Legal Matters	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Matters	Legal MattersFanapt®. In 2014 and 2015, Roxane Laboratories, Inc. (Roxane) and its affiliates, West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Limited and West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp (West-Ward), Inventia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. (Inventia), Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Lupin), Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Taro Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. (Taro), and Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (Apotex) (collectively, the Fanapt® Defendants) each submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) to the FDA seeking approval to market generic versions of Fanapt® prior to the expiration of certain of the Company’s patents covering Fanapt®, including U.S. Patent No. 8,586,610 (‘610 Patent) and U.S. Patent No. 9,138,432 (‘432 Patent). In response, the Company filed separate lawsuits in 2014 and 2015 against each of the Fanapt® Defendants in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Delaware District Court) for patent infringement. In August 2016, the Delaware District Court ruled in the Company’s favor, permanently enjoining Roxane from manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell, distributing or importing any generic iloperidone product described in Roxane’s ANDA until the expiration of the ‘610 Patent in November 2027, or May 2028 if the Company obtains pediatric exclusivity. This ruling was affirmed on appeal by the U.S Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) in April 2018. West-Ward, having replaced Roxane as defendant following the acquisition of Roxane by West-Ward’s parent company, Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC (Hikma), petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was denied in January 2020. The Company entered into separate license agreements with each of Taro, Apotex and Lupin resolving these lawsuits in October 2016, December 2016 and July 2020, respectively. The license agreements grant Taro, Apotex and Lupin non-exclusive licenses to manufacture and commercialize a version of Fanapt® in the U.S. effective as of the expiration of the ‘610 Patent or earlier under certain limited circumstances. The Company entered into a license agreement with Hikma regarding the ‘432 Patent in September 2022. The license agreement grants Hikma a non-exclusive license to manufacture and commercialize a version of Fanapt® in the U.S. effective as of the expiration of the ‘610 Patent. The Company entered into a confidential stipulation with Inventia regarding any potential launch of its generic version of Fanapt®, but the Company’s lawsuit against Inventia regarding the ‘610 and ‘432 Patents remains pending. HETLIOZ®. Between April 2018 and March 2021, the Company filed numerous Hatch-Waxman lawsuits in the Delaware District Court against Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Teva), MSN Pharmaceuticals Inc. and MSN Laboratories Private Limited (MSN) and Apotex (collectively the HETLIOZ® Defendants) asserting that U.S. Patent Nos. RE46,604 (‘604 Patent), 9,060,995, 9,539,234, 9,549,913, 9,730,910 (‘910 Patent), 9,844,241, 10,071,977, 10,149,829 (‘829 Patent), 10,376,487 (‘487 Patent), 10,449,176, 10,610,510, 10,610,511, 10,829,465, and 10,611,744 will be infringed by the HETLIOZ® Defendants’ generic versions of HETLIOZ® for which they were seeking FDA approval. In January 2022, the Company entered into a license agreement with MSN and Impax Laboratories LLC (Impax) resolving the lawsuits against MSN. The license agreement grants MSN and Impax a non-exclusive license to manufacture and commercialize MSN’s version of HETLIOZ® in the U.S. effective as of March 13, 2035, unless prior to that date the Company obtains pediatric exclusivity for HETLIOZ®, in which case the license will be effective as of July 27, 2035. MSN and Impax may enter the market earlier under certain limited circumstances. The consolidated lawsuits against the remaining HETLIOZ® Defendants were tried in March 2022. On December 13, 2022, the Delaware District Court ruled that Teva and Apotex did not infringe the ‘604 Patent, and that the asserted claims of the ‘604, ‘910, ‘829 and ‘487 Patents were invalid. On December 14, 2022, Vanda appealed the Delaware District Court’s decision to the Federal Circuit and requested an injunction prohibiting market entry by Teva and Apotex while the appeal is pending. On December 16, 2022, the Federal Circuit granted a temporary injunction to prohibit market entry by Teva and Apotex until the Federal Circuit entered its order on the Company’s motion for a stay pending appeal. On December 28, 2022, the Federal Circuit denied the Company’s request for an injunction, which therefore lifted the stay pending appeal. The oral argument for the Company’s appeal is scheduled for March 14, 2023. On December 27, 2022, the Company filed patent infringement lawsuits, including Hatch-Waxman Act claims, against each of Teva and Apotex in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (NJ District Court) asserting that U.S. Patent No. 11,285,129, a method of administration patent that was not litigated in the Delaware District Court