MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Petitioner Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. (“petitioner” or “Acorda”) brings this petition under the Convention for the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of June 10, 1958 (the “New York Convention”), 21 U.S.T. 2517, 330 U.N.T.S. 38, and the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. §§10-12, 201-208, to confirm in part and modify in part an award of $16,554,267 plus interest and costs (the “Award”) issued in an arbitration between Acorda and Alkermes PLC (“respondent” or “Alkermes”). See ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”). While Acorda believes that the Tribunal’s “core rulings were indisputably correct” and should be confirmed, Acorda claims that the Tribunal manifestly disregarded the law in its damages analysis, resulting in an improper damages reduction of $65,629,716. See ECF No. 3 (“Pet. Br.”) at 7. For the reasons stated below, Acorda’s petition to modify the Award in part is denied and the Award is confirmed in its entirety. BACKGROUND A. Factual Background 1. Dispute Concerning Royalty Payments This case arises from a dispute concerning royalty payments owed under two agreements — the Amended and Restated License Agreement (the “License Agreement”) and the Supply Agreement (collectively, the “Agreements”) — between Acorda and Elan Corporation, PLC, the predecessor in interest to Alkermes, which were executed in 2003. See Pet. 9; ECF Nos. 6-2, 6-3. Acorda is the developer of Ampyra, a medication to improve walking in people with multiple sclerosis. See Pet 9. Alkermes was the owner of the now-expired patent, U.S. Patent No. 5,540,938 (the “’938 Patent”), “which covered the sustained release of dalfampridine, the active pharmaceutical ingredient in Ampyra.” Pet 10. Pursuant to the Agreements, Alkermes agreed to license the ’938 Patent to Acorda and manufacture Ampyra exclusively for Acorda. Pet
9, 10. In exchange, Acorda agreed to pay Alkermes a “specified royalty rate” of 18 percent and to “purchase a minimum percentage of Ampyra from Alkermes.” Pet 9. The 18 percent royalty rate was split between the License Agreement, which provided for a 10 percent royalty, and the Supply Agreement, which provided for an 8 percent royalty. See Pet. Br. at 10. After the ’938 Patent expired in July 2018, Acorda contended that “the expiration of the ’938 Patent, at the very least, altered the Agreements’ royalty provisions” and “therefore sought a reduction in the price it was paying to Alkermes for future orders of Ampyra.” See Pet 11. Alkermes disagreed. See Pet. Br. at 10. However, Acorda never terminated the Agreements and continued to pay royalties to Alkermes without protest until July 2020. See id. at 8. At that point, Acorda formally objected to its ongoing royalty charges under the License Agreement on the basis that those payments violated Brulotte v. Thys Co., 379 U.S. 29 (1964), which held that post-expiry patent leveraging is improper. See id. at 6, 11; ECF No. 20 (“Resp. Opp.”) at 7. Acorda’s objection did not reference the Supply Agreement. See Resp. Opp. at 7. 2. The Arbitration i. Pleadings On July 28, 2020, Acorda commenced arbitration proceedings against Alkermes in the American Arbitration Association’s (“AAA”) International Centre for Dispute Resolution (“IDCR”) Tribunal in New York, New York. See Pet.
