Legal Proceedings	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2025
Legal Proceedings
Legal Proceedings	14. Legal Proceedings YUTREPIA-Related Litigation In connection with an amendment to the Company’s NDA filed in July 2023 to add PH-ILD as an indication for YUTREPIA, the Company provided a notice of the paragraph IV certification to United Therapeutics as the owner of the patents that are the subject of the certification to which the NDA for YUTREPIA refers. As a result, in September 2023, United Therapeutics filed a complaint for patent infringement against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:23-cv-00975-RGA) (the “New Hatch-Waxman Litigation”), asserting infringement by the Company of U.S. Patent No. 10,716,793, entitled “Treprostinil Administration by Inhalation” (the “‘793 Patent”). In November 2023, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) issued U.S. Patent No. 11,826,327, entitled “Treatment for Interstitial Lung Disease” (the “‘327 Patent”), to United Therapeutics. On November 30, 2023, United Therapeutics filed an amended complaint in the New Hatch-Waxman Litigation asserting infringement of the ‘327 Patent by the practice of YUTREPIA based on the amended NDA. In January 2024, the Company filed an answer, counterclaims and a partial motion to dismiss the claims related to the ‘793 Patent as a result of the decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to affirm a finding by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “PTAB”) that the ’793 Patent is unpatentable. In February 2024, United Therapeutics stipulated to the dismissal of the claims in the New Hatch-Waxman Litigation related to the ‘793 Patent. In February 2024, United Therapeutics also filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the Company from manufacturing, marketing, storing, importing, distributing, offering for sale, and/or selling YUTREPIA for the treatment of PH-ILD. Judge Andrews denied the motion for a preliminary injunction in May 2024. Trial is scheduled for June 2025. FDA Litigation In August 2024, the Company filed a lawsuit in the D.C. District Court to challenge the decision by the FDA to grant three-year regulatory exclusivity to Tyvaso DPI (the “New FDA Litigation”). In February 2025, the D.C. District Court issued a decision granting the motions for summary judgment filed by the FDA and United Therapeutics. In so doing, the D.C. District Court affirmed the FDA’s award of regulatory exclusivity to Tyvaso DPI. This decision does not affect the expiration of the regulatory exclusivity, which will still occur on May 23, 2025. In September 2024, United Therapeutics filed a cross claim in the New FDA Litigation, challenging FDA’s acceptance for review of the Company’s amendment to the NDA for YUTREPIA to add PH-ILD to the label. The Company intervened and became a party with respect to the cross claim in November 2024. In November 2024, both the Company and the FDA filed motions to dismiss United Therapeutics’ cross claim. On May 2, 2025, the D.C. District Court granted the motions filed by the FDA and the Company and dismissed United Therapeutics’ cross claim without prejudice. United Therapeutics has the right to appeal the D.C. District Court’s ruling. Trade Secret Litigation In December 2021, United Therapeutics filed a complaint in the Superior Court in Durham County, North Carolina, alleging that the Company and a former United Therapeutics employee who later joined the Company as an employee many years after terminating his employment with United Therapeutics (the “Former Employee”) conspired to misappropriate certain trade secrets of United Therapeutics and engaged in unfair or deceptive trade practices. In January 2024, the Former Employee filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to all claims, but the motion was denied in July 2024. In addition, in July 2024, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to all claims. A hearing on the Company’s motion for summary judgment was held in December 2024. The motion remains pending. In May 2024, United Therapeutics filed a second complaint in the Superior Court in Durham County, North Carolina, against the Former Employee, alleging that he breached prior employment agreements with United Therapeutics by failing to assign to United Therapeutics his interest in patents obtained by the Company that relied upon or benefitted from certain inventions, discoveries, materials, authorship, derivatives and results developed by the Former Employee while he was employed by United Therapeutics. The Company was also named as a defendant in this new lawsuit. As part of the lawsuit, United Therapeutics alleges that the Former Employee misappropriated certain intellectual property of United Therapeutics which led to the development of YUTREPIA. The complaint also seeks declaratory judgement such that all right, title and interest in and to any patentable or unpatentable inventions, discoveries, and ideas made or conceived by the Former Employee while employed by the Company should