XML 71 R30.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.19.3.a.u2

Legal Proceedings | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 29, 2019
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, supplier indemnification 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 December 29, 2019, 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 including timing of related payments. The ability to make such estimates and judgments can be affected by various factors including, among other things, 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; procedural or jurisdictional issues; the uncertainty and unpredictability of the number of potential claims; or there are numerous parties involved. 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. 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. From time to time, even if it has substantial defenses, the Company considers isolated settlements based on a variety of circumstances. 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. 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®; body powders containing talc, primarily JOHNSONS® Baby Powder; INVOKANA®; and ETHICON PHYSIOMESH® Flexible Composite Mesh. As of December 29, 2019, in the United States there were approximately 1,100 plaintiffs with direct claims in pending lawsuits regarding injuries allegedly due to the DePuy ASR™ XL Acetabular System and DePuy ASR™ Hip Resurfacing System; 10,300 with respect to the PINNACLE® Acetabular Cup System; 17,600 with respect to pelvic meshes; 11,900 with respect to RISPERDAL®; 29,000 with respect to XARELTO®; 17,900 with respect to body powders containing talc; 400 with respect to INVOKANA®; and 3,300 with respect to ETHICON PHYSIOMESH® Flexible Composite Mesh. 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, India 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 10,000 claims, 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. In Canada, the Company has reached agreements to settle two pending class actions which have been approved by the Québec Superior Court and the Supreme Court of British Columbia. 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 United States settlement program and DePuy ASR™ Hip-related product liability litigation. Claims for personal injury have also been made against DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson (collectively, DePuy) relating to the PINNACLE® Acetabular Cup System used in hip replacement surgery. 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. 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 some state courts and in countries outside of the United States. Several adverse verdicts have been rendered against DePuy, one of which was reversed on appeal and remanded for retrial. During the first quarter of 2019, DePuy established a United States settlement program to resolve these cases. As part of the settlement program, adverse verdicts have been settled. The Company has established an accrual for product liability litigation associated with the PINNACLE® Acetabular Cup System and the related settlement program. 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 Company continues to receive information with respect to potential costs and additional cases. Cases filed in federal courts in the United States had been organized as a multi-district litigation (MDL) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. The MDL Court is remanding cases for trial to the jurisdictions where the case was originally filed and additional pelvic mesh lawsuits have been filed, and remain, outside of the MDL. The Company has settled or otherwise resolved a majority of the United States cases and the estimated costs associated with these settlements and the remaining cases are reflected in the Company's accruals. 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 and Belgium, and class actions in Israel, Australia and Canada, seeking damages for alleged injury resulting from Ethicon's pelvic mesh devices. In November 2019, the Federal Court of Australia issued a judgment regarding its findings with respect to liability in relation to the three Lead Applicants and generally in relation to the design, manufacture, pre and post-market assessments and testing, and supply and promotion of the devices in Australia used to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. Orders determining the damages amounts to be awarded to the three Lead Applicants are expected in the first quarter of 2020. With respect to other group members, there will be an individual case assessment process which will require proof of use and causally related loss. The class actions in Canada are expected to be discontinued in 2020 as a result of a settlement of a group of cases, subject to court approval of the discontinuance. The Company has established accruals with respect to product liability litigation associated with Ethicon's pelvic mesh products. Following a June 2016 worldwide market withdrawal of ETHICON PHYSIOMESH® Flexible Composite Mesh, claims for personal injury have been made against Ethicon, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson alleging personal injury arising out of the use of this hernia mesh device. Cases filed in federal courts in the United States have been organized as a multi-district litigation (MDL) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. A multi-county litigation (MCL) has also been formed in New Jersey state court and assigned to Atlantic County for cases pending in New Jersey. In addition to the matters in the MDL and MCL, there are additional lawsuits pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, which are part of the MDL for polypropylene mesh devices manufactured by C.R. Bard, Inc., and lawsuits pending outside the United States. Along with ETHICON PHYSIOMESH® lawsuits, there were a number of filings related to the PROCEED® Mesh and PROCEED® Ventral Patch products. In March 2019, the New Jersey Supreme Court entered an order consolidating all PROCEED® and PROCEED® Ventral Patch cases as an MCL in Atlantic County Superior Court. Additional cases have been filed in various federal and state courts in the US, and in jurisdictions outside the US. The Company continues to receive information with respect to potential costs and the anticipated number of cases. The Company has established accruals with respect to product liability litigation associated with ETHICON PHYSIOMESH® Flexible Composite Mesh, PROCEED® Mesh and PROCEED® Ventral Patch products. In September 2019, plaintiffs’ attorney filed an application with the New Jersey Supreme Court seeking centralized management of 107 PROLENE™ Polypropylene Hernia System cases. The New Jersey Supreme Court granted plaintiffs application in January 2020 and those will be transferred to an MCL in Atlantic County Superior Court. 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 successfully defended a number of these cases but there have been verdicts against the Company, including a recent verdict in October 2019 of $8 billion of punitive damages related to one single plaintiff which was subsequently reduced in January 2020 to $6.8 million by the trial judge. The Company will appeal the final judgment. The Company has settled or otherwise resolved many of the United States cases and the costs associated with these settlements are reflected in the Company's accruals. Claims for personal injury arising out of the use of XARELTO®, an oral anticoagulant, have been made against Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (JPI); Johnson & Johnson (J&J); and JPI's collaboration partner for XARELTO® Bayer AG and certain of its affiliates. 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 in a coordinated proceeding in Los Angeles, California. Class action lawsuits also have been filed in Canada. In March 2019, JPI and J&J announced an agreement in principle to the settle the XARELTO® cases in the United States; the settlement agreement was executed in May 2019, and the settlement became final in December 2019. This will resolve the majority of cases pending in the United States. The Company has established accruals for its costs associated with the United States settlement program and XARELTO® related product liability litigation. Personal injury claims alleging that talc causes cancer have been made against Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. and Johnson & Johnson arising out of the use of body powders containing talc, primarily 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, as well as outside the United States. 