cases (‘129 Patent), will be infringed by Teva’s and Apotex’ generic versions of HETLIOZ®, each of which was approved by the FDA. The Company has asked the NJ District Court to, among other things, order that the effective date of the FDA’s approval of Teva’s and Apotex’ generic versions of HETLIOZ® be a date that is no earlier than the expiration of the ‘129 Patent, or such later date that the NJ District Court may determine, and enjoin each of Teva and Apotex from the commercial manufacture, use, import, offer for sale and/or sale of their generic versions of HETLIOZ® until the expiration of the ‘129 Patent, or such later date that the NJ District Court may determine. On December 28, 2022, the Company filed a similar lawsuit against Apotex in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida asserting the same claims and seeking the same relief against Apotex as are asserted and sought in the litigation pending before the NJ District Court. In January 2023, the Company filed a lawsuit in the NJ District Court against Teva challenging Teva’s advertising and marketing practices related to its at risk launch of its generic version of HETLIOZ® for the single indication of Non-24. The Company believes that Teva’s advertising and marketing practices related to its generic version of HETLIOZ® promote its product for uses beyond the limited labeling that Teva sought and the FDA approved. The Company seeks to, among other things, enjoin Teva from engaging in false and misleading advertising and recover monetary damages. In January 2023, the Company filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (DC District Court) against the FDA challenging the FDA’s approval of Teva’s ANDA for its generic version of HETLIOZ® capsules under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), and FDA regulations. Under the FDCA, every ANDA must contain information to show that the labeling proposed for the generic drug is the same as the labeling approved for the listed drug; additionally, the generic drug must have the same conditions of use as the listed drug. The Company believes that Teva’s approved labeling does not comply with these requirements. The Company has asked the DC District Court to, among other things, vacate the FDA’s approval of Teva’s ANDA, declare that the approval of the ANDA was unlawful, arbitrary, and capricious and compel the FDA to order Teva to recall its shipments or sales of its generic HETLIOZ® product. In February 2023, Teva filed a motion with the DC District Court to intervene as a defendant in the lawsuit. Vanda did not oppose Teva’s motion. Other Matters. In February 2019, a securities class action, Gordon v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (New York District Court) naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants. An amended complaint was filed in July 2019. The amended complaint, filed on behalf of a purported stockholder, asserted claims on behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased the Company’s publicly traded securities between November 4, 2015 and February 11, 2019 (the Class), for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements and/or omissions regarding Fanapt®, HETLIOZ® and the Company’s interactions with the FDA regarding tradipitant between November 3, 2015 and February 11, 2019. In March 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In March 2021, the motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. In May 2022, the parties executed a stipulation of settlement for $11.5 million to resolve the claims asserted with no admission of wrongdoing by any defendant. The settlement was preliminarily approved by the New York District Court in September 2022. Payment of the settlement amount was made by the Company’s insurers into an escrow account and is recognized in the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2022 in prepaid and other current assets and accounts payable and accrued liabilities. In January 2023, the New York District Court fully and finally approved the settlement and issued its final judgment and order of dismissal with prejudice, thereby resolving the class action with respect to all plaintiffs other than three individuals who requested exclusion from the Class. The settlement is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations or financial condition. In April 2022, the Company filed a lawsuit in the DC District Court against the FDA to compel the FDA to produce, as required by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), certain records relating to its denial of the Company’s supplemental NDA for HETLIOZ® in the treatment of jet lag disorder. The Company has repeatedly attempted to obtain these records from the FDA pursuant to a FOIA request submitted by the Company in December of 2019, but the FDA has refused to provide them, claiming an exemption under FOIA. The Company does not believe that the exemption claimed by the FDA applies to the records requested. In April 2022, the Company filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (the MD District Court) against the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Administrator of CMS challenging CMS’ rule broadly interpreting the defined terms “line extension” and “new