Contingencies and Environmental Liabilities	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies and Environmental Liabilities	Contingencies and Environmental Liabilities The Company is involved in various claims and legal proceedings of a nature considered normal to its business, including product liability, intellectual property, and commercial litigation, as well as certain additional matters including governmental and environmental matters. In the opinion of the Company, it is unlikely that the resolution of these matters will be material to the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Given the nature of the litigation discussed below and the complexities involved in these matters, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss for such matters until the Company knows, among other factors, (i) what claims, if any, will survive dispositive motion practice, (ii) the extent of the claims, including the size of any potential class, particularly when damages are not specified or are indeterminate, (iii) how the discovery process will affect the litigation, (iv) the settlement posture of the other parties to the litigation and (v) any other factors that may have a material effect on the litigation. The Company records accruals for contingencies when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. These accruals are adjusted periodically as assessments change or additional information becomes available. For product liability claims, a portion of the overall accrual is actuarially determined and considers such factors as past experience, number of claims reported and estimates of claims incurred but not yet reported. Individually significant contingent losses are accrued when probable and reasonably estimable. Legal defense costs expected to be incurred in connection with a loss contingency are accrued when probable and reasonably estimable. The Company’s decision to obtain insurance coverage is dependent on market conditions, including cost and availability, existing at the time such decisions are made. The Company has evaluated its risks and has determined that the cost of obtaining product liability insurance outweighs the likely benefits of the coverage that is available and, as such, has no insurance for most product liabilities effective August 1, 2004. Product Liability Litigation Fosamax As previously disclosed, Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the United States involving Fosamax (Fosamax Litigation). As of December 31, 2017, approximately 4,085 cases are filed and pending against Merck in either federal or state court. In approximately 15 of these actions, plaintiffs allege, among other things, that they have suffered osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), generally subsequent to invasive dental procedures, such as tooth extraction or dental implants and/or delayed healing, in association with the use of Fosamax. In addition, plaintiffs in approximately 4,070 of these actions generally allege that they sustained femur fractures and/or other bone injuries (Femur Fractures) in association with the use of Fosamax. Cases Alleging ONJ and/or Other Jaw Related Injuries In August 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) ordered that certain Fosamax product liability cases pending in federal courts nationwide should be transferred and consolidated into one multidistrict litigation (Fosamax ONJ MDL) for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. In December 2013, Merck reached an agreement in principle with the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee (PSC) in the Fosamax ONJ MDL to resolve pending ONJ cases not on appeal in the Fosamax ONJ MDL and in the state courts for an aggregate amount of $27.7 million. Merck and the PSC subsequently formalized the terms of this agreement in a Master Settlement Agreement (ONJ Master Settlement Agreement) that was executed in April 2014 and included over 1,200 plaintiffs. In July 2014, Merck elected to proceed with the ONJ Master Settlement Agreement at a reduced funding level of $27.3 million since the participation level was approximately 95%. Merck has fully funded the ONJ Master Settlement Agreement and the escrow agent under the agreement has been making settlement payments to qualifying plaintiffs. The ONJ Master Settlement Agreement has no effect on the cases alleging Femur Fractures discussed below. Discovery is currently ongoing in some of the approximately 15 remaining ONJ cases that are pending in various federal and state courts and the Company intends to defend against these lawsuits. Cases Alleging Femur Fractures In March 2011, Merck submitted a Motion to Transfer to the JPML seeking to have all federal cases alleging Femur Fractures consolidated into one multidistrict litigation for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. The Motion to Transfer was granted in May 2011, and all federal cases involving allegations of Femur Fracture have been or will be transferred to a multidistrict litigation in the District of New Jersey (Femur Fracture MDL). In the only bellwether case tried to date in the Femur Fracture MDL, Glynn v. Merck, the jury returned a verdict in Merck’s favor. In addition, in June 2013, the Femur Fracture MDL court granted Merck’s motion for judgment as a matter of law in the Glynn case and held that the plaintiff’s failure to warn claim was preempted by federal law. The Glynn decision was not appealed by plaintiff. In August 2013, the Femur Fracture MDL court entered an order requiring plaintiffs in the Femur Fracture MDL to show cause why those cases asserting claims for a femur fracture injury that took place prior to September 14, 2010, should not be dismissed based on the court’s preemption decision in the Glynn case. Pursuant to the show cause order, in March 2014, the Femur Fracture MDL court dismissed with prejudice approximately 650 cases on preemption grounds. Plaintiffs in approximately 515 of those cases appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Third Circuit). The Femur Fracture MDL court also dismissed without prejudice another approximately 510 cases pending plaintiffs’ appeal of the preemption ruling to the Third Circuit. On March 22, 2017, the Third Circuit issued a decision reversing the Femur Fracture MDL court’s preemption ruling and remanding the appealed cases back to the Femur Fracture MDL court. On April 5, 2017, Merck filed a petition seeking a rehearing on the Third Circuit’s March 22, 2017 decision, which was denied on April 24, 2017. Merck filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on August 22, 2017, seeking review of the Third Circuit’s decision. On December 4, 2017, the Supreme Court invited the Solicitor General to file a brief in the case expressing the views of the United States. In addition, in June 2014, the Femur Fracture MDL court granted Merck summary judgment in the Gaynor v. Merck case and found that Merck’s updates in January 2011 to the Fosamax label regarding atypical femur fractures were adequate as a matter of law and that Merck adequately communicated those changes. The plaintiffs in Gaynor did not appeal the Femur Fracture MDL court’s findings with respect to the adequacy of the 2011 label change but did appeal the dismissal of their case based on preemption grounds, and the Third Circuit subsequently reversed that dismissal in its March 22, 2017 decision. In August 2014, Merck filed a motion requesting that the Femur Fracture MDL court enter a further order requiring all plaintiffs in the Femur Fracture MDL who claim that the 2011 Fosamax label is inadequate and the proximate cause of their alleged injuries to show cause why their cases should not be dismissed based on the court’s preemption decision and its ruling in the Gaynor case. In November 2014, the court granted Merck’s motion and entered the requested show cause order. No plaintiffs responded to or appealed the November 2014 show cause order. As of December 31, 2017, approximately 530 cases were pending in the Femur Fracture MDL following the reinstatement of the cases that had been on appeal to the Third Circuit. The 510 cases dismissed without prejudice that were also pending the final resolution of the aforementioned appeal have not yet been reinstated. As of December 31, 2017, approximately 2,750 cases alleging Femur Fractures have been filed in New Jersey state court and are pending before Judge James Hyland in Middlesex County. The parties selected an initial group of 30 cases to be reviewed through fact discovery. Two additional groups of 50 cases each to be reviewed through fact discovery were selected in November 2013 and March 2014, respectively. A further group of 25 cases to be reviewed through fact discovery was selected by Merck in July 2015, and Merck has continued to select additional cases to be reviewed through fact discovery during 2016 and 2017. As of December 31, 2017, approximately 280 cases alleging Femur Fractures have been filed and are pending in California state court. All of the Femur Fracture cases filed in California state court have been coordinated before a single judge in Orange County, California. In March 2014, the court directed that a group of 10 discovery pool cases be reviewed through fact discovery and subsequently scheduled the Galper v. Merck case, which plaintiffs selected, as the first trial. The Galper trial began in February 2015 and the jury returned a verdict in Merck’s favor in April 2015, and plaintiff appealed that verdict to the California appellate court. Oral argument on plaintiff’s appeal in Galper was held in November 2016 and, on April 24, 2017, the California appellate court issued a decision affirming the lower court’s judgment in favor of Merck. The next Femur Fracture trial in California that was scheduled to begin in April 2016 was stayed at plaintiffs’ request and a new trial date has not been set. Additionally, there are five Femur Fracture cases pending in other state courts. Discovery is ongoing in the Femur Fracture MDL and in state courts where Femur Fracture cases are pending and the Company intends to defend against these lawsuits. Januvia/Janumet As previously disclosed, Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the United States involving Januvia and/or Janumet. As of December 31, 2017, Merck is aware of approximately 1,235 product user claims alleging generally that use of Januvia and/or Janumet caused the development of pancreatic cancer and other injuries. These complaints were filed in several different state and federal courts. Most of the claims were filed in a consolidated