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. In the multi-district litigation, the parties have moved to exclude experts, known as Daubert motions. The Court held Daubert hearings in mid-July 2019 and a final round of briefing has been submitted to the Court. The parties are awaiting a decision. The Company has successfully defended a number of these cases but there have been verdicts against the Company, including a verdict in July 2018 of $4.7 billion. The Company believes that it has strong grounds on appeal to overturn these verdicts. The Company has established an accrual primarily for defense costs in connection with product liability litigation associated with body powders containing talc. In February 2019, the Company’s talc supplier, Imerys Talc America, Inc. and two of its affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc. and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc. (collectively, Imerys) filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition commencing a reorganization under the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Imerys Bankruptcy). The Imerys Bankruptcy relates to Imerys’ potential liability for personal injury from exposure to talcum powder sold by Imerys (Talc Claims). In its bankruptcy filing, Imerys noted certain claims it alleges it has against the Company for indemnification and rights to joint insurance proceeds. Based on such claims as well as indemnity and insurance claims the Company has against Imerys, the Company petitioned the United States District Court for the District of Delaware to establish federal jurisdiction of the state court talc lawsuits under the Bankruptcy Code. The Company's petition was denied and the state court talc lawsuits that have been removed to federal court on such basis have been remanded. The Company formally proposed to resolve Imerys' and the Company’s obligations arising out of the Talc Claims by agreeing to assume the defense of litigation of all Talc Claims involving the Company's products, lifting the automatic stay to enable the Talc Claims to proceed outside the bankruptcy forum with the Company agreeing to settle or pay any judgment against Imerys, and waiving the Company’s indemnification claims against Imerys. Discussions between Imerys and the Company on this issue remain ongoing. In February 2018, a securities class action lawsuit was filed against Johnson & Johnson and certain named officers in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that Johnson & Johnson violated the federal securities laws by failing to adequately disclose the alleged asbestos contamination in body powders containing talc, primarily JOHNSON'S® Baby Powder, and that purchasers of Johnson & Johnson’s shares suffered losses as a result. Plaintiffs are seeking damages. In April 2019, the Company moved to dismiss the complaint and briefing on the motion was complete as of August 2019. In December 2019, the Court denied, in part, the motion to dismiss. In October 2018, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed against Johnson & Johnson as the nominal defendant and its current directors as defendants in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging a breach of fiduciary duties related to the alleged asbestos contamination in body powders containing talc, primarily JOHNSON’S® Baby Powder, and that Johnson & Johnson has suffered damages as a result of those alleged breaches. In June 2019, the shareholder filed an additional complaint initiating a summary proceeding in New Jersey state court for a books and records inspection. In August 2019, Johnson & Johnson responded to the books and records complaint and filed a cross motion to dismiss. In September 2019, Plaintiff replied and the Court heard oral argument. The Court has not yet ruled in the books and records action. In September 2019, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the shareholder derivative lawsuit, and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. In October 2019, the shareholder filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In January 2020, the shareholder voluntarily dismissed his appeal, with prejudice. Four additional shareholder derivative lawsuits have been filed in New Jersey making similar allegations against the Company and its current directors and certain officers. In January 2019, two ERISA class action lawsuits were filed by participants in the Johnson & Johnson Savings Plan against Johnson & Johnson, its Pension and Benefits Committee, and certain named officers in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by offering Johnson & Johnson stock as a Johnson & Johnson Savings Plan investment option when it was imprudent to do so because of failures to disclose alleged asbestos contamination in body powders containing talc, primarily JOHNSON’S® Baby Powder. Plaintiffs are seeking damages and injunctive relief. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss. A lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging violations of Proposition 65, California’s Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law concerning JOHNSON’S® Baby Powder. In June 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for voluntary dismissal of this Proposition 65 action and the Company opposed such motion to the extent it would allow plaintiffs’ counsel to refile such claims with new plaintiffs. The Court granted plaintiff’s motion conditioned upon payment of attorneys’ fees and costs. The Court entered its award of attorneys’ fees and costs in October 2019 and the case was dismissed without prejudice. Another lawsuit alleging violations of Proposition 65, California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act relating to JOHNSON’S® Baby Powder was filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego. In July 2019, the Company filed a notice of removal to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California and plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint shortly thereafter. In October 2019, the Company moved to dismiss the second amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, primarily on the basis that the plaintiffs failed to comply with Proposition 65’s mandatory pre-suit notice requirement, which applies even when a plaintiff asserts only an indirect Proposition 65 claim. In response to those motions, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint. In December 2019, the Company moved to dismiss the third amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In addition, the Company has received preliminary inquiries and subpoenas to produce documents regarding these matters from Senator Murray, a member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, the Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Congressional Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy. The Company is cooperating with government inquiries and continues to produce documents in response. Claims for personal injury have been made against a number of Johnson & Johnson companies, including Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson, arising out of the use of INVOKANA®, a prescription medication indicated to improve glycemic control in adults with Type 2 diabetes. Lawsuits 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. Cases have also been filed in state courts. Class action lawsuits have been filed in 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 settled or otherwise resolved many of the cases and claims in the United States and the costs associated with these settlements are reflected in the Company's accruals. 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 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. Although Johnson & Johnson has since sold Cordis, it has retained liability for this case. After the trial in January 2014, the district court dismissed the case, finding Medinol unreasonably delayed bringing its claims (the laches defense). In September 2014, the district court denied a motion by Medinol to vacate the judgment and grant it a new trial. Medinol appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In March 2017, the United States Supreme Court held that the laches defense is not available in patent cases. In April 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded the case back to the district court to reconsider Medinol’s motion for a new trial. In March 2019, the district court denied Medinol’s motion for a new trial. In April 2019, Medinol filed a notice of appeal. 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. In April 2017, MedIdea filed an amended complaint adding DePuy Synthes Products, Inc. and DePuy Synthes Sales, Inc. as named defendants (collectively, DePuy). MedIdea alleges infringement of United States Patent Nos. 6,558,426 (’426); 8,273,132 (’132); 8,721,730 (’730) and 9,492,280 (’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 June 2017, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. A claim construction hearing was held in October 2018, and a claim construction order was issued in November 2018. In December 2018, MedIdea stipulated to non-infringement of the ’132, ’730 and ’280 patents, based on the district court’s claim construction and reserving its right to appeal that construction, leaving only the ’426 patent at issue before the district court. In January 2019, the district court stayed the case pending a decision in the Inter Partes Review proceeding on the ’426 patent (see below). In December 2017, DePuy Synthes Products, Inc. filed a petition for Inter Partes Review with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), seeking to invalidate the two claims of the ’426 patent asserted in the district court litigation, and in June 2018, the USPTO instituted review of those claims. A hearing was held in March 2019, an d in April 2019, the USPTO issued its decision upholding the validity of the patent. In May 2019, DePuy filed a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of the claims of the ’426 patent. In November 2019, judgment was entered in favor of Depuy. In December 2019, MedIdea filed a notice of appeal. 