formulation” under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (ACA), which went into effect in January 2022 (the Rule). The Company believes that the Rule is unlawful and contrary to the intent of Congress when it passed the ACA. Under the Rule, certain of the Company’s products would be treated as line extensions and new formulations subject to enhanced rebates, despite the statutory text and CMS’ own long-standing practice, under which such products would not constitute line extensions or new formulations. The Company seeks to, among other things, have the MD District Court set aside the definitions of “line extension” and “new formulation” in the Rule, declare the Rule unlawful and void and enjoin CMS from enforcing, applying, or implementing the Rule as applied to require the Company to treat these products as line extensions. In May 2022, the Company filed a lawsuit in the DC District Court against the FDA to compel the FDA to produce, as required by FOIA, certain records relating to cases in which the FDA waived its putative requirement of a 9-month non-rodent toxicity study before drugs can be tested on human patients for extended durations. The Company attempted to obtain these records from the FDA pursuant to a FOIA request submitted by the Company in January of 2020, but the FDA has failed to respond to the request. In May 2022, the Company filed a lawsuit in the DC District Court against the FDA challenging the FDA’s denial of Fast Track designation for tradipitant. In October 2021, the Company submitted to the FDA a request for Fast Track designation for tradipitant under the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA). The FDAMA provides for expedited development and review of drugs that receive Fast Track designation from the FDA. Under the FDAMA, the FDA must designate a drug as a Fast Track product if it both (1) is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and (2) demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for such disease or condition. Although Fast Track designation is non-discretionary when the criteria are satisfied, the FDA denied the Company’s request for Fast Track designation. The Company does not believe that the FDA based its decision on the relevant criteria. Therefore, among other reasons, the Company maintains that the FDA’s denial is unlawful. The Company has asked the DC District Court to, among other things, set aside and vacate the FDA’s denial. In September 2022, the Company filed a lawsuit in the DC District Court against the FDA to compel the FDA to comply with two separate nondiscretionary obligations under the FDCA and its implementing regulations: an obligation to publish a notice of an opportunity for a hearing on Vanda’s supplemental New Drug Application (sNDA) in the Federal Register within 180 days of the filing of the sNDA, and a separate obligation to publish the same notice within 60 days of the request for a hearing. The FDA published the notice of an opportunity for a hearing on October 11, 2022. The Company has asked the DC District Court to, among other things, compel the FDA to comply with its obligations and declare that its lack of compliance violates the FDCA and the FDA regulations. In October 2022, the Company filed a lawsuit in the DC District Court against the FDA to compel the FDA to produce, as required by FOIA, documents responsive to the Company’s request seeking communications external to the FDA from 11 specified FDA employees relating to tradipitant. The FDA has failed to respond and disclose the requested documents within the statutory timeframe. The Company has asked the DC District Court to, among other things, compel the FDA to comply with its obligations and declare that its lack of compliance violates FOIA. In November 2022, the Company filed a lawsuit in the DC District Court against the FDA to compel the FDA to produce, as required by FOIA, documents responsive to the Company’s request seeking communications within the FDA relating to tradipitant. The FDA has failed to respond and disclose the requested documents within the statutory timeframe. The Company has asked the DC District Court to, among other things, compel the FDA to comply with its obligations and declare that its lack of compliance violates FOIA. In December 2022, the Company filed a lawsuit in the DC District Court against the FDA to compel the FDA to produce, as required by FOIA, documents responsive to the Company’s request seeking communications external to the FDA from specified FDA employees relating to HETLIOZ®. The FDA has failed to respond and disclose the requested documents within the statutory timeframe. The Company has asked the DC District Court to, among other things, compel the FDA to comply with its obligations and declare that its lack of compliance violates FOIA. In December 2022, the Company filed a lawsuit in the DC District Court against the FDA to compel the FDA to produce, as required by FOIA, documents responsive to the Company’s request seeking communications within the FDA relating to HETLIOZ®. The FDA has failed to respond and disclose the requested documents within the statutory timeframe. The Company has asked the DC District Court to, among other things, compel the FDA to comply with its obligations and declare that its lack of compliance violates FOIA.