be assigned and transferred to United Therapeutics because they involved the use of United Therapeutics’ confidential information. In July 2024, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all claims. A hearing on the Company’s motion to dismiss was held in December 2024. The motion remains pending. ‘494 Patent Litigation On April 21, 2025, the Company filed a complaint for patent infringement against United Therapeutics in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina (Case No. 1:25-cv-00299) (the “’494 Patent Litigation”), asserting infringement by United Therapeutics of U.S. Patent No. 10,898,494, entitled “Dry Powder Treprostinil for the Treatment of Pulmonary Hypertension” (the “‘494 Patent”) with respect to its Tyvaso DPI product. United Therapeutics has not yet filed its responsive pleading. RareGen Litigation In April 2019, Sandoz and Liquidia PAH (then known as RareGen) filed a complaint against United Therapeutics and Smiths Medical (now ICU Medical) in the District Court of New Jersey (Case No. No. 3:19 cv 10170), (the “RareGen Litigation”), alleging that United Therapeutics and Smiths Medical violated the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, state law antitrust statutes and unfair competition statutes by engaging in anticompetitive acts regarding the drug treprostinil for the treatment of PAH. In March 2020, Sandoz and Liquidia PAH filed a first amended complaint adding a claim that United Therapeutics breached a settlement agreement that was entered into in 2015, in which United Therapeutics agreed to not interfere with Sandoz’s efforts to launch its generic treprostinil, by taking calculated steps to restrict and interfere with the launch of Sandoz’s competing generic product. United Therapeutics developed treprostinil under the brand name Remodulin® and Smiths Medical manufactured a pump and cartridges that are used to inject treprostinil into patients continuously throughout the day. Sandoz and Liquidia PAH allege that United Therapeutics and Smiths Medical entered into anticompetitive agreements (i) whereby Smiths Medical placed restrictions on the cartridges such that they can only be used with United Therapeutics’ branded Remodulin® product and (ii) requiring Smiths Medical to enter into agreements with specialty pharmacies to sell the cartridges only for use with Remodulin®. In November 2020, Sandoz and Liquidia PAH entered into a binding term sheet (the “Term Sheet”) with Smiths Medical in order to resolve the outstanding RareGen Litigation solely with respect to disputes between Smiths Medical, Liquidia PAH and Sandoz. In April 2021, Liquidia PAH and Sandoz entered into a Long Form Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with Smiths Medical to further detail the terms of the settlement among such parties as reflected in the Term Sheet. Pursuant to the Term Sheet and the Settlement Agreement, the former RareGen members and Sandoz received a payment of $4.25 million that was evenly split between the parties. In addition, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Smiths Medical granted Liquidia PAH and Sandoz a non-exclusive, royalty-free license in the United States to Smiths Medical’s patents and copyrights associated with the cartridge that Smiths Medical developed and manufactures for use with the CADD-MS 3 infusion pump (the “CADD-MS 3 Cartridge”) and certain other information for use of the CADD-MS 3 infusion pump and the CADD-MS 3 Cartridges. In connection with the license, Liquidia PAH and Sandoz agreed, among other things, to indemnify Smiths from certain liabilities related to any cartridge they developed for use with the CADD-MS 3 infusion pumps. In September 2021, United Therapeutics filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to all of the claims brought by Sandoz and Liquidia PAH against United Therapeutics. At the same time, Sandoz filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to the breach of contract claim. In March 2022, the Court issued an order granting partial summary judgment to United Therapeutics with respect to the antitrust and unfair competition claims, denying summary judgment to United Therapeutics with respect to the breach of contract claim, and granting partial summary judgment to Sandoz with respect to the breach of contract claim. A trial to determine the amount of damages due from United Therapeutics to Sandoz with respect to the breach of contract claim was held from late April to early May 2024. In November 2024, the Court entered a judgment in the amount of $70.6 million. United Therapeutics, Sandoz and Liquidia PAH have all appealed the Court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and briefing is ongoing. Under the Promotion Agreement, all proceeds from the litigation will be divided evenly between Sandoz and Liquidia PAH. Under the litigation finance agreements that Liquidia PAH has entered into with Henderson and PBM, any net proceeds received by Liquidia PAH with respect to the RareGen Litigation will be divided between Henderson and PBM.