multidistrict litigation proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California called “In re Incretin-Based Therapies Products Liability Litigation” (MDL). The MDL includes federal lawsuits alleging pancreatic cancer due to use of the following medicines: Januvia, Janumet, Byetta and Victoza, the latter two of which are products manufactured by other pharmaceutical companies. The majority of claims not filed in the MDL were filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (California State Court). In November 2015, the MDL and California State Court - in separate opinions - granted summary judgment to defendants on grounds of preemption. Of the approximately 1,235 product user claims, these rulings resulted in the dismissal of approximately 1,100 product user claims. Plaintiffs appealed the MDL and California State Court preemption rulings. On November 28, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reversed the trial court’s ruling in the MDL and remanded for further proceedings. The Ninth Circuit did not address the substance of defendants’ preemption argument but instead ruled that the district court made various errors during discovery. Jurisdiction returned to U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on January 2, 2018. The preemption appeal in the California state court litigation has been fully briefed, but the court has not yet scheduled oral argument. As of December 31, 2017, seven product users have claims pending against Merck in state courts other than California state court, including four active product user claims pending in Illinois state court. On June 30, 2017, the Illinois trial court denied Merck’s motion for summary judgment on grounds of preemption. Merck sought permission to appeal that order on an interlocutory basis and was granted a stay of proceedings in the trial court. On September 19, 2017, an intermediate appellate court in Illinois denied Merck’s petition for interlocutory review. On October 20, 2017, Merck filed a petition with the Illinois Supreme Court, seeking leave to appeal the appellate court’s denial. The Illinois Supreme Court denied Merck’s petition for certiorari review and, instead, directed the appellate court to answer the certified question. As a result, proceedings in the trial court remain stayed and trials for certain of the product users in Illinois have been delayed. In addition to the claims noted above, the Company has agreed to toll the statute of limitations for approximately 50 additional claims. The Company intends to continue defending against these lawsuits. Propecia/Proscar As previously disclosed, Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the United States involving Propecia and/or Proscar. As of December 31, 2017, approximately 775 lawsuits have been filed by plaintiffs who allege that they have experienced persistent sexual side effects following cessation of treatment with Propecia and/or Proscar. Approximately 20 of the plaintiffs also allege that Propecia or Proscar has caused or can cause prostate cancer, testicular cancer or male breast cancer. The lawsuits have been filed in various federal courts and in state court in New Jersey. The federal lawsuits have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in a federal multidistrict litigation before Judge Brian Cogan of the Eastern District of New York. The matters pending in state court in New Jersey have been consolidated before Judge Hyland in Middlesex County. In addition, there is one matter pending in state court in California, one matter pending in state court in Ohio, and one matter on appeal in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. The Company intends to defend against these lawsuits. Governmental Proceedings As previously disclosed, the Company has learned that the Prosecution Office of Milan, Italy is investigating interactions between the Company’s Italian subsidiary, certain employees of the subsidiary and certain Italian health care providers. The Company understands that this is part of a larger investigation involving engagements between various health care companies and those health care providers. The Company is cooperating with the investigation. As previously disclosed, the United Kingdom (UK) Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) issued a Statement of Objections against the Company and MSD Sharp & Dohme Limited (MSD UK) on May 23, 2017. In the Statement of Objections, the CMA alleges that MSD UK abused a dominant position through a discount program for Remicade over the period from March 2015 to February 2016. The Company and MSD UK are contesting the CMA’s allegations. As previously disclosed, the Company has received an investigative subpoena from the California Insurance Commissioner’s Fraud Bureau (Bureau) seeking information from January 1, 2007 to the present related to the pricing and promotion of Cubicin. The Bureau is investigating whether Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which the Company acquired in 2015, unlawfully induced the presentation of false claims for Cubicin to private insurers under the California Insurance Code False Claims Act. The Company is cooperating with the investigation. As previously disclosed, the Company has received a civil investigative demand from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York that requests information relating to the Company’s contracts with, services from and payments to pharmacy benefit managers with respect to Maxalt and Levitra from January 1, 2006 to the present. The Company is cooperating with the investigation. As previously disclosed, the Company has received a subpoena from the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on behalf of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland and the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice that requests information relating to the Company’s marketing of Singulair and Dulera Inhalation Aerosol and certain of its other marketing activities from January 1, 2006 to the present. The Company is cooperating with the investigation. As previously disclosed, the Company’s subsidiaries in China have received and may continue to receive inquiries regarding their operations from various Chinese governmental agencies. Some of these inquiries may be related to matters involving other multinational pharmaceutical companies, as well as Chinese entities doing business with such companies. The Company’s policy is to cooperate with these authorities and to provide responses as appropriate. As previously disclosed, from time to time, the Company receives inquiries and is the subject of preliminary investigation activities from competition and other governmental authorities in markets outside the United States. These authorities may include regulators, administrative authorities, and law enforcement and other similar officials, and these preliminary investigation activities may include site visits, formal or informal requests or demands for documents or materials, inquiries or interviews and similar matters. Certain of these preliminary inquiries or activities may lead to the commencement of formal proceedings. Should those proceedings be determined adversely to the Company, monetary fines and/or remedial undertakings may be required. Commercial and Other Litigation K-DUR Antitrust Litigation In June 1997 and January 1998, Schering-Plough Corporation (Schering-Plough) settled patent litigation with Upsher-Smith, Inc. (Upsher-Smith) and ESI Lederle, Inc. (Lederle), respectively, relating to generic versions of Schering-Plough’s long-acting potassium chloride product supplement used by cardiac patients, for which Lederle and Upsher-Smith had filed abbreviated New DrugApplications (NDA). Putative class and non-class action suits were then filed on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of K-DUR against Schering-Plough, Upsher-Smith and Lederle and were consolidated in a multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In February 2016, the court denied the Company’s motion for summary judgment relating to all of the direct purchasers’ claims concerning the settlement with Upsher-Smith and granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment relating to all of the direct purchasers’ claims concerning the settlement with Lederle. As previously disclosed, in February 2017, Merck and Upsher-Smith reached a settlement in principle with the class of direct purchasers and the opt-outs to the class. Merck will contribute approximately $80 million in the aggregate towards the overall settlement. On April 5, 2017, the claims of the opt-outs were dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a written settlement agreement with those parties. On May 15, 2017, Merck and the class executed a settlement agreement, which received preliminary approval from the court on May 23, 2017. On October 5, 2017, the court entered a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal approving the settlement agreement with the direct purchaser class and dismissing the claims of the class with prejudice. Zetia Antitrust Litigation In May 2010, Schering Corporation (Schering) and MSP Singapore Company LLC (MSP) settled patent litigation with Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc., USA, and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (together, Glenmark) relating to a generic version of Zetia, a pharmaceutical product containing ezetimibe used by patients with high cholesterol, for which Glenmark had filed an abbreviated NDA. In January and February 2018, putative class action suits were filed on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of Zetia against Merck, MSD, Schering-Plough, Schering, MSP, and Glenmark in the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern District of Virginia and the Eastern District of New York. These suits claim violations of federal and state antitrust laws, as well as other state statutory and common law causes of action. These suits seek unspecified damages. Sales Force Litigation As previously disclosed, in May 2013, Ms. Kelli Smith filed a complaint against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of herself and a putative class of female sales representatives and a putative sub-class of female sales representatives with children, claiming (a) discriminatory policies and practices in selection, promotion and advancement, (b) disparate pay, (c) differential treatment, (d) hostile work environment and (e) retaliation under federal and state discrimination laws. Plaintiffs sought and were granted leave to file an