Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2025
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, commercial litigation, and securities 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 condition, 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. Generally, 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. Product Liability Litigation Dr. Scholl’s Foot Powder As previously disclosed, Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the U.S. arising from consumers’ alleged exposure to talc in Dr. Scholl’s foot powder, which Merck acquired through its merger with Schering-Plough Corporation and sold as part of the divestiture of Merck’s consumer care business to Bayer in 2014. In these actions, plaintiffs allege that they were exposed to asbestos-contaminated talc and developed mesothelioma as a result. As of September 30, 2025, approximately 605 cases were pending against Merck in various state courts. Gardasil/Gardasil 9 As previously disclosed, Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the U.S. involving Gardasil (Human Papillomavirus Quadrivalent [Types 6, 11, 16 and 18] Vaccine, Recombinant) and Gardasil 9 (Human Papillomavirus 9-valent Vaccine, Recombinant). As of September 30, 2025, approximately 135 cases were filed and are pending against Merck in either federal or state court. In these actions, plaintiffs allege, among other things, that they suffered various personal injuries after vaccination with Gardasil or Gardasil 9, with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) as a predominate alleged injury. In August 2022, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that Gardasil/Gardasil 9 product liability cases pending in federal courts nationwide be transferred to Judge Robert J. Conrad in the Western District of North Carolina for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. In February 2024, the multidistrict litigation (Gardasil MDL) was reassigned to Judge Kenneth D. Bell. On March 11, 2025, the court granted Merck’s motion for summary judgment in 16 bellwether cases on implied preemption grounds; plaintiffs have appealed to the Fourth Circuit. The parties’ letter submissions on next steps in the Gardasil MDL proceeding in light of the court’s decision were submitted on April 8, 2025. Expert discovery on the remaining alleged conditions and summary judgment briefing are to follow. On March 21, 2025, plaintiff’s co-lead counsel in the Gardasil MDL filed a seven-plaintiff complaint in New Jersey state court. On March 24, 2025, Merck removed the case to federal court and requested that the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfer the case to the Gardasil MDL. Plaintiffs opposed transfer to the Gardasil MDL and moved to have the case remanded to New Jersey state court. On August 7, 2025, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order transferring the case to the Gardasil MDL. On May 1, 2025, plaintiff’s co-lead counsel in the Gardasil MDL filed a new six-plaintiff complaint in New Jersey state court. On May 30, 2025, Merck removed the case to federal court and has requested that the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfer the case to the Gardasil MDL. Plaintiffs have opposed transfer to the Gardasil MDL and have moved to have the case remanded to New Jersey state court. On July 11, 2025, plaintiff’s co-lead counsel in the Gardasil MDL filed a new six-plaintiff complaint in New Jersey state court. On July 11, 2025, Merck removed the case to federal court and has requested that the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfer the case to the Gardasil MDL. Plaintiffs have opposed transfer to the Gardasil MDL and have moved to have the case remanded to New Jersey state court. On January 28, 2025, a trial commenced in California state court. Plaintiff claims that she suffers from POTS and fibromyalgia as a result of her Gardasil vaccinations. On February 14, 2025, after several weeks of trial and an opportunity to litigate plaintiff’s claims before a jury, plaintiff’s counsel approached Merck and proposed that the jury be discharged and the case adjourned. Merck agreed, subject to an explicit stipulation that Merck would provide no financial or other consideration in exchange for the agreement to adjourn. The case has thus been adjourned until a new trial date of February 2, 2026. Merck is vigorously defending this case and believes that evidence presented in court will show that Gardasil had no role in causing any of plaintiff’s conditions. In October 2025, Merck entered into a proposed agreement with plaintiffs’ counsel to substantially resolve the Gardasil product liability litigation. The proposed agreement sets forth various terms and conditions under which Merck would resolve the bulk of all pending Gardasil product liability claims in the U.S. in exchange for a total payment that is considerably less than Merck’s anticipated costs of defense in the litigation and that is not material to Merck. The proposed agreement requires that several conditions be met within specified time periods, including participation thresholds, in order for the proposed agreement to result in a final resolution of any pending litigation. As previously disclosed, there are fewer than 15 product liability cases pending outside the U.S. Governmental Proceedings Civil Investigative Demand In August 2025, the Company received a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), pursuant to a False Claims Act investigation, seeking documents, information, and testimony related to the Company’s programs and practices concerning diversity, equity, and inclusion. The CID states that the DOJ is investigating whether, in connection with the Company’s claims for payments under its federal contracts, the Company falsely certified compliance with federal antidiscrimination laws. The Company is cooperating with the investigation. Other Matters As previously disclosed, from time to time, the Company’s subsidiaries in China 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 U.S. 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. Securities Litigation As previously disclosed, on February 12, 2025, a putative class action was filed against Merck and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Cronin v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of Merck common stock between February 2022 and February 2025. Plaintiff alleges that Merck violated federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements and material omissions regarding demand for Gardasil/Gardasil 9 in China. Plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and fees and costs. On April 7, 2025, the court entered a joint stipulation staying the defendants’ deadline to respond to the complaint until after a lead plaintiff is appointed and requiring the parties to confer and jointly propose deadlines for amending and responding to the complaint within 14 days of the lead plaintiff appointment. Lead plaintiff motions were filed on April 14, 2025, and remain pending. As previously disclosed, on July 18, 2025, purported Merck stockholder Terence Collins filed a derivative lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Collins v. Davis, et al., against certain Merck officers and board members. The complaint asserts claims of violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act), breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment based on the same allegations as in the putative