Legal Proceedings	3 Months Ended
Apr. 02, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	LEGAL PROCEEDINGS Johnson & Johnson and certain of its subsidiaries are involved in various lawsuits and claims regarding product liability, intellectual property, commercial and other matters; governmental investigations; and other legal proceedings that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of their business. The Company records accruals for loss contingencies associated with these legal matters when it is probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. As of April 2, 2017, the Company has determined that the liabilities associated with certain litigation matters are probable and can be reasonably estimated. The Company has accrued for these matters and will continue to monitor each related legal issue and adjust accruals as might be warranted based on new information and further developments in accordance with ASC 450-20-25. For these and other litigation and regulatory matters discussed below for which a loss is probable or reasonably possible, the Company is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss beyond the amounts already accrued. Amounts accrued for legal contingencies often result from a complex series of judgments about future events and uncertainties that rely heavily on estimates and assumptions. The ability to make such estimates and judgments can be affected by various factors, including whether damages sought in the proceedings are unsubstantiated or indeterminate; scientific and legal discovery has not commenced or is not complete; proceedings are in early stages; matters present legal uncertainties; there are significant facts in dispute; or there are numerous parties involved. In the Company's opinion, based on its examination of these matters, its experience to date and discussions with counsel, the ultimate outcome of legal proceedings, net of liabilities accrued in the Company's balance sheet, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position. However, the resolution of, or increase in accruals for, one or more of these matters in any reporting period may have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations and cash flows for that period. PRODUCT LIABILITY Johnson & Johnson and certain of its subsidiaries are involved in numerous product liability claims and lawsuits involving multiple products. Claimants in these cases seek substantial compensatory and, where available, punitive damages. While the Company believes it has substantial defenses, it is not feasible to predict the ultimate outcome of litigation. The Company has established accruals for product liability claims and lawsuits in compliance with ASC 450-20 based on currently available information, which in some cases may be limited. The Company accrues an estimate of the legal defense costs needed to defend each matter when those costs are probable and can be reasonably estimated. For certain of these matters, the Company has accrued additional amounts such as estimated costs associated with settlements, damages and other losses. To the extent adverse verdicts have been rendered against the Company, the Company does not record an accrual until a loss is determined to be probable and can be reasonably estimated. Product liability accruals can represent projected product liability for thousands of claims around the world, each in different litigation environments and with different fact patterns. Changes to the accruals may be required in the future as additional information becomes available. The most significant of these cases include the DePuy ASR™ XL Acetabular System and DePuy ASR™ Hip Resurfacing System, the PINNACLE^® Acetabular Cup System, pelvic meshes, RISPERDAL^®, XARELTO^®and JOHNSON'S^® Baby Powder. As of April 2, 2017, in the U.S. there were approximately 2,000 plaintiffs with direct claims in pending lawsuits regarding injuries allegedly due to the DePuy ASR™ XL Acetabular System and DePuy ASR™ Hip Resurfacing System, 9,600 with respect to the PINNACLE^® Acetabular Cup System, 55,800 with respect to pelvic meshes, 16,900 with respect to RISPERDAL^®, 18,400 with respect to XARELTO^® and 3,900 with respect to JOHNSON'S^® Baby Powder. In August 2010, DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. (DePuy) announced a worldwide voluntary recall of its ASR^™ XL Acetabular System and DePuy ASR^™ Hip Resurfacing System used in hip replacement surgery. Claims for personal injury have been made against DePuy and Johnson & Johnson. The number of pending lawsuits is expected to fluctuate as certain lawsuits are settled or dismissed and additional lawsuits are filed. Cases filed in federal courts in the United States have been organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Litigation has also been filed in countries outside of the United States, primarily in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Ireland, Germany and Italy. In November 2013, DePuy reached an agreement with a Court-appointed committee of lawyers representing ASR Hip System plaintiffs to establish a program to settle claims with eligible ASR Hip patients in the United States who had surgery to replace their ASR Hips, known as revision surgery, as of August 31, 2013. DePuy reached additional agreements in February 2015 and March 2017, which further extended the settlement program to include ASR Hip patients who had revision surgeries after August 31, 2013 and prior to February 15, 2017. This settlement program has resolved more than 9,500 claims, with more expected from the recent extension, therefore bringing to resolution significant ASR Hip litigation activity in the United States. However, lawsuits in the United States remain, and the settlement program does not address litigation outside of the United States. In Australia, a class action settlement was reached that resolved the claims of the majority of ASR Hip patients in that country. The Company continues to receive information with respect to potential additional costs associated with this recall on a worldwide basis. The Company has established accruals for the costs associated with the U.S. settlement program and DePuy ASR^™ Hip-related product liability litigation. Claims for personal injury have also been made against DePuy and Johnson & Johnson relating to the PINNACLE^® Acetabular Cup System used in hip replacement surgery. The number of pending product liability lawsuits continues to increase, and the Company continues to receive information with respect to potential costs and the anticipated number of cases. Cases filed in federal courts in the United States have been organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Litigation has also been filed in countries outside of the United States, primarily in the United Kingdom. The Company has established an accrual for defense costs in connection with product liability litigation associated with the PINNACLE^® Acetabular Cup System. Claims for personal injury have been made against Ethicon, Inc. (Ethicon) and Johnson & Johnson arising out of Ethicon's pelvic mesh devices used to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. The number of pending product liability lawsuits continues to increase, and the Company continues to receive information with respect to potential costs and the anticipated number of cases. Cases filed in federal courts in the United States have been organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. In addition, class actions and individual personal injury cases or claims have been commenced in various countries outside of the United States, including claims and cases in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy and Venezuela, and class actions in Israel, Australia and Canada, seeking damages for alleged injury resulting from Ethicon's pelvic mesh devices. The Company has established an accrual with respect to product liability litigation associated with Ethicon's pelvic mesh products. Claims for personal injury have been made against Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson arising out of the use of RISPERDAL^®, indicated for the treatment of schizophrenia, acute manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder and irritability associated with autism, and related compounds. Lawsuits have been primarily filed in state courts in Pennsylvania, California, and Missouri. Other actions are pending in various courts in the United States and Canada. Product liability lawsuits continue to be filed, and the Company continues to receive information with respect to potential costs and the anticipated number of cases. The Company has established an accrual with respect to product liability litigation associated with RISPERDAL^®. Claims for personal injury have been made against Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson arising out of the use of XARELTO^®, an oral anticoagulant. The number of pending product liability lawsuits continues to increase, and the Company continues to receive information with respect to potential costs and the anticipated number of cases. Cases filed in federal courts in the United States have been organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. In addition, cases have been filed in state courts across the United States. Many of these cases have been consolidated into a state mass tort litigation in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and there are coordinated proceedings in Delaware, California and Missouri. Class action lawsuits also have been filed in Canada. The Company has established an accrual for defense costs in connection with product liability litigation associated with XARELTO^®. Claims for personal injury have been made against Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. and Johnson & Johnson arising out of the use of JOHNSON'S^® Baby Powder. The number of pending product liability lawsuits continues to increase, and the Company continues to receive information with respect to potential costs and the anticipated number of cases. Lawsuits have been primarily filed in state courts in Missouri, New Jersey and California. Cases filed in federal courts in the United States have been organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Company has established an accrual for defense costs in connection with product liability litigation associated with JOHNSON'S^® Baby Powder. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Certain subsidiaries of Johnson & Johnson are subject, from time to time, to legal proceedings and claims related to patent, trademark and other intellectual property matters arising out of their businesses. Many of these matters involve challenges to the coverage and/or validity of the patents on various products and allegations that certain of the Company’s products infringe the patents of third parties. Although these subsidiaries believe that they have substantial defenses to these challenges and allegations with respect to all significant patents, there can be no assurance as to the outcome of these matters. A loss in any of these cases could adversely affect the ability of these subsidiaries to sell their products, result in loss of sales due to loss of market exclusivity, require the payment of past damages and future royalties, and may result in a non-cash impairment charge for any associated intangible asset. The most significant of these matters are described below. Medical Devices In June 2009, Rembrandt Vision Technologies, L.P. (Rembrandt) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. (JJVCI) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging that JJVCI's manufacture and sale of its ACUVUE^® ADVANCE and ACUVUE OASYS^® Hydrogel Contact Lenses infringed Rembrandt’s U.S. Patent No. 5,712,327 and seeking monetary relief. The case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, where a trial in May 2012 resulted in a verdict of non-infringement that was subsequently upheld on appeal. In July 2014, Rembrandt sought a new trial based on alleged new evidence, which the District Court denied. In April 2016, the Court of Appeals overturned that ruling and remanded the case to the District Court for a new trial. A new trial is scheduled for August 2017. LifeScan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against UniStrip Technologies, LLC (UniStrip) in the United States District Court for the District of North Carolina in May 2014, alleging that the making and marketing of UniStrip’s strips for use in LifeScan’s blood glucose monitors infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,241,862 and 7,250,105 (the ’105 patent). In August 2014, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) determined that the ’105 patent is invalid. In January 2016, the invalidity decision was upheld on appeal. LifeScan filed a motion for rehearing, which was denied. In July 2014, UniStrip brought a lawsuit against LifeScan in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging antitrust violations relating to marketing practices for LifeScan strips. In March 2017, the parties settled both the antitrust and patent lawsuits. In March 2013, Medinol Ltd. (Medinol) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Cordis Corporation (Cordis) and Johnson & Johnson in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that Cordis’s sales of the CYPHER^™ and CYPHER SELECT^™ Stents made in the United States since 2005 willfully infringed four of Medinol's patents directed to the geometry of articulated stents. Medinol is seeking damages and attorneys’ fees. After trial in January 2014, the District Court dismissed the case, finding Medinol unreasonably delayed bringing its claims. In September 2014, the District Court denied a motion by Medinol to vacate the judgment and grant it a new trial. Medinol has appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Cordis