amended complaint. In January 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding four additional named plaintiffs. In October 2014, the court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss or strike the class claims as premature. In September 2015, plaintiffs filed additional motions, including a motion for conditional certification under the Equal Pay Act; a motion to amend the pleadings seeking to add ERISA and constructive discharge claims and a Company subsidiary as a named defendant; and a motion for equitable relief. Merck filed papers in opposition to the motions. On April 27, 2016, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification but denied plaintiffs’ motions to extend the liability period for their Equal Pay Act claims back to June 2009. As a result, the liability period will date back to April 2012, at the earliest. On April 29, 2016, the Magistrate Judge granted plaintiffs’ request to amend the complaint to add the following: (i) a Company subsidiary as a corporate defendant; (ii) an ERISA claim and (iii) an individual constructive discharge claim for one of the named plaintiffs. Approximately 700 individuals have opted-in to this action; the opt-in period has closed. On August 1, 2017, plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. This motion seeks to certify a Title VII pay discrimination class and also seeks final collective action certification of plaintiffs’ Equal Pay Act claim. The parties are currently engaged in motion practice before the court. Qui Tam Litigation As previously disclosed, on June 21, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania unsealed a complaint that has been filed against the Company under the federal False Claims Act by two former employees alleging, among other things, that the Company defrauded the U.S. government by falsifying data in connection with a clinical study conducted on the mumps component of the Company’s M-M-R II vaccine. The complaint alleges the fraud took place between 1999 and 2001. The U.S. government had the right to participate in and take over the prosecution of this lawsuit, but notified the court that it declined to exercise that right. The two former employees are pursuing the lawsuit without the involvement of the U.S. government. In addition, as previously disclosed, two putative class action lawsuits on behalf of direct purchasers of the M‑M‑R II vaccine, which charge that the Company misrepresented the efficacy of the M-M-R II vaccine in violation of federal antitrust laws and various state consumer protection laws, are pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In September 2014, the court denied Merck’s motion to dismiss the False Claims Act suit and granted in part and denied in part its motion to dismiss the then-pending antitrust suit. As a result, both the False Claims Act suit and the antitrust suits have proceeded into discovery. The Company intends to defend against these lawsuits. Merck KGaA Litigation In January 2016, to protect its long-established brand rights in the United States, the Company filed a lawsuit against Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany (KGaA), operating as the EMD Group in the United States, alleging it improperly uses the name “Merck” in the United States. KGaA has filed suit against the Company in France, the UK, Germany, Switzerland, Mexico, and India alleging breach of the parties’ co-existence agreement, unfair competition and/or trademark infringement. In December 2015, the Paris Court of First Instance issued a judgment finding that certain activities by the Company directed towards France did not constitute trademark infringement and unfair competition while other activities were found to infringe. The Company and KGaA appealed the decision, and the appeal was heard in May 2017. In June 2017, the French appeals court held that certain of the activities by the Company directed to France constituted unfair competition or trademark infringement and no further appeal was pursued. In January 2016, the UK High Court issued a judgment finding that the Company had breached the co-existence agreement and infringed KGaA’s trademark rights as a result of certain activities directed towards the UK based on use of the word MERCK on promotional and information activity. As noted in the UK decision, this finding was not based on the Company’s use of the sign MERCK in connection with the sale of products or any material pharmaceutical business transacted in the UK. The Company and KGaA have both appealed this decision, and the appeal was heard in June 2017. In November 2017, the UK Court of Appeals affirmed the decision on the co-existence agreement and remitted for re-hearing issues of trade mark infringement, validity and the relief to which KGaA would be entitled. Patent Litigation From time to time, generic manufacturers of pharmaceutical products file abbreviated NDAs with the FDA seeking to market generic forms of the Company’s products prior to the expiration of relevant patents owned by the Company. To protect its patent rights, the Company may file patent infringement lawsuits against such generic companies. Certain products of the Company currently involved in such patent infringement litigation in the United States include Noxafil and NuvaRing. Similar lawsuits defending the Company’s patent rights may exist in other countries. The Company intends to vigorously defend its patents, which it believes are valid, against infringement by companies attempting to market products prior to the expiration of such patents. As with any litigation, there can be no assurance of the outcomes, which, if adverse, could result in significantly shortened periods of exclusivity for these products and, with respect to products acquired through acquisitions, potentially significant intangible asset impairment charges. Noxafil — In August 2015, the Company filed a lawsuit against Actavis Laboratories Fl, Inc. (Actavis) in the United States in respect of that company’s application to the FDA seeking pre-patent expiry approval to sell a generic version of Noxafil. In October 2017, the district court held the patent valid and infringed. Actavis has appealed this decision. In March 2016, the Company filed a lawsuit against Roxane Laboratories, Inc. (Roxane) in the United States in respect of that company’s application to the FDA seeking pre-patent expiry approval to sell a generic version of Noxafil. In October 2017, the parties reached a settlement whereby Roxane can launch its generic version upon expiry of the patent, or earlier under certain conditions. In February 2016, the Company filed a lawsuit against Par Sterile Products LLC, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. and Par Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc. (collectively, Par) in the United States in respect of that company’s application to the FDA seeking pre-patent expiry approval to sell a generic version of Noxafil injection. In October 2016, the parties reached a settlement whereby Par can launch its generic version in January 2023, or earlier under certain conditions. Nasonex — Nasonex lost market exclusivity in the United States in 2016. Prior to that, in April 2015, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (Apotex) in respect of Apotex’s marketed product that the Company believed was infringing. In January 2018, the Company and Apotex settled this matter with Apotex agreeing to pay the Company $115 million plus certain other consideration. NuvaRing — In December 2013, the Company filed a lawsuit against a subsidiary of Allergan plc in the United States in respect of that company’s application to the FDA seeking pre-patent expiry approval to sell a generic version of NuvaRing. The trial in this matter was held in January 2016. In August 2016, the district court ruled that the patent was invalid and the Company appealed this decision. In October 2017, the appellate court reversed the district court decision and found the patent to be valid. The case was remanded and the district court enjoined the defendant from marketing its generic version of NuvaRing until the patent expires. In September 2015, the Company filed a lawsuit against Teva Pharma in the United States in respect of that company’s application to the FDA seeking pre-patent expiry approval to sell a generic version of NuvaRing. Based on its ruling in the Allergan plc matter, the district court dismissed the Company’s lawsuit in December 2016. Following the appellate reversal in the Allergan plc matter, the defendant has agreed to be enjoined from marketing its generic version of NuvaRing until the patent expires. Anti-PD-1 Antibody Patent Oppositions and Litigation As previously disclosed, Ono Pharmaceutical Co. (Ono) has a European patent (EP 1 537 878) (’878) that broadly claims the use of an anti-PD-1 antibody, such as the Company’s immunotherapy, Keytruda, for the treatment of cancer. Ono has previously licensed its commercial rights to an anti-PD-1 antibody to Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) in certain markets. BMS and Ono also own European Patent EP 2 161 336 (’336) that, as granted, broadly claimed anti-PD-1 antibodies that could include Keytruda. As previously disclosed, the Company and BMS and Ono were engaged in worldwide litigation, including in the United States, over the validity and infringement of the ’878 patent, the ’336 patent and their equivalents. In January 2017, the Company announced that it had entered into a settlement and license agreement with BMS and Ono resolving the worldwide patent infringement litigation related to the use of an anti-PD-1 antibody for the treatment of cancer, such as Keytruda. Under the settlement and license agreement, the Company made a one-time payment of $625 million (which was recorded as an expense in the Company’s 2016 financial results) to BMS and will pay royalties on the worldwide sales of Keytruda for a non-exclusive license to market Keytruda in any market in which it is approved. For global net sales of Keytruda, the Company will pay royalties of 6.5% of net sales occurring from January 1, 2017 through and including December 31, 2023; and 2.5% of net sales occurring from January 1, 2024 through and including December 31, 2026. The parties also agreed to dismiss all claims worldwide in the relevant legal proceedings. In October 2015, PDL Biopharma (PDL) filed a lawsuit in the United States against the Company alleging that the manufacture of Keytruda infringed US Patent No. 5,693,761 (’761 patent), which expired in December 2014. This patent claims platform technology