Print Page  Close Window


SEC Filings

S-1/A
OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS, INC. filed this Form S-1/A on 04/09/2007
Entire Document
 
Table of Contents

 
  •      if a license is available from a third party, we may have to pay substantial royalties, fees and/or grant cross-licenses to intellectual property rights for our products; and
 
  •      redesigning our products or processes so they do not infringe, which may not be possible or may require substantial monetary expenditures and time.
 
We will be obtaining our bupropion SR, zonisamide SR, naltrexone SR, our finished Contrave and Empatic tablets combining these components, and our Contrave Titration Packs, Empatic Titration Packs and bottles used to package these tablets from third-party manufacturers. Each aspect of product design, formulation, manufacturing, packaging, and use has the potential to implicate third-party patent rights. For example, we are currently negotiating with potential licensors for rights to new formulations of bupropion SR for commercial purposes that we believe may improve the intellectual property profile of our Contrave and Empatic product candidates and avoid potential infringement of third-party patent rights. In order to secure rights to a new formulation of bupropion SR, we may choose to pay a combination of up-front fees, milestone payments and/or royalties on net sales of products. However, we cannot be certain that we will be able to enter into a definitive license agreement on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Accordingly, we are also developing our own formulation of bupropion SR that we believe will not infringe third-party patent rights. If we do not obtain licensed rights to a bupropion SR formulation or successfully complete the development of our own formulation, we could be exposed to potential patent infringement liability from third parties who hold patents on various formulations of bupropion. In any event, while we continue to use our existing formulation for clinical trial purposes, we will need to demonstrate in a small Phase I trial and additional preclinical studies comparable bioavailability and bioequivalence of the bupropion SR formulation used in our clinical trials to the bupropion formulation we will use commercially. We expect we will be able to conduct these studies concurrently with our pivotal trials.
 
No assurance can be given that patents do not exist, have not been filed, or could not be filed or issued, which contain claims covering these or other aspects of our products, technology or methods, as implemented by us or by third-party manufacturers with whom we contract. Because of the large number of patents issued and patent applications filed in our field, we believe there is a risk that third parties may allege they have patent rights encompassing our products, technology or methods. Such third-party patent rights, if relevant, could prevent us from adopting or marketing a particular formulation or product, or could expose us to patent infringement liability.
 
Although we have entered into a settlement agreement designed to prevent the parties to the agreement from asserting infringement and other specified claims against our Empatic product candidate in the United States, if an acceptable settlement of foreign patent rights cannot be reached, or our efforts to assert patent rights outside of the Unites States prove unsuccessful, we could be prevented from marketing and selling our Empatic product in foreign countries.
 
On June 12, 2004, we jointly filed a lawsuit with Duke, against Elan Corporation, plc, Elan Pharma International Ltd. and Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which we refer to collectively as Elan, Eisai, Inc. and Eisai Co., Ltd., which we refer to together as Eisai, and Julianne E. Jennings, a former employee of Elan, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, Durham Division, to resolve a dispute over rights in an invention relating to the use of zonisamide to treat obesity. We alleged in this lawsuit that scientists at Duke made the invention, and that Elan improperly used information supplied by the Duke scientists to file a U.S. patent application on the invention, in which Ms. Jennings (then an Elan product manager) is named as the sole inventor. This patent application was later assigned by Elan to Eisai. Duke also filed a U.S. patent application on the invention at issue, which patent application is exclusively licensed to us. On December 14, 2006, we, Elan, Eisai, Duke and Ms. Jennings entered into a settlement agreement to settle the lawsuit. Upon execution of the settlement agreement, the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice.
 
Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the parties have, subject to limitations set forth in the agreement, released each other from all claims and demands arising under the laws of the United States or any state within the United States existing as of the date of the settlement agreement that arise out of or relate to the lawsuit or the specified Duke and Eisai patent applications. The releases do not apply to the parties’ rights


29