securities class action. On behalf of the Company, the complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, corporate governance reforms, injunctive relief, restitution, and fees and costs. On September 2, 2025, purported Merck stockholders Robert Daniel and Daniel Gershen filed a derivative lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Daniel, et al. v. Frazier, et al., against certain current and former Merck officers and board members for violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment based on the same allegations as the putative securities class action and the earlier-filed Collins derivative lawsuit. On behalf of the Company, the complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, corporate governance reforms, injunctive relief, restitution, and fees and costs. On September 19, 2025, the parties to the Collins and Daniel lawsuits concurrently filed joint stipulations to stay the lawsuits pending the earliest of the following: (i) dismissal of the securities class action; (ii) any defendant filing an answer in the securities class action; or (iii) any party to the stipulation giving 15 days’ notice that they no longer consent to the stay. The parties also filed joint stipulations to consolidate the Collins and Daniel derivative lawsuits. On October 1, 2025, the district court so-ordered the stay stipulations. The court has not yet taken action in response to the consolidation stipulations. On September 23, 2025, purported Merck shareholders Gary Weniger, Kathie McGinty, and Pamela Young filed a derivative lawsuit in the Superior Court of New Jersey (Union County), captioned Weniger, et al. v. Frazier, et al., against certain current and former Merck officers and board members. The complaint asserts claims of breach of fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, insider trading, and a violation of New Jersey securities law based on the same allegations as the putative securities class action and the earlier-filed Collins and Daniel derivative lawsuits. On behalf of the Company, the complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, disgorgement of any illicitly gained proceeds, corporate governance reforms, injunctive relief, restitution, and fees and costs. Commercial and Other Litigation Zetia Antitrust Litigation As previously disclosed, Merck, MSD, Schering Corporation, Schering-Plough Corporation, and MSP Singapore Company LLC (collectively, the Merck Defendants) were defendants in a number of lawsuits filed in 2018 on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of Zetia (ezetimibe) alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws, as well as other state statutory and common law causes of action. The cases were consolidated in a federal multidistrict litigation (Zetia MDL) before Judge Rebecca Beach Smith in the Eastern District of Virginia. In April 2023, the Merck Defendants reached settlements with the direct purchaser and retailer plaintiffs, and a settlement with the indirect purchaser class that the court approved in October 2023. As previously disclosed, in 2020 and 2021, United HealthCare Services, Inc. (United HealthCare), Humana Inc. (Humana), Centene Corporation and others (Centene), and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (Kaiser) (collectively, the Insurer Plaintiffs), each filed a lawsuit in a jurisdiction outside of the Eastern District of Virginia against the Merck Defendants and others, making similar allegations as those made in the Zetia MDL, as well as additional allegations about Vytorin. These cases were transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia to proceed with the Zetia MDL. In December 2023, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation remanded the four Insurer Plaintiff cases to the transferor courts in the Northern District of California (Kaiser), the District of Minnesota (United HealthCare), and the District of New Jersey (Humana and Centene). The Merck Defendants filed motions to dismiss in each of the Insurer Plaintiff cases. In December 2024, the district court in the District of New Jersey granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss in the Humana and Centene cases and, on January 29, 2025, Humana and Centene filed amended complaints. On March 5, 2025, the Merck Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaints. On March 24, 2025, the Merck Defendants filed a third-party complaint against AmerisourceBergen Drug Corp., AmerisourceBergen Corp., and Cencora, Inc., (collectively, Cencora) seeking indemnification and a declaration of rights for Humana’s direct purchaser claims. On June 23, 2025, Cencora moved to dismiss the third-party complaint or, in the alternative, to transfer the third-party action to the Eastern District of Virginia. On February 25, 2025, the district court in the District of Minnesota granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss in the United HealthCare case. On March 11, 2025, the Merck Defendants filed an answer and affirmative defenses in response to United HealthCare’s complaint. On March 24, 2025, the Merck Defendants filed a third-party complaint against Cardinal Health, Inc., Cardinal Health 110, LLC, and Cardinal Health 112, LLC (collectively, Cardinal), seeking indemnification and a declaration of rights for certain of United HealthCare’s direct and indirect purchaser claims. On June 6, 2025, Cardinal filed a motion to dismiss the Merck Defendants’ third-party complaint on forum grounds, or in the alternative, to stay the Merck Defendants’ third-party claims pending arbitration. On March 18, 2025, the district court in the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss in the Kaiser case. The court granted Kaiser leave to amend its complaint, and Kaiser filed its second amended complaint on April 15, 2025. On May 20, 2025, the Merck Defendants moved to dismiss certain claims in the second amended complaint. Qui Tam Litigation As previously disclosed, in June 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania unsealed a complaint that had 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 alleged 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 pursued the lawsuit without the involvement of the U.S. government. In July 2023, the court denied relators’ motion for summary judgment, granted two of the Company’s motions for summary judgment, and denied the Company’s remaining motions for summary judgment as moot. The court entered judgment in favor of the Company and dismissed relators’ amended complaint in full with prejudice. Relators appealed that decision, and in August 2024, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. 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. The court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ state law claims and denied the motion as to plaintiffs’ antitrust claim. The Company appealed and, in October 2024, the Third Circuit reversed-in-part the district court’s order and remanded the case with instructions to enter summary judgment for the Company. In November 2024, plaintiffs-appellees filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc and, on February 10, 2025, the court denied the petition. On October 20, 2025, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs’ certiorari petition, ending the matter. Patent Litigation From time to time, generic and biosimilar manufacturers of pharmaceutical products file abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) and Biologics License Applications, respectively, with the FDA seeking to market generic and biosimilar 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 and biosimilar 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 accounted for as business combinations, potentially significant intangible asset impairment charges. In addition to these matters, the Company may be involved in other litigation involving its intellectual property and intellectual property owned or licensed by other companies. Bridion — As previously disclosed, between January and November 2020, the Company received multiple Paragraph IV Certification Letters under the Hatch-Waxman Act notifying the Company that generic drug companies had filed applications to the FDA seeking pre-patent expiry approval to sell generic versions of Bridion (sugammadex) Injection. In March, April and December 2020, the Company filed patent infringement lawsuits in the U.S. District Courts for the District of New Jersey and the Northern District of West Virginia against those generic companies. All actions in the District of New Jersey were consolidated. The West Virginia case was jointly dismissed with prejudice in August 2022 in favor of proceeding in New Jersey. The remaining defendants in the New Jersey action stipulated to infringement of the asserted claims and withdrew all remaining claims and defenses other than a defense seeking to shorten the patent term extension (PTE) of the sugammadex patent to December 2022. The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey held a one-day trial in December 2022 on this remaining PTE calculation defense. In June 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey ruled in Merck’s favor. The court held that Merck’s calculation of PTE for the sugammadex patent covering the compound is not invalid and that the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office correctly granted a full five-year extension. Also in June 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey issued a final judgment prohibiting the FDA from approving any of the pending or tentatively approved generic applications until January 27, 2026, except for any subsequent agreements between defendants and Merck or further order by the court. In July 2023, the defendants filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Oral argument took place on February 4, 2025. On March 13, 2025, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the patent term extension granted to the sugammadex patent covering Bridion was not invalid and that the patent is entitled to its full five-year patent term extension. The FDA has now granted Bridion six months of pediatric exclusivity. While the New Jersey action was pending, the Company settled with five generic companies providing that these generic companies can bring their generic versions of Bridion to the market in January 2026 (which were subject to delay by any applicable pediatric exclusivity) or earlier under certain circumstances. The FDA has now granted Bridion six months of pediatric exclusivity. Thus, the Federal Circuit’s decision and these settlements secure Bridion’s exclusivity in the U.S. through July 27, 2026. Januvia, Janumet, Janumet XR — As previously disclosed, the FDA granted pediatric exclusivity with respect to Januvia (sitagliptin), Janumet (sitagliptin/metformin HCI), and Janumet XR (sitagliptin and metformin HCl extended-release), which provides a further six months of exclusivity in the U.S. beyond the expiration of all patents listed in the FDA’s Orange Book. Adding this exclusivity to the term of the key patent protection extended exclusivity on these products to January 2023. However, Januvia, Janumet, and Janumet XR contain sitagliptin phosphate monohydrate and the Company has another patent covering certain phosphate salt and polymorphic forms of sitagliptin that expires in May 2027, including pediatric exclusivity (salt/polymorph patent). As previously disclosed, beginning in 2019, a number of generic drug companies filed ANDAs seeking approval of generic forms of Januvia and Janumet along with Paragraph IV certifications challenging the validity of the salt/polymorph patent. The Company has settled with over two dozen generic companies providing that these generic companies can bring their generic versions of Januvia and Janumet to the market in the U.S. in May 2026 or earlier under certain circumstances, and their generic versions of Janumet XR to the market in July 2026 or earlier under certain circumstances. In March 2021, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Zydus Worldwide DMCC, Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc., and Cadila Healthcare Ltd. (collectively, Zydus). In that lawsuit, the Company alleged infringement of the salt/polymorph patent based on the filing of Zydus’s NDA seeking approval of a form of sitagliptin that is different from than that used in Januvia. In December 2022, the parties reached settlement that included dismissal of the case without prejudice enabling Zydus to seek final approval of a non-automatically substitutable product. In January 2023, the Company received a Paragraph IV Certification Letter under the Hatch-Waxman Act notifying the Company that Zydus filed an ANDA seeking approval of sitagliptin/metformin HCl tablets. In March 2023, the parties reached settlement enabling Zydus to seek final approval of a non-automatically substitutable product containing a different form of sitagliptin than that used in Janumet. In November 2023, the Company received a Paragraph IV Certification Letter under the Hatch-Waxman Act notifying the Company that Zydus filed an ANDA seeking approval of sitagliptin/metformin HCl Extended Release tablets. In January 2024, the parties reached settlement enabling Zydus to seek final approval of a non-automatically substitutable version containing a different form of sitagliptin than that used in Janumet XR. As a result of these settlement agreements related to the later expiring 2027 salt/polymorph patent directed to the specific sitagliptin salt form of the products, the Company expects that Januvia and Janumet will not lose market exclusivity in the U.S. until May 2026 and Janumet XR will not lose market exclusivity in the U.S. until July 2026, although Zydus has received FDA approval for a non-automatically substitutable form of sitagliptin that differs from the form in the Company’s sitagliptin products. In March 2024, the Company received another Paragraph IV Certification Letter under the Hatch-Waxman Act from Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Azurity) asserting that a different sitagliptin product subject to its ANDA does not infringe the salt/polymorph patent. In May 2024, Merck filed a civil action in the U.S. District Court of Delaware alleging infringement. The case was dismissed without prejudice in July 2024. Following the dismissal, the Company granted Azurity a covenant not to assert the salt/polymorph patent against the Azurity product that is the subject of such ANDA. Supplementary Protection Certificates (SPCs) for Janumet expired in April 2023 for the majority of European countries. Prior to expiration, generic companies sought revocation of the Janumet SPCs in a number of European countries. In February 2022, a Finnish court referred certain questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union that could impact the validity of the Janumet SPCs in Europe. A decision rendered in December 2024 provides guidance on points of law and does not directly apply to the Janumet SPCs. Thus, additional proceedings in certain countries where generic companies were prevented from launching products during the SPC period may be necessary to determine whether the SPCs are valid and if not, whether damages are appropriate. Those countries include Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland, and France. If the Janumet SPCs are ultimately upheld, the Company has reserved its rights related to the pursuit of damages for those countries where a generic launched prior to expiry of the Janumet SPC. In October 2023, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Sawai Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. and Medisa Shinyaku Co., Ltd (collectively, Defendants) in the Tokyo District Court seeking an injunction to stop the manufacture, sale and offer for sale of the Defendants’ sitagliptin dihydrogen phosphate product, while the Company’s patents and patent term extensions are in force. The lawsuit is in response to the Defendants’ application for marketing authorization to sell a generic sitagliptin dihydrogen phosphate product, in the anhydrate form, which was approved in August 2023. Merck asserts that the Defendants’ activity infringes a patent term extension associated with Merck’s patent directed to the sitagliptin compound patent. Keytruda — As previously disclosed, in November 2022, the Company filed a complaint against The Johns Hopkins University (JHU) in the U.S. District Court of Maryland. This action concerns a joint research collaboration between Merck and JHU regarding the use of Keytruda in certain indications. Merck and JHU partnered to design and conduct a clinical study administering Keytruda to cancer patients having tumors that had the genetic biomarker known as microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) (the Joint Clinical Study). Subsequently JHU obtained a number of U.S. patents specifically relying on the Joint Clinical Study. Merck alleges that JHU breached the collaboration agreement by obtaining issuance of these patents without informing or involving Merck, which were licensed to others, and then trying to enforce these patents against Merck. Merck therefore brought an action for breach of contract, declaratory judgment of noninfringement, and promissory estoppel. JHU answered the complaint in April and May 2023, denying Merck’s claims, and counterclaiming for willful infringement of nine issued U.S. patents, including a demand for damages. Between November 30, 2023, and March 13, 2024, the Company filed inter partes review petitions with the United States Patent Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), challenging the patentability of all nine patents asserted in the district court. Between June 2024 and October 2024, the PTAB instituted a review of all nine challenged patents. In June 2024, the district court granted Merck’s motion to stay the case in its entirety pending the outcome of the PTAB proceeding instituted in June 2024. Between June and October of 2025, the PTAB issued Final Written Decisions finding all claims of the first six patents challenged unpatentable. JHU has filed notices of appeal to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals for two of the patents invalidated by the PTAB. Director Review Requests and/or Appeals are still possible for the four additional patents invalidated by the PTAB. The remaining three patents are expected to have Final Written Decisions issued by the PTAB in mid to late November 2025. The district court’s stay is expected to continue until at least the issuance of Final Written Decisions for the three remaining patents. Subcutaneous Pembrolizumab — Halozyme, Inc. has publicly alleged that certain patents in its modified hyaluronidase (MDASE) portfolio cover an ingredient in the Company’s subcutaneous pembrolizumab product. In November 2024, the Company began filing a series of post grant review (PGR) petitions before the PTAB alleging that certain patents in the MDASE portfolio are invalid. On June 2, 2025, the PTAB instituted the first petition filed by the Company. Since then, the PTAB also instituted ten additional petitions. Institution decisions on three additional patents in the MDASE portfolio are still pending. On April 24, 2025, Halozyme, Inc. filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that the Company’s activities related to subcutaneous pembrolizumab infringe or will infringe 15 patents belonging to the MDASE portfolio, 12 of which are the subject of the Company’s already filed PGR petitions. Although there are three patents that were not and cannot be challenged using the PGR process, the Company believes those patents are invalid and suffer from the same defects as the patents currently being challenged and those patents can be challenged in court proceedings if required. Between August and September 2025, the Company filed revocation actions against EP Patent No. 2 797 622 (the ‘622 patent) owned by Halozyme, Inc. in the UK, France, Germany and The Netherlands. Halozyme, Inc. counterclaimed for an injunction in the UK under the ‘622 patent as well as an additional patent but have undertaken not to enforce any injunction there until the validity of both patents, which is in dispute, is finally determined. On October 2, 2025, the Company accepted service of a preliminary injunction filed by Halozyme, Inc. under the ‘622 patent in Germany. A preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled to occur on December 4, 2025. Lynparza — As previously disclosed, between December 2022 and November 2024, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP received Paragraph IV Certification Letters under the Hatch-Waxman Act notifying AstraZeneca that Natco Pharma Limited, Sandoz Inc., Cipla USA, Inc and Cipla Limited (collectively Cipla), and Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. have filed separate applications to the FDA seeking pre-patent expiry approval to sell generic versions of Lynparza (olaparib) tablet. Between February 2023 and January 2025, AstraZeneca and the Company filed a series of patent infringement lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against each generic company asserting a number of Orange-Book listed patents. The filing of the initial infringement suit generally stays FDA approval for 30 months from the date of the Paragraph IV notice or until an adverse court decision, if any, whichever may occur earlier. In these cases, however, none of the generic companies are challenging the patent specifically claiming the olaparib compound which expires in September 2027. Thus, the earliest date the FDA can approve any of the currently pending generic applications is September 2027. All cases have been consolidated and a trial is expected in 2026. Capvaxive — On September 5, 2025, Pogona, LLC filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that the Company’s activities related to Capvaxive infringe U.S. Patent No. 11,058,757. Pogona, LLC is asserting the Company’s infringement is willful and is seeking monetary damages. The Company believes the asserted patent is invalid and not infringed. 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 condition, 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 September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024 of approximately $220 million and $225 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.

The Company is involved in various claims and legal proceedings of a nature considered normal to its business, including product liability, intellectual property, commercial litigation, and securities 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 condition, 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. Generally, 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.

As previously disclosed, Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the U.S. arising from consumers’ alleged exposure to talc in Dr. Scholl’s foot powder, which Merck acquired through its merger with Schering-Plough Corporation and sold as part of the divestiture of Merck’s consumer care business to Bayer in 2014. In these actions, plaintiffs allege that they were exposed to asbestos-contaminated talc and developed mesothelioma as a result. As of September 30, 2025, approximately 605 cases were pending against Merck in various state courts.

As previously disclosed, Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the U.S. involving Gardasil (Human Papillomavirus Quadrivalent [Types 6, 11, 16 and 18] Vaccine, Recombinant) and Gardasil 9 (Human Papillomavirus 9-valent Vaccine, Recombinant). As of September 30, 2025, approximately 135 cases were filed and are pending against Merck in either federal or state court. In these actions, plaintiffs allege, among other things, that they suffered various personal injuries after vaccination with Gardasil or Gardasil 9, with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) as a predominate alleged injury.

In August 2022, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that Gardasil/Gardasil 9 product liability cases pending in federal courts nationwide be transferred to Judge Robert J. Conrad in the Western District of North Carolina for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. In February 2024, the multidistrict litigation (Gardasil MDL) was reassigned to Judge Kenneth D. Bell. On March 11, 2025, the court granted Merck’s motion for summary judgment in 16 bellwether cases on implied preemption grounds; plaintiffs have appealed to the Fourth Circuit. The parties’ letter submissions on next steps in the Gardasil MDL proceeding in light of the court’s decision were submitted on April 8, 2025. Expert discovery on the remaining alleged conditions and summary judgment briefing are to follow.

On March 21, 2025, plaintiff’s co-lead counsel in the Gardasil MDL filed a seven-plaintiff complaint in New Jersey state court. On March 24, 2025, Merck removed the case to federal court and requested that the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfer the case to the Gardasil MDL. Plaintiffs opposed transfer to the Gardasil MDL and moved to have the case remanded to New Jersey state court. On August 7, 2025, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order transferring the case to the Gardasil MDL.

On May 1, 2025, plaintiff’s co-lead counsel in the Gardasil MDL filed a new six-plaintiff complaint in New Jersey state court. On May 30, 2025, Merck removed the case to federal court and has requested that the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfer the case to the Gardasil MDL. Plaintiffs have opposed transfer to the Gardasil MDL and have moved to have the case remanded to New Jersey state court.

On July 11, 2025, plaintiff’s co-lead counsel in the Gardasil MDL filed a new six-plaintiff complaint in New Jersey state court. On July 11, 2025, Merck removed the case to federal court and has requested that the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfer the case to the Gardasil MDL. Plaintiffs have opposed transfer to the Gardasil MDL and have moved to have the case remanded to New Jersey state court.

On January 28, 2025, a trial commenced in California state court. Plaintiff claims that she suffers from POTS and fibromyalgia as a result of her Gardasil vaccinations. On February 14, 2025, after several weeks of trial and an opportunity to litigate plaintiff’s claims before a jury, plaintiff’s counsel approached Merck and proposed that the jury be discharged and the case adjourned. Merck agreed, subject to an explicit stipulation that Merck would provide no financial or other consideration in

In October 2025, Merck entered into a proposed agreement with plaintiffs’ counsel to substantially resolve the Gardasil product liability litigation. The proposed agreement sets forth various terms and conditions under which Merck would resolve the bulk of all pending Gardasil product liability claims in the U.S. in exchange for a total payment that is considerably less than Merck’s anticipated costs of defense in the litigation and that is not material to Merck. The proposed agreement requires that several conditions be met within specified time periods, including participation thresholds, in order for the proposed agreement to result in a final resolution of any pending litigation.

In August 2025, the Company received a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), pursuant to a False Claims Act investigation, seeking documents, information, and testimony related to the Company’s programs and practices concerning diversity, equity, and inclusion. The CID states that the DOJ is investigating whether, in connection with the Company’s claims for payments under its federal contracts, the Company falsely certified compliance with federal antidiscrimination laws. The Company is cooperating with the investigation.

As previously disclosed, from time to time, the Company’s subsidiaries in China 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 U.S. 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.

As previously disclosed, on February 12, 2025, a putative class action was filed against Merck and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Cronin v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of Merck common stock between February 2022 and February 2025. Plaintiff alleges that Merck violated federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements and material omissions regarding demand for Gardasil/Gardasil 9 in China. Plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and fees and costs. On April 7, 2025, the court entered a joint stipulation staying the defendants’ deadline to respond to the complaint until after a lead plaintiff is appointed and requiring the parties to confer and jointly propose deadlines for amending and responding to the complaint within 14 days of the lead plaintiff appointment. Lead plaintiff motions were filed on April 14, 2025, and remain pending.

As previously disclosed, on July 18, 2025, purported Merck stockholder Terence Collins filed a derivative lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Collins v. Davis, et al., against certain Merck officers and board members. The complaint asserts claims of violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act), breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment based on the same allegations as in the putative securities class action. On behalf of the Company, the complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, corporate governance reforms, injunctive relief, restitution, and fees and costs.

On September 2, 2025, purported Merck stockholders Robert Daniel and Daniel Gershen filed a derivative lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Daniel, et al. v. Frazier, et al., against certain current and former Merck officers and board members for violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment based on the same allegations as the putative securities class action and the earlier-filed Collins derivative lawsuit. On behalf of the Company, the complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, corporate governance reforms, injunctive relief, restitution, and fees and costs.

On September 19, 2025, the parties to the Collins and Daniel lawsuits concurrently filed joint stipulations to stay the lawsuits pending the earliest of the following: (i) dismissal of the securities class action; (ii) any defendant filing an answer in the securities class action; or (iii) any party to the stipulation giving 15 days’ notice that they no longer consent to the stay. The parties also filed joint stipulations to consolidate the Collins and Daniel derivative lawsuits. On October 1, 2025, the district court so-ordered the stay stipulations. The court has not yet taken action in response to the consolidation stipulations.

current and former Merck officers and board members. The complaint asserts claims of breach of fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, insider trading, and a violation of New Jersey securities law based on the same allegations as the putative securities class action and the earlier-filed Collins and Daniel derivative lawsuits. On behalf of the Company, the complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, disgorgement of any illicitly gained proceeds, corporate governance reforms, injunctive relief, restitution, and fees and costs.

As previously disclosed, Merck, MSD, Schering Corporation, Schering-Plough Corporation, and MSP Singapore Company LLC (collectively, the Merck Defendants) were defendants in a number of lawsuits filed in 2018 on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of Zetia (ezetimibe) alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws, as well as other state statutory and common law causes of action. The cases were consolidated in a federal multidistrict litigation (Zetia MDL) before Judge Rebecca Beach Smith in the Eastern District of Virginia. In April 2023, the Merck Defendants reached settlements with the direct purchaser and retailer plaintiffs, and a settlement with the indirect purchaser class that the court approved in October 2023.

As previously disclosed, in 2020 and 2021, United HealthCare Services, Inc. (United HealthCare), Humana Inc. (Humana), Centene Corporation and others (Centene), and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (Kaiser) (collectively, the Insurer Plaintiffs), each filed a lawsuit in a jurisdiction outside of the Eastern District of Virginia against the Merck Defendants and others, making similar allegations as those made in the Zetia MDL, as well as additional allegations about Vytorin. These cases were transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia to proceed with the Zetia MDL.

In December 2023, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation remanded the four Insurer Plaintiff cases to the transferor courts in the Northern District of California (Kaiser), the District of Minnesota (United HealthCare), and the District of New Jersey (Humana and Centene). The Merck Defendants filed motions to dismiss in each of the Insurer Plaintiff cases.

In December 2024, the district court in the District of New Jersey granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss in the Humana and Centene cases and, on January 29, 2025, Humana and Centene filed amended complaints. On March 5, 2025, the Merck Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaints. On March 24, 2025, the Merck Defendants filed a third-party complaint against AmerisourceBergen Drug Corp., AmerisourceBergen Corp., and Cencora, Inc., (collectively, Cencora) seeking indemnification and a declaration of rights for Humana’s direct purchaser claims. On June 23, 2025, Cencora moved to dismiss the third-party complaint or, in the alternative, to transfer the third-party action to the Eastern District of Virginia.

On February 25, 2025, the district court in the District of Minnesota granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss in the United HealthCare case. On March 11, 2025, the Merck Defendants filed an answer and affirmative defenses in response to United HealthCare’s complaint. On March 24, 2025, the Merck Defendants filed a third-party complaint against Cardinal Health, Inc., Cardinal Health 110, LLC, and Cardinal Health 112, LLC (collectively, Cardinal), seeking indemnification and a declaration of rights for certain of United HealthCare’s direct and indirect purchaser claims. On June 6, 2025, Cardinal filed a motion to dismiss the Merck Defendants’ third-party complaint on forum grounds, or in the alternative, to stay the Merck Defendants’ third-party claims pending arbitration.

On March 18, 2025, the district court in the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss in the Kaiser case. The court granted Kaiser leave to amend its complaint, and Kaiser filed its second amended complaint on April 15, 2025. On May 20, 2025, the Merck Defendants moved to dismiss certain claims in the second amended complaint.

As previously disclosed, in June 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania unsealed a complaint that had 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 alleged 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 pursued the lawsuit without the involvement of the U.S. government. In July 2023, the court denied relators’ motion for summary judgment, granted two of the Company’s motions for summary judgment, and denied the Company’s remaining motions for summary judgment as moot. The court entered judgment in favor of the Company and dismissed relators’ amended complaint in full with prejudice. Relators appealed that decision, and in August 2024, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision.

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. The court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ state law claims and denied the motion as to plaintiffs’ antitrust claim. The Company appealed and, in October 2024, the Third Circuit reversed-in-part the district court’s order and remanded the case with instructions to enter summary judgment for the Company. In November 2024, plaintiffs-appellees filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc and, on February 10, 2025, the court denied the petition. On October 20, 2025, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs’ certiorari petition, ending the matter.

From time to time, generic and biosimilar manufacturers of pharmaceutical products file abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) and Biologics License Applications, respectively, with the FDA seeking to market generic and biosimilar 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 and biosimilar 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 accounted for as business combinations, potentially significant intangible asset impairment charges. In addition to these matters, the Company may be involved in other litigation involving its intellectual property and intellectual property owned or licensed by other companies.

Bridion — As previously disclosed, between January and November 2020, the Company received multiple Paragraph IV Certification Letters under the Hatch-Waxman Act notifying the Company that generic drug companies had filed applications to the FDA seeking pre-patent expiry approval to sell generic versions of Bridion (sugammadex) Injection. In March, April and December 2020, the Company filed patent infringement lawsuits in the U.S. District Courts for the District of New Jersey and the Northern District of West Virginia against those generic companies. All actions in the District of New Jersey were consolidated. The West Virginia case was jointly dismissed with prejudice in August 2022 in favor of proceeding in New Jersey. The remaining defendants in the New Jersey action stipulated to infringement of the asserted claims and withdrew all remaining claims and defenses other than a defense seeking to shorten the patent term extension (PTE) of the sugammadex patent to December 2022. The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey held a one-day trial in December 2022 on this remaining PTE calculation defense.

In June 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey ruled in Merck’s favor. The court held that Merck’s calculation of PTE for the sugammadex patent covering the compound is not invalid and that the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office correctly granted a full five-year extension. Also in June 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey issued a final judgment prohibiting the FDA from approving any of the pending or tentatively approved generic applications until January 27, 2026, except for any subsequent agreements between defendants and Merck or further order by the court. In July 2023, the defendants filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Oral argument took place on February 4, 2025. On March 13, 2025, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the patent term extension granted to the sugammadex patent covering Bridion was not invalid and that the patent is entitled to its full five-year patent term extension. The FDA has now granted Bridion six months of pediatric exclusivity.

While the New Jersey action was pending, the Company settled with five generic companies providing that these generic companies can bring their generic versions of Bridion to the market in January 2026 (which were subject to delay by any applicable pediatric exclusivity) or earlier under certain circumstances. The FDA has now granted Bridion six months of pediatric exclusivity. Thus, the Federal Circuit’s decision and these settlements secure Bridion’s exclusivity in the U.S. through July 27, 2026.

Januvia, Janumet, Janumet XR — As previously disclosed, the FDA granted pediatric exclusivity with respect to Januvia (sitagliptin), Janumet (sitagliptin/metformin HCI), and Janumet XR (sitagliptin and metformin HCl extended-release), which provides a further six months of exclusivity in the U.S. beyond the expiration of all patents listed in the FDA’s Orange Book. Adding this exclusivity to the term of the key patent protection extended exclusivity on these products to January 2023. However, Januvia, Janumet, and Janumet XR contain sitagliptin phosphate monohydrate and the Company has another patent covering certain phosphate salt and polymorphic forms of sitagliptin that expires in May 2027, including pediatric exclusivity (salt/polymorph patent).

As previously disclosed, beginning in 2019, a number of generic drug companies filed ANDAs seeking approval of generic forms of Januvia and Janumet along with Paragraph IV certifications challenging the validity of the salt/polymorph patent. The Company has settled with over two dozen generic companies providing that these generic companies can bring their generic versions of Januvia and Janumet to the market in the U.S. in May 2026 or earlier under certain circumstances, and their generic versions of Janumet XR to the market in July 2026 or earlier under certain circumstances.

In March 2021, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Zydus Worldwide DMCC, Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc., and Cadila Healthcare Ltd. (collectively, Zydus). In that lawsuit, the Company alleged infringement of the salt/polymorph patent based on the filing of Zydus’s NDA seeking approval of a form of sitagliptin that is different from than that used in Januvia. In December 2022, the parties reached settlement that included dismissal of the case without prejudice enabling Zydus to seek final approval of a non-automatically substitutable product. In January 2023, the Company received a Paragraph IV Certification Letter under the Hatch-Waxman Act notifying the Company that Zydus filed an ANDA seeking approval of sitagliptin/metformin HCl tablets. In March 2023, the parties reached settlement enabling Zydus to seek final approval of a non-automatically substitutable product containing a different form of sitagliptin than that used in Janumet. In November 2023, the Company received a Paragraph IV Certification Letter under the Hatch-Waxman Act notifying the Company that Zydus filed an ANDA seeking approval of sitagliptin/metformin HCl Extended Release tablets. In January 2024, the parties reached settlement enabling Zydus to seek final approval of a non-automatically substitutable version containing a different form of sitagliptin than that used in Janumet XR.

In March 2024, the Company received another Paragraph IV Certification Letter under the Hatch-Waxman Act from Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Azurity) asserting that a different sitagliptin product subject to its ANDA does not infringe the salt/polymorph patent. In May 2024, Merck filed a civil action in the U.S. District Court of Delaware alleging infringement. The case was dismissed without prejudice in July 2024. Following the dismissal, the Company granted Azurity a covenant not to assert the salt/polymorph patent against the Azurity product that is the subject of such ANDA.

Supplementary Protection Certificates (SPCs) for Janumet expired in April 2023 for the majority of European countries. Prior to expiration, generic companies sought revocation of the Janumet SPCs in a number of European countries. In February 2022, a Finnish court referred certain questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union that could impact the validity of the Janumet SPCs in Europe. A decision rendered in December 2024 provides guidance on points of law and does not directly apply to the Janumet SPCs. Thus, additional proceedings in certain countries where generic companies were prevented from launching products during the SPC period may be necessary to determine whether the SPCs are valid and if not, whether damages are appropriate. Those countries include Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland, and France. If the Janumet SPCs are ultimately upheld, the Company has reserved its rights related to the pursuit of damages for those countries where a generic launched prior to expiry of the Janumet SPC.