Application (ANDA) to the FDA seeking approval to market generic versions of Fanapt® prior to the expiration of certain of the Company’s patents covering Fanapt®, including U.S. Patent No. 8,586,610 (‘610 Patent) and U.S. Patent No. 9,138,432 (‘432 Patent). In response, the Company filed separate lawsuits in 2014 and 2015 against each of the Fanapt® Defendants in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Delaware District Court) for patent infringement.

In August 2016, the Delaware District Court ruled in the Company’s favor, permanently enjoining Roxane from manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell, distributing or importing any generic iloperidone product described in Roxane’s ANDA until the expiration of the ‘610 Patent in November 2027, or May 2028 if the Company obtains pediatric exclusivity. This ruling was affirmed on appeal by the U.S Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) in April 2018. West-Ward, having replaced Roxane as defendant following the acquisition of Roxane by West-Ward’s parent company, Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC (Hikma), petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was denied in January 2020.

The Company entered into separate license agreements with each of Taro, Apotex and Lupin resolving these lawsuits in October 2016, December 2016 and July 2020, respectively. The license agreements grant Taro, Apotex and Lupin non-exclusive licenses to manufacture and commercialize a version of Fanapt® in the U.S. effective as of the expiration of the ‘610 Patent or earlier under certain limited circumstances. The Company entered into a license agreement with Hikma regarding the ‘432 Patent in September 2022. The license agreement grants Hikma a non-exclusive license to manufacture and commercialize a version of Fanapt® in the U.S. effective as of the expiration of the ‘610 Patent. The Company entered into a confidential stipulation with Inventia regarding any potential launch of its generic version of Fanapt®, but the Company’s lawsuit against Inventia regarding the ‘610 and ‘432 Patents remains pending.

HETLIOZ®. Between April 2018 and March 2021, the Company filed numerous Hatch-Waxman lawsuits in the Delaware District Court against Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Teva), MSN Pharmaceuticals Inc. and MSN Laboratories Private Limited (MSN) and Apotex (collectively the HETLIOZ® Defendants) asserting that U.S. Patent Nos. RE46,604 (‘604 Patent), 9,060,995, 9,539,234, 9,549,913, 9,730,910 (‘910 Patent), 9,844,241, 10,071,977, 10,149,829 (‘829 Patent), 10,376,487 (‘487 Patent), 10,449,176, 10,610,510, 10,610,511, 10,829,465, and 10,611,744 will be infringed by the HETLIOZ® Defendants’ generic versions of HETLIOZ® for which they were seeking FDA approval. In January 2022, the Company entered into a license agreement with MSN and Impax Laboratories LLC (Impax) resolving the lawsuits against MSN. The license agreement grants MSN and Impax a non-exclusive license to manufacture and commercialize MSN’s version of HETLIOZ® in the U.S. effective as of March 13, 2035, unless prior to that date the Company obtains pediatric exclusivity for HETLIOZ®, in which case the license will be effective as of July 27, 2035. MSN and Impax may enter the market earlier under certain limited circumstances. The consolidated lawsuits against the remaining HETLIOZ® Defendants were tried in March 2022.

On December 13, 2022, the Delaware District Court ruled that Teva and Apotex did not infringe the ‘604 Patent, and that the asserted claims of the ‘604, ‘910, ‘829 and ‘487 Patents were invalid. On December 14, 2022, Vanda appealed the Delaware District Court’s decision to the Federal Circuit and requested an injunction prohibiting market entry by Teva and Apotex while the appeal is pending. On December 16, 2022, the Federal Circuit granted a temporary injunction to prohibit market entry by Teva and Apotex until the Federal Circuit entered its order on the Company’s motion for a stay pending appeal. On December 28, 2022, the Federal Circuit denied the Company’s request for an injunction, which therefore lifted the stay pending appeal. The oral argument for the Company’s appeal is scheduled for March 14, 2023.