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 United States 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 (collectively, Covidien) answered and counterclaimed, denying the allegations, asserting willful infringement of the ’735 patent, the ’284 patent and United States Patent Nos. 8,323,310 (the ’310 patent); 9,084,608; 9,241,759 (the ’759 patent) and 9,113,882, and seeking damages and an injunction. Covidien filed a motion for preliminary injunction, which was denied in October 2017. The parties have entered joint stipulations such that only the ’310 patent and the ’759 patent remain in dispute. Trial began in September 2019, and closing arguments will be heard in March 2020. In December 2016, Dr. Ford Albritton sued Acclarent, Inc. (Acclarent) in United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas alleging that Acclarent’s RELIEVA® Spin and RELIEVEA SpinPlus® products infringe U.S. Patent No. 9,011,412 (the ’412 patent). Dr. Albritton also alleges breach of contract, fraud and that he is the true owner of Acclarent’s U.S. Patent No. 8,414,473. In December 2016, Acclarent filed a petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) challenging the validity of the ’412 patent. The USPTO instituted the IPR in July 2017. In July 2018, the USPTO ruled in favor of Albritton in the IPR, finding that Acclarent had not met its burden of proof that the challenged claims were invalid. In October 2019, the Court of Appeals affirmed the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In June 2019, the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment in the district court and the parties are awaiting a decision. The district court trial is scheduled for April 2020. In November 2017, Board of Regents, The University of Texas System and TissueGen, Inc. (collectively, UT) filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas against Ethicon, Inc. and Ethicon US, LLC alleging the manufacture and sale of VICRYL® Plus Antibacterial Sutures, MONOCRYL® Plus Antibacterial Sutures, PDS® Plus Antibacterial Sutures, STRATAFIX® PDS® Antibacterial Sutures and STRATAFIX® MONOCRYL® Plus Antibacterial Sutures infringe plaintiffs’ United States Patent Nos. 6,596,296 and 7,033,603 (the ’603 patent) directed to implantable polymer drug releasing biodegradable fibers containing a therapeutic agent. UT is seeking damages and an injunction. In December 2018, Ethicon filed petitions with the USPTO, seeking Inter Partes Review (IPR) of both asserted patents. Those petitions have been stayed by the USPTO pending a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in an unrelated case. UT dismissed the ’603 patent from the suit and no longer accuses PDS® Plus Antibacterial Sutures or STRATAFIX® PDS® Plus Antibacterial Sutures of infringement. The district court trial is scheduled for June 2020. In August 2018, Intuitive Surgical, Inc. and Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc. (“Intuitive”) filed a patent infringement suit against Auris Health, Inc. (“Auris”) in United States District Court for the District of Delaware. In the suit, Intuitive alleges willful infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,246,200 (’200 patent); 6,491,701 (’701 patent); 6,522,906 (’906 patent); 6,800,056 (’056 patent); 8,142,447 (’447 patent); 8,620,473 (’473 patent); 8,801,601 (’601 patent); and 9,452,276 (’276 patent) based on Auris’ Monarch™ Platform. Auris filed Petitions for Inter Partes Review with the USPTO regarding the ’200, ’056, ’601 ’701, ’447, ’276 and ’906 patents. In December 2019, the USPTO instituted review of the ’601 patent and denied review of the ’056 patent. The district court trial is scheduled to begin in January 2021. In August 2019, RSB Spine LLC (“RSB Spine”) filed a patent infringement suit against DePuy Synthes, Inc. in United States District Court for the District of Delaware. In October 2019, RSB Spine amended the complaint to change the named defendants to DePuy Synthes Sales, Inc. and DePuy Synthes Products, Inc. In the suit, RSB Spine alleges willful infringement of United States Patent Nos. 6,984,234 and 9,713, 537 by one or more of the following products: ZERO-P-VA™ Spacer, ZERO-P® Spacer, ZERO-P NATURAL™ Plate, SYNFIX® LR Spacer and SYNFIX® Evolution System. RSB Spine seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. In November 2019, the suit was consolidated for pre-trial purposes with other patent infringement suits brought by RSB Spine in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Life Spine, Inc., Medacta USA, Inc., Precision Spine, Inc., and Xtant Medical Holdings, Inc. Pharmaceutical 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 (Searle) 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 United Kingdom 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 United Kingdom. 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 granting a final injunction. Sandoz has appealed the court’s decision and the injunction is stayed pending the appeal. In January 2018, the court referred the issue on appeal to the Court of Justice for the European Union (CJEU) and stayed the proceedings pending the CJEU’s ruling on the issue. In December 2019, the parties entered into a settlement agreement. In April 2018, Acerta Pharma B.V., AstraZeneca UK Ltd and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Pharmacyclics LLC and Abbvie Inc. (collectively, Abbvie), alleging that the manufacture and sale of IMBRUVICA® infringes U.S. Patent No. 7,459,554. Janssen Biotech, Inc., which commercializes IMBRUVICA® jointly with Abbvie, intervened in the action in November 2018. In October 2019, the parties entered into a settlement agreement. REMICADE® Related Cases In August 2014, Celltrion Healthcare Co. Ltd. and Celltrion Inc. (collectively, Celltrion) filed an application with the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval to make and sell its own infliximab biosimilar. In March 2015, Janssen Biotech, Inc. (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 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 United States Patent No. 6,284,471 relating to REMICADE® (infliximab) (the ’471 patent) and United States Patent No. 7,598,083 (the ’083 patent) directed to the cell culture media used to make Celltrion’s biosimilar. 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. In January 2018, the Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal as moot based on its affirmance of a decision by the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirming invalidity of the ’471 patent. In June 2016, JBI filed two additional patent infringement lawsuits asserting the ’083 patent, one against Celltrion and Hospira 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. JBI seeks monetary damages and other relief. In October 2017, the district court in the Massachusetts action denied Celltrion and Hospira’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing. In July 2018, the district court in the Massachusetts action granted Celltrion’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement and entered an order dismissing the ’083 lawsuit against Celltrion and Hospira. JBI appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and Celltrion and Hospira cross-appealed on the standing issue. A hearing on the appeal and cross-appeal is scheduled for March 2020. The litigation against HyClone in Utah is stayed pending the outcome of the Massachusetts actions. The FDA approved the first infliximab biosimilar for sale in the United States in 2016, and a number of such products have been launched. 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 and invalidity of the applicable patents. In the event the subsidiaries are not successful in an action, or the automatic statutory stay of the ANDAs expires before the United States District Court rulings are obtained, the third-party companies involved would have the ability, upon approval of the FDA, to introduce generic versions of their products to the market, resulting in the potential for substantial market share and revenue losses for the applicable 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 types of 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 at times by generic companies in conjunction with ANDAs and lawsuits, to challenge the applicable patents. ZYTIGA® In July 2015, Janssen Biotech, Inc., Janssen Oncology, Inc. and Janssen Research & Development, LLC (collectively, Janssen) and BTG International Ltd. (BTG) initiated a patent infringement lawsuit (the main action) 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® 250mg before the expiration of United States Patent No. 8,822,438 (the ’438 patent). The generic companies include 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); 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). Janssen and BTG also 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. (Glenmark) 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. These lawsuits were consolidated with the main action. 