was divested in 2015, and the Company retained any liability that may result from this case. In November 2016, MedIdea, L.L.C. (MedIdea) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging infringement by the ATTUNE^® Knee System. MedIdea alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,558,426; 8,273,132; 8,721,730 and 9,492,280 relating to posterior stabilized knee systems. Specifically, MedIdea alleges that the SOFCAM^TM Contact feature of the ATTUNE^® posterior stabilized knee products infringes the patents-in-suit. MedIdea is seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. In December 2016, Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. and Ethicon Endo-Surgery, LLC (now known as Ethicon LLC) sued Covidien, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking a declaration that Covidien’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,585,735 (the ’735 patent); 7,118,587; 7,473,253; 8,070,748 and 8,241,284 (the ’284 patent), are either invalid or not infringed by Ethicon’s ENSEAL^® X1 Large Jaw Tissue Sealer product. In April 2017, Covidien LP, Covidien Sales LLC, and Covidien AG answered and counterclaimed, denying the allegations, asserting willful infringement of the ’735 patent, the ’284 patent and U.S. Patent Nos. 8,323,310; 9,084,608; 9,241,759 and 9,113,882, and seeking damages and an injunction. Pharmaceutical In April 2016, MorphoSys AG, a German biotech company, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Janssen Biotech, Inc. (JBI), Genmab U.S. Inc. and Genmab A/S (collectively, Genmab) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. MorphoSys alleges that JBI’s manufacture and sale of DARZALEX^® (daratumumab) willfully infringes MorphoSys’ U.S. Patent Nos. 8,263,746 and 9,200,061. MorphoSys is seeking money damages. JBI licenses patents and the commercial rights to DARZALEX^® from Genmab. Trial in the case is scheduled to commence in August 2018. In August 2016, Sandoz Ltd and Hexal AG (collectively, Sandoz) filed a lawsuit in the English High Court against G.D. Searle LLC (a Pfizer company) and Janssen Sciences Ireland UC (JSI) alleging that Searle’s supplementary protection certificate SPC/GB07/038 (SPC), which is exclusively licensed to JSI, is invalid and should be revoked. Janssen-Cilag Limited sells PREZISTA^® (darunavir) in the UK pursuant to this license. In October 2016, Searle and JSI counterclaimed against Sandoz for threatened infringement of the SPC based on statements of its plans to launch generic darunavir in the UK. Sandoz admitted that its generic darunavir product would infringe the SPC if it is found valid. Searle and JSI are seeking an order enjoining Sandoz from marketing its generic darunavir before the expiration of the SPC. Following a trial in April 2017, the Court entered a decision holding that the SPC is valid, and that a hearing will be scheduled regarding, among other things, Searle’s and JSI’s request for an injunction. REMICADE^® Related Cases U.S. Proceedings In September 2013, Janssen Biotech, Inc. (JBI) and NYU Langone Medical Center (NYU) received an Office Action from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rejecting the claims in U.S. Patent No. 6,284,471 relating to REMICADE^® (infliximab) (the ’471 patent) in a reexamination proceeding instituted by a third party. The ’471 patent expires in September 2018 and is co-owned by JBI and NYU, with NYU having granted JBI an exclusive license to NYU’s rights under the patent. Following several office actions by the patent examiner, including two further rejections, and responses by JBI, the USPTO issued a further action maintaining its rejection of the ’471 patent. JBI filed a notice of appeal to the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which issued a decision in November 2016 upholding the examiner's rejection. JBI has filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In August 2014, Celltrion Healthcare Co. Ltd. and Celltrion Inc. (together, Celltrion) filed an application with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval to make and sell its own infliximab biosimilar. In March 2015, JBI filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Celltrion and Hospira Healthcare Corporation (Hospira), which has exclusive U.S. marketing rights for Celltrion's infliximab biosimilar in the United States, seeking, among other things, a declaratory judgment that their biosimilar product infringes or potentially infringes several JBI patents, including the ’471 patent and U.S. Patent No. 7,598,083 (the ’083 patent). In August 2016, the District Court granted both Celltrion's and Hospira's motions for summary judgment of invalidity of the ’471 patent. JBI appealed those decisions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This case and the appeal of the reexamination of the ’471 patent have been designated companion cases and will be heard by the same panel of judges at the Federal Circuit. In June 2016, JBI filed two additional patent infringement lawsuits asserting the ’083 patent, one against Celltrion in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and the other against HyClone Laboratories, Inc., the manufacturer of the cell culture media that Celltrion uses to make its biosimilar product, in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. Although the ’083 patent is already asserted in the existing lawsuit against Celltrion, the additional lawsuit expands the claims to include any use of the cell culture media made in the United States to manufacture Celltrion's biosimilar. This additional lawsuit against Celltrion has been consolidated with the existing lawsuit discussed above. Hospira has moved to dismiss all counts of the lawsuit related to the ’083 patent as to it. Celltrion has moved to dismiss all counts of the lawsuit related to the ’083 patent without prejudice for failure to join all the co-owners of the ’083 patent as plaintiffs. The trial has been postponed pending resolution of these motions. The FDA approved Celltrion’s infliximab biosimilar for sale in the United States in April 2016. Hospira's parent company, Pfizer Inc., launched Celltrion's infliximab biosimilar in the United States in late 2016. In April 2017, JBI received notice that the FDA approved a marketing application submitted by Samsung Bioepis Co. Ltd. for the sale of its infliximab biosimilar in the United States. Canadian Proceedings In March 2013, Hospira filed an impeachment proceeding in the Federal Court of Canada against The Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology (Kennedy) challenging the validity of a Canadian patent related to REMICADE^® (a Feldman patent), which is exclusively licensed to JBI. In October 2013, Kennedy, along with JBI, Janssen Inc. (Janssen) and Cilag GmbH International (both affiliates of JBI), filed a counterclaim for infringement against Celltrion and Hospira. The counterclaim alleges that the products described in Celltrion’s and Hospira’s marketing applications to Health Canada for their subsequent entry biologics (SEB) to REMICADE^® would infringe the Feldman patents owned by Kennedy. Janssen and Kennedy are seeking damages and an injunction against Hospira. A trial in this patent action concluded in October 2016, and closing arguments took place in January 2017. The parties are awaiting a decision. In January 2014, Health Canada approved Celltrion’s SEB to REMICADE^®, allowing Celltrion to market its infliximab biosimilar in Canada, regardless of the pending patent action. In June 2014, Health Canada approved Hospira’s SEB to REMICADE^®. In July 2014, Janssen filed a lawsuit in the Federal Court of Canada challenging the Canadian Minister of Health’s marketing approval (Notice of Compliance) for Hospira’s SEB because Hospira did not serve a Notice of Allegation on Janssen to address the patent listed by Janssen on the Patent Register. In March 2015, the parties entered a settlement agreement whereby Health Canada agreed to a Consent Judgment setting aside Hospira’s Notice of Compliance, subject to Health Canada's appeal, which was filed in June 2015. Nevertheless, Hospira began marketing an infliximab biosimilar as a distributor under Celltrion’s Notice of Compliance. In October 2016, the appeals court reversed the Consent Judgment. Janssen has filed an application for leave to appeal with the Supreme Court of Canada. Hospira continues to market and sell Celltrion's infliximab biosimilar in Canada. In Canada, if the REMICADE^® patent discussed above is found to be invalid following all appeals, it could not be relied upon to prevent the further introduction of infliximab biosimilars prior to the August 1, 2017 expiry date of the patent. Litigation Against Filers of Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) The following summarizes lawsuits pending against generic companies that have filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) with the FDA, or undertaken similar regulatory processes outside of the United States, seeking to market generic forms of products sold by various subsidiaries of Johnson & Johnson prior to expiration of the applicable patents covering those products. These ANDAs typically include allegations of non-infringement, invalidity and unenforceability of the applicable patents. In the event the subsidiaries are not successful in these actions, or the statutory 30-month stays of the ANDAs expire before the United States District Court rulings are obtained, the third-party companies involved will have the ability, upon approval of the FDA, to introduce generic versions of the products at issue to the market, resulting in the potential for substantial market share and revenue losses for those products, and which may result in a non-cash impairment charge in any associated intangible asset. In addition, from time to time, subsidiaries may settle these actions and such settlements can involve the introduction of generic versions of the products at issue to the market prior to the expiration of the relevant patents. The inter partes review (IPR) process with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), created under the 2011 America Invents Act, is also being used by generic companies in conjunction with these ANDAs and lawsuits to challenge patents held by the Company’s subsidiaries. CONCERTA^® In October 2016, ALZA Corporation and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (together, Janssen) initiated a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC and Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC (together, Amneal), who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of CONCERTA^® before the expiration of United States Patent Nos. 8,163,798 and 9,144,549. Janssen is seeking an order enjoining Amneal from marketing its generic version of CONCERTA^®before the expiration of the patents. ZYTIGA^® In July 2015, Janssen Biotech, Inc. (JBI), Janssen Oncology, Inc. (Janssen Oncology) and Janssen Research & Development, LLC (collectively, Janssen) and BTG International Ltd. (BTG) initiated a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against a number of generic companies (and certain of their affiliates and/or suppliers) who filed ANDAs seeking approval to market a generic version of ZYTIGA^® before the expiration of United States Patent No. 8,822,438 (the ’438 patent). The generic companies currently include Actavis Laboratories, FL, Inc. (Actavis); Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC and Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC (collectively, Amneal); Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (collectively, Apotex); Citron Pharma LLC (Citron); Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. (collectively, Dr. Reddy’s); Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Mylan Inc. (collectively, Mylan); Par Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. (collectively, Par); Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries, Inc. (collectively, Sun); Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Teva); Wockhardt Bio A.G.; Wockhardt USA LLC and Wockhardt Ltd. (collectively, Wockhardt); West-Ward Pharmaceutical Corp. (West-Ward) and Hikma Pharmaceuticals, LLC (Hikma). The Court has set a trial date of October 2017. Subsequently, Janssen and BTG initiated patent infringement lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Amerigen Pharmaceuticals Limited (Amerigen) in May 2016, and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in June 2016, each of whom filed an ANDA seeking approval to market its generic version of ZYTIGA^® before the expiration of the ’438 patent. In August 2015, Janssen and BTG filed an additional jurisdictional protective lawsuit against the Mylan defendants in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, which has been stayed. In each of the above lawsuits, Janssen is seeking an order enjoining the defendants from marketing their generic versions of ZYTIGA^® before the expiration of the ’438 patent. Several generic companies including Amerigen, Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC (Argentum), Mylan, Wockhardt, Actavis, Amneal, Dr. Reddy’s, Sun, Teva, West-Ward and Hikma have filed Petitions for Inter Partes Review (IPR) with the USPTO, seeking to invalidate the ’438 patent. A final written decision in the IPRs filed by Amerigen and Argentum, which were joined, is expected by May 2017. Final written decisions in the IPRs filed by Mylan, Actavis, Amneal, Dr. Reddy’s, Sun, Teva, West-Ward and Hikma, which were joined, and in the Wockhardt IPR, are expected by January 2018. COMPLERA^® In August and September 2015, Janssen Pharmaceutica NV and Janssen Sciences Ireland UC (collectively, Janssen) and Gilead Sciences, Inc. and Gilead Sciences Ireland UC (collectively, Gilead) initiated patent infringement lawsuits in the United States District Courts for the District of Delaware and the District of West Virginia, respectively, against Mylan, Inc. and Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, Mylan), who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of COMPLERA^® before the expiration of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,841,310, 7,125,879 and 8,101,629. The West Virginia lawsuit has been stayed, with a conditional trial date in February 2018, in accordance with the schedule in the first-filed Delaware lawsuit. In the Delaware lawsuit, Janssen and Gilead amended their complaint to add claims for patent infringement with respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 8,080,551; 7,399,856; 7,563,922; 8,101,752 and 8,618,291. A trial in the Delaware action has been scheduled for February 2018. In each of these lawsuits, Janssen is seeking an order enjoining the defendants from marketing their generic versions of COMPLERA^® before the expiration of the relevant patents. XARELTO^® Beginning in October 2015, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (JPI) and Bayer Pharma AG and Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH (together, Bayer) filed patent infringement lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against a number of generic companies who filed ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of XARELTO^® before expiration of Bayer’s U.S. Patent Nos. 7,157,456 , 7,585,860 and 7,592,339 relating to XARELTO^®. JPI is the exclusive licensee of the asserted patents. The following generic companies are named defendants: Aurobindo Pharma Limited and Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. (together, Aurobindo), Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc., Invagen Pharmaceuticals Inc., Micro Labs USA Inc. and Micro Labs Ltd. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Prinston Pharmaceutical, Inc., Sigmapharm Laboratories, LLC, Torrent Pharmaceuticals, Limited and Torrent Pharma Inc. Trial is scheduled for March 2018. In April 2017, JPI, Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH and Bayer AG filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of XARELTO^® before expiration of Bayer’s U.S. Patent No. 9,539,218 relating to XARELTO^®(the ’218 patent). In April 2017, JPI, Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH and Bayer AG filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Aurobindo, who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of XARELTO^® before expiration of the ’218 patent. In each of these lawsuits, JPI is seeking an order enjoining the defendants from marketing their generic versions of XARELTO^® before the expiration of the relevant patents. RISPERDAL^® CONSTA^® On November 30, 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) instituted an Inter Partes Review filed by Luye Pharma Group Ltd., Luye Pharma (USA) Ltd., Sandong Luye Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and Nanjing Luye Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., seeking to invalidate U.S. Patent No. 6,667,061 relating to RISPERDAL CONSTA^®. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. markets RISPERDAL CONSTA^®pursuant to a license from Alkermes Pharma Ireland Ltd. A decision by the USPTO is expected in November 2017. GOVERNMENT PROCEEDINGS Like other companies in the pharmaceutical and medical devices industries, Johnson & Johnson and certain of its subsidiaries are subject to extensive regulation by national, state and local government agencies in the United States and other countries in which they operate. As a result, interaction with government agencies is ongoing. The most significant litigation brought by, and investigations conducted by, government agencies are listed below. It is possible that criminal charges and substantial fines and/or civil penalties or damages could result from government investigations or litigation. Average Wholesale Price (AWP) Litigation Johnson & Johnson and several of its pharmaceutical subsidiaries (the J&J AWP Defendants), along with numerous other pharmaceutical companies, were named as defendants in a series of lawsuits in state and federal courts involving allegations that the pricing and marketing of certain pharmaceutical products amounted to fraudulent and otherwise actionable conduct because, among other things, the companies allegedly reported an inflated Average Wholesale Price (AWP) for the drugs at issue. Payors alleged that they used those AWPs in calculating provider reimbursement levels. The plaintiffs in these cases included three classes of private persons or entities that paid for any portion of the purchase of the drugs at issue based on AWP, and state government entities that made Medicaid payments for the drugs at issue based on AWP. Many of these cases, both federal actions and state actions removed to federal court, were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in a multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, where all claims against the J&J AWP Defendants were ultimately dismissed. The J&J AWP Defendants also prevailed in a case brought by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Other AWP cases have been resolved through court order or settlement. Two cases remain pending. In a case brought by Illinois, the parties are awaiting assignment of a trial date. In New Jersey, a putative class action based upon AWP allegations is pending against Centocor, Inc. and Ortho Biotech Inc. (both now Janssen Biotech, Inc.), Johnson & Johnson and ALZA Corporation. McNeil Consumer Healthcare Starting in June 2010, McNeil Consumer Healthcare Division of McNEIL-PPC, Inc. (now Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., McNeil Consumer Healthcare Division) (McNeil Consumer Healthcare) and certain affiliates, including Johnson & Johnson (the Companies), received grand jury subpoenas from the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania requesting documents broadly relating to recalls of various products of McNeil Consumer Healthcare, and FDA inspections of the Fort Washington, Pennsylvania and Lancaster, Pennsylvania manufacturing facilities. In addition, in February 2011, the government served McNEIL-PPC, Inc. (now Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.) (JJCI) with a Civil Investigative Demand seeking records relevant to its investigation to determine if there was a violation of the Federal False Claims Act. In March 2015, McNEIL-PPC, Inc. (now JJCI) entered a guilty plea to a misdemeanor violation of the U.S. Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and agreed to pay a fine to resolve the matter. The Companies received Civil Investigative Demands from multiple State Attorneys General Offices broadly relating to the McNeil recall issues. The Companies continue to cooperate with these inquiries, which are being coordinated through a multi-state coalition. If a resolution cannot be reached with this coalition, it is possible that individual State Attorneys General Offices may file civil monetary claims against the Companies. In January 2011, the Oregon Attorney General filed a civil complaint against Johnson & Johnson, McNEIL-PPC, Inc. (now JJCI) and McNeil Healthcare LLC in state court alleging civil violations of the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act relating to an earlier recall of a McNeil OTC product. Following the appeal and reversal of the trial court's grant of the Companies' motion to dismiss, the case was sent back to the trial court. In March 2017, JJCI and McNeil Consumer Healthcare served an “Offer to Allow Judgment” in the case without any admission or finding of fact or wrongdoing. The offer allows the court to enter a judgment with specified relief without a trial. Oregon accepted the offer and the court will enter a stipulated judgment. Opioids Litigation As described below, Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (JPI), along with other pharmaceutical companies, have been named in six lawsuits alleging claims related to marketing of opioids, including DURAGESIC^®, NUCYNTA^® and NUCYNTA^® ER. JPI has also been subpoenaed by two other states and a United States Congressional Committee for information related to opioid marketing practices. In May 2014, Santa Clara and Orange Counties in California filed a complaint in state court in Orange County, California against pharmaceutical manufacturers, including J&J and JPI, alleging claims related to opioid marketing practices, including false advertising, unfair competition, and public nuisance. The counties seek injunctive and monetary relief. The defendants filed motions challenging the sufficiency of the complaint. In August 2015, the Court stayed the case until the FDA concludes its ongoing inquiry into the safety and effectiveness of long-term opioid treatment. The Court has partially lifted the stay to permit the filing of an amended complaint. In June 2014, the City of Chicago filed a complaint in Cook County Circuit Court against the same group of pharmaceutical manufacturers, including J&J and JPI, alleging claims related to opioid marketing practices, including consumer fraud violations and false claims, and seeking injunctive and monetary relief. The case was later removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Following dismissal of eight of the ten causes of action in the City's second amended complaint in September 2016, the City was granted a final opportunity to re-plead the dismissed claims. The City filed a third amended complaint in October 2016. In December 2016, J&J and JPI filed an answer as to two causes of action and a motion to dismiss the remaining causes of action. In September 2014, the Tennessee Attorney General Division of Consumer Affairs issued a Request for Information to JPI and other pharmaceutical companies related to opioids marketing practices. In August 2015, the New Hampshire Attorney General, Consumer Protection and Antitrust Bureau issued a subpoena to JPI and other pharmaceutical companies related to opioids marketing practices. In October 2015, the State filed a motion in the State of New Hampshire Superior Court to enforce the subpoena. JPI and the other pharmaceutical companies subsequently filed a joint motion for injunctive relief and a protective order to preclude the State from engaging private contingent fee counsel to participate in the State’s investigation or any subsequent enforcement action. In March 2016, the Court granted the protective order on the grounds that the State had not obtained requisite executive and legislative approvals to retain private counsel, but rejected the contention that the contingency fee agreement was otherwise unlawful. All parties have appealed the March 2016 ruling to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. In August 2016, the Court denied the pharmaceutical companies’ joint motion to enforce the protective order on the ground that the underlying deficiency (legislative approval) had been cured. In September 2016, the State stipulated to stay enforcement of any subpoenas pending the New Hampshire Supreme Court’s consideration of the companies’ appeal of the March 2016 ruling. In March 2017, the New Hampshire Supreme Court held oral argument on the appeal and the parties are awaiting a decision. In December 2015, the State of Mississippi filed a complaint in the Chancery Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County against substantially the same group of pharmaceutical manufacturers as in the suits brought by the California counties and City of Chicago, including J&J and JPI, alleging claims related to opioid marketing practices and seeking penalties and injunctive and monetary relief. In March 2016, defendants filed a motion to transfer venue and motions to dismiss the complaint. In February 2017, the Chancery Court issued an order denying defendants’ motion to transfer venue, and defendants have filed an appeal with the Mississippi Supreme Court seeking review of the order. In August 2016, the County of Suffolk in New York filed a complaint against several pharmaceutical manufacturers in New York Supreme Court, including J&J and JPI, alleging claims related to opioid marketing, including claims based on deceptive acts and practices, false advertising, fraud and unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks penalties and injunctive and monetary relief. In January 2017, defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint on the basis of primary jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim, as well as a motion seeking to preclude payment of Suffolk County’s outside counsel on a contingency-fee basis. In February 2017, the County of Erie and the County of Broome in New York each filed a complaint in New York Supreme Court against several pharmaceutical manufacturers, including J&J and JPI. Both complaints allege claims related to opioid marketing practices, including statutory claims for deceptive acts and practices, false advertising, and violation of New York’s Social Services Law, and common law causes of action for public nuisance, fraud, and unjust enrichment. Each complaint seeks penalties and injunctive and monetary relief. In March 2017, the New Jersey Attorney General Division of Consumer Affairs issued a subpoena to JPI related to certain practices in marketing opioids. In March 2017, the ranking minority member of the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs issued a request for information to JPI regarding the sales, marketing, and educational strategies related to the promotion of opioids use. Other In May 2012, Acclarent, Inc. (Acclarent) received a subpoena from the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts requesting documents broadly relating to the sales, marketing and alleged off-label promotion by Acclarent of the RELIEVA STRATUS^® MicroFlow Spacer product (the RELIEVA STRATUS^® Spacer). In March 