On December 27, 2022, the Company filed patent infringement lawsuits, including Hatch-Waxman Act claims, against each of Teva and Apotex in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (NJ District Court) asserting that U.S. Patent No. 11,285,129, a method of administration patent that was not litigated in the Delaware District Court cases (‘129 Patent), will be infringed by Teva’s and Apotex’ generic versions of HETLIOZ®, each of which was approved by the FDA. The Company has asked the NJ District Court to, among other things, order that the effective date of the FDA’s approval of Teva’s and Apotex’ generic versions of HETLIOZ® be a date that is no earlier than the expiration of the ‘129 Patent, or such later date that the NJ District Court may determine, and enjoin each of Teva and Apotex from the commercial manufacture, use, import, offer for sale and/or sale of their generic versions of HETLIOZ® until the expiration of the ‘129 Patent, or such later date that the NJ District Court may determine. On December 28, 2022, the Company filed a similar lawsuit against Apotex in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida asserting the same claims and seeking the same relief against Apotex as are asserted and sought in the litigation pending before the NJ District Court.

In January 2023, the Company filed a lawsuit in the NJ District Court against Teva challenging Teva’s advertising and marketing practices related to its at risk launch of its generic version of HETLIOZ® for the single indication of Non-24. The Company believes that Teva’s advertising and marketing practices related to its generic version of HETLIOZ® promote its product for uses beyond the limited labeling that Teva sought and the FDA approved. The Company seeks to, among other things, enjoin Teva from engaging in false and misleading advertising and recover monetary damages.

In January 2023, the Company filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (DC District Court) against the FDA challenging the FDA’s approval of Teva’s ANDA for its generic version of HETLIOZ® capsules under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), and FDA regulations. Under the FDCA, every ANDA must contain information to show that the labeling proposed for the generic drug is the same as the labeling approved for the listed drug; additionally, the generic drug must have the same conditions of use as the listed drug. The Company believes that Teva’s approved labeling does not comply with these requirements. The Company has asked the DC District Court to, among other things, vacate the FDA’s approval of Teva’s ANDA, declare that the approval of the ANDA was unlawful, arbitrary, and capricious and compel the FDA to order Teva to recall its shipments or sales of its generic HETLIOZ® product. In February 2023, Teva filed a motion with the DC District Court to intervene as a defendant in the lawsuit. Vanda did not oppose Teva’s motion.

Other Matters. In February 2019, a securities class action, Gordon v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (New York District Court) naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants. An amended complaint was filed in July 2019. The amended complaint, filed on behalf of a purported stockholder, asserted claims on behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased the Company’s publicly traded securities between November 4, 2015 and February 11, 2019 (the Class), for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements and/or omissions regarding Fanapt®, HETLIOZ® and the Company’s interactions with the FDA regarding tradipitant between November 3, 2015 and February 11, 2019. In March 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In March 2021, the motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. In May 2022, the parties executed a stipulation of settlement for $11.5 million to resolve the claims asserted with no admission of wrongdoing by any defendant. The settlement was preliminarily approved by the New York District Court in September 2022. Payment of the settlement amount was made by the Company’s insurers into an escrow account and is recognized in the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2022 in prepaid and other current assets and accounts payable and accrued liabilities. In January 2023, the New York District Court fully and finally approved the settlement and issued its final judgment and order of dismissal with prejudice, thereby resolving the class action with respect to all plaintiffs other than three individuals who requested exclusion from the Class. The settlement is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations or financial condition.

In April 2022, the Company filed a lawsuit in the DC District Court against the FDA to compel the FDA to produce, as required by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), certain records relating to its denial of the Company’s supplemental NDA for HETLIOZ® in the treatment of jet lag disorder. The Company has repeatedly attempted to obtain these records from the FDA pursuant to a FOIA request submitted by the Company in December of 2019, but the FDA has refused to provide them, claiming an exemption under FOIA. The Company does not believe that the exemption claimed by the FDA applies to the records requested.