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 August 2017, Janssen and BTG initiated a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Teva, who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of ZYTIGA® 500mg before the expiration of the ’438 patent. This lawsuit has been consolidated with the main action. In December 2017, Janssen and BTG entered into a settlement agreement with Glenmark. In February 2018, Janssen and BTG filed a patent infringement lawsuit against MSN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and MSN Laboratories Private Limited (collectively, MSN) in United States District Court for the District of New Jersey based on its ANDA seeking approval for a generic version of ZYTIGA® prior to the expiration of the ’438 patent. In February 2019, the action was stayed pending the outcome of the main action. In April 2018, Janssen and BTG entered into a settlement agreement with Apotex. In October 2018, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey issued a ruling invalidating all asserted claims of the ’438 patent. The court held that the patent claims would be infringed if the patent were valid. Janssen appealed the court’s decision. In November 2018, Janssen and BTG initiated a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Qilu Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and Qilu Pharma, Inc. (collectively, Qilu), who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of ZYTIGA® before the expiration of the ’438 patent. Janssen is seeking an order enjoining Qilu from marketing its generic version of ZYTIGA® before the expiration of the ’438 patent. In November 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied Janssen’s request for an injunction pending appeal. As a result, several generic versions of ZYTIGA® have entered the market. Several generic companies including Amerigen, Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC (Argentum), Mylan, Wockhardt, Actavis, Amneal, Dr. Reddy’s, Sun, Teva, West-Ward and Hikma filed Petitions for Inter Partes Review (IPR) with the USPTO, seeking to invalidate the ’438 patent. In January 2018, the USPTO issued decisions finding the ’438 patent claims unpatentable, and Janssen requested rehearing. In December 2018, the USPTO denied Janssen’s request for rehearing of the IPR decisions. Janssen filed an appeal, which was consolidated with the above-mentioned appeal of the decision of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. In May 2019, the Federal Circuit issued a decision affirming the USPTO's decision in the Wockhardt IPR that the ’438 patent claims are unpatentable and dismissed the remaining appeals as moot. Subsequently, Janssen dismissed its lawsuits against MSN and Qilu. In November 2017, Janssen initiated a Notice of Application under Section 6 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations against Apotex Inc. (Apotex) and the Minister of Health in Canada in response to Apotex’s filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Submission (ANDS) seeking approval to market a generic version of ZYTIGA® before the expiration of Canadian Patent No. 2,661,422 (the ’422 patent). The final hearing concluded in May 2019. In October 2019, the court issued an order prohibiting the Canadian Minister of Health from approving Apotex’s ANDS until the expiration of the ’422 patent. In November 2019, Apotex filed an appeal. In January 2019, Janssen initiated a Notice of Application under Section 6 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations against Apotex and the Minister of Health in Canada in response to Apotex’s filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Submission (ANDS) seeking approval to market a film-coated generic version of ZYTIGA® before the expiration of the ’422 patent. In January 2019, Janssen initiated a Notice of Application under Section 6 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations against Pharmascience Inc. (Pharmascience) and the Minister of Health in Canada in response to Pharmascience’s filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Submission (ANDS) seeking approval to market a generic version of ZYTIGA® 250 mg, before the expiration of the ’422 patent. The final hearing is scheduled to begin in October 2020. In November 2019, Janssen initiated a Notice of Application under Section 6 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations against Pharmascience and the Minister of Health in Canada in response to Pharmascience’s filing of an ANDS seeking approval to market a generic version of ZYTIGA®, 500 mg, before the expiration of the ’422 patent. The final hearing is scheduled to begin in October 2020. In January 2019, Janssen initiated a Notice of Application under Section 6 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations against Sandoz Canada Inc. (Sandoz) and the Minister of Health in Canada in response to Sandoz’s filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Submission (ANDS) seeking approval to market a generic version of ZYTIGA® before the expiration of Canadian Patent No. 2,661,422. In July 2019, the parties entered into a settlement agreement. In June 2019, Janssen initiated a Notice of Application under Section 6 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations against Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc. (collectively, DRL) and the Minister of Health in Canada in response to Apotex’s filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Submission (ANDS) seeking approval to market a generic version of ZYTIGA® before the expiration of Canadian Patent No. 2,661,422. The final hearing is scheduled to begin in October 2020. In each of these Canadian actions, Janssen is seeking an order prohibiting the Minister of Health from issuing a Notice of Compliance with respect to the defendants’ ANDSs before the expiration of Janssen’s patent. XARELTO® B eginning in October 2015, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (JPI) and Bayer Pharma AG and Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH (collectively, 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 United States Patent Nos. 7,157,456, 7,585,860 and 7,592,339 relating to XARELTO®. JPI is the exclusive sublicensee of the asserted patents. The following generic companies are named defendants: Aurobindo Pharma Limited and Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. (collectively, Aurobindo); Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc. (Breckenridge); InvaGen Pharmaceuticals Inc. (InvaGen); Micro Labs USA Inc. and Micro Labs Ltd (collectively, Micro); Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Mylan); Prinston Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Sigmapharm Laboratories, LLC (Sigmapharm); Torrent Pharmaceuticals, Limited and Torrent Pharma Inc. (collectively, Torrent). The trial concluded in April 2018. In July 2018 the district court entered judgment against Mylan and Sigmapharm, holding that the asserted compound patent is valid and infringed. In September 2018, the district court entered judgment against the remaining defendants. None of the defendants appealed the judgment. Beginning in April 2017, JPI and Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH and Bayer AG (collectively, Bayer AG) 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 AG’s United States Patent No. 9,539,218 (’218) relating to XARELTO®. JPI is the exclusive sublicensee of the asserted patent. The following generic companies are named defendants: Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited, Alembic Global Holding SA and Alembic Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Alembic); Aurobindo; Breckenridge; InvaGen; Lupin Limited and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, Lupin); Micro; Mylan; Sigmapharm; Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. (collectively, Taro) and Torrent. Lupin counterclaimed for declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity of United States Patent No. 9,415,053, but Lupin dismissed its counterclaims after it was provided a covenant not to sue on that patent. Aurobindo, Taro, Torrent, Micro, Breckenridge, InvaGen, Sigmapharm, Lupin and Alembic have agreed to have their cases stayed and to be bound by the outcome of any final judgment rendered against any of the other defendants. The ’218 cases have been consolidated for discovery and trial. The trial began in April 2019 and closing arguments were heard in June 2019. In December 2018, JPI and Bayer AG filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (collectively, Teva) who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of XARELTO® before expiration of Bayer AG’s ’218 patent. The case against Teva has been consolidated with the other ’218 cases for all purposes, and Teva has agreed to have its case stayed and to be bound by the outcome of any final judgment rendered against any of the other defendants. In May 2018, Mylan filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review with the USPTO, seeking to invalidate the ’218 patent. In December 2018, the USPTO issued a decision denying institution of Mylan’s Petition for Inter Partes Review. In May 2019, JPI and Bayer filed suit against Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Macleods Pharma USA, Inc. (collectively, Macleods) alleging infringement of the ’218 patent. The case against Macleods has been consolidated with the other ’218 cases for all purposes, and Macleods has agreed to have its case stayed and to be bound by the outcome of any final judgment rendered against any of the other defendants. In June 2019, JPI and Bayer filed suit against Accord Healthcare Inc., Accord Healthcare Ltd., and Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (collectively, Accord) alleging infringement of the ’218 patent. In August 2019, JPI and Bayer filed suit against Sunshine Lake Pharma Co., Ltd. and HEC Pharm USA Inc. alleging infringement of the ’218 patent. In October 2019, JPI and Bayer entered into a settlement agreement with Mylan. In November 2019, JPI and Bayer entered into a settlement agreement with Breckenridge. In December 2019, JPI and Bayer entered into settlement agreements with each of Accord, Micro, Sigmapharm, Sunshine, and Torrent. In January 2020, JPI and Bayer entered into a settlement agreement with Macleods. The consolidated ’218 cases involving Alembic, Aurobindo, InvaGen, Lupin, Taro, and Teva, and have been stayed until March 2020. 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. PREZISTA® In May 2018, Janssen Products, L.P. and Janssen Sciences Ireland UC (collectively, Janssen) initiated a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Dr. Reddys Laboratories, Inc., Dr. Reddys Laboratories, Ltd., Laurus Labs, Ltd. and Pharmaq, Inc. (collectively, DRL) who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market generic versions of PREZISTA® before the expiration of United States Patent Nos. 8,518,987; 7,126,015; and 7,595,408. In February 2019, the parties entered into a settlement agreement. In December 2018, Janssen initiated a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Amneal Pharmaceuticals Company GmbH, Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, Amneal Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd., and Raks Pharma Pvt. Ltd. (collectively, Amneal), who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market generic versions of PREZISTA® before the expiration of United States Patent Nos. 8,518,987; 7,126,015; and 7,595,408. In April 2019, the parties entered into a settlement agreement. In January 2020, Janssen Products, L.P. and Janssen Sciences Ireland Unlimited Company (collectively, Janssen) initiated a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA), Inc. and Cadila Healthcare Ltd. (collectively, Zydus), who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of PREZISTA® before the expiration of United States Patent Nos. 7,700,645, 8,518,987, 7,126,015 and 7,595,408. Janssen is seeking an order enjoining Zydus from marketing its generic version of PREZISTA® before the expiration of the relevant patents. INVOKANA®/INVOKAMET®/INVOKAMET XR® Beginning in July 2017, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Cilag GmbH International and Janssen Pharmaceutica NV (collectively, Janssen) and Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation (MTPC) filed patent infringement lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado and 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 INVOKANA® and/or INVOKAMET® before expiration of MTPC’s United States Patent Nos. 7,943,582 (the ’582 patent) and/or 8,513,202 (the ’202 patent) relating to INVOKANA® and INVOKAMET®. Janssen is the exclusive licensee of the asserted patents. The following generic companies are named defendants: Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (Apotex); Aurobindo Pharma USA Inc. (Aurobindo); Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Macleods Pharma USA, Inc.; InvaGen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (InvaGen); Prinston Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd; Hetero USA, Inc., Hetero Labs Limited Unit-V and Hetero Labs Limited; MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. and MSN Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Laurus Labs Ltd.; Indoco Remedies Ltd.; Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. (Zydus); Sandoz, Inc. (Sandoz); Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; and Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Lupin). Beginning in July 2017, Janssen and MTPC filed patent infringement lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against Sandoz and InvaGen, who filed ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of INVOKANA® and/or INVOKAMET® before expiration of MTPC’s United States Patent No. 7,943,788 (the ’788 patent) relating to INVOKANA® and INVOKAMET® and against Zydus, who filed ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of INVOKANA® and INVOKAMET® before expiration of the ’788 patent, MTPC's United States Patent No. 8,222,219 relating to INVOKANA® and INVOKAMET® and MTPC’s United States Patent No. 8,785,403 relating to INVOKAMET® (the ’403 patent), and against Aurobindo, who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of INVOKANA® before expiration of the ’788 patent and the ’219 patent relating to INVOKANA®. Janssen is the exclusive licensee of the asserted patents. In October 2017, the Colorado lawsuits against Sandoz were dismissed. In December 2017, the Delaware lawsuits against Apotex and Teva were dismissed. In April 2018, Janssen and MTPC filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Prinston, who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of INVOKANA® before expiration of the ’788 patent relating to INVOKANA®. In February 2019, Janssen and MTPC filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Lupin, who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of INVOKAMET XR® before expiration of the ’582 patent and ’202 patent relating to INVOKAMET XR®. In July 2019, Janssen and MTPC filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against MSN, who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of INVOKAMET XR® before expiration of the ’582 patent and ’202 patent relating to INVOKAMET XR®. In October 2019, Janssen and MTPC initiated a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against MSN, who filed ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of INVOKANA® and INVOKAMET XR® before expiration of the ’788 patent. In October 2019, Janssen and MTPC initiated a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against DRL, who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of INVOKAMET® before expiration of the ’788 patent. Janssen and MTPC entered into settlement agreements with Prinston and InvaGen (June 2019), Hetero (July 2019) and Apotex and Teva (August 2019). A trial on the ’582 and ’202 patents is scheduled to begin in April 2020, and a trial on the ’788, ’219 and ’403 patents is scheduled to begin in May 2020. In each of these lawsuits, Janssen and MTPC are seeking an order enjoining the defendants from marketing their generic versions of INVOKANA®, INVOKAMET® and/or, INVOKAMET XR® before the expiration of the relevant patents. OPSUMIT® In January 2018, Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Actelion) initiated a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. (Zydus) and Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC (Amneal), each of whom filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of OPSUMIT® before the expiration of United States Patent No. 7,094,781 (the ’781 patent). In the lawsuit, Actelion is seeking an order enjoining Zydus and Amneal from marketing generic versions of OPSUMIT® before the expiration of the patent. Amneal and Zydus have stipulated to infringement. In February 2019, Actelion and Amneal entered into a settlement agreement. The trial against Zydus is scheduled to commence in October 2020. In July 2019, Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. filed suit against Aurobindo Pharma USA Inc. and Aurobindo Pharma Limited (Aurobindo). Aurobindo filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of OPSUMIT® before the expiration of the ’781 patent. Actelion is seeking an order enjoining Defendants from marketing a generic version of OPSUMIT® before the expiration of the ’781 patent. Trial against Aurobindo is scheduled to commence in July 2021. INVEGA SUSTENNA® In January 2018, Janssen Pharmaceutica NV and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, Janssen) initiated a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Teva), who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of INVEGA SUSTENNA® before the expiration of United States Patent No. 9,439,906. Trial is scheduled to begin in June 2020. In August 2019, Janssen Pharmaceutica NV and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, Janssen) initiated a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Mylan Laboratories Limited (Mylan), who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of INVEGA SUSTENNA® before the expiration of the patent. In December 2019, Janssen Pharmaceutica NV and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, Janssen) initiated a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Courts for the Districts of New Jersey and Delaware against Pharmascience Inc., Mallincrodt PLC and Specgx LLC (collectively, Pharmascience), who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of INVEGA SUSTENNA® before the expiration of United States Patent No. 9,439,906. In February 2018, Janssen Inc. and Janssen Pharmaceutica NV (collectively, Janssen) initiated a Notices of Application under Section 6 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations against Teva Canada Limited (Teva) and the Minister of Health in response to Teva's filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Submission (ANDS) seeking approval to market a generic version of INVEGA SUSTENNA® before the expiration of Canadian Patent Nos. 2,309,629 and 2,655,335. Janssen is seeking an order prohibiting the Minister of Health from issuing a Notice of Compliance with respect to Teva’s ANDS before the expiration of these patents. The final hearing is scheduled to begin in February 2020. In each of these lawsuits, Janssen is seeking an order enjoining the defendant from marketing a generic version of INVEGA SUSTENNA® before the expiration of the patent. IMBRUVICA® Beginning in January 2018, Pharmacyclics LLC (Pharmacyclics) and Janssen Biotech, Inc. (JBI) 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 IMBRUVICA® 140 mg capsules before expiration of Pharmacyclics’ United States Patent Nos. 8,008,309, 7,514,444, 8,697,711, 8,735,403, 8,957,079, 9,181,257, 8,754,091, 8,497,277, 8,925,015, 8,476,284, 8,754,090, 8,999,999, 9,125,889, 9,801,881, 9,801,883, 9,814,721, 9,795,604, 9,296,753, 9,540,382, 9,713,617 and/or 9,725,455 relating to IMBRUVICA®. JBI is the exclusive licensee of the asserted patents. The following generic companies are named defendants: Cipla Limited and Cipla USA Inc. (Cipla); Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, Fresenius Kabi USA, Inc., and Fresenius Kabi Oncology Limited (Fresenius Kabi); Sandoz Inc. and Lek Pharmaceuticals d.d. (Sandoz); Shilpa Medicare Limited (Shilpa); Sun Pharma Global FZE and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (Sun); Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Teva); and Zydus Worldwide DMCC and Cadila Healthcare Limited (Zydus). The trial is scheduled to begin in October 2020. In October 2018, Pharmacyclics and JBI filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Sun asserting United States Patent No. 10,004,746. In November 2018, Pharmacyclics and JBI filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Hetero Labs Limited, Hetero Labs Limited Unit-1, Hetero Labs Limited Unit-V, and Hetero USA Inc. (Hetero), who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of IMBRUVICA® 140 mg capsules, asserting infringement of United States Patent Nos. 8,754,090, 9,296,753, 9,540,382, 9,713,617 and 9,725,455. In January 2019, Pharmacyclics and JBI amended their complaints against Fresenius Kabi, Zydus, Teva and Sandoz to further allege infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,106,548, and 10,125,140. In January 2019, Pharmacyclics and JBI filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Zydus, who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of IMBRUVICA® 70 mg before the expiration of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,514,444, 8,003,309, 8,476,284, 8,497,277, 8,697,711, 8,753,403, 8,754,090, 8,754,091, 8,952,015, 8,957,079, 9,181,257, 9,296,753, 9,540,382, 9,713,617, 9,725,455, 10,106,548, and 10,125,140. In January 2019, Pharmacyclics and JBI filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Hetero asserting infringement of United States Patent No. 10,106,548. In February 2019, Pharmacyclics and JBI amended their complaints against Cipla, Shilpa, and Sun to allege infringement of United States Patent Nos. 10,106,548, and 10,125,140. In February 2019, Pharmacyclics and JBI entered into settlement agreements with Teva and Hetero. In March 2019, Pharmacyclics and JBI entered into a settlement agreement with Shilpa. In March 2019, Pharmacyclics and JBI filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Alvogen Pine Brook LLC and Natco Pharma Ltd. (Alvogen), who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market generic versions of IMBRUVICA® tablets, asserting infringement of United States Patent Nos. 7,514,444, 8,003,309, 8,476,284, 8,497,277, 8,697,711, 8,753,403, 8,754,090, 8,754,091, 8,952,015, 8,957,079, 9,181,257, 9,296,753, 9,655,857, 9,725,455, 10,010,507, 10,106,548, and 10,125,140. In May 2019, Pharmacyclics and JBI amended their complaints against Cipla to further allege infringement of United States Patent No. 10,016,435. In June 2019, Pharmacyclics and JBI amended their complaints against Alvogen to further allege infringement of United States Patent No. 10,213,386. In August 2019, Pharmacyclics and JBI amended their complaints against Cipla, Fresenius, and Sandoz to further allege infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,294,231 and 10,294,232 and amended their complaint against Sun to further allege infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,294,232. In March 2019, Sandoz filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) in the USPTO, seeking to invalidate United States Patent No. 9,795,604. In each of the lawsuits, Pharmacyclics and JBI are seeking an order enjoining the defendants from marketing generic versions of IMBRUVICA® before the expiration of the relevant patents. TRACLEER® In May 2019, Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd and Actelion Pharmaceuticals US, Inc. initiated a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Natco Pharma Limited and Syneos Health LLC (collectively, Natco), who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of TRACLEER®, 32 mg, before the expiration of U.S. Patent No. 8,309,126 (the ’126 patent). In the lawsuit, Actelion is seeking an order enjoining Natco from marketing its generic version of TRACLEER® before the expiration of the ’126 patent. In November 2019, the parties entered into a settlement agreement. In December 2019, Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd and Actelion Pharmaceuticals US, Inc. initiated a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA), Inc. and Cadila Healthcare Limited (collectively, Zydus), who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of TRACLEER®, 32 mg, before the expiration of U.S. Patent No. 8,309,126 (the ’126 patent). Actelion is seeking an order enjoining Zydus from marketing its generic version of TRACLEER® before the expiration of the ’126 patent. RISPERDAL CONSTA® In July 2019, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Alkermes Pharma Ireland Limited and Alkermes Controlled Therapeutics, Inc. initiated a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Luye Pharma Group Ltd., Luye Pharma (USA), Ltd., Nanjing Luye Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and Shandong Luye Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (collectively, Luye), who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of RISPERDAL CONSTA® before the expiration of United States Patent No. 6,667,061. In November 2019, the parties entered into a settlement. In this lawsuit, Janssen is seeking an order enjoining Luye from marketing a generic version of RISPERDAL CONSTA® before the expiration of the patent. GOVERNMENT PROCEEDINGS Like other companies in the pharmaceutical, consumer 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. The case brought by Illinois was settled after trial. 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. All other cases have been resolved. Opioid Litigation Beginning in 2014 and continuing to the present, Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (JPI), along with other pharmaceutical companies, have been named in more than 2,800 lawsuits brought by certain state and local governments related to the marketing of opioids, including DURAGESIC®, NUCYNTA® and NUCYNTA® ER. The suits also raise allegations related to previously owned active pharmaceutical ingredient supplier subsidiaries, Tasmanian Alkaloids Pty, Ltd. and Noramco, Inc. (both subsidiaries were divested in 2016). Similar lawsuits have also been filed by the following groups of plaintiffs: individual plaintiffs on behalf of children suffering from Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome; hospitals; and health insurers/payors. To date, complaints against pharmaceutical companies, including Johnson & Johnson and JPI, have been filed by the state Attorneys General in Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and West Virginia. Complaints against the manufacturers also have been filed in state or federal court by city, county and local government agencies in the following states: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina; Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. The Government of Puerto Rico filed suit in Superior Court of San Juan. There are more than 350 cases pending in various state courts. There are over 2,500 federal cases coordinated in a federal Multi-District Litigation (MDL) pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (MDL No. 2804). In addition, the Province of British Columbia filed suit in Canada. In October 2019, an anti-trust complaint was filed by private plaintiffs in federal court in Tennessee and is pending transfer to the MDL. These actions allege a variety of claims related to opioid marketing practices, including false advertising, unfair competition, public nuisance, consumer fraud violations, deceptive acts and practices, false claims and unjust enrichment. The suits generally seek penalties and/or injunctive and monetary relief and, in some of the suits, the plaintiffs are seeking joint and several liability among the defendants. An adverse judgment in any of these lawsuits could result in the imposition of large monetary penalties and significant damages including, punitive damages, cost of abatement, substantial fines, equitable remedies and other sanctions. The trial in the matter filed by the Oklahoma Attorney General resulted in a judgment against Johnson & Johnson and JPI in the amount of $572 million, subject to a final order to be issued by the court. The court issued a final judgment reducing the amount to $465 million. Johnson & Johnson and JPI have appealed the judgment. The Company believes that it has strong grounds to overturn this judgment. In October 2019 Johnson & Johnson and JPI announced a settlement of the first case set for trial in the MDL with two counties in Ohio. Johnson & Johnson, JPI and other pharmaceutical companies have also received subpoenas or requests for information related to opioids marketing practices from the following state Attorneys General: Alaska, Indiana, Montana, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Washington. In September 2017, Johnson & Johnson and JPI were contacted by the Texas and Colorado Attorney General’s Offices on behalf of approximately 38 states regarding a multi-state Attorney General investigation. In October 2019, the Company announced a proposed agreement in principle that would include the Company paying $4 billion as settlement of these lawsuits, subject to various conditions and an agreement being finalized. This agreement in principle is not an admission of liability or wrong-doing and would resolve opioid lawsuits filed and future claims by states, cities and counties. The Company cannot predict if or when the agreement will be finalized and individual cases are ongoing, including a trial in New York scheduled to commence in March 2020. In August 2019, Johnson & Johnson received a grand jury subpoena from the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York for documents related to the Company’s anti-diversion policies and procedures and distribution of its opioid medications, in what the Company understands to be part of a broader investigation into manufacturers’ and distributors’ monitoring programs and reporting under the Controlled Substances Act. In September 2019, Johnson & Johnson received subpoenas from the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) as part of an industry-wide inquiry into the effect of opioid prescriptions on New York health insurance premiums. The Company is cooperating and producing documents in response to the various subpoenas and requests for information. Other In August 2012, DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., DePuy, Inc. (now known as DePuy Synthes, Inc.), and Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc. (collectively DePuy) 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. In July 2017, the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal in part, reversed in part, and affirmed the decision to deny the relators’ request to file a third amended complaint. The relators’ remaining claims are now pending before the district court, and fact discovery is currently scheduled to close in March 2020. 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). In May 2016, California and Washington filed civil complaints against Johnson & Johnson, Ethicon and Ethicon US, LLC alleging violations of their consumer protection statutes. In April 2019, Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon settled the Washington case. The California case started trial in July 2019 and concluded in September 2019. In January 2020, the court found in favor of the state and awarded the state civil penalties of approximately $344 million. The Company intends to appeal when further proceedings are concluded in the trial court. Similar complaints were filed against the companies by Kentucky in August 2016, by Mississippi in October 2017, by West Virginia in September 2019 and by Oregon in December 2019. The trial date for the Kentucky case was scheduled for September 2019 but has been adjourned and no new trial date has been scheduled. In October 2019, Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon settled the multi-state investigation with 41 other 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 known as Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.) (JJCI). The complaint alleges that defendants violated the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act by failing 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 divested in 2012) and seeks injunctive and monetary relief. The matter is stayed pending interlocutory appeal of a December 2018 denial of Johnson & Johnson and JJCI's motion for summary judgment. The Mississippi Supreme Court granted J&J and JJCI's request to file an interlocutory appeal of the denial of the motion for summary judgment in late 2019 and it will soon establish a briefing schedule. The Company has also received inquiries from several other State Attorneys General. 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 July 2016, Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Products LP were served with a qui tam complaint pursuant to the False Claims Act filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging the off-label promotion of two HIV products, PREZISTA® and INTELENCE®, and anti-kickback violations in connection with the promotion of these products. The complaint was filed under seal in December 2012. The federal and state governments have declined to intervene, and the lawsuit is being prosecuted by the relators. In January 2017, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (JPI) received a Civil Investigative Demand from the United States Department of Justice relating to allegations concerning the sales and marketing practices of OLYSIO®. In December 2017, Johnson & Johnson and JPI were served with a whistleblower lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging the off-label promotion of OLYSIO® and additional products, including NUCYNTA®, XARELTO®, LEVAQUIN® and REMICADE®. At this time, the federal and state governments have declined to intervene and the lawsuit, which is related to the Civil Investigative Demand, is being prosecuted by a former company employee. The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed the claim in April 2018. In May 2018, the relator filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In January 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed the relator's appeal. In November 2018, a second whistleblower lawsuit was unsealed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuit was substantially similar to the lawsuit under appeal but was brought in the name of the original relator. The federal and state governments declined to intervene in the second suit, and the relator moved to dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice. In April 2019, the court granted the relator's motion and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. In March 2017, Janssen Biotech, Inc. 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 August 2019, the Unites States Department of Justice notified Janssen Biotech, Inc. that it was closing the investigation. In January 2020, Janssen Biotech, Inc. was served with a newly-unsealed qui tam suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. In April and September 2017, Johnson & Johnson received subpoenas from the United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts seeking documents broadly relating to pharmaceutical copayment support programs for DARZALEX®, OLYSIO®, REMICADE®, SIMPONI®, STELARA® and ZYTIGA®. The subpoenas also seek 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. In June 2017, Johnson & Johnson received a subpoena from the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts seeking information regarding practices pertaining to the sterilization of DePuy Synthes, Inc. spinal implants at three hospitals in Boston as well as interactions of employees of Company subsidiaries with physicians at these hospitals. Johnson & Johnson and DePuy Synthes, Inc. have produced documents in response to the subpoena and are fully cooperating with the government’s investigation. In July 2018 the Public Prosecution Service in Rio de Janeiro and representatives from the Brazilian antitrust authority CADE inspected the offices of more than 30 companies including Johnson & Johnson do Brasil Indústria e Comércio de Produtos para Saúde Ltda. The authorities appear to be investigating allegations of possible anti-competitive behavior and possible improper payments in the medical device industry. The United States Department of Justice and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission have made additional inquiries, and Johnson & Johnson do Brasil Indústria e Comércio de Produtos para Saúde Ltda. is cooperating with those requests. In January 2020, the New Mexico Attorney General’s Office filed a suit against Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. in the First Judicial District Court, New Mexico. The suit relates to the safety and marketing of the Company’s talc products. The State included claims for violations of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act, Medicaid Fraud Act, Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, Fraud and Negligent Misrepresentation, Negligence and Unjust Enrichment. Other state Attorneys General have informed the Company that they are conducting an inquiry into this matter. From time to time, the Company 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 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 and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. (now known as 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 July 2017, the district court granted Johnson & Johnson's and JJCI’s motion to dismiss one of the cases. In September 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed this dismissal. In September 2017, the plaintiff in the second case voluntarily dismissed the complaint. In March 2018, the plaintiff in the second case refiled in Illinois State Court. 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 a Petition for Relief in July 2015. In May 2019, US CBP issued its Mitigation Decision and determined that Janssen Ortho had negligently misrepresented that darunavir ethanolate is entitled to duty free treatment. In June 2019, Janssen Ortho filed a Supplemental Petition for Relief. The Penalties Proceeding will be impacted by the related Classification Litigation pending in the United States Court of International Trade. The Classification Litigation will determine whether darunavir ethanolate was properly classified as exempt from duties upon importation into the United States. The trial in the Classification Litigation was held in July 2019. In February 2020, the Court ruled that darunavir ethanolate is eligible for duty free treatment. 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) and 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 December 2018, the district court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Defendants filed two motions for interlocutory appeal of class certification to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Both motions were denied. Defendants' motions for summary judgment were denied in November 2019. Trial is scheduled for June 2020. 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 September 2017, Pfizer, Inc. (Pfizer) filed an antitrust complaint against Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Biotech, Inc. (collectively, Janssen) in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Pfizer alleges that Janssen has violated federal antitrust laws through its contracting strategies for REMICADE®. The complaint seeks damages and injunctive relief. Discovery is ongoing. Beginning in September 2017, multiple purported class actions of direct and indirect purchasers were filed against Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Biotech, Inc. (collectively, Janssen) alleging that Janssen’s REMICADE® contracting strategies violated federal and state antitrust and consumer laws and seeking damages and injunctive relief. In November 2017, the cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as In re Remicade Antitrust Litigation. Motions to dismiss were denied in both the direct and indirect purchaser cases. A motion to compel arbitration of the direct purchaser case was denied by the district court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the district court's ruling. In June 2018, Walgreen Co. and Kroger Co, filed an antitrust complaint against Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Biotech, Inc. (collectively, Janssen) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The complaint alleges that Janssen has violated federal antitrust laws through its contracting strategies for REMICADE®. The complaint seeks damages and injunctive relief. In March 2019, summary judgment was granted in favor of Janssen. This ruling is on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In June 2019, the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a Civil Investigative Demand to Johnson & Johnson in connection with its investigation of whether Janssen’s REMICADE® contracting practices violate federal antitrust laws. The Company has produced documents and information responsive to the Civil Investigative Demand. In October 2017, certain United States service members and their families brought a complaint against a number of pharmaceutical and medical devices companies, including Johnson & Johnson and certain of its subsidiaries, alleging that the defendants violated the United States Anti-Terrorism Act. The complaint alleges that the defendants provided funding for terrorist organizations through their sales practices pursuant to pharmaceutical and medical device contracts with the Iraqi Ministry of Health. In January 2019, plaintiffs' motion to file a Second Amended Complaint adding plaintiffs to the lawsuit was granted. In April 2019, the Company moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. In October 2018, two separate putative class actions were filed against Actelion Pharmaceutical Ltd., Actelion Pharmaceuticals US, Inc., and Actelion Clinical Research, Inc. (collectively Actelion) in United States District Court for the District of Maryland and United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The complaints allege that Actelion violated state and federal antitrust and unfair competition laws by allegedly refusing to supply generic pharmaceutical manufacturers with samples of TRACLEER®. TRACLEER® is subject to a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, which imposes restrictions on distribution of the product. In January 2019, the plaintiffs dismissed the District of Columbia case and filed a consolidated complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. In October 2019, the Court granted Actelion’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Plaintiffs have appealed the decision. In December 2018, Janssen Biotech, Inc., Janssen Oncology, Inc, Janssen Research & Development, LLC, and Johnson & Johnson (collectively, Janssen) were served with a qui tam complaint filed on behalf of the United States, 28 states, and the District of Columbia. The complaint, which was filed in December 2017 in United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that Janssen violated the federal False Claims Act and state law when providing pricing information for ZYTIGA® to the government in connection with direct government sales and government-funded drug reimbursement programs. At this time, the federal and state governments have declined to intervene. The case has been transferred to United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Janssen has moved to dismiss the complaint. In April 2019, Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Louisiana and HMO Louisiana, Inc. filed a class action complaint against Janssen Biotech, Inc, Janssen Oncology, Inc, Janssen Research & Development, LLC and BTG International Limited in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Several additional complaints were filed thereafter. The complaints generally allege that the defendants violated the antitrust and consumer protections laws of several states and the Sherman Act by pursuing patent litigation relating to ZYTIGA® in order to delay generic entry. The case has been transferred to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and consolidated for pretrial purposes. In May 2019, a class action antitrust complaint was filed against Janssen R&D Ireland (Janssen) and Johnson & Johnson. The complaint alleges that Janssen violated federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws by agreeing to exclusivity provisions in its agreements with Gilead concerning the development and marketing of combination antiretroviral therapies (cART) to treat HIV. The complaint also alleges that Gilead entered into similar agreements with Bristol-Myers-Squibb and Japan Tobacco. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Northern California. The defendants have filed motions to dismiss the complaint. In October 2019, Innovative Health, LLC filed a complaint against Biosense Webster, Inc. (BWI) in the United States District Court for the Middle District of California. The complaint alleges that certain of BWI’s business practices and contractual terms violate the antitrust laws of the United States and the State of California by restricting competition in the sale of High Density Mapping Catheters and Ultrasound Catheters. BWI filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The Company received notices from Pfizer, Inc. and Sanofi Consumer Health, Inc. in November 2019 and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in January 2020 tendering for defense and indemnification of legal claims related to personal injury matters and putative class actions in the U.S. and Canada related to Zantac (ranitidine) products. The notices were based on certain indemnification provisions regarding assumed liabilities in connection with the Stock and Asset Purchase Agreement between Pfizer, Inc. and the Company in 2006. Plaintiffs in the underlying suits allege generally that Zantac and other over-the-counter ranitidine medications contain unsafe levels of NDMA (N-nitrosodimethylamine) and can cause and/or have caused various cancers in patients using the products, for which plaintiffs are seeking injunctive and monetary relief. 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.

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

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for legal proceedings, legal contingencies, litigation, regulatory and environmental matters and other contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration