC (“Actavis”) entered into a Settlement and License Agreement (the “Actavis Agreement”) relating to Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-08180 and Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-06714. The following is a summary of the material terms of the Actavis Agreement. The Actavis Agreement provides for a full settlement and release by both Plaintiffs and Actavis of all claims that were or could have been asserted in the District Court Cases and all resulting damages or other remedies. Plaintiffs and Actavis have agreed to and, in fact, filed a Stipulated Consent Judgment and Injunction after the execution of the Actavis Agreement. Plaintiffs and Actavis have further acknowledged and agreed that the 30-month stay imposed by the FDA in relation to the approval of Actavis’ ANDAs for the Actavis Products (the “Actavis ANDAs”) should be terminated.

Under the Actavis Agreement, Plaintiffs grant Actavis a non-exclusive, royalty-free, non-transferable, non-sublicensable, limited license under the Patents-In-Suit to make, import, and sell each of the Actavis Products in the U.S. beginning on the earliest of (a) January 1, 2028; (b) for each of the Actavis Products, if Actavis is a “First Applicant” (as defined in 21. U.S.C. § 355(j)(5)(B)(iv)(II)) and has not forfeited, relinquished or otherwise waived its 180-day exclusivity, 180 days prior to the date on which an entity not a First Applicant is permitted to commercially sell such Actavis Product in the U.S. under authorization from Plaintiffs; (c) for each of the Actavis Products, if Actavis either is not a First Applicant or otherwise has forfeited, relinquished or otherwise waived its 180-day exclusivity, the earlier of (i) 181 days after any third party that is a First Applicant markets a corresponding single-dose vial or pre-filled syringe that has been FDA approved or submitted for approval under an ANDA as a generic version of RELISTOR^® Injection for subcutaneous use (the “Generic Products”) in the U.S., or (ii) the date on which a third party that is either not a First Applicant or otherwise has waived its 180-day exclusivity markets, or is first authorized by Plaintiffs to begin marketing, such Generic Product; (d) for each of the Actavis Products, the date on which a third party that has sought or received approval from the FDA under a “New Drug Application” (as defined in the US Federal Drug and Cosmetic Act and regulations promulgated thereunder) (“NDA”) for a corresponding single-dose vial or pre-filled syringe of methylnaltrexone bromide for subcutaneous use for which RELISTOR^® Injection is the listed drug (a “Section 505(b)(2) Applicant”) markets or is first authorized by Plaintiffs to begin marketing such corresponding product; (e) for each of the Actavis Products, the date on which a corresponding generic version of the single-dose vial or pre-filled syringe of methylnaltrexone bromide for subcutaneous use approved under NDA No. 021964 for RELISTOR^® Injection that is marketed or intended for marketing in the U.S. without the RELISTOR^® trademark (an “Authorized Generic Product”) is first marketed in the U.S. by a third party; or (f) the earlier of (i) the date on which a final court decision is entered holding that each of the unexpired claims of the Patents-In-Suit are invalid and/or unenforceable, or (ii) the date on which the Patents-In-Suit have expired, been permanently abandoned, or delisted from the Orange Book. The Actavis Agreement also gives Actavis a limited right to grant sublicenses to its affiliates for certain pre-marketing activities.

Paragraph IV Certification - Par

On or about July 15, 2017, Progenics, Salix and Wyeth received notification of a Paragraph IV certification for RELISTOR (methylnaltrexone bromide) subcutaneous injection, for certain patents that are listed in the FDA’s Orange Book. The certification resulted from the filing by Par Sterile Products, LLC (“Par Sterile”) of an ANDA with the FDA, challenging such patents for RELISTOR subcutaneous injection and seeking to obtain approval to market a generic version of RELISTOR subcutaneous injection before some or all of these patents expire.

District Court Actions

Progenics, Salix, Bausch, and Wyeth filed suit against Par Sterile Products, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (“Par Pharmaceutical” and, together with Par Sterile, “Par”), and Endo International plc in the District of New Jersey on August 25, 2017 (2:17-cv-06449-SRC-CLW) seeking declaratory judgment of infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,247,425, 8,420,663, 8,552,025, 8,822,490, 9,180,125, and 9,669,096 based upon Par Sterile Product’s filing of an ANDA seeking to obtain approval to market a generic version of RELISTOR vials before some or all of these patents expire.

Progenics, Salix, Bausch, and Wyeth filed suit against Par Sterile Products, Par Pharmaceutical, and Endo International plc in the Southern District of New York on August 25, 2017 (1:17-cv-06557-PAE) seeking declaratory judgment of infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,247,425, 8,420,663, 8,552,025, 8,822,490, 9,180,125, and 9,669,096 based upon Par Sterile Product’s filing of an ANDA seeking to obtain approval to market a generic version of RELISTOR vials before some or all of these patents expire. This action was voluntarily dismissed on November 30, 2017.

