Joon Lee: Hey. Thanks for taking our questions and the updates. In the press release, you mentioned potential for up to four NDAs over the next 12 months to 18 months. I’m assuming that it also includes narcolepsy. And if so, is SYMPHONY and the Phase 2 sufficient to file? And I have a follow-up.
Herriot Tabuteau: Thank you for the question. Yes, we do believe that SYMPHONY and Phase 2 trial will be sufficient to file assuming that SYMPHONY is the positive site. (ph)
Joon Lee: Great. And regarding the Sunosi deal, at a high level, it looks like you were able to monetize the European rights at a very attractive valuation, possibly more than what you had at for the worldwide rights, what do you think change that allowed you to extract such value?
Herriot Tabuteau: Well, I think that we’ve felt strongly about the potential for Sunosi and the overall value of the product. This transaction, the ex-U.S. licensing it reflects the value of the product. So it’s consistent with our perspective. What our strategy always has been and what we communicated with regards to the potential of the product.
Operator: Our next question is from the line of Joseph Thome with Cowen & Company. Please proceed with your question.
Joseph Thome: Hi, there. Good morning, and thank you for taking our questions. Maybe the first one, just a clarification on the Auvelity number that you gave earlier, that 13,700 new patients was that as of last Friday or what was the cutoff date for that? And then second was the — we did see the ANDA for TEVA on Auvelity. If you can just give us overall thoughts on your strength of the 2034 and 2040 patents I know they’re only challenges in 2040, but what are next steps here? And how does the company think about that? And then I’ll have a more great quick follow-up. Thanks.
Lori Englebert: Yes. Hi, Joseph. Thanks for the question on the cutoff date that would be as of the last reporting week, which is February 17.
Herriot Tabuteau: And you cut-off, from the second part of the question.
Joseph Thome: Yeah. So just in terms of — we saw the ANDA submission from TEVA challenging those 2040 patents. So what are sort of the next steps in terms of litigation or in terms of potential settlement and maybe if you could just comment on your confidence in the strength of the 2040 and the 2034 patents for Auvelity?
Herriot Tabuteau: Okay. So Hunter, our GC will take that.
Hunter Murdock: Hi. I’m €“ Nice to see you. I’m Hunter Murdock, the company’s General Counsel. So as we’ve previously announced earlier this month, we did receive the paragraph note — 4 notice from Teva relating to Auvelity. The receipt of the letter was normal, with an expected part of the Hatch Waxman process. And to get to your question, it’s no way indicative of the quality of our IP portfolio, which we’re extremely proud of. Under the Hatch Waxman Act, we have 45 days of final wall street against Teva, if we wish to invoke the 30-month regulatory stay, and we’re carefully analyzing Teva’s Paragraph 4 notes right now. We’re carefully evaluating our next steps. I’ll not even provide much additional commentary regarding the notice or the steps you may delighted substantial for future legal proceedings.
Joseph Thome: Great. Thank you. And then just really quickly, I know you mentioned that for narcolepsy, the Phase 2 and the Phase 3 would be sufficient on an efficacy standpoint. Would you need an additional open-label safety experience? And will you have that necessary exposure once this trial reads out? Thank you.
Herriot Tabuteau: We do have the label safety extension trial in on. So that will be — that safety experience will be part of the filing. As a reminder, in conjunction with our licensing deal with Pfizer did get the safety data, which is both the safety experience, which is extensive with the molecule, that will also be part — should get success.
Joseph Thome: Great. Thank you very much.
Operator: Thank you. Our next question is from the line of David Hoang with SBMC. Please proceed with your questions.