2016, Acclarent executed a civil settlement with the United States Justice Department and other agencies to resolve this investigation. Johnson & Johnson was not a party to this settlement and there was no admission of liability. In a separate matter, in July 2016, the former President/CEO and Vice President of Sales of Acclarent (the former Acclarent officers), were convicted of misdemeanor violations in connection with the sale and marketing of the RELIEVA STRATUS^® Spacer. There are no charges against Acclarent, Ethicon, Inc. or Johnson & Johnson in this matter. In August 2012, DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., DePuy, Inc. (now DePuy Synthes, Inc.), and Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc. received an informal request from the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts and the Civil Division of the United States Department of Justice (the United States) for the production of materials relating to the DePuy ASR™ XL Hip device. In July 2014, the United States notified the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts that it had declined to intervene in a qui tam case filed pursuant to the False Claims Act against the companies. In February 2016, the District Court granted the companies’ motion to dismiss with prejudice, unsealed the qui tam complaint, and denied the qui tam relators’ request for leave to file a further amended complaint. The qui tam relators appealed the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The First Circuit's decision in the case is pending. Since October 2013, a group of State Attorneys General have issued Civil Investigative Demands relating to the development, sales and marketing of several of DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc.'s hip products. The states are seeking monetary and injunctive relief. In July 2014, the Oregon Department of Justice, which was investigating these matters independently of the other states, announced a settlement of its ASR XL Hip device investigation for a total payment of $4 million to the State of Oregon. In October 2012, Johnson & Johnson was contacted by the California Attorney General's office regarding a multi-state Attorney General investigation of the marketing of surgical mesh products for hernia and urogynecological purposes by Johnson & Johnson's subsidiary, Ethicon, Inc. (Ethicon). Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon have since entered into a series of tolling agreements with the 47 states and the District of Columbia participating in the multi-state investigation and have responded to Civil Investigative Demands served by certain of the participating states. The states are seeking monetary and injunctive relief. In May 2016, California and Washington filed civil complaints against Johnson & Johnson, Ethicon Inc. and Ethicon US, LLC alleging violations of their consumer protection statutes. In August 2016, Kentucky filed a similar complaint against the companies. Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon have entered into a new tolling agreement with the remaining 44 states and the District of Columbia. In December 2012, Therakos, Inc. (Therakos), formerly a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson and part of the Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. (OCD) franchise, received a letter from the civil division of the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania informing Therakos that the United States Attorney's Office was investigating the sales and marketing of Uvadex^® (methoxsalen) and the Uvar Xts^® and Cellex^® Systems during the period 2000 to the present. The United States Attorney's Office requested that OCD and Johnson & Johnson preserve documents that could relate to the investigation. Therakos was subsequently acquired by an affiliate of Gores Capital Partners III, L.P. in January 2013, and OCD was divested in June 2014. Following the divestiture of OCD, Johnson & Johnson retains OCD’s portion of any liability that may result from the investigation for activity that occurred prior to the sale of Therakos. In March 2014 and March 2016, the United States Attorney’s Office requested that Johnson & Johnson produce certain documents, and Johnson & Johnson is cooperating with those requests. In June 2014, the Mississippi Attorney General filed a complaint in Chancery Court of The First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi against Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. (now Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.) (JJCI). The complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose alleged health risks associated with female consumers' use of talc contained in JOHNSON'S^® Baby Powder and JOHNSON'S^® Shower to Shower (a product no longer sold by JJCI) and seeks injunctive and monetary relief. The parties have agreed to adjourn the trial date and currently expect the trial to be re-scheduled to in or around January 2018. In March 2016, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (JPI) received a Civil Investigative Demand from the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York related to JPI’s contractual relationships with pharmacy benefit managers over the period from January 1, 2006 to the present with regard to certain of JPI's pharmaceutical products. The demand was issued in connection with an investigation under the False Claims Act. In January 2017, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (JPI) received a Civil Investigative Demand from the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) relating to allegations concerning the sales and marketing practices of OLYSIO^TM. In February 2017, Johnson & Johnson received a subpoena from the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts seeking the production of records pertaining to payments to any 501(c)(3) charitable organization that provides financial assistance to Medicare patients. Multiple pharmaceutical companies have publicly reported receipt of similar subpoenas and ongoing inquiries. In March 2017, Janssen Biotech, Inc. (JBI) received a Civil Investigative Demand from the United States Department of Justice regarding a False Claims Act investigation concerning management and advisory services provided to rheumatology and gastroenterology practices that purchased REMICADE^® or SIMPONI ARIA^®. In April 2017, Johnson & Johnson received a subpoena from the United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts seeking documents broadly relating to pharmaceutical copayment support programs for OLYSIO^TM, SIMPONI^® and STELARA^®. The subpoena also seeks documents relating to Average Manufacturer Price and Best Price reporting to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services related to those products, as well as rebate payments to state Medicaid agencies. From time to time, Johnson & Johnson has received requests from a variety of United States Congressional Committees to produce information relevant to ongoing congressional inquiries. It is the policy of Johnson & Johnson to cooperate with these inquiries by producing the requested information. GENERAL LITIGATION In June 2009, following the public announcement that Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. (OCD) had received a grand jury subpoena from the United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, in connection with an investigation that has since been closed, multiple class action complaints were filed against OCD by direct purchasers seeking damages for alleged price fixing. These cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as In re Blood Reagent Antitrust Litigation. Following the appeal and reversal of its initial grant of a motion for class certification, on remand, the District Court in October 2015 again granted a motion by the plaintiffs for class certification. OCD's motion for summary judgment was argued before the Court in January 2017 and the parties are awaiting a decision. OCD was divested in 2014 and Johnson & Johnson retained any liability that may result from these cases. In September 2011, Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Inc. and McNeil Consumer Healthcare Division of Johnson & Johnson Inc. received a Notice of Civil Claim filed by Nick Field in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada (the BC Civil Claim). The BC Civil Claim is a putative class action brought on behalf of persons who reside in British Columbia and who purchased during the period between September 20, 2001 and in or about December 2010 one or more various McNeil infants' or children's over-the-counter medicines that were manufactured at the Fort Washington, Pennsylvania facility. The BC Civil Claim alleges that the defendants violated the BC Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, and other Canadian statutes and common laws, by selling medicines that were allegedly not safe and/or effective or did not comply with Canadian Good Manufacturing Practices. The class certification hearing scheduled for October 2015 was adjourned, and there is currently no date set for that hearing. In addition, in April 2016, a putative class action was filed against Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Sales and Logistics Company, LLC and McNeil PPC, Inc. in New Jersey Superior Court, Camden County on behalf of persons who reside in the state of New Jersey who purchased various McNeil over-the-counter products from December 2008 through the present. The complaint alleges violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. In February 2017, the companies filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In May 2014, two purported class actions were filed in federal court, one in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and one in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, against Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. (now Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.) (JJCI), alleging violations of state consumer fraud statutes based on nondisclosure of alleged health risks associated with talc contained in JOHNSON'S^®Baby Powder and JOHNSON'S^® Shower to Shower (a product no longer sold by JJCI). Both cases seek injunctive relief and monetary damages; neither includes a claim for personal injuries. In October 2016, both cases were transferred to the United States District Court for the District Court of New Jersey as part of a newly created federal multi-district litigation. In December 2016, J&J and JJCI filed a motion to dismiss one of the cases. In August 2014, United States Customs and Border Protection (US CBP) issued a Penalty Notice against Janssen Ortho LLC (Janssen Ortho), assessing penalties for the alleged improper classification of darunavir ethanolate (the active pharmaceutical ingredient in PREZISTA^®) in connection with its importation into the United States. In October 2014, Janssen Ortho submitted a Petition for Relief in response to the Penalty Notice. In May 2015, US CBP issued an Amended Penalty Notice assessing substantial penalties and Janssen Ortho filed its Petition for Relief in July 2015. In March and April 2015, over 30 putative class action complaints were filed by contact lens patients in a number of courts around the United States against Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. (JJVCI), other contact lens manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, alleging vertical and horizontal conspiracies to fix the retail prices of contact lenses. The complaints allege that the manufacturers reached agreements with each other and certain distributors and retailers concerning the prices at which some contact lenses could be sold to consumers. The plaintiffs are seeking damages and injunctive relief. All of the class action cases were transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida in June 2015. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint in November 2015. In June 2016, the Court denied motions to dismiss filed by JJVCI and other defendants. Discovery is ongoing. In March 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. In April 2015, Adimmune Corporation Ltd (Adimmune) commenced an arbitration in the International Court of Arbitration - International Chamber of Commerce against Crucell Switzerland AG (now Janssen Vaccines AG) and Crucell Holland B.V. (now Janssen Vaccines & Prevention B.V.) (collectively, Crucell). Adimmune claims that Crucell breached certain agreements relating to the supply of flu antigen when Crucell ceased purchasing flu antigen from Adimmune. In December 2015, Adimmune filed its Statement of Claim seeking monetary damages. The arbitration hearing took place in November 2016 and the parties are awaiting a ruling. In August 2015, two third-party payors filed a purported class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Janssen Ortho LLC, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson (as well as certain Bayer entities), alleging that the defendants improperly marketed and promoted XARELTO^® as safer and more effective than less expensive alternative medications while failing to fully disclose its risks. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount. Johnson & Johnson or its subsidiaries are also parties to a number of proceedings brought under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, commonly known as Superfund, and comparable state, local or foreign laws in which the primary relief sought is the cost of past and/or future remediation.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Johnson & Johnson and certain of its subsidiaries are involved in various lawsuits and claims regarding product liability, intellectual property, commercial and other matters; governmental investigations; and other legal proceedings that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of their business.

