CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS INC

Teva Litigation

In February 2018, we received a Paragraph IV Notice Letter advising that Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”) had submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) to the FDA seeking authorization to manufacture and sell a generic version of Korlym prior to the expiration of patents related to Korlym that are listed in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (the “Orange Book”). In March 2018, we filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (“D.N.J.”) against Teva for infringement of our patents. In August 2020, Teva received final approval from the FDA for its ANDA in accordance with the Hatch-Waxman Act. In May 2019, Teva submitted to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) a petition for post-grant review (“PGR”) of U.S. Patent No. 10,195,214 (the “’214 patent”). The PTAB agreed to initiate the PGR, and in November 2020, issued a decision upholding the validity of the ’214 patent in its entirety, which decision the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals upheld. This matter is closed. In D.N.J., the parties completed briefing on cross-motions for summary judgment regarding infringement of the ’214 patent in July 2021. On February 27, 2023, the Court denied both motions without prejudice.

The patents currently at issue are the ʼ214 patent and U.S. Patent No. 10,842,800 (the “’800 patent”). Trial was held from September 26, 2023 through September 28, 2023 before Judge Renee Marie Bumb. On December 29, 2023, Judge Bumb issued a ruling finding that Teva’s proposed generic product would not infringe either the ‘214 or ‘800 patent. We have appealed that decision to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Teva has announced the launch of its generic product.

We will vigorously enforce our intellectual property rights relating to Korlym but cannot predict the outcome of these matters.

Hikma ANDA Litigation and Settlement

In February 2021, we received a Paragraph IV Notice Letter advising that Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. (“Hikma”) had submitted an ANDA to the FDA seeking authorization to manufacture, use or sell a generic version of Korlym in the United States. In March 2021, we filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Hikma for infringement of the ’214 patent, U.S. Patent No. 10,500,216, the ’800 patent and U.S. Patent Nos. 10,842,801.

On December 7, 2022, we entered into an agreement with Hikma resolving this litigation. Pursuant to the agreement, we have granted Hikma the right to sell a generic version of Korlym in the United States beginning October 1, 2034 or earlier under circumstances customary for settlement agreements of this type, including following the start of Teva's sales of a generic product. As required by law, we submitted the settlement agreement to the United States Federal Trade Commission and the United States Department of Justice for review.

Other Matters

In March 2019, a purported securities class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by Nicholas Melucci (Melucci v. Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated, et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-01372-LHK) (the “Melucci litigation”). The complaint named us and certain of our executive officers as defendants asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and alleges that the defendants made false and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose adverse facts about our business, operations and prospects. The complaint asserts a putative class period extending from August 2, 2017 to February 5, 2019 and seeks unspecified monetary relief, interest and attorneys’ fees. In October 2019, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The lead plaintiff’s consolidated complaint was filed in December 2019. With respect to these allegations, we have stated, from the beginning, that we have done nothing wrong.

On February 8, 2023, we reached an agreement in principle (the “Proposed Settlement”) to resolve all claims in the Melucci litigation. Under the Proposed Settlement, we have agreed to make a one-time payment of $14.0 million, which will be covered in full by our insurers. The Court granted preliminary approval of the Proposed Settlement on January 4, 2024, following which we paid $14.0 million into escrow. Our insurers reimbursed us in full. The Proposed Settlement does not include admission of liability on our part. The Proposed Settlement is subject to the final approval of the Court. The Court has issued its preliminary approval and has scheduled a hearing with respect to final approval on June 6, 2024.

In September 2019, a purported shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware by Lauren Williams, captioned Lauren Williams v. G. Leonard Baker, et al., Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-01830. The complaint named our board of directors, Chief Executive Officer and current Chief Business Officer as defendants, and us as nominal defendant. The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty, violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, insider selling, misappropriation of insider information and waste of corporate assets and seeks damages in an amount to be proved at trial. In October 2019, this action was stayed pending a resolution of our motions to dismiss the Melucci litigation. In December 2020, the case was further stayed pending a resolution of our motion to dismiss the third amended complaint in the Melucci litigation. In September 2021, the case was further stayed pending a resolution of the Melucci litigation.

In December 2019, a second purported shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware by Jeweltex Pension Plan, captioned Jeweltex Pension Plan v. James N. Wilson, et al., Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-02308. The complaint named our board of directors, Chief Executive Officer and current Chief Business Officer as defendants, and us as nominal defendant. The complaint alleges causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, waste of corporate assets, contribution and indemnification, aiding and abetting, and gross mismanagement. The complaint seeks damages in an amount to be proved at trial. In April 2020, this action was stayed pending a resolution of our motions to dismiss the Melucci litigation. In December 2020, the case was further stayed pending a resolution of our motion to dismiss the third amended complaint in the Melucci litigation. In September 2021, the case was further stayed pending a resolution of the Melucci litigation.

In January 2022, a purported shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery by Joel B. Ritchie, captioned Joel B. Ritchie v. G. Leonard Baker, et al., Case No. 2022-0102-SG. The complaint named our Board of Directors, Chief Executive Officer, current Chief Business Officer and President of Corcept Endocrinology as defendants, and us as nominal defendant. The complaint alleges a single cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks damages in an amount to be proved at trial. In April 2022, the case was further stayed pending a resolution of the Melucci litigation.

As settlement of the Melucci litigation advances, we expect all stays of the above-described derivative actions to be lifted and for litigation to commence.

We will respond vigorously to the above allegations but cannot predict the outcome of these matters.

In November 2021, we received a records subpoena from the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey (the “NJ USAO”) pursuant to Section 248 of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) seeking information relating to the sale and promotion of Korlym, our relationships with and payments to health care professionals who can prescribe or recommend Korlym and prior authorizations and reimbursement for Korlym. The NJ USAO has informed us that it is investigating whether any criminal or civil violations by us occurred in connection with the matters referenced in the subpoena. It has also informed us that it does not currently consider us a defendant but rather an entity whose conduct is within the scope of the government’s investigation.

In addition to the above-described matters, we are involved from time-to-time in other legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of our business. Although the outcome of any such matters and the amount, if any, of our liability with respect to them cannot be predicted with certainty, we do not believe that they will have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial position.