Legal Proceedings

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2025

14. Legal Proceedings

YUTREPIA-Related Litigation

In connection with an amendment to the Company’s NDA filed in July 2023 to add PH-ILD as an indication for YUTREPIA, the Company provided a notice of the paragraph IV certification to United Therapeutics as the owner of the patents that are the subject of the certification to which the NDA for YUTREPIA refers. As a result, in September 2023, United Therapeutics filed a complaint for patent infringement against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:23-cv-00975-RGA) (the “New Hatch-Waxman Litigation”), asserting infringement by the Company of U.S. Patent No. 10,716,793, entitled “Treprostinil Administration by Inhalation” (the “‘793 Patent”). In November 2023, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) issued U.S. Patent No. 11,826,327, entitled

“Treatment for Interstitial Lung Disease” (the “‘327 Patent”), to United Therapeutics. On November 30, 2023, United Therapeutics filed an amended complaint in the New Hatch-Waxman Litigation asserting infringement of the ‘327 Patent by the practice of YUTREPIA based on the amended NDA. In January 2024, the Company filed an answer, counterclaims and a partial motion to dismiss the claims related to the ‘793 Patent as a result of the decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to affirm a finding by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “PTAB”) that the ’793 Patent is unpatentable. In February 2024, United Therapeutics stipulated to the dismissal of the claims in the New Hatch-Waxman Litigation related to the ‘793 Patent. In February 2024, United Therapeutics also filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the Company from manufacturing, marketing, storing, importing, distributing, offering for sale, and/or selling YUTREPIA for the treatment of PH-ILD. Judge Andrews denied the motion for a preliminary injunction in May 2024. Trial is scheduled for June 2025.

FDA Litigation

In August 2024, the Company filed a lawsuit in the D.C. District Court to challenge the decision by the FDA to grant three-year regulatory exclusivity to Tyvaso DPI (the “New FDA Litigation”). In February 2025, the D.C. District Court issued a decision granting the motions for summary judgment filed by the FDA and United Therapeutics. In so doing, the D.C. District Court affirmed the FDA’s award of regulatory exclusivity to Tyvaso DPI. This decision does not affect the expiration of the regulatory exclusivity, which will still occur on May 23, 2025.

In September 2024, United Therapeutics filed a cross claim in the New FDA Litigation, challenging FDA’s acceptance for review of the Company’s amendment to the NDA for YUTREPIA to add PH-ILD to the label. The Company intervened and became a party with respect to the cross claim in November 2024. In November 2024, both the Company and the FDA filed motions to dismiss United Therapeutics’ cross claim. On May 2, 2025, the D.C. District Court granted the motions filed by the FDA and the Company and dismissed United Therapeutics’ cross claim without prejudice. United Therapeutics has the right to appeal the D.C. District Court’s ruling.

Trade Secret Litigation

In December 2021, United Therapeutics filed a complaint in the Superior Court in Durham County, North Carolina, alleging that the Company and a former United Therapeutics employee who later joined the Company as an employee many years after terminating his employment with United Therapeutics (the “Former Employee”) conspired to misappropriate certain trade secrets of United Therapeutics and engaged in unfair or deceptive trade practices. In January 2024, the Former Employee filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to all claims, but the motion was denied in July 2024. In addition, in July 2024, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to all claims. A hearing on the Company’s motion for summary judgment was held in December 2024. The motion remains pending.

In May 2024, United Therapeutics filed a second complaint in the Superior Court in Durham County, North Carolina, against the Former Employee, alleging that he breached prior employment agreements with United Therapeutics by failing to assign to United Therapeutics his interest in patents obtained by the Company that relied upon or benefitted from certain inventions, discoveries, materials, authorship, derivatives and results developed by the Former Employee while he was employed by United Therapeutics. The Company was also named as a defendant in this new lawsuit. As part of the lawsuit, United Therapeutics alleges that the Former Employee misappropriated certain intellectual property of United Therapeutics which led to the development of YUTREPIA. The complaint also seeks declaratory judgement such that all right, title and interest in and to any patentable or unpatentable inventions, discoveries, and ideas made or conceived by the Former Employee while employed by the Company should be assigned and transferred to United Therapeutics because they involved the use of United Therapeutics’ confidential information. In July 2024, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all claims. A hearing on the Company’s motion to dismiss was held in December 2024. The motion remains pending.

‘494 Patent Litigation

On April 21, 2025, the Company filed a complaint for patent infringement against United Therapeutics in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina (Case No. 1:25-cv-00299) (the “’494 Patent Litigation”), asserting infringement by United Therapeutics of U.S. Patent No. 10,898,494, entitled “Dry Powder Treprostinil for the

Treatment of Pulmonary Hypertension” (the “‘494 Patent”) with respect to its Tyvaso DPI product. United Therapeutics has not yet filed its responsive pleading.

RareGen Litigation

In April 2019, Sandoz and Liquidia PAH (then known as RareGen) filed a complaint against United Therapeutics and Smiths Medical (now ICU Medical) in the District Court of New Jersey (Case No. No. 3:19 cv 10170), (the “RareGen Litigation”), alleging that United Therapeutics and Smiths Medical violated the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, state law antitrust statutes and unfair competition statutes by engaging in anticompetitive acts regarding the drug treprostinil for the treatment of PAH. In March 2020, Sandoz and Liquidia PAH filed a first amended complaint adding a claim that United Therapeutics breached a settlement agreement that was entered into in 2015, in which United Therapeutics agreed to not interfere with Sandoz’s efforts to launch its generic treprostinil, by taking calculated steps to restrict and interfere with the launch of Sandoz’s competing generic product. United Therapeutics developed treprostinil under the brand name Remodulin® and Smiths Medical manufactured a pump and cartridges that are used to inject treprostinil into patients continuously throughout the day. Sandoz and Liquidia PAH allege that United Therapeutics and Smiths Medical entered into anticompetitive agreements (i) whereby Smiths Medical placed restrictions on the cartridges such that they can only be used with United Therapeutics’ branded Remodulin® product and (ii) requiring Smiths Medical to enter into agreements with specialty pharmacies to sell the cartridges only for use with Remodulin®.

In November 2020, Sandoz and Liquidia PAH entered into a binding term sheet (the “Term Sheet”) with Smiths Medical in order to resolve the outstanding RareGen Litigation solely with respect to disputes between Smiths Medical, Liquidia PAH and Sandoz. In April 2021, Liquidia PAH and Sandoz entered into a Long Form Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with Smiths Medical to further detail the terms of the settlement among such parties as reflected in the Term Sheet. Pursuant to the Term Sheet and the Settlement Agreement, the former RareGen members and Sandoz received a payment of $4.25 million that was evenly split between the parties. In addition, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Smiths Medical granted Liquidia PAH and Sandoz a non-exclusive, royalty-free license in the United States to Smiths Medical’s patents and copyrights associated with the cartridge that Smiths Medical developed and manufactures for use with the CADD-MS 3 infusion pump (the “CADD-MS 3 Cartridge”) and certain other information for use of the CADD-MS 3 infusion pump and the CADD-MS 3 Cartridges. In connection with the license, Liquidia PAH and Sandoz agreed, among other things, to indemnify Smiths from certain liabilities related to any cartridge they developed for use with the CADD-MS 3 infusion pumps.

In September 2021, United Therapeutics filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to all of the claims brought by Sandoz and Liquidia PAH against United Therapeutics. At the same time, Sandoz filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to the breach of contract claim. In March 2022, the Court issued an order granting partial summary judgment to United Therapeutics with respect to the antitrust and unfair competition claims, denying summary judgment to United Therapeutics with respect to the breach of contract claim, and granting partial summary judgment to Sandoz with respect to the breach of contract claim. A trial to determine the amount of damages due from United Therapeutics to Sandoz with respect to the breach of contract claim was held from late April to early May 2024. In November 2024, the Court entered a judgment in the amount of $70.6 million. United Therapeutics, Sandoz and Liquidia PAH have all appealed the Court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and briefing is ongoing.

Under the Promotion Agreement, all proceeds from the litigation will be divided evenly between Sandoz and Liquidia PAH. Under the litigation finance agreements that Liquidia PAH has entered into with Henderson and PBM, any net proceeds received by Liquidia PAH with respect to the RareGen Litigation will be divided between Henderson and PBM.