Settlement Agreement - Par

On May 10, 2018, Progenics, Bausch, Salix, Wyeth and Par entered into a Settlement and License Agreement (the “Par Agreement”) relating to Civil Action No. 17-06449-SRC-CLW (the “District Court Case”). The following is a summary of the material terms of the Par Agreement.

The Par Agreement provides for a full settlement and release by both Plaintiffs and Par of all claims that were or could have been asserted in the District Court Case and all resulting damages or other remedies. Plaintiffs and Par have agreed to and, in fact, filed a Stipulated Consent Judgment and Injunction after the execution of the Par Agreement. Plaintiffs and Par have further acknowledged and agreed that the 30-month stay imposed by the FDA in relation to the approval of Par’s ANDA for the Par Products (the “Par ANDA”) should be terminated.

Under the Par Agreement, Plaintiffs grant Par a non-exclusive, royalty-free, non-transferable, non-sublicensable, limited license under the Patents-In-Suit to make, import, and sell the Par Products in the U.S., or make outside the U.S. solely for importation into the U.S. (the “Par License”) beginning on the earliest of (i) September 30, 2030; (ii) for either of the Par Products, one hundred eighty-one (181) days after any third party who is the “First Applicant” (as defined in 21. U.S.C. § 355(j)(5)(B)(iv)(II)) markets a single-dose vial or pre-filled syringe that has been FDA approved or submitted for approval under an ANDA as a generic version of RELISTOR^® Injection for subcutaneous use (the “Generic Products”); (iii) for either of the Par Products, the date on which a non-First Applicant third party markets an authorized generic (under the RELISTOR^® New Drug Application (“NDA”) but without the RELISTOR^® trademark) single-dose vial or pre-filled syringe of methylnaltrexone bromide for subcutaneous use in the U.S.; (iv) for either of the Par Products, the date on which a third party who is not a First Applicant (or who is a First Applicant who has forfeited or otherwise waived its 180-day exclusivity) markets or is first authorized by Plaintiffs to market the Generic Products in the U.S.; (v) the date on which a final court decision is entered holding that each of the asserted claims against Par in the District Court Case from the Patents-In-Suit are invalid and/or unenforceable, or not infringed by the single-dose vial Par Product; or (vi) the date on which the Patents-In-Suit have expired, been permanently abandoned or delisted from the FDA’s Orange Book. Plaintiffs have also granted to Par a limited pre-commercialization license to manufacture and/or import the Par Products into the U.S. starting one hundred fifty (150) days prior to the effective date of the Par License solely to the extent reasonably necessary to enable Par to market the Par Products in the U.S. on or after the effective date of the Par License.

RELISTOR Tablets - Actavis

Paragraph IV Certifications

On or about October 24, 2016 and October 24, 2017, Progenics, Salix, Bausch and Wyeth received two separate notifications of a Paragraph IV certification for RELISTOR (methylnaltrexone bromide) tablets, for certain patents that are listed in the FDA’s Orange Book. The certification resulted from the filing by Actavis Laboratories Fl., Inc. (“Actavis”) of an ANDA with the FDA, challenging such patents for RELISTOR tablets and seeking to obtain approval to market a generic version of RELISTOR tablets before some or all of these patents expire.

District Court Actions

Progenics, Salix, Bausch, and Wyeth filed suit against Actavis, Actavis LLC, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., and Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. in the District of New Jersey on December 6, 2016 (2:16-cv-09038-SRC-CLW) seeking declaratory judgment of infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,420,663, 8,524,276, 8,956,651, 9,180,125, and 9,314,461 based upon Actavis’s filing of an ANDA seeking to obtain approval to market a generic version of RELISTOR tablets before some or all of these patents expire.

Progenics, Salix, Bausch, and Wyeth filed suit against Actavis, Actavis LLC, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., and Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. in the District of New Jersey on December 8, 2017 (2:17-cv-12857-SRC-CLW) seeking declaratory judgment of infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,724,343 and 9,492,445 based upon Actavis’s filing of an ANDA seeking to obtain approval to market a generic version of RELISTOR tablets before some or all of these patents expire.

The 2:16-cv-09038-SRC-CLW and 2:17-cv-12857-SRC-CLW actions were consolidated into a single action in the District of New Jersey (2:16-cv-09038-SRC-CLW). A four day bench trial was held from May 6, 2019 through May 9, 2019. On July 17, 2019, the Court issued an Order finding the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,524,276 valid and infringed. The Court additionally ordered that the effective date of any approval of Actavis’s ANDA No. 209615 may not be earlier than the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. 8,524,276.

Progenics, Salix, Bausch, and Wyeth filed suit against Actavis, Actavis LLC, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., and Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. in the District of New Jersey on June 13, 2019 (2:19-cv-13722-SRC-CLW) seeking declaratory judgment of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,307,417 based upon Actavis’s filing of an ANDA seeking to obtain approval to market a generic version of RELISTOR tablets before this patent expires. Litigation in the 2:19-cv-13722-SRC-CLW action is not yet underway.

European Opposition Proceedings

In addition to the above described ANDA notifications, in October 2015, Progenics received notices of opposition to three European patents relating to methylnaltrexone. Notices of opposition against EP1615646 were filed on September 24, 2015 separately by each of Actavis Group PTC ehf and Fresenius Kabi Deutschland GmbH. Notices of opposition against EP2368553 were filed on September 29, 2015 and September 30, 2015 by Fresenius Kabi Deutschland GmbH and Actavis Group PTC ehf, respectively. Notices of opposition against EP2368554 were filed on September 24, 2015 separately by each of Actavis Group PTC ehf and Fresenius Kabi Deutschland GmbH. On May 11, 2017, the opposition division provided notice that EP2368553 will be revoked. On June 28, 2017, the opposition division provided notice that EP1615646 will be revoked. On July 4, 2017, the opposition division provided notice that EP2368554 will be revoked. Each of these matters are on appeal with the European Patent Office. Oral proceedings for EP1615646 are set to occur on September 22, 2020. A date for oral proceedings has not yet been set in the appeals concerning EP2368553 and EP2368554.

For each of the above-described proceedings, we and Bausch continue to cooperate closely to vigorously defend and enforce RELISTOR intellectual property rights. Pursuant to the RELISTOR license agreement between Progenics and Bausch, Bausch has the first right to enforce the intellectual property rights at issue and is responsible for the costs of such enforcement.

We are or may be from time to time involved in various other disputes, governmental and/or regulatory inspections, inquires, investigations and proceedings that could result in litigation, and other litigation matters that arise from time to time. The process of resolving matters through litigation or other means is inherently uncertain and it is possible that an unfavorable resolution of these matters will adversely affect us, our results of operations, financial condition, and cash flows.

PSMA-617

German District Court Litigation

We announced a lawsuit and associated worldwide patent ownership dispute based on our claims to certain inventions related to PSMA-617, a PSMA-targeted radiopharmaceutical compound under development for the treatment of prostate cancer that is the subject of certain European and U.S. Patent Applications filed by the University of Heidelberg (“the University”).

On November 8, 2018, MIP filed a complaint against the University in the District Court of Mannheim in Germany. In this Complaint, the Company claims that the discovery and development of PSMA-617 was related to work performed under a research collaboration sponsored by MIP. MIP alleged that the University breached certain contracts with MIP and that MIP is the co-owner of inventions embodied in certain worldwide patent filings related to PSMA-617, currently pending in Europe and the United States that were filed by the University in its own name. On February 27, 2019, Endocyte, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Novartis AG, filed a motion to intervene in the German litigation. Endocyte is the exclusive licensee of the patent rights that are the subject of the German proceedings.

On November 27, 2018, MIP requested that the European Patent Office (“EPO”) stay the examination of European Patent (EP) 3 038 996 A1 (EP 14 799 340.6) and of the Divisional Applications EP 18 172 716.5, EP18 184 296.4, and EP 18 203 547.7 pending a decision from the German District Court on MIP’s Complaint. On December 10, 2018, the EPO granted MIP’s request and stayed the examination of the patent and patent applications effective November 27, 2018. Likewise, on December 20, 2018, MIP filed a Confirmation of Ownership with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) in the corresponding US patent applications (US Serial Nos. 15/131,118; 16/038,729 and 16/114988). MIP’s filing with the USPTO takes the position that, in light of the collaboration and contracts between MIP and the University, MIP is the co-owner of these pending U.S. patent applications.

On February 27, 2019, the German District Court entered two orders in the litigation. First, the Court set €416, 000 as the amount MIP must deposit with the Court as security in the event of an unfavorable final decision on the merits of the dispute. Second, the Court set a hearing date of August 6, 2019 during which it will consider the various arguments of the parties and determine the next steps of the litigation. On August 6, the District Court of Mannheim in Germany held the first oral hearing in the case. The Court considered procedural matters and granted the parties the right to make further submissions.

Note 9. Operating Leases

We lease office and manufacturing space and certain office equipment under noncancelable operating leases. We determine whether an arrangement is or contains a lease at its inception. We recognize lease liabilities based on the present value of the minimum lease payments not yet paid, by using the lease term and discount rate determined at lease commencement. As our leases do not provide an implicit rate, we use our incremental borrowing rate of 9.5% commensurate with the underlying lease terms to determine the present value of our lease payments. Rental payments are recognized as rent expense on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease and for the three and six months ended June 30, 2019, we recognized rent expense in the amount of $0.6 million and $1.1 million, respectively. Our leases have remaining lease terms of one year to 11.3 years, one of which includes an option to extend the lease for five years. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2019, cash payments against operating lease liabilities totaled $0.5 million and $1.0 million, respectively.

The information related to our leases is as follows (in thousands):

At June 30, 2019, future lease payments for noncancelable operating leases are as follows (in thousands):