used in the creation and manufacture of recombinant antibodies and PDL is seeking damages for pre-expiry infringement of the ’761 patent. In April 2017, the parties reached a settlement pursuant to which, in exchange for a lump sum, PDL dismissed its lawsuit with prejudice and granted the Company a fully paid-up non-exclusive license to the ’761 patent. In July 2016, the Company filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States against Genentech and City of Hope seeking a ruling that US Patent No. 7,923,221 (Cabilly III patent), which claims platform technology used in the creation and manufacture of recombinant antibodies, is invalid and that Keytruda and bezlotoxumab do not infringe the Cabilly III patent. In July 2016, the Company also filed a petition in the USPTO for Inter Partes Review (IPR) of certain claims of US Patent No. 6,331,415 (Cabilly II patent), which claims platform technology used in the creation and manufacture of recombinant antibodies and is also owned by Genentech and City of Hope, as being invalid. In December 2016, the USPTO denied the petition but allowed the Company to join an IPR filed previously by another party. In May 2017, the parties reached a settlement pursuant to which the Company dismissed its lawsuit with prejudice and moved to terminate the IPR and Genentech and City of Hope granted the Company a fully paid-up non-exclusive license to the Cabilly II and Cabilly III patent. Gilead Patent Litigation and Opposition In August 2013, Gilead Sciences, Inc. (Gilead) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeking a declaration that two Company patents were invalid and not infringed by the sale of their two sofosbuvir containing products, Solvadi and Harvoni. The Company filed a counterclaim that the sale of these products did infringe these two patents and sought a reasonable royalty for the past, present and future sales of these products. In March 2016, at the conclusion of a jury trial, the patents were found to be not invalid and infringed. The jury awarded the Company $200 million as a royalty for sales of these products up to December 2015. After the conclusion of the jury trial, the court held a bench trial on the equitable defenses raised by Gilead. In June 2016, the court found for Gilead and determined that Merck could not collect the jury award and that the patents were unenforceable with respect to Gilead. The Company appealed the court’s decision. Gilead also asked the court to overturn the jury’s decision on validity. The court held a hearing on Gilead’s motion in August 2016, and the court subsequently rejected Gilead’s request, which Gilead appealed. A hearing on the combined appeals for this case was held on February 4, 2018. The Company will pay 20%, net of legal fees, of damages or royalties, if any, that it receives to Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The Company, through its Idenix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. subsidiary, has pending litigation against Gilead in the United States, the UK, Norway, Canada, Germany, France, and Australia based on different patent estates that would also be infringed by Gilead’s sales of these two products. Gilead opposed the European patent at the European Patent Office (EPO). Trial in the United States was held in December 2016 and the jury returned a verdict for the Company, awarding damages of $2.54 billion. The Company submitted post-trial motions, including on the issues of enhanced damages and future royalties. Gilead submitted post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law. A hearing on the motions was held in September 2017. Also, in September 2017, the court denied the Company’s motion on enhanced damages, granted its motion on prejudgment interest and deferred its motion on future royalties. In February 2018, the court granted Gilead’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and found the patent was invalid for a lack of enablement. The Company will appeal this decision. In Australia, the Company was initially unsuccessful and the Full Federal Court affirmed the lower court decision. The Company has sought leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia for further review. In Canada, the Company was initially unsuccessful and the Federal Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court decision The Company sought leave to the Supreme Court of Canada for further review. In the UK and Norway, the patent was held invalid and no further appeal was filed. The EPO opposition division revoked the European patent, and the Company appealed this decision. The cases in France and Germany have been stayed pending the final decision of the EPO. Other Litigation There are various other pending legal proceedings involving the Company, principally product liability and intellectual property lawsuits. While it is not feasible to predict the outcome of such proceedings, in the opinion of the Company, either the likelihood of loss is remote or any reasonably possible loss associated with the resolution of such proceedings is not expected to be material to the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows either individually or in the aggregate. Legal Defense Reserves Legal defense costs expected to be incurred in connection with a loss contingency are accrued when probable and reasonably estimable. Some of the significant factors considered in the review of these legal defense reserves are as follows: the actual costs incurred by the Company; the development of the Company’s legal defense strategy and structure in light of the scope of its litigation; the number of cases being brought against the Company; the costs and outcomes of completed trials and the most current information regarding anticipated timing, progression, and related costs of pre-trial activities and trials in the associated litigation. The amount of legal defense reserves as of December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016 of approximately $160 million and $185 million, respectively, represents the Company’s best estimate of the minimum amount of defense costs to be incurred in connection with its outstanding litigation; however, events such as additional trials and other events that could arise in the course of its litigation could affect the ultimate amount of legal defense costs to be incurred by the Company. The Company will continue to monitor its legal defense costs and review the adequacy of the associated reserves and may determine to increase the reserves at any time in the future if, based upon the factors set forth, it believes it would be appropriate to do so. Environmental Matters As previously disclosed, Merck’s facilities in Oss, the Netherlands, were inspected by the Province of Brabant (Province) pursuant to the Dutch Hazards of Major Accidents Decree and the sites’ environmental permits. The Province issued penalties for alleged violations of regulations governing preventing and managing accidents with hazardous substances, and the government also issued a fine for alleged environmental violations at one of the Oss facilities, which together totaled $235 thousand. The Company was subsequently advised that a criminal investigation had been initiated based upon certain of the issues that formed the basis of the administrative enforcement action by the Province. The Company intends to defend itself against any enforcement action that may result from this investigation. In May 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted an air compliance evaluation of the Company’s pharmaceutical manufacturing facility in Elkton, Virginia. As a result of the investigation, the Company was issued a Notice of Noncompliance and Show Cause Notification relating to certain federally enforceable requirements applicable to the Elkton facility. The Company has been advised by the EPA that enforcement action is no longer being pursued. The Company and its subsidiaries are parties to a number of proceedings brought under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, commonly known as Superfund, and other federal and state equivalents. These proceedings seek to require the operators of hazardous waste disposal facilities, transporters of waste to the sites and generators of hazardous waste disposed of at the sites to clean up the sites or to reimburse the government for cleanup costs. The Company has been made a party to these proceedings as an alleged generator of waste disposed of at the sites. In each case, the government alleges that the defendants are jointly and severally liable for the cleanup costs. Although joint and several liability is alleged, these proceedings are frequently resolved so that the allocation of cleanup costs among the parties more nearly reflects the relative contributions of the parties to the site situation. The Company’s potential liability varies greatly from site to site. For some sites the potential liability is de minimis and for others the final costs of cleanup have not yet been determined. While it is not feasible to predict the outcome of many of these proceedings brought by federal or state agencies or private litigants, in the opinion of the Company, such proceedings should not ultimately result in any liability which would have a material adverse effect on the financial position, results of operations, liquidity or capital resources of the Company. The Company has taken an active role in identifying and accruing for these costs and such amounts do not include any reduction for anticipated recoveries of cleanup costs from former site owners or operators or other recalcitrant potentially responsible parties. In management’s opinion, the liabilities for all environmental matters that are probable and reasonably estimable have been accrued and totaled $82 million and $83 million at December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively. These liabilities are undiscounted, do not consider potential recoveries from other parties and will be paid out over the periods of remediation for the applicable sites, which are expected to occur primarily over the next 15 years. Although it is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome of these matters, or the ultimate costs of remediation, management does not believe that any reasonably possible expenditures that may be incurred in excess of the liabilities accrued should exceed $63 million in the aggregate. Management also does not believe that these expenditures should result in a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, liquidity or capital resources for any year.