In April 2022, the Company filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (the MD District Court) against the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Administrator of CMS challenging CMS’ rule broadly interpreting the defined terms “line extension” and “new formulation” under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (ACA), which went into effect in January 2022 (the Rule). The Company believes that the Rule is unlawful and contrary to the intent of Congress when it passed the ACA. Under the Rule, certain of the Company’s products would be treated as line extensions and new formulations subject to enhanced rebates, despite the statutory text and CMS’ own long-standing practice, under which such products would not constitute line extensions or new formulations. The Company seeks to, among other things, have the MD District Court set aside the definitions of “line extension” and “new formulation” in the Rule, declare the Rule unlawful and void and enjoin CMS from enforcing, applying, or implementing the Rule as applied to require the Company to treat these products as line extensions.

In May 2022, the Company filed a lawsuit in the DC District Court against the FDA to compel the FDA to produce, as required by FOIA, certain records relating to cases in which the FDA waived its putative requirement of a 9-month non-rodent toxicity study before drugs can be tested on human patients for extended durations. The Company attempted to obtain these records from the FDA pursuant to a FOIA request submitted by the Company in January of 2020, but the FDA has failed to respond to the request.

In May 2022, the Company filed a lawsuit in the DC District Court against the FDA challenging the FDA’s denial of Fast Track designation for tradipitant. In October 2021, the Company submitted to the FDA a request for Fast Track designation for tradipitant under the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA). The FDAMA provides for expedited development and review of drugs that receive Fast Track designation from the FDA. Under the FDAMA, the FDA must designate a drug as a Fast Track product if it both (1) is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening

disease or condition and (2) demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for such disease or condition. Although Fast Track designation is non-discretionary when the criteria are satisfied, the FDA denied the Company’s request for Fast Track designation. The Company does not believe that the FDA based its decision on the relevant criteria. Therefore, among other reasons, the Company maintains that the FDA’s denial is unlawful. The Company has asked the DC District Court to, among other things, set aside and vacate the FDA’s denial.

In September 2022, the Company filed a lawsuit in the DC District Court against the FDA to compel the FDA to comply with two separate nondiscretionary obligations under the FDCA and its implementing regulations: an obligation to publish a notice of an opportunity for a hearing on Vanda’s supplemental New Drug Application (sNDA) in the Federal Register within 180 days of the filing of the sNDA, and a separate obligation to publish the same notice within 60 days of the request for a hearing. The FDA published the notice of an opportunity for a hearing on October 11, 2022. The Company has asked the DC District Court to, among other things, compel the FDA to comply with its obligations and declare that its lack of compliance violates the FDCA and the FDA regulations.

In October 2022, the Company filed a lawsuit in the DC District Court against the FDA to compel the FDA to produce, as required by FOIA, documents responsive to the Company’s request seeking communications external to the FDA from 11 specified FDA employees relating to tradipitant. The FDA has failed to respond and disclose the requested documents within the statutory timeframe. The Company has asked the DC District Court to, among other things, compel the FDA to comply with its obligations and declare that its lack of compliance violates FOIA.

In November 2022, the Company filed a lawsuit in the DC District Court against the FDA to compel the FDA to produce, as required by FOIA, documents responsive to the Company’s request seeking communications within the FDA relating to tradipitant. The FDA has failed to respond and disclose the requested documents within the statutory timeframe. The Company has asked the DC District Court to, among other things, compel the FDA to comply with its obligations and declare that its lack of compliance violates FOIA.

In December 2022, the Company filed a lawsuit in the DC District Court against the FDA to compel the FDA to produce, as required by FOIA, documents responsive to the Company’s request seeking communications external to the FDA from specified FDA employees relating to HETLIOZ®. The FDA has failed to respond and disclose the requested documents within the statutory timeframe. The Company has asked the DC District Court to, among other things, compel the FDA to comply with its obligations and declare that its lack of compliance violates FOIA.

In December 2022, the Company filed a lawsuit in the DC District Court against the FDA to compel the FDA to produce, as required by FOIA, documents responsive to the Company’s request seeking communications within the FDA relating to HETLIOZ®. The FDA has failed to respond and disclose the requested documents within the statutory timeframe. The Company has asked the DC District Court to, among other things, compel the FDA to comply with its obligations and declare that its lack of compliance violates FOIA.