In October 2023, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Sawai Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. and Medisa Shinyaku Co., Ltd (collectively, Defendants) in the Tokyo District Court seeking an injunction to stop the manufacture, sale and offer for sale of the Defendants’ sitagliptin dihydrogen phosphate product, while the Company’s patents and patent term extensions are in force. The lawsuit is in response to the Defendants’ application for marketing authorization to sell a generic sitagliptin dihydrogen phosphate product, in the anhydrate form, which was approved in August 2023. Merck asserts that the Defendants’ activity infringes a patent term extension associated with Merck’s patent directed to the sitagliptin compound patent.

Keytruda — As previously disclosed, in November 2022, the Company filed a complaint against The Johns Hopkins University (JHU) in the U.S. District Court of Maryland. This action concerns a joint research collaboration between Merck and JHU regarding the use of Keytruda in certain indications. Merck and JHU partnered to design and conduct a clinical study administering Keytruda to cancer patients having tumors that had the genetic biomarker known as microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) (the Joint Clinical Study). Subsequently JHU obtained a number of U.S. patents specifically relying on the Joint Clinical Study. Merck alleges that JHU breached the collaboration agreement by obtaining issuance of these patents without informing or involving Merck, which were licensed to others, and then trying to enforce these patents against Merck. Merck therefore brought an action for breach of contract, declaratory judgment of noninfringement, and promissory estoppel. JHU answered the complaint in April and May 2023, denying Merck’s claims, and counterclaiming for willful infringement of nine issued U.S. patents, including a demand for damages. Between November 30, 2023, and March 13, 2024, the Company filed inter partes review petitions with the United States Patent Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), challenging the patentability of all nine patents asserted in the district court. Between June 2024 and October 2024, the PTAB instituted a review of all nine challenged patents. In June 2024, the district court granted Merck’s motion to stay the case in its entirety pending the outcome of the PTAB proceeding instituted in June 2024.

Between June and October of 2025, the PTAB issued Final Written Decisions finding all claims of the first six patents challenged unpatentable. JHU has filed notices of appeal to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals for two of the patents invalidated by the PTAB. Director Review Requests and/or Appeals are still possible for the four additional patents invalidated by the PTAB. The remaining three patents are expected to have Final Written Decisions issued by the PTAB in mid to late November 2025. The district court’s stay is expected to continue until at least the issuance of Final Written Decisions for the three remaining patents.

Subcutaneous Pembrolizumab — Halozyme, Inc. has publicly alleged that certain patents in its modified hyaluronidase (MDASE) portfolio cover an ingredient in the Company’s subcutaneous pembrolizumab product. In November 2024, the Company began filing a series of post grant review (PGR) petitions before the PTAB alleging that certain patents in the MDASE portfolio are invalid. On June 2, 2025, the PTAB instituted the first petition filed by the Company. Since then, the PTAB also instituted ten additional petitions. Institution decisions on three additional patents in the MDASE portfolio are still pending.

On April 24, 2025, Halozyme, Inc. filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that the Company’s activities related to subcutaneous pembrolizumab infringe or will infringe 15 patents belonging to the MDASE portfolio, 12 of which are the subject of the Company’s already filed PGR petitions. Although there are three patents that were not and cannot be challenged using the PGR process, the Company believes those patents are invalid and suffer from the same defects as the patents currently being challenged and those patents can be challenged in court proceedings if required.

Between August and September 2025, the Company filed revocation actions against EP Patent No. 2 797 622 (the ‘622 patent) owned by Halozyme, Inc. in the UK, France, Germany and The Netherlands. Halozyme, Inc. counterclaimed for an injunction in the UK under the ‘622 patent as well as an additional patent but have undertaken not to enforce any injunction there until the validity of both patents, which is in dispute, is finally determined. On October 2, 2025, the Company accepted service of a preliminary injunction filed by Halozyme, Inc. under the ‘622 patent in Germany. A preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled to occur on December 4, 2025.

Lynparza — As previously disclosed, between December 2022 and November 2024, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP received Paragraph IV Certification Letters under the Hatch-Waxman Act notifying AstraZeneca that Natco Pharma Limited, Sandoz Inc., Cipla USA, Inc and Cipla Limited (collectively Cipla), and Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. have filed separate applications to the FDA seeking pre-patent expiry approval to sell generic versions of Lynparza (olaparib) tablet. Between February 2023 and January 2025, AstraZeneca and the Company filed a series of patent infringement lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against each generic company asserting a number of Orange-Book listed patents. The filing of the initial infringement suit generally stays FDA approval for 30 months from the date of the Paragraph IV notice or until an adverse court decision, if any, whichever may occur earlier. In these cases, however, none of the generic companies are challenging the patent specifically claiming the olaparib compound which expires in September 2027. Thus, the earliest date the FDA can approve any of the currently pending generic applications is September 2027. All cases have been consolidated and a trial is expected in 2026.

Capvaxive — On September 5, 2025, Pogona, LLC filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that the Company’s activities related to Capvaxive infringe U.S. Patent No. 11,058,757. Pogona, LLC is asserting the Company’s infringement is willful and is seeking monetary damages. The Company believes the asserted patent is invalid and not infringed.

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 condition, results of operations or cash flows either individually or in the aggregate.

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 September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024 of approximately $220 million and $225 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.