Contingencies and Environmental Liabilities

The Company is involved in various claims and legal proceedings of a nature considered normal to its business, including product liability, intellectual property, and commercial litigation, as well as certain additional matters including governmental and environmental matters. In the opinion of the Company, it is unlikely that the resolution of these matters will be material to the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Given the nature of the litigation discussed below and the complexities involved in these matters, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss for such matters until the Company knows, among other factors, (i) what claims, if any, will survive dispositive motion practice, (ii) the extent of the claims, including the size of any potential class, particularly when damages are not specified or are indeterminate, (iii) how the discovery process will affect the litigation, (iv) the settlement posture of the other parties to the litigation and (v) any other factors that may have a material effect on the litigation.

The Company records accruals for contingencies when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. These accruals are adjusted periodically as assessments change or additional information becomes available. For product liability claims, a portion of the overall accrual is actuarially determined and considers such factors as past experience, number of claims reported and estimates of claims incurred but not yet reported. Individually significant contingent losses are accrued when probable and reasonably estimable. Legal defense costs expected to be incurred in connection with a loss contingency are accrued when probable and reasonably estimable.

The Company’s decision to obtain insurance coverage is dependent on market conditions, including cost and availability, existing at the time such decisions are made. The Company has evaluated its risks and has determined that the cost of obtaining product liability insurance outweighs the likely benefits of the coverage that is available and, as such, has no insurance for most product liabilities effective August 1, 2004.

Product Liability Litigation

Fosamax

As previously disclosed, Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the United States involving Fosamax (Fosamax Litigation). As of December 31, 2017, approximately 4,085 cases are filed and pending against Merck in either federal or state court. In approximately 15 of these actions, plaintiffs allege, among other things, that they have suffered osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), generally subsequent to invasive dental procedures, such as tooth extraction or dental implants and/or delayed healing, in association with the use of Fosamax. In addition, plaintiffs in approximately 4,070 of these actions generally allege that they sustained femur fractures and/or other bone injuries (Femur Fractures) in association with the use of Fosamax.

Cases Alleging ONJ and/or Other Jaw Related Injuries

In August 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) ordered that certain Fosamax product liability cases pending in federal courts nationwide should be transferred and consolidated into one multidistrict litigation (Fosamax ONJ MDL) for coordinated pre-trial proceedings.

In December 2013, Merck reached an agreement in principle with the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee (PSC) in the Fosamax ONJ MDL to resolve pending ONJ cases not on appeal in the Fosamax ONJ MDL and in the state courts for an aggregate amount of $27.7 million. Merck and the PSC subsequently formalized the terms of this agreement in a Master Settlement Agreement (ONJ Master Settlement Agreement) that was executed in April 2014 and included over 1,200 plaintiffs. In July 2014, Merck elected to proceed with the ONJ Master Settlement Agreement at a reduced funding level of $27.3 million since the participation level was approximately 95%. Merck has fully funded the ONJ Master Settlement Agreement and the escrow agent under the agreement has been making settlement payments to qualifying plaintiffs. The ONJ Master Settlement Agreement has no effect on the cases alleging Femur Fractures discussed below.

Discovery is currently ongoing in some of the approximately 15 remaining ONJ cases that are pending in various federal and state courts and the Company intends to defend against these lawsuits.

Cases Alleging Femur Fractures

In March 2011, Merck submitted a Motion to Transfer to the JPML seeking to have all federal cases alleging Femur Fractures consolidated into one multidistrict litigation for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. The Motion to Transfer was granted in May 2011, and all federal cases involving allegations of Femur Fracture have been or will be transferred to a multidistrict litigation in the District of New Jersey (Femur Fracture MDL). In the only bellwether case tried to date in the Femur Fracture MDL, Glynn v. Merck, the jury returned a verdict in Merck’s favor. In addition, in June 2013, the Femur Fracture MDL court granted Merck’s motion for judgment as a matter of law in the Glynn case and held that the plaintiff’s failure to warn claim was preempted by federal law. The Glynn decision was not appealed by plaintiff.

In August 2013, the Femur Fracture MDL court entered an order requiring plaintiffs in the Femur Fracture MDL to show cause why those cases asserting claims for a femur fracture injury that took place prior to September 14, 2010, should not be dismissed based on the court’s preemption decision in the Glynn case. Pursuant to the show cause order, in March 2014, the Femur Fracture MDL court dismissed with prejudice approximately 650 cases on preemption grounds. Plaintiffs in approximately 515 of those cases appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Third Circuit). The Femur Fracture MDL court also dismissed without prejudice another approximately 510 cases pending plaintiffs’ appeal of the preemption ruling to the Third Circuit. On March 22, 2017, the Third Circuit issued a decision reversing the Femur Fracture MDL court’s preemption ruling and remanding the appealed cases back to the Femur Fracture MDL court. On April 5, 2017, Merck filed a petition seeking a rehearing on the Third Circuit’s March 22, 2017 decision, which was denied on April 24, 2017. Merck filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on August 22, 2017, seeking review of the Third Circuit’s decision. On December 4, 2017, the Supreme Court invited the Solicitor General to file a brief in the case expressing the views of the United States.

In addition, in June 2014, the Femur Fracture MDL court granted Merck summary judgment in the Gaynor v. Merck case and found that Merck’s updates in January 2011 to the Fosamax label regarding atypical femur fractures were adequate as a matter of law and that Merck adequately communicated those changes. The plaintiffs in Gaynor did not appeal the Femur Fracture MDL court’s findings with respect to the adequacy of the 2011 label change but did appeal the dismissal of their case based on preemption grounds, and the Third Circuit subsequently reversed that dismissal in its March 22, 2017 decision. In August 2014, Merck filed a motion requesting that the Femur Fracture MDL court enter a further order requiring all plaintiffs in the Femur Fracture MDL who claim that the 2011 Fosamax label is inadequate and the proximate cause of their alleged injuries to show cause why their cases should not be dismissed based on the court’s preemption decision and its ruling in the Gaynor case. In November 2014, the court granted Merck’s motion and entered the requested show cause order. No plaintiffs responded to or appealed the November 2014 show cause order.

As of December 31, 2017, approximately 530 cases were pending in the Femur Fracture MDL following the reinstatement of the cases that had been on appeal to the Third Circuit. The 510 cases dismissed without prejudice that were also pending the final resolution of the aforementioned appeal have not yet been reinstated.

As of December 31, 2017, approximately 2,750 cases alleging Femur Fractures have been filed in New Jersey state court and are pending before Judge James Hyland in Middlesex County. The parties selected an initial group of 30 cases to be reviewed through fact discovery. Two additional groups of 50 cases each to be reviewed through fact discovery were selected in November 2013 and March 2014, respectively. A further group of 25 cases to be reviewed through fact discovery was selected by Merck in July 2015, and Merck has continued to select additional cases to be reviewed through fact discovery during 2016 and 2017.

As of December 31, 2017, approximately 280 cases alleging Femur Fractures have been filed and are pending in California state court. All of the Femur Fracture cases filed in California state court have been coordinated before a single judge in Orange County, California. In March 2014, the court directed that a group of 10 discovery pool cases be reviewed through fact discovery and subsequently scheduled the Galper v. Merck case, which plaintiffs selected, as the first trial. The Galper trial began in February 2015 and the jury returned a verdict in Merck’s favor in April 2015, and plaintiff appealed that verdict to the California appellate court. Oral argument on plaintiff’s appeal in Galper was held in November 2016 and, on April 24, 2017, the California appellate court issued a decision affirming the lower court’s judgment in favor of Merck. The next Femur Fracture trial in California that was scheduled to begin in April 2016 was stayed at plaintiffs’ request and a new trial date has not been set.

Additionally, there are five Femur Fracture cases pending in other state courts.

Discovery is ongoing in the Femur Fracture MDL and in state courts where Femur Fracture cases are pending and the Company intends to defend against these lawsuits.

