XML 50 R28.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.22.0.1
Contingencies and commitments
 12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Contingencies and commitments Contingencies and commitments
Contingencies
In the ordinary course of business, we are involved in various legal proceedings, government investigations and other matters that are complex in nature and have outcomes that are difficult to predict. See Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors—Our business may be affected by litigation and government investigations. We describe our legal proceedings and other matters that are significant or that we believe could become significant in this footnote.
We record accruals for loss contingencies to the extent that we conclude it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the related loss can be reasonably estimated. We evaluate, on a quarterly basis, developments in legal proceedings and other matters that could cause an increase or decrease in the amount of the liability that has been accrued previously.
Our legal proceedings involve various aspects of our business and a variety of claims, some of which present novel factual allegations and/or unique legal theories. In each of the matters described in this filing, in which we could incur a liability, our opponents seek an award of a not-yet-quantified amount of damages or an amount that is not material. In addition, a number of the matters pending against us are at very early stages of