The Company records accruals for loss contingencies associated with these legal matters when it is probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. As of April 2, 2017, the Company has determined that the liabilities associated with certain litigation matters are probable and can be reasonably estimated. The Company has accrued for these matters and will continue to monitor each related legal issue and adjust accruals as might be warranted based on new information and further developments in accordance with ASC 450-20-25. For these and other litigation and regulatory matters discussed below for which a loss is probable or reasonably possible, the Company is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss beyond the amounts already accrued. Amounts accrued for legal contingencies often result from a complex series of judgments about future events and uncertainties that rely heavily on estimates and assumptions. The ability to make such estimates and judgments can be affected by various factors, including whether damages sought in the proceedings are unsubstantiated or indeterminate; scientific and legal discovery has not commenced or is not complete; proceedings are in early stages; matters present legal uncertainties; there are significant facts in dispute; or there are numerous parties involved.

In the Company's opinion, based on its examination of these matters, its experience to date and discussions with counsel, the ultimate outcome of legal proceedings, net of liabilities accrued in the Company's balance sheet, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position. However, the resolution of, or increase in accruals for, one or more of these matters in any reporting period may have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations and cash flows for that period.

PRODUCT LIABILITY

Johnson & Johnson and certain of its subsidiaries are involved in numerous product liability claims and lawsuits involving multiple products. Claimants in these cases seek substantial compensatory and, where available, punitive damages. While the Company believes it has substantial defenses, it is not feasible to predict the ultimate outcome of litigation. The Company has established accruals for product liability claims and lawsuits in compliance with ASC 450-20 based on currently available information, which in some cases may be limited. The Company accrues an estimate of the legal defense costs needed to defend each matter when those costs are probable and can be reasonably estimated. For certain of these matters, the Company has accrued additional amounts such as estimated costs associated with settlements, damages and other losses. To the extent adverse verdicts have been rendered against the Company, the Company does not record an accrual until a loss is determined to be probable and can be reasonably estimated. Product liability accruals can represent projected product liability for thousands of claims around the world, each in different litigation environments and with different fact patterns. Changes to the accruals may be required in the future as additional information becomes available.

The most significant of these cases include the DePuy ASR™ XL Acetabular System and DePuy ASR™ Hip Resurfacing System, the PINNACLE^® Acetabular Cup System, pelvic meshes, RISPERDAL^®, XARELTO^®and JOHNSON'S^® Baby Powder. As of April 2, 2017, in the U.S. there were approximately 2,000 plaintiffs with direct claims in pending lawsuits regarding injuries allegedly due to the DePuy ASR™ XL Acetabular System and DePuy ASR™ Hip Resurfacing System, 9,600 with respect to the PINNACLE^® Acetabular Cup System, 55,800 with respect to pelvic meshes, 16,900 with respect to RISPERDAL^®, 18,400 with respect to XARELTO^® and 3,900 with respect to JOHNSON'S^® Baby Powder.

In August 2010, DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. (DePuy) announced a worldwide voluntary recall of its ASR^™ XL Acetabular System and DePuy ASR^™ Hip Resurfacing System used in hip replacement surgery. Claims for personal injury have been made against DePuy and Johnson & Johnson. The number of pending lawsuits is expected to fluctuate as certain lawsuits are settled or dismissed and additional lawsuits are filed. Cases filed in federal courts in the United States have been organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Litigation has also been filed in countries outside of the United States, primarily in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Ireland, Germany and Italy. In November 2013, DePuy reached an agreement with a Court-appointed committee of lawyers representing ASR Hip System plaintiffs to establish a program to settle claims with eligible ASR Hip patients in the United States who had surgery to replace their ASR Hips, known as revision surgery, as of August 31, 2013. DePuy reached additional agreements in February 2015 and March 2017, which further extended the settlement program to include ASR Hip patients who had revision surgeries after August 31, 2013 and prior to February 15, 2017. This settlement program has resolved more than 9,500 claims, with more expected from the recent extension, therefore bringing to resolution significant ASR Hip litigation activity in the United States. However, lawsuits in the United States remain, and the settlement program does not address litigation outside of the United States. In Australia, a class action settlement was reached that resolved the claims of the majority of ASR Hip patients in that country. The Company continues to receive information with respect to potential additional costs associated with this recall on a worldwide basis. The Company has established accruals for the costs associated with the U.S. settlement program and DePuy ASR^™ Hip-related product liability litigation.

Claims for personal injury have also been made against DePuy and Johnson & Johnson relating to the PINNACLE^® Acetabular Cup System used in hip replacement surgery. The number of pending product liability lawsuits continues to increase, and the Company continues to receive information with respect to potential costs and the anticipated number of cases. Cases filed in federal courts in the United States have been organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Litigation has also been filed in countries outside of the United States, primarily in the United Kingdom. The Company has established an accrual for defense costs in connection with product liability litigation associated with the PINNACLE^® Acetabular Cup System.

Claims for personal injury have been made against Ethicon, Inc. (Ethicon) and Johnson & Johnson arising out of Ethicon's pelvic mesh devices used to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. The number of pending product liability lawsuits continues to increase, and the Company continues to receive information with respect to potential costs and the anticipated number of cases. Cases filed in federal courts in the United States have been organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. In addition, class actions and individual personal injury cases or claims have been commenced in various countries outside of the United States, including claims and cases in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy and Venezuela, and class actions in Israel, Australia and Canada, seeking damages for alleged injury resulting from Ethicon's pelvic mesh devices. The Company has established an accrual with respect to product liability litigation associated with Ethicon's pelvic mesh products.

Claims for personal injury have been made against Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson arising out of the use of RISPERDAL^®, indicated for the treatment of schizophrenia, acute manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder and irritability associated with autism, and related compounds. Lawsuits have been primarily filed in state courts in Pennsylvania, California, and Missouri. Other actions are pending in various courts in the United States and Canada. Product liability lawsuits continue to be filed, and the Company continues to receive information with respect to potential costs and the anticipated number of cases. The Company has established an accrual with respect to product liability litigation associated with RISPERDAL^®.

Claims for personal injury have been made against Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson arising out of the use of XARELTO^®, an oral anticoagulant. The number of pending product liability lawsuits continues to increase, and the Company continues to receive information with respect to potential costs and the anticipated number of cases. Cases filed in federal courts in the United States have been organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. In addition, cases have been filed in state courts across the United States. Many of these cases have been consolidated into a state mass tort litigation in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and there are coordinated proceedings in Delaware, California and Missouri. Class action lawsuits also have been filed in Canada. The Company has established an accrual for defense costs in connection with product liability litigation associated with XARELTO^®.

Claims for personal injury have been made against Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. and Johnson & Johnson arising out of the use of JOHNSON'S^® Baby Powder. The number of pending product liability lawsuits continues to increase, and the Company continues to receive information with respect to potential costs and the anticipated number of cases. Lawsuits have been primarily filed in state courts in Missouri, New Jersey and California. Cases filed in federal courts in the United States have been organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Company has established an accrual for defense costs in connection with product liability litigation associated with JOHNSON'S^® Baby Powder.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Certain subsidiaries of Johnson & Johnson are subject, from time to time, to legal proceedings and claims related to patent, trademark and other intellectual property matters arising out of their businesses. Many of these matters involve challenges to the coverage and/or validity of the patents on various products and allegations that certain of the Company’s products infringe the patents of third parties. Although these subsidiaries believe that they have substantial defenses to these challenges and allegations with respect to all significant patents, there can be no assurance as to the outcome of these matters. A loss in any of these cases could adversely affect the ability of these subsidiaries to sell their products, result in loss of sales due to loss of market exclusivity, require the payment of past damages and future royalties, and may result in a non-cash impairment charge for any associated intangible asset. The most significant of these matters are described below.

Medical Devices

In June 2009, Rembrandt Vision Technologies, L.P. (Rembrandt) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. (JJVCI) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging that JJVCI's manufacture and sale of its ACUVUE^® ADVANCE and ACUVUE OASYS^® Hydrogel Contact Lenses infringed Rembrandt’s U.S. Patent No. 5,712,327 and seeking monetary relief. The case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, where a trial in May 2012 resulted in a verdict of non-infringement that was subsequently upheld on appeal. In July 2014, Rembrandt sought a new trial based on alleged new evidence, which the District Court denied. In April 2016, the Court of Appeals overturned that ruling and remanded the case to the District Court for a new trial. A new trial is scheduled for August 2017.

LifeScan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against UniStrip Technologies, LLC (UniStrip) in the United States District Court for the District of North Carolina in May 2014, alleging that the making and marketing of UniStrip’s strips for use in LifeScan’s blood glucose monitors infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,241,862 and 7,250,105 (the ’105 patent). In August 2014, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) determined that the ’105 patent is invalid. In January 2016, the invalidity decision was upheld on appeal. LifeScan filed a motion for rehearing, which was denied. In July 2014, UniStrip brought a lawsuit against LifeScan in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging antitrust violations relating to marketing practices for LifeScan strips. In March 2017, the parties settled both the antitrust and patent lawsuits.

In March 2013, Medinol Ltd. (Medinol) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Cordis Corporation (Cordis) and Johnson & Johnson in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that Cordis’s sales of the CYPHER^™ and CYPHER SELECT^™ Stents made in the United States since 2005 willfully infringed four of Medinol's patents directed to the geometry of articulated stents. Medinol is seeking damages and attorneys’ fees. After trial in January 2014, the District Court dismissed the case, finding Medinol unreasonably delayed bringing its claims. In September 2014, the District Court denied a motion by Medinol to vacate the judgment and grant it a new trial. Medinol has appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Cordis was divested in 2015, and the Company retained any liability that may result from this case.

In November 2016, MedIdea, L.L.C. (MedIdea) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging infringement by the ATTUNE^® Knee System. MedIdea alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,558,426; 8,273,132; 8,721,730 and 9,492,280 relating to posterior stabilized knee systems. Specifically, MedIdea alleges that the SOFCAM^TM Contact feature of the ATTUNE^® posterior stabilized knee products infringes the patents-in-suit. MedIdea is seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief.