Januvia/Janumet

As previously disclosed, Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the United States involving Januvia and/or Janumet. As of December 31, 2017, Merck is aware of approximately 1,235 product user claims alleging generally that use of Januvia and/or Janumet caused the development of pancreatic cancer and other injuries. These complaints were filed in several different state and federal courts.

Most of the claims were filed in a consolidated multidistrict litigation proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California called “In re Incretin-Based Therapies Products Liability Litigation” (MDL). The MDL includes federal lawsuits alleging pancreatic cancer due to use of the following medicines: Januvia, Janumet, Byetta and Victoza, the latter two of which are products manufactured by other pharmaceutical companies. The majority of claims not filed in the MDL were filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (California State Court).

In November 2015, the MDL and California State Court - in separate opinions - granted summary judgment to defendants on grounds of preemption. Of the approximately 1,235 product user claims, these rulings resulted in the dismissal of approximately 1,100 product user claims.

Plaintiffs appealed the MDL and California State Court preemption rulings. On November 28, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reversed the trial court’s ruling in the MDL and remanded for further proceedings. The Ninth Circuit did not address the substance of defendants’ preemption argument but instead ruled that the district court made various errors during discovery. Jurisdiction returned to U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on January 2, 2018. The preemption appeal in the California state court litigation has been fully briefed, but the court has not yet scheduled oral argument.

As of December 31, 2017, seven product users have claims pending against Merck in state courts other than California state court, including four active product user claims pending in Illinois state court. On June 30, 2017, the Illinois trial court denied Merck’s motion for summary judgment on grounds of preemption. Merck sought permission to appeal that order on an interlocutory basis and was granted a stay of proceedings in the trial court. On September 19, 2017, an intermediate appellate court in Illinois denied Merck’s petition for interlocutory review. On October 20, 2017, Merck filed a petition with the Illinois Supreme Court, seeking leave to appeal the appellate court’s denial. The Illinois Supreme Court denied Merck’s petition for certiorari review and, instead, directed the appellate court to answer the certified question. As a result, proceedings in the trial court remain stayed and trials for certain of the product users in Illinois have been delayed.

In addition to the claims noted above, the Company has agreed to toll the statute of limitations for approximately 50 additional claims. The Company intends to continue defending against these lawsuits.

Propecia/Proscar

As previously disclosed, Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the United States involving Propecia and/or Proscar. As of December 31, 2017, approximately 775 lawsuits have been filed by plaintiffs who allege that they have experienced persistent sexual side effects following cessation of treatment with Propecia and/or Proscar. Approximately 20 of the plaintiffs also allege that Propecia or Proscar has caused or can cause prostate cancer, testicular cancer or male breast cancer. The lawsuits have been filed in various federal courts and in state court in New Jersey. The federal lawsuits have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in a federal multidistrict litigation before Judge Brian Cogan of the Eastern District of New York. The matters pending in state court in New Jersey have been consolidated before Judge Hyland in Middlesex County. In addition, there is one matter pending in state court in California, one matter pending in state court in Ohio, and one matter on appeal in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. The Company intends to defend against these lawsuits.

Governmental Proceedings

As previously disclosed, the Company has learned that the Prosecution Office of Milan, Italy is investigating interactions between the Company’s Italian subsidiary, certain employees of the subsidiary and certain Italian health care providers. The Company understands that this is part of a larger investigation involving engagements between various health care companies and those health care providers. The Company is cooperating with the investigation.

As previously disclosed, the United Kingdom (UK) Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) issued a Statement of Objections against the Company and MSD Sharp & Dohme Limited (MSD UK) on May 23, 2017. In the Statement of Objections, the CMA alleges that MSD UK abused a dominant position through a discount program for Remicade over the period from March 2015 to February 2016. The Company and MSD UK are contesting the CMA’s allegations.

As previously disclosed, the Company has received an investigative subpoena from the California Insurance Commissioner’s Fraud Bureau (Bureau) seeking information from January 1, 2007 to the present related to the pricing and promotion of Cubicin. The Bureau is investigating whether Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which the Company acquired in 2015, unlawfully induced the presentation of false claims for Cubicin to private insurers under the California Insurance Code False Claims Act. The Company is cooperating with the investigation.

As previously disclosed, the Company has received a civil investigative demand from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York that requests information relating to the Company’s contracts with, services from and payments to pharmacy benefit managers with respect to Maxalt and Levitra from January 1, 2006 to the present. The Company is cooperating with the investigation.

As previously disclosed, the Company has received a subpoena from the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on behalf of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland and the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice that requests information relating to the Company’s marketing of Singulair and Dulera Inhalation Aerosol and certain of its other marketing activities from January 1, 2006 to the present. The Company is cooperating with the investigation.

As previously disclosed, the Company’s subsidiaries in China have received and may continue to receive inquiries regarding their operations from various Chinese governmental agencies. Some of these inquiries may be related to matters involving other multinational pharmaceutical companies, as well as Chinese entities doing business with such companies. The Company’s policy is to cooperate with these authorities and to provide responses as appropriate.

As previously disclosed, from time to time, the Company receives inquiries and is the subject of preliminary investigation activities from competition and other governmental authorities in markets outside the United States. These authorities may include regulators, administrative authorities, and law enforcement and other similar officials, and these preliminary investigation activities may include site visits, formal or informal requests or demands for documents or materials, inquiries or interviews and similar matters. Certain of these preliminary inquiries or activities may lead to the commencement of formal proceedings. Should those proceedings be determined adversely to the Company, monetary fines and/or remedial undertakings may be required.

Commercial and Other Litigation

K-DUR Antitrust Litigation

In June 1997 and January 1998, Schering-Plough Corporation (Schering-Plough) settled patent litigation with Upsher-Smith, Inc. (Upsher-Smith) and ESI Lederle, Inc. (Lederle), respectively, relating to generic versions of Schering-Plough’s long-acting potassium chloride product supplement used by cardiac patients, for which Lederle and Upsher-Smith had filed abbreviated New DrugApplications (NDA). Putative class and non-class action suits were then filed on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of K-DUR against Schering-Plough, Upsher-Smith and Lederle and were consolidated in a multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In February 2016, the court denied the Company’s motion for summary judgment relating to all of the direct purchasers’ claims concerning the settlement with Upsher-Smith and granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment relating to all of the direct purchasers’ claims concerning the settlement with Lederle.

As previously disclosed, in February 2017, Merck and Upsher-Smith reached a settlement in principle with the class of direct purchasers and the opt-outs to the class. Merck will contribute approximately $80 million in the aggregate towards the overall settlement. On April 5, 2017, the claims of the opt-outs were dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a written settlement agreement with those parties. On May 15, 2017, Merck and the class executed a settlement agreement, which received preliminary approval from the court on May 23, 2017. On October 5, 2017, the court entered a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal approving the settlement agreement with the direct purchaser class and dismissing the claims of the class with prejudice.

Zetia Antitrust Litigation

In May 2010, Schering Corporation (Schering) and MSP Singapore Company LLC (MSP) settled patent litigation with Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc., USA, and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (together, Glenmark) relating to a generic version of Zetia, a pharmaceutical product containing ezetimibe used by patients with high cholesterol, for which Glenmark had filed an abbreviated NDA. In January and February 2018, putative class action suits were filed on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of Zetia against Merck, MSD, Schering-Plough, Schering, MSP, and Glenmark in the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern District of Virginia and the Eastern District of New York. These suits claim violations of federal and state antitrust laws, as well as other state statutory and common law causes of action. These suits seek unspecified damages.

