CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS INC

Teva Patent 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”). In November 2020, the PTAB issued a decision upholding the validity of the ’214 patent in its entirety, which decision the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld. This matter is closed.

The patents currently at issue in the D.N.J matter 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 ruled that Teva’s proposed generic product would not infringe either the ’214 or ’800 patent. We have appealed that ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Teva launched its generic product in January 2024.

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

Antitrust Litigation

On June 13, 2024, Teva filed a complaint in the Northern District of California, captioned Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Corcept Therapeutics, Inc., et al. (N.D. Cal.), Case No. 3:24-cv-03567-BLF (the “Teva Antitrust Litigation”). This lawsuit names Corcept and Optime Care, Inc. (“Optime”), our single specialty pharmacy that dispenses Korlym and the authorized generic version of Korlym and performs related pharmacy and patient support services, as defendants. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that Corcept has violated federal and state laws related to antitrust and unfair business practices.

On August 26, 2024, Corcept and Optime filed motions to dismiss the complaint. On September 13, 2024, Teva filed a First Amended Complaint, and on October 14, 2024, Corcept and Optime moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint.

On February 10, 2025, several named plaintiffs filed a complaint against Corcept in the Alameda County Superior Court for the State of California, captioned, Aetna Inc., Health Care Service Corporation, Humana Inc. and Molina Healthcare Inc. vs. Corcept Therapeutics, Inc., Case No. 25CV110493. This lawsuit names Corcept as the sole defendant and includes allegations substantially similar to those made in the Teva Antitrust Litigation. Corcept’s response to the Complaint is due on March 17, 2025.

Other Litigation

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 alleged that the defendants made false and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose adverse facts about our business, operations and prospects. The complaint asserted a putative class period extending from August 2, 2017 to February 5, 2019 and sought unspecified monetary relief, interest and attorneys’ fees. On June 6, 2024, Judge James Donato of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted final approval of a settlement resolving all claims in the Melucci litigation (the “Melucci Settlement”). As previously disclosed, the Melucci Settlement required us to make a one-time payment of $14 million for which our insurers reimbursed us in full. On September 6, 2024, Judge Donato approved the Plan of Allocation for payment of the settlement funds to eligible members of the class of plaintiffs. This matter is closed.

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. A second nearly identical lawsuit was filed in December 2019 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. These complaints named the then-existing members of our board of directors, our Chief Executive Officer and our current Chief Business Officer as defendants, and Corcept as a nominal defendant. The complaints allege 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 seek damages in an amount to be proved at trial. These actions had been stayed pending resolution of the Melucci litigation. On June 21, 2024, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware lifted the stays on the Williams and Jeweltex cases and consolidated these two cases into one case.

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 certain members of our Board of Directors, our Chief Executive Officer, our current Chief Business Officer and our President of Corcept Endocrinology as defendants, and Corcept 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. On March 22, 2024, the Court lifted a previously-entered stay, which had been pending the resolution of the Melucci litigation, and on May 3, 2024, we filed a Motion to Dismiss this complaint. We cannot predict when the Court will rule on this motion.

Given the overlapping allegations in these shareholder derivative actions, we and the individual defendants have filed a One Forum Motion in both the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and the Delaware Court of Chancery requesting that the Courts coordinate to determine in which jurisdiction (Federal or Chancery Court) these matters should first proceed. The matters pending in the Federal Court have been stayed pending the Chancery Court’s ruling on our Motion to Dismiss.

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

Records Subpoena

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.