In December 2016, Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. and Ethicon Endo-Surgery, LLC (now known as Ethicon LLC) sued Covidien, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking a declaration that Covidien’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,585,735 (the ’735 patent); 7,118,587; 7,473,253; 8,070,748 and 8,241,284 (the ’284 patent), are either invalid or not infringed by Ethicon’s ENSEAL^® X1 Large Jaw Tissue Sealer product. In April 2017, Covidien LP, Covidien Sales LLC, and Covidien AG answered and counterclaimed, denying the allegations, asserting willful infringement of the ’735 patent, the ’284 patent and U.S. Patent Nos. 8,323,310; 9,084,608; 9,241,759 and 9,113,882, and seeking damages and an injunction.

Pharmaceutical

In April 2016, MorphoSys AG, a German biotech company, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Janssen Biotech, Inc. (JBI), Genmab U.S. Inc. and Genmab A/S (collectively, Genmab) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. MorphoSys alleges that JBI’s manufacture and sale of DARZALEX^® (daratumumab) willfully infringes MorphoSys’ U.S. Patent Nos. 8,263,746 and 9,200,061. MorphoSys is seeking money damages. JBI licenses patents and the commercial rights to DARZALEX^® from Genmab. Trial in the case is scheduled to commence in August 2018.

In August 2016, Sandoz Ltd and Hexal AG (collectively, Sandoz) filed a lawsuit in the English High Court against G.D. Searle LLC (a Pfizer company) and Janssen Sciences Ireland UC (JSI) alleging that Searle’s supplementary protection certificate SPC/GB07/038 (SPC), which is exclusively licensed to JSI, is invalid and should be revoked. Janssen-Cilag Limited sells PREZISTA^® (darunavir) in the UK pursuant to this license. In October 2016, Searle and JSI counterclaimed against Sandoz for threatened infringement of the SPC based on statements of its plans to launch generic darunavir in the UK. Sandoz admitted that its generic darunavir product would infringe the SPC if it is found valid. Searle and JSI are seeking an order enjoining Sandoz from marketing its generic darunavir before the expiration of the SPC. Following a trial in April 2017, the Court entered a decision holding that the SPC is valid, and that a hearing will be scheduled regarding, among other things, Searle’s and JSI’s request for an injunction.

REMICADE^® Related Cases

U.S. Proceedings

In September 2013, Janssen Biotech, Inc. (JBI) and NYU Langone Medical Center (NYU) received an Office Action from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rejecting the claims in U.S. Patent No. 6,284,471 relating to REMICADE^® (infliximab) (the ’471 patent) in a reexamination proceeding instituted by a third party. The ’471 patent expires in September 2018 and is co-owned by JBI and NYU, with NYU having granted JBI an exclusive license to NYU’s rights under the patent. Following several office actions by the patent examiner, including two further rejections, and responses by JBI, the USPTO issued a further action maintaining its rejection of the ’471 patent. JBI filed a notice of appeal to the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which issued a decision in November 2016 upholding the examiner's rejection. JBI has filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

In August 2014, Celltrion Healthcare Co. Ltd. and Celltrion Inc. (together, Celltrion) filed an application with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval to make and sell its own infliximab biosimilar. In March 2015, JBI filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Celltrion and Hospira Healthcare Corporation (Hospira), which has exclusive U.S. marketing rights for Celltrion's infliximab biosimilar in the United States, seeking, among other things, a declaratory judgment that their biosimilar product infringes or potentially infringes several JBI patents, including the ’471 patent and U.S. Patent No. 7,598,083 (the ’083 patent). In August 2016, the District Court granted both Celltrion's and Hospira's motions for summary judgment of invalidity of the ’471 patent. JBI appealed those decisions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This case and the appeal of the reexamination of the ’471 patent have been designated companion cases and will be heard by the same panel of judges at the Federal Circuit.

In June 2016, JBI filed two additional patent infringement lawsuits asserting the ’083 patent, one against Celltrion in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and the other against HyClone Laboratories, Inc., the manufacturer of the cell culture media that Celltrion uses to make its biosimilar product, in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. Although the ’083 patent is already asserted in the existing lawsuit against Celltrion, the additional lawsuit expands the claims to include any use of the cell culture media made in the United States to manufacture Celltrion's biosimilar. This additional lawsuit against Celltrion has been consolidated with the existing lawsuit discussed above. Hospira has moved to dismiss all counts of the lawsuit related to the ’083 patent as to it. Celltrion has moved to dismiss all counts of the lawsuit related to the ’083 patent without prejudice for failure to join all the co-owners of the ’083 patent as plaintiffs. The trial has been postponed pending resolution of these motions.

The FDA approved Celltrion’s infliximab biosimilar for sale in the United States in April 2016. Hospira's parent company, Pfizer Inc., launched Celltrion's infliximab biosimilar in the United States in late 2016. In April 2017, JBI received notice that the FDA approved a marketing application submitted by Samsung Bioepis Co. Ltd. for the sale of its infliximab biosimilar in the United States.

Canadian Proceedings

In March 2013, Hospira filed an impeachment proceeding in the Federal Court of Canada against The Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology (Kennedy) challenging the validity of a Canadian patent related to REMICADE^® (a Feldman patent), which is exclusively licensed to JBI. In October 2013, Kennedy, along with JBI, Janssen Inc. (Janssen) and Cilag GmbH International (both affiliates of JBI), filed a counterclaim for infringement against Celltrion and Hospira. The counterclaim alleges that the products described in Celltrion’s and Hospira’s marketing applications to Health Canada for their subsequent entry biologics (SEB) to REMICADE^® would infringe the Feldman patents owned by Kennedy. Janssen and Kennedy are seeking damages and an injunction against Hospira. A trial in this patent action concluded in October 2016, and closing arguments took place in January 2017. The parties are awaiting a decision.

In January 2014, Health Canada approved Celltrion’s SEB to REMICADE^®, allowing Celltrion to market its infliximab biosimilar in Canada, regardless of the pending patent action. In June 2014, Health Canada approved Hospira’s SEB to REMICADE^®. In July 2014, Janssen filed a lawsuit in the Federal Court of Canada challenging the Canadian Minister of Health’s marketing approval (Notice of Compliance) for Hospira’s SEB because Hospira did not serve a Notice of Allegation on Janssen to address the patent listed by Janssen on the Patent Register. In March 2015, the parties entered a settlement agreement whereby Health Canada agreed to a Consent Judgment setting aside Hospira’s Notice of Compliance, subject to Health Canada's appeal, which was filed in June 2015. Nevertheless, Hospira began marketing an infliximab biosimilar as a distributor under Celltrion’s Notice of Compliance. In October 2016, the appeals court reversed the Consent Judgment. Janssen has filed an application for leave to appeal with the Supreme Court of Canada. Hospira continues to market and sell Celltrion's infliximab biosimilar in Canada.

In Canada, if the REMICADE^® patent discussed above is found to be invalid following all appeals, it could not be relied upon to prevent the further introduction of infliximab biosimilars prior to the August 1, 2017 expiry date of the patent.

Litigation Against Filers of Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs)

The following summarizes lawsuits pending against generic companies that have filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) with the FDA, or undertaken similar regulatory processes outside of the United States, seeking to market generic forms of products sold by various subsidiaries of Johnson & Johnson prior to expiration of the applicable patents covering those products. These ANDAs typically include allegations of non-infringement, invalidity and unenforceability of the applicable patents. In the event the subsidiaries are not successful in these actions, or the statutory 30-month stays of the ANDAs expire before the United States District Court rulings are obtained, the third-party companies involved will have the ability, upon approval of the FDA, to introduce generic versions of the products at issue to the market, resulting in the potential for substantial market share and revenue losses for those products, and which may result in a non-cash impairment charge in any associated intangible asset. In addition, from time to time, subsidiaries may settle these actions and such settlements can involve the introduction of generic versions of the products at issue to the market prior to the expiration of the relevant patents. The inter partes review (IPR) process with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), created under the 2011 America Invents Act, is also being used by generic companies in conjunction with these ANDAs and lawsuits to challenge patents held by the Company’s subsidiaries.

CONCERTA^®

In October 2016, ALZA Corporation and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (together, Janssen) initiated a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC and Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC (together, Amneal), who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of CONCERTA^® before the expiration of United States Patent Nos. 8,163,798 and 9,144,549. Janssen is seeking an order enjoining Amneal from marketing its generic version of CONCERTA^®before the expiration of the patents.

ZYTIGA^®

In July 2015, Janssen Biotech, Inc. (JBI), Janssen Oncology, Inc. (Janssen Oncology) and Janssen Research & Development, LLC (collectively, Janssen) and BTG International Ltd. (BTG) initiated a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against a number of generic companies (and certain of their affiliates and/or suppliers) who filed ANDAs seeking approval to market a generic version of ZYTIGA^® before the expiration of United States Patent No. 8,822,438 (the ’438 patent). The generic companies currently include Actavis Laboratories, FL, Inc. (Actavis); Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC and Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC (collectively, Amneal); Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (collectively, Apotex); Citron Pharma LLC (Citron); Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. (collectively, Dr. Reddy’s); Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Mylan Inc. (collectively, Mylan); Par Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. (collectively, Par); Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries, Inc. (collectively, Sun); Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Teva); Wockhardt Bio A.G.; Wockhardt USA LLC and Wockhardt Ltd. (collectively, Wockhardt); West-Ward Pharmaceutical Corp. (West-Ward) and Hikma Pharmaceuticals, LLC (Hikma). The Court has set a trial date of October 2017. Subsequently, Janssen and BTG initiated patent infringement lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Amerigen Pharmaceuticals Limited (Amerigen) in May 2016, and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in June 2016, each of whom filed an ANDA seeking approval to market its generic version of ZYTIGA^® before the expiration of the ’438 patent.

In August 2015, Janssen and BTG filed an additional jurisdictional protective lawsuit against the Mylan defendants in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, which has been stayed.

In each of the above lawsuits, Janssen is seeking an order enjoining the defendants from marketing their generic versions of ZYTIGA^® before the expiration of the ’438 patent.

Several generic companies including Amerigen, Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC (Argentum), Mylan, Wockhardt, Actavis, Amneal, Dr. Reddy’s, Sun, Teva, West-Ward and Hikma have filed Petitions for Inter Partes Review (IPR) with the USPTO, seeking to invalidate the ’438 patent. A final written decision in the IPRs filed by Amerigen and Argentum, which were joined, is expected by May 2017. Final written decisions in the IPRs filed by Mylan, Actavis, Amneal, Dr. Reddy’s, Sun, Teva, West-Ward and Hikma, which were joined, and in the Wockhardt IPR, are expected by January 2018.

COMPLERA^®

In August and September 2015, Janssen Pharmaceutica NV and Janssen Sciences Ireland UC (collectively, Janssen) and Gilead Sciences, Inc. and Gilead Sciences Ireland UC (collectively, Gilead) initiated patent infringement lawsuits in the United States District Courts for the District of Delaware and the District of West Virginia, respectively, against Mylan, Inc. and Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, Mylan), who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of COMPLERA^® before the expiration of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,841,310, 7,125,879 and 8,101,629.

The West Virginia lawsuit has been stayed, with a conditional trial date in February 2018, in accordance with the schedule in the first-filed Delaware lawsuit.

In the Delaware lawsuit, Janssen and Gilead amended their complaint to add claims for patent infringement with respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 8,080,551; 7,399,856; 7,563,922; 8,101,752 and 8,618,291. A trial in the Delaware action has been scheduled for February 2018.

In each of these lawsuits, Janssen is seeking an order enjoining the defendants from marketing their generic versions of COMPLERA^® before the expiration of the relevant patents.

XARELTO^®

Beginning in October 2015, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (JPI) and Bayer Pharma AG and Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH (together, Bayer) filed patent infringement lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against a number of generic companies who filed ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of XARELTO^® before expiration of Bayer’s U.S. Patent Nos. 7,157,456 , 7,585,860 and 7,592,339 relating to XARELTO^®. JPI is the exclusive licensee of the asserted patents. The following generic companies are named defendants: Aurobindo Pharma Limited and Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. (together, Aurobindo), Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc., Invagen Pharmaceuticals Inc., Micro Labs USA Inc. and Micro Labs Ltd. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Prinston Pharmaceutical, Inc., Sigmapharm Laboratories, LLC, Torrent Pharmaceuticals, Limited and Torrent Pharma Inc. Trial is scheduled for March 2018.

In April 2017, JPI, Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH and Bayer AG filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of XARELTO^® before expiration of Bayer’s U.S. Patent No. 9,539,218 relating to XARELTO^®(the ’218 patent).

In April 2017, JPI, Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH and Bayer AG filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Aurobindo, who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of XARELTO^® before expiration of the ’218 patent.

In each of these lawsuits, JPI is seeking an order enjoining the defendants from marketing their generic versions of XARELTO^® before the expiration of the relevant patents.

RISPERDAL^® CONSTA^®

On November 30, 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) instituted an Inter Partes Review filed by Luye Pharma Group Ltd., Luye Pharma (USA) Ltd., Sandong Luye Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and Nanjing Luye Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., seeking to invalidate U.S. Patent No. 6,667,061 relating to RISPERDAL CONSTA^®. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. markets RISPERDAL CONSTA^®pursuant to a license from Alkermes Pharma Ireland Ltd. A decision by the USPTO is expected in November 2017.

GOVERNMENT PROCEEDINGS

Like other companies in the pharmaceutical and medical devices industries, Johnson & Johnson and certain of its subsidiaries are subject to extensive regulation by national, state and local government agencies in the United States and other countries in which they operate. As a result, interaction with government agencies is ongoing. The most significant litigation brought by, and investigations conducted by, government agencies are listed below. It is possible that criminal charges and substantial fines and/or civil penalties or damages could result from government investigations or litigation.

Average Wholesale Price (AWP) Litigation

Johnson & Johnson and several of its pharmaceutical subsidiaries (the J&J AWP Defendants), along with numerous other pharmaceutical companies, were named as defendants in a series of lawsuits in state and federal courts involving allegations that the pricing and marketing of certain pharmaceutical products amounted to fraudulent and otherwise actionable conduct because, among other things, the companies allegedly reported an inflated Average Wholesale Price (AWP) for the drugs at issue. Payors alleged that they used those AWPs in calculating provider reimbursement levels. The plaintiffs in these cases included three classes of private persons or entities that paid for any portion of the purchase of the drugs at issue based on AWP, and state government entities that made Medicaid payments for the drugs at issue based on AWP. Many of these cases, both federal actions and state actions removed to federal court, were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in a multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, where all claims against the J&J AWP Defendants were ultimately dismissed. The J&J AWP Defendants also prevailed in a case brought by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Other AWP cases have been resolved through court order or settlement. Two cases remain pending. In a case brought by Illinois, the parties are awaiting assignment of a trial date. In New Jersey, a putative class action based upon AWP allegations is pending against Centocor, Inc. and Ortho Biotech Inc. (both now Janssen Biotech, Inc.), Johnson & Johnson and ALZA Corporation.

McNeil Consumer Healthcare

Starting in June 2010, McNeil Consumer Healthcare Division of McNEIL-PPC, Inc. (now Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., McNeil Consumer Healthcare Division) (McNeil Consumer Healthcare) and certain affiliates, including Johnson & Johnson (the Companies), received grand jury subpoenas from the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania requesting documents broadly relating to recalls of various products of McNeil Consumer Healthcare, and FDA inspections of the Fort Washington, Pennsylvania and Lancaster, Pennsylvania manufacturing facilities. In addition, in February 2011, the government served McNEIL-PPC, Inc. (now Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.) (JJCI) with a Civil Investigative Demand seeking records relevant to its investigation to determine if there was a violation of the Federal False Claims Act. In March 2015, McNEIL-PPC, Inc. (now JJCI) entered a guilty plea to a misdemeanor violation of the U.S. Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and agreed to pay a fine to resolve the matter.

The Companies received Civil Investigative Demands from multiple State Attorneys General Offices broadly relating to the McNeil recall issues. The Companies continue to cooperate with these inquiries, which are being coordinated through a multi-state coalition. If a resolution cannot be reached with this coalition, it is possible that individual State Attorneys General Offices may file civil monetary claims against the Companies.

In January 2011, the Oregon Attorney General filed a civil complaint against Johnson & Johnson, McNEIL-PPC, Inc. (now JJCI) and McNeil Healthcare LLC in state court alleging civil violations of the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act relating to an earlier recall of a McNeil OTC product. Following the appeal and reversal of the trial court's grant of the Companies' motion to dismiss, the case was sent back to the trial court. In March 2017, JJCI and McNeil Consumer Healthcare served an “Offer to Allow Judgment” in the case without any admission or finding of fact or wrongdoing. The offer allows the court to enter a judgment with specified relief without a trial. Oregon accepted the offer and the court will enter a stipulated judgment.

Opioids Litigation

As described below, Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (JPI), along with other pharmaceutical companies, have been named in six lawsuits alleging claims related to marketing of opioids, including DURAGESIC^®, NUCYNTA^® and NUCYNTA^® ER. JPI has also been subpoenaed by two other states and a United States Congressional Committee for information related to opioid marketing practices.

In May 2014, Santa Clara and Orange Counties in California filed a complaint in state court in Orange County, California against pharmaceutical manufacturers, including J&J and JPI, alleging claims related to opioid marketing practices, including false advertising, unfair competition, and public nuisance. The counties seek injunctive and monetary relief. The defendants filed motions challenging the sufficiency of the complaint. In August 2015, the Court stayed the case until the FDA concludes its ongoing inquiry into the safety and effectiveness of long-term opioid treatment. The Court has partially lifted the stay to permit the filing of an amended complaint.

In June 2014, the City of Chicago filed a complaint in Cook County Circuit Court against the same group of pharmaceutical manufacturers, including J&J and JPI, alleging claims related to opioid marketing practices, including consumer fraud violations and false claims, and seeking injunctive and monetary relief. The case was later removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Following dismissal of eight of the ten causes of action in the City's second amended complaint in September 2016, the City was granted a final opportunity to re-plead the dismissed claims. The City filed a third amended complaint in October 2016. In December 2016, J&J and JPI filed an answer as to two causes of action and a motion to dismiss the remaining causes of action.

In September 2014, the Tennessee Attorney General Division of Consumer Affairs issued a Request for Information to JPI and other pharmaceutical companies related to opioids marketing practices.

In August 2015, the New Hampshire Attorney General, Consumer Protection and Antitrust Bureau issued a subpoena to JPI and other pharmaceutical companies related to opioids marketing practices. In October 2015, the State filed a motion in the State of New Hampshire Superior Court to enforce the subpoena. JPI and the other pharmaceutical companies subsequently filed a joint motion for injunctive relief and a protective order to preclude the State from engaging private contingent fee counsel to participate in the State’s investigation or any subsequent enforcement action. In March 2016, the Court granted the protective order on the grounds that the State had not obtained requisite executive and legislative approvals to retain private counsel, but rejected the contention that the contingency fee agreement was otherwise unlawful. All parties have appealed the March 2016 ruling to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. In August 2016, the Court denied the pharmaceutical companies’ joint motion to enforce the protective order on the ground that the underlying deficiency (legislative approval) had been cured. In September 2016, the State stipulated to stay enforcement of any subpoenas pending the New Hampshire Supreme Court’s consideration of the companies’ appeal of the March 2016 ruling. In March 2017, the New Hampshire Supreme Court held oral argument on the appeal and the parties are awaiting a decision.

In December 2015, the State of Mississippi filed a complaint in the Chancery Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County against substantially the same group of pharmaceutical manufacturers as in the suits brought by the California counties and City of Chicago, including J&J and JPI, alleging claims related to opioid marketing practices and seeking penalties and injunctive and monetary relief. In March 2016, defendants filed a motion to transfer venue and motions to dismiss the complaint. In February 2017, the Chancery Court issued an order denying defendants’ motion to transfer venue, and defendants have filed an appeal with the Mississippi Supreme Court seeking review of the order.

In August 2016, the County of Suffolk in New York filed a complaint against several pharmaceutical manufacturers in New York Supreme Court, including J&J and JPI, alleging claims related to opioid marketing, including claims based on deceptive acts and practices, false advertising, fraud and unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks penalties and injunctive and monetary relief. In January 2017, defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint on the basis of primary jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim, as well as a motion seeking to preclude payment of Suffolk County’s outside counsel on a contingency-fee basis.

In February 2017, the County of Erie and the County of Broome in New York each filed a complaint in New York Supreme Court against several pharmaceutical manufacturers, including J&J and JPI. Both complaints allege claims related to opioid marketing practices, including statutory claims for deceptive acts and practices, false advertising, and violation of New York’s Social Services Law, and common law causes of action for public nuisance, fraud, and unjust enrichment. Each complaint seeks penalties and injunctive and monetary relief.

In March 2017, the New Jersey Attorney General Division of Consumer Affairs issued a subpoena to JPI related to certain practices in marketing opioids.

In March 2017, the ranking minority member of the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs issued a request for information to JPI regarding the sales, marketing, and educational strategies related to the promotion of opioids use.

Other

In May 2012, Acclarent, Inc. (Acclarent) received a subpoena from the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts requesting documents broadly relating to the sales, marketing and alleged off-label promotion by Acclarent of the RELIEVA STRATUS^® MicroFlow Spacer product (the RELIEVA STRATUS^® Spacer). In March 2016, Acclarent executed a civil settlement with the United States Justice Department and other agencies to resolve this investigation. Johnson & Johnson was not a party to this settlement and there was no admission of liability. In a separate matter, in July 2016, the former President/CEO and Vice President of Sales of Acclarent (the former Acclarent officers), were convicted of misdemeanor violations in connection with the sale and marketing of the RELIEVA STRATUS^® Spacer. There are no charges against Acclarent, Ethicon, Inc. or Johnson & Johnson in this matter.

In August 2012, DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., DePuy, Inc. (now DePuy Synthes, Inc.), and Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc. received an informal request from the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts and the Civil Division of the United States Department of Justice (the United States) for the production of materials relating to the DePuy ASR™ XL Hip device. In July 2014, the United States notified the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts that it had declined to intervene in a qui tam case filed pursuant to the False Claims Act against the companies. In February 2016, the District Court granted the companies’ motion to dismiss with prejudice, unsealed the qui tam complaint, and denied the qui tam relators’ request for leave to file a further amended complaint. The qui tam relators appealed the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The First Circuit's decision in the case is pending. Since October 2013, a group of State Attorneys General have issued Civil Investigative Demands relating to the development, sales and marketing of several of DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc.'s hip products. The states are seeking monetary and injunctive relief. In July 2014, the Oregon Department of Justice, which was investigating these matters independently of the other states, announced a settlement of its ASR XL Hip device investigation for a total payment of $4 million to the State of Oregon.

In October 2012, Johnson & Johnson was contacted by the California Attorney General's office regarding a multi-state Attorney General investigation of the marketing of surgical mesh products for hernia and urogynecological purposes by Johnson & Johnson's subsidiary, Ethicon, Inc. (Ethicon). Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon have since entered into a series of tolling agreements with the 47 states and the District of Columbia participating in the multi-state investigation and have responded to Civil Investigative Demands served by certain of the participating states. The states are seeking monetary and injunctive relief. In May 2016, California and Washington filed civil complaints against Johnson & Johnson, Ethicon Inc. and Ethicon US, LLC alleging violations of their consumer protection statutes. In August 2016, Kentucky filed a similar complaint against the companies. Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon have entered into a new tolling agreement with the remaining 44 states and the District of Columbia.

In December 2012, Therakos, Inc. (Therakos), formerly a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson and part of the Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. (OCD) franchise, received a letter from the civil division of the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania informing Therakos that the United States Attorney's Office was investigating the sales and marketing of Uvadex^® (methoxsalen) and the Uvar Xts^® and Cellex^® Systems during the period 2000 to the present. The United States Attorney's Office requested that OCD and Johnson & Johnson preserve documents that could relate to the investigation. Therakos was subsequently acquired by an affiliate of Gores Capital Partners III, L.P. in January 2013, and OCD was divested in June 2014. Following the divestiture of OCD, Johnson & Johnson retains OCD’s portion of any liability that may result from the investigation for activity that occurred prior to the sale of Therakos. In March 2014 and March 2016, the United States Attorney’s Office requested that Johnson & Johnson produce certain documents, and Johnson & Johnson is cooperating with those requests.

In June 2014, the Mississippi Attorney General filed a complaint in Chancery Court of The First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi against Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. (now Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.) (JJCI). The complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose alleged health risks associated with female consumers' use of talc contained in JOHNSON'S^® Baby Powder and JOHNSON'S^® Shower to Shower (a product no longer sold by JJCI) and seeks injunctive and monetary relief. The parties have agreed to adjourn the trial date and currently expect the trial to be re-scheduled to in or around January 2018.

In March 2016, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (JPI) received a Civil Investigative Demand from the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York related to JPI’s contractual relationships with pharmacy benefit managers over the period from January 1, 2006 to the present with regard to certain of JPI's pharmaceutical products. The demand was issued in connection with an investigation under the False Claims Act.

In January 2017, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (JPI) received a Civil Investigative Demand from the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) relating to allegations concerning the sales and marketing practices of OLYSIO^TM.

In February 2017, Johnson & Johnson received a subpoena from the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts seeking the production of records pertaining to payments to any 501(c)(3) charitable organization that provides financial assistance to Medicare patients. Multiple pharmaceutical companies have publicly reported receipt of similar subpoenas and ongoing inquiries.

In March 2017, Janssen Biotech, Inc. (JBI) received a Civil Investigative Demand from the United States Department of Justice regarding a False Claims Act investigation concerning management and advisory services provided to rheumatology and gastroenterology practices that purchased REMICADE^® or SIMPONI ARIA^®.

In April 2017, Johnson & Johnson received a subpoena from the United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts seeking documents broadly relating to pharmaceutical copayment support programs for OLYSIO^TM, SIMPONI^® and STELARA^®. The subpoena also seeks documents relating to Average Manufacturer Price and Best Price reporting to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services related to those products, as well as rebate payments to state Medicaid agencies.

From time to time, Johnson & Johnson has received requests from a variety of United States Congressional Committees to produce information relevant to ongoing congressional inquiries. It is the policy of Johnson & Johnson to cooperate with these inquiries by producing the requested information.

GENERAL LITIGATION

In June 2009, following the public announcement that Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. (OCD) had received a grand jury subpoena from the United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, in connection with an investigation that has since been closed, multiple class action complaints were filed against OCD by direct purchasers seeking damages for alleged price fixing. These cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as In re Blood Reagent Antitrust Litigation. Following the appeal and reversal of its initial grant of a motion for class certification, on remand, the District Court in October 2015 again granted a motion by the plaintiffs for class certification. OCD's motion for summary judgment was argued before the Court in January 2017 and the parties are awaiting a decision. OCD was divested in 2014 and Johnson & Johnson retained any liability that may result from these cases.

In September 2011, Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Inc. and McNeil Consumer Healthcare Division of Johnson & Johnson Inc. received a Notice of Civil Claim filed by Nick Field in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada (the BC Civil Claim). The BC Civil Claim is a putative class action brought on behalf of persons who reside in British Columbia and who purchased during the period between September 20, 2001 and in or about December 2010 one or more various McNeil infants' or children's over-the-counter medicines that were manufactured at the Fort Washington, Pennsylvania facility. The BC Civil Claim alleges that the defendants violated the BC Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, and other Canadian statutes and common laws, by selling medicines that were allegedly not safe and/or effective or did not comply with Canadian Good Manufacturing Practices. The class certification hearing scheduled for October 2015 was adjourned, and there is currently no date set for that hearing. In addition, in April 2016, a putative class action was filed against Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Sales and Logistics Company, LLC and McNeil PPC, Inc. in New Jersey Superior Court, Camden County on behalf of persons who reside in the state of New Jersey who purchased various McNeil over-the-counter products from December 2008 through the present. The complaint alleges violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. In February 2017, the companies filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

In May 2014, two purported class actions were filed in federal court, one in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and one in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, against Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. (now Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.) (JJCI), alleging violations of state consumer fraud statutes based on nondisclosure of alleged health risks associated with talc contained in JOHNSON'S^®Baby Powder and JOHNSON'S^® Shower to Shower (a product no longer sold by JJCI). Both cases seek injunctive relief and monetary damages; neither includes a claim for personal injuries. In October 2016, both cases were transferred to the United States District Court for the District Court of New Jersey as part of a newly created federal multi-district litigation. In December 2016, J&J and JJCI filed a motion to dismiss one of the cases.

In August 2014, United States Customs and Border Protection (US CBP) issued a Penalty Notice against Janssen Ortho LLC (Janssen Ortho), assessing penalties for the alleged improper classification of darunavir ethanolate (the active pharmaceutical ingredient in PREZISTA^®) in connection with its importation into the United States. In October 2014, Janssen Ortho submitted a Petition for Relief in response to the Penalty Notice. In May 2015, US CBP issued an Amended Penalty Notice assessing substantial penalties and Janssen Ortho filed its Petition for Relief in July 2015.

In March and April 2015, over 30 putative class action complaints were filed by contact lens patients in a number of courts around the United States against Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. (JJVCI), other contact lens manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, alleging vertical and horizontal conspiracies to fix the retail prices of contact lenses. The complaints allege that the manufacturers reached agreements with each other and certain distributors and retailers concerning the prices at which some contact lenses could be sold to consumers. The plaintiffs are seeking damages and injunctive relief. All of the class action cases were transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida in June 2015. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint in November 2015. In June 2016, the Court denied motions to dismiss filed by JJVCI and other defendants. Discovery is ongoing. In March 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.

In April 2015, Adimmune Corporation Ltd (Adimmune) commenced an arbitration in the International Court of Arbitration - International Chamber of Commerce against Crucell Switzerland AG (now Janssen Vaccines AG) and Crucell Holland B.V. (now Janssen Vaccines & Prevention B.V.) (collectively, Crucell). Adimmune claims that Crucell breached certain agreements relating to the supply of flu antigen when Crucell ceased purchasing flu antigen from Adimmune. In December 2015, Adimmune filed its Statement of Claim seeking monetary damages. The arbitration hearing took place in November 2016 and the parties are awaiting a ruling.

In August 2015, two third-party payors filed a purported class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Janssen Ortho LLC, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson (as well as certain Bayer entities), alleging that the defendants improperly marketed and promoted XARELTO^® as safer and more effective than less expensive alternative medications while failing to fully disclose its risks. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

Johnson & Johnson or its subsidiaries are also parties to a number of proceedings brought under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, commonly known as Superfund, and comparable state, local or foreign laws in which the primary relief sought is the cost of past and/or future remediation.