Sales Force Litigation

As previously disclosed, in May 2013, Ms. Kelli Smith filed a complaint against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of herself and a putative class of female sales representatives and a putative sub-class of female sales representatives with children, claiming (a) discriminatory policies and practices in selection, promotion and advancement, (b) disparate pay, (c) differential treatment, (d) hostile work environment and (e) retaliation under federal and state discrimination laws. Plaintiffs sought and were granted leave to file an amended complaint. In January 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding four additional named plaintiffs. In October 2014, the court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss or strike the class claims as premature. In September 2015, plaintiffs filed additional motions, including a motion for conditional certification under the Equal Pay Act; a motion to amend the pleadings seeking to add ERISA and constructive discharge claims and a Company subsidiary as a named defendant; and a motion for equitable relief. Merck filed papers in opposition to the motions. On April 27, 2016, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification but denied plaintiffs’ motions to extend the liability period for their Equal Pay Act claims back to June 2009. As a result, the liability period will date back to April 2012, at the earliest. On April 29, 2016, the Magistrate Judge granted plaintiffs’ request to amend the complaint to add the following: (i) a Company subsidiary as a corporate defendant; (ii) an ERISA claim and (iii) an individual constructive discharge claim for one of the named plaintiffs. Approximately 700 individuals have opted-in to this action; the opt-in period has closed. On August 1, 2017, plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. This motion seeks to certify a Title VII pay discrimination class and also seeks final collective action certification of plaintiffs’ Equal Pay Act claim. The parties are currently engaged in motion practice before the court.

Qui Tam Litigation

As previously disclosed, on June 21, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania unsealed a complaint that has been filed against the Company under the federal False Claims Act by two former employees alleging, among other things, that the Company defrauded the U.S. government by falsifying data in connection with a clinical study conducted on the mumps component of the Company’s M-M-R II vaccine. The complaint alleges the fraud took place between 1999 and 2001. The U.S. government had the right to participate in and take over the prosecution of this lawsuit, but notified the court that it declined to exercise that right. The two former employees are pursuing the lawsuit without the involvement of the U.S. government. In addition, as previously disclosed, two putative class action lawsuits on behalf of direct purchasers of the M‑M‑R II vaccine, which charge that the Company misrepresented the efficacy of the M-M-R II vaccine in violation of federal antitrust laws and various state consumer protection laws, are pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In September 2014, the court denied Merck’s motion to dismiss the False Claims Act suit and granted in part and denied in part its motion to dismiss the then-pending antitrust suit. As a result, both the False Claims Act suit and the antitrust suits have proceeded into discovery. The Company intends to defend against these lawsuits.

Merck KGaA Litigation

In January 2016, to protect its long-established brand rights in the United States, the Company filed a lawsuit against Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany (KGaA), operating as the EMD Group in the United States, alleging it improperly uses the name “Merck” in the United States. KGaA has filed suit against the Company in France, the UK, Germany, Switzerland, Mexico, and India alleging breach of the parties’ co-existence agreement, unfair competition and/or trademark infringement. In December 2015, the Paris Court of First Instance issued a judgment finding that certain activities by the Company directed towards France did not constitute trademark infringement and unfair competition while other activities were found to infringe. The Company and KGaA appealed the decision, and the appeal was heard in May 2017. In June 2017, the French appeals court held that certain of the activities by the Company directed to France constituted unfair competition or trademark infringement and no further appeal was pursued. In January 2016, the UK High Court issued a judgment finding that the Company had breached the co-existence agreement and infringed KGaA’s trademark rights as a result of certain activities directed towards the UK based on use of the word MERCK on promotional and information activity. As noted in the UK decision, this finding was not based on the Company’s use of the sign MERCK in connection with the sale of products or any material pharmaceutical business transacted in the UK. The Company and KGaA have both appealed this decision, and the appeal was heard in June 2017. In November 2017, the UK Court of Appeals affirmed the decision on the co-existence agreement and remitted for re-hearing issues of trade mark infringement, validity and the relief to which KGaA would be entitled.

Patent Litigation

From time to time, generic manufacturers of pharmaceutical products file abbreviated NDAs with the FDA seeking to market generic forms of the Company’s products prior to the expiration of relevant patents owned by the Company. To protect its patent rights, the Company may file patent infringement lawsuits against such generic companies. Certain products of the Company currently involved in such patent infringement litigation in the United States include Noxafil and NuvaRing. Similar lawsuits defending the Company’s patent rights may exist in other countries. The Company intends to vigorously defend its patents, which it believes are valid, against infringement by companies attempting to market products prior to the expiration of such patents. As with any litigation, there can be no assurance of the outcomes, which, if adverse, could result in significantly shortened periods of exclusivity for these products and, with respect to products acquired through acquisitions, potentially significant intangible asset impairment charges.

Noxafil — In August 2015, the Company filed a lawsuit against Actavis Laboratories Fl, Inc. (Actavis) in the United States in respect of that company’s application to the FDA seeking pre-patent expiry approval to sell a generic version of Noxafil. In October 2017, the district court held the patent valid and infringed. Actavis has appealed this decision. In March 2016, the Company filed a lawsuit against Roxane Laboratories, Inc. (Roxane) in the United States in respect of that company’s application to the FDA seeking pre-patent expiry approval to sell a generic version of Noxafil. In October 2017, the parties reached a settlement whereby Roxane can launch its generic version upon expiry of the patent, or earlier under certain conditions. In February 2016, the Company filed a lawsuit against Par Sterile Products LLC, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. and Par Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc. (collectively, Par) in the United States in respect of that company’s application to the FDA seeking pre-patent expiry approval to sell a generic version of Noxafil injection. In October 2016, the parties reached a settlement whereby Par can launch its generic version in January 2023, or earlier under certain conditions.

Nasonex — Nasonex lost market exclusivity in the United States in 2016. Prior to that, in April 2015, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (Apotex) in respect of Apotex’s marketed product that the Company believed was infringing. In January 2018, the Company and Apotex settled this matter with Apotex agreeing to pay the Company $115 million plus certain other consideration.

NuvaRing — In December 2013, the Company filed a lawsuit against a subsidiary of Allergan plc in the United States in respect of that company’s application to the FDA seeking pre-patent expiry approval to sell a generic version of NuvaRing. The trial in this matter was held in January 2016. In August 2016, the district court ruled that the patent was invalid and the Company appealed this decision. In October 2017, the appellate court reversed the district court decision and found the patent to be valid. The case was remanded and the district court enjoined the defendant from marketing its generic version of NuvaRing until the patent expires. In September 2015, the Company filed a lawsuit against Teva Pharma in the United States in respect of that company’s application to the FDA seeking pre-patent expiry approval to sell a generic version of NuvaRing. Based on its ruling in the Allergan plc matter, the district court dismissed the Company’s lawsuit in December 2016. Following the appellate reversal in the Allergan plc matter, the defendant has agreed to be enjoined from marketing its generic version of NuvaRing until the patent expires.

Anti-PD-1 Antibody Patent Oppositions and Litigation

As previously disclosed, Ono Pharmaceutical Co. (Ono) has a European patent (EP 1 537 878) (’878) that broadly claims the use of an anti-PD-1 antibody, such as the Company’s immunotherapy, Keytruda, for the treatment of cancer. Ono has previously licensed its commercial rights to an anti-PD-1 antibody to Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) in certain markets. BMS and Ono also own European Patent EP 2 161 336 (’336) that, as granted, broadly claimed anti-PD-1 antibodies that could include Keytruda.

As previously disclosed, the Company and BMS and Ono were engaged in worldwide litigation, including in the United States, over the validity and infringement of the ’878 patent, the ’336 patent and their equivalents.

In January 2017, the Company announced that it had entered into a settlement and license agreement with BMS and Ono resolving the worldwide patent infringement litigation related to the use of an anti-PD-1 antibody for the treatment of cancer, such as Keytruda. Under the settlement and license agreement, the Company made a one-time payment of $625 million (which was recorded as an expense in the Company’s 2016 financial results) to BMS and will pay royalties on the worldwide sales of Keytruda for a non-exclusive license to market Keytruda in any market in which it is approved. For global net sales of Keytruda, the Company will pay royalties of 6.5% of net sales occurring from January 1, 2017 through and including December 31, 2023; and 2.5% of net sales occurring from January 1, 2024 through and including December 31, 2026. The parties also agreed to dismiss all claims worldwide in the relevant legal proceedings.

In October 2015, PDL Biopharma (PDL) filed a lawsuit in the United States against the Company alleging that the manufacture of Keytruda infringed US Patent No. 5,693,761 (’761 patent), which expired in December 2014. This patent claims platform technology used in the creation and manufacture of recombinant antibodies and PDL is seeking damages for pre-expiry infringement of the ’761 patent. In April 2017, the parties reached a settlement pursuant to which, in exchange for a lump sum, PDL dismissed its lawsuit with prejudice and granted the Company a fully paid-up non-exclusive license to the ’761 patent.

In July 2016, the Company filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States against Genentech and City of Hope seeking a ruling that US Patent No. 7,923,221 (Cabilly III patent), which claims platform technology used in the creation and manufacture of recombinant antibodies, is invalid and that Keytruda and bezlotoxumab do not infringe the Cabilly III patent. In July 2016, the Company also filed a petition in the USPTO for Inter Partes Review (IPR) of certain claims of US Patent No. 6,331,415 (Cabilly II patent), which claims platform technology used in the creation and manufacture of recombinant antibodies and is also owned by Genentech and City of Hope, as being invalid. In December 2016, the USPTO denied the petition but allowed the Company to join an IPR filed previously by another party. In May 2017, the parties reached a settlement pursuant to which the Company dismissed its lawsuit with prejudice and moved to terminate the IPR and Genentech and City of Hope granted the Company a fully paid-up non-exclusive license to the Cabilly II and Cabilly III patent.

Gilead Patent Litigation and Opposition

In August 2013, Gilead Sciences, Inc. (Gilead) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeking a declaration that two Company patents were invalid and not infringed by the sale of their two sofosbuvir containing products, Solvadi and Harvoni. The Company filed a counterclaim that the sale of these products did infringe these two patents and sought a reasonable royalty for the past, present and future sales of these products. In March 2016, at the conclusion of a jury trial, the patents were found to be not invalid and infringed. The jury awarded the Company $200 million as a royalty for sales of these products up to December 2015. After the conclusion of the jury trial, the court held a bench trial on the equitable defenses raised by Gilead. In June 2016, the court found for Gilead and determined that Merck could not collect the jury award and that the patents were unenforceable with respect to Gilead. The Company appealed the court’s decision. Gilead also asked the court to overturn the jury’s decision on validity. The court held a hearing on Gilead’s motion in August 2016, and the court subsequently rejected Gilead’s request, which Gilead appealed. A hearing on the combined appeals for this case was held on February 4, 2018. The Company will pay 20%, net of legal fees, of damages or royalties, if any, that it receives to Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

The Company, through its Idenix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. subsidiary, has pending litigation against Gilead in the United States, the UK, Norway, Canada, Germany, France, and Australia based on different patent estates that would also be infringed by Gilead’s sales of these two products. Gilead opposed the European patent at the European Patent Office (EPO). Trial in the United States was held in December 2016 and the jury returned a verdict for the Company, awarding damages of $2.54 billion. The Company submitted post-trial motions, including on the issues of enhanced damages and future royalties. Gilead submitted post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law. A hearing on the motions was held in September 2017. Also, in September 2017, the court denied the Company’s motion on enhanced damages, granted its motion on prejudgment interest and deferred its motion on future royalties. In February 2018, the court granted Gilead’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and found the patent was invalid for a lack of enablement. The Company will appeal this decision. In Australia, the Company was initially unsuccessful and the Full Federal Court affirmed the lower court decision. The Company has sought leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia for further review. In Canada, the Company was initially unsuccessful and the Federal Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court decision The Company sought leave to the Supreme Court of Canada for further review. In the UK and Norway, the patent was held invalid and no further appeal was filed. The EPO opposition division revoked the European patent, and the Company appealed this decision. The cases in France and Germany have been stayed pending the final decision of the EPO.

Other Litigation

There are various other pending legal proceedings involving the Company, principally product liability and intellectual property lawsuits. While it is not feasible to predict the outcome of such proceedings, in the opinion of the Company, either the likelihood of loss is remote or any reasonably possible loss associated with the resolution of such proceedings is not expected to be material to the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows either individually or in the aggregate.

Legal Defense Reserves

Legal defense costs expected to be incurred in connection with a loss contingency are accrued when probable and reasonably estimable. Some of the significant factors considered in the review of these legal defense reserves are as follows: the actual costs incurred by the Company; the development of the Company’s legal defense strategy and structure in light of the scope of its litigation; the number of cases being brought against the Company; the costs and outcomes of completed trials and the most current information regarding anticipated timing, progression, and related costs of pre-trial activities and trials in the associated litigation. The amount of legal defense reserves as of December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016 of approximately $160 million and $185 million, respectively, represents the Company’s best estimate of the minimum amount of defense costs to be incurred in connection with its outstanding litigation; however, events such as additional trials and other events that could arise in the course of its litigation could affect the ultimate amount of legal defense costs to be incurred by the Company. The Company will continue to monitor its legal defense costs and review the adequacy of the associated reserves and may determine to increase the reserves at any time in the future if, based upon the factors set forth, it believes it would be appropriate to do so.

Environmental Matters

As previously disclosed, Merck’s facilities in Oss, the Netherlands, were inspected by the Province of Brabant (Province) pursuant to the Dutch Hazards of Major Accidents Decree and the sites’ environmental permits. The Province issued penalties for alleged violations of regulations governing preventing and managing accidents with hazardous substances, and the government also issued a fine for alleged environmental violations at one of the Oss facilities, which together totaled $235 thousand. The Company was subsequently advised that a criminal investigation had been initiated based upon certain of the issues that formed the basis of the administrative enforcement action by the Province. The Company intends to defend itself against any enforcement action that may result from this investigation.

In May 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted an air compliance evaluation of the Company’s pharmaceutical manufacturing facility in Elkton, Virginia. As a result of the investigation, the Company was issued a Notice of Noncompliance and Show Cause Notification relating to certain federally enforceable requirements applicable to the Elkton facility. The Company has been advised by the EPA that enforcement action is no longer being pursued.

The Company and its subsidiaries are parties to a number of proceedings brought under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, commonly known as Superfund, and other federal and state equivalents. These proceedings seek to require the operators of hazardous waste disposal facilities, transporters of waste to the sites and generators of hazardous waste disposed of at the sites to clean up the sites or to reimburse the government for cleanup costs. The Company has been made a party to these proceedings as an alleged generator of waste disposed of at the sites. In each case, the government alleges that the defendants are jointly and severally liable for the cleanup costs. Although joint and several liability is alleged, these proceedings are frequently resolved so that the allocation of cleanup costs among the parties more nearly reflects the relative contributions of the parties to the site situation. The Company’s potential liability varies greatly from site to site. For some sites the potential liability is de minimis and for others the final costs of cleanup have not yet been determined. While it is not feasible to predict the outcome of many of these proceedings brought by federal or state agencies or private litigants, in the opinion of the Company, such proceedings should not ultimately result in any liability which would have a material adverse effect on the financial position, results of operations, liquidity or capital resources of the Company. The Company has taken an active role in identifying and accruing for these costs and such amounts do not include any reduction for anticipated recoveries of cleanup costs from former site owners or operators or other recalcitrant potentially responsible parties.

In management’s opinion, the liabilities for all environmental matters that are probable and reasonably estimable have been accrued and totaled $82 million and $83 million at December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively. These liabilities are undiscounted, do not consider potential recoveries from other parties and will be paid out over the periods of remediation for the applicable sites, which are expected to occur primarily over the next 15 years. Although it is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome of these matters, or the ultimate costs of remediation, management does not believe that any reasonably possible expenditures that may be incurred in excess of the liabilities accrued should exceed $63 million in the aggregate. Management also does not believe that these expenditures should result in a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, liquidity or capital resources for any year.