XML 27 R15.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.8.0.1

Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Contingencies | Contingencies 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 March 31, 2018, approximately 4,040 cases are filed and pending against Merck in either federal or state court. In approximately 10 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 4,030 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 2014, Merck settled approximately 95% of the ONJ cases pending in the Fosamax ONJ MDL and in state courts for a payment of $27.3 million. 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 10 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. 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. 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. In March 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. Merck filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in August 2017 seeking review of the Third Circuit’s decision. In December 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 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 March 31, 2018, approximately 540 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 March 31, 2018, approximately 2,700 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 from 2016 to the present. As of March 31, 2018, 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, in April 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 four 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 March 31, 2018, Merck is aware of approximately 1,245 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 1,245 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. In November 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. On March 21, 2018, the district court in the MDL entered a case management order setting forth a schedule for completing discovery on general causation and preemption issues and for renewing summary judgment and Daubert motions. The filing deadline for Daubert and summary judgment motions is set for December 11, 2018. As of March 31, 2018, 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. In June 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. In September 2017, an intermediate appellate court in Illinois denied Merck’s petition for interlocutory review. Merck filed a petition for review with the Illinois Supreme Court and, on January 18, 2018, the Illinois Supreme Court directed the appellate court to answer the certified question. Briefing is expected to occur in the second quarter of 2018. Proceedings in the trial court remain stayed. 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 March 31, 2018, there were approximately 600 active lawsuits filed by plaintiffs who allege that they have experienced persistent sexual side effects following cessation of treatment with Propecia and/or Proscar. Approximately 15 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 (NJ Coordinated Proceedings). In addition, there is one matter pending in state court in California, one matter pending in state court in Ohio, and one matter pending in state court in Massachusetts. On April 9, 2018, Merck and the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in the MDL and the Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel in the NJ Coordinated Proceedings entered into an agreement to resolve the above mentioned Propecia/Proscar lawsuits for an aggregate amount of $4.3 million. The settlement is subject to certain contingencies, including 95% plaintiff participation and a per plaintiff clawback if the participation rate is less than 100%. The Company intends to defend against any remaining unsettled lawsuits. Governmental Proceedings As previously disclosed, the Company received a civil investigative demand from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York that requested 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 has been informed that the government is no longer pursuing the investigation as to Merck. As previously disclosed, the Company 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 requested 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 2016. The Company has been informed by the Justice Department that the investigation is closed. 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 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), historically 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, India, Australia and Singapore alleging, among other things, unfair competition, trademark infringement and corporate name infringement. In the UK, Australia and Singapore, KGaA also alleges breach of the parties’ coexistence agreement. 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 trademark infringement, the scope of KGaA’s UK trademarks for pharmaceutical products, and the relief to which KGaA would be entitled. On March 20, 2018, the UK High Court listed the UK re-hearing for the week commencing July 2, 2018. Patent Litigation From time to time, generic manufacturers of pharmaceutical products file abbreviated New Drug Applications with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (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. 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. Inegy — The patents protecting Inegy in Europe have expired but supplemental protection certificates (SPCs) have been granted to the Company in many European countries that will expire in April 2019. There are multiple challenges to the SPCs related to Inegy throughout Europe and generic products have been launched in France, Italy, Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Norway. The Company has filed for preliminary injunctions in many countries that are still pending decision. A preliminary injunction has been granted in Germany. Preliminary injunctions have been denied in France, Spain and Ireland and the Company is appealing those decisions. The Company will file actions for patent infringement seeking damages against those companies that launch generic products before April 2019. 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 appealed this decision. While the appeal was pending, the parties reached a settlement, subject to certain terms of the agreement being met, whereby Actavis can launch its generic version prior to expiry of the patent and pediatric exclusivity under certain conditions. 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 November 2017, the parties reached a settlement whereby Roxane can launch its generic version prior to expiry of the patent 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. In February 2018, the Company filed a lawsuit against Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC., 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 March 2018, the Company filed a lawsuit against Mylan Laboratories Limited 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. 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. 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, Sovaldi 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. On April 25, 2018, the appeals court affirmed the decisions that both patents were unenforceable against Gilead. The Company, through its Idenix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. subsidiary, has pending litigation against Gilead in the United States, 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 appealed this decision. In Australia, the Company was initially unsuccessful and the Full Federal Court affirmed the lower court decision. The Company sought leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia for further review. Leave was denied on April 17, 2018. 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. Leave was denied on April 26, 2018. 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 March 31, 2018 and December 31, 2017 of approximately $155 million and $160 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 in 2012 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 has reached a settlement with the Public Prosecutor, without any admission of liability, resolving these allegations against two Merck subsidiaries for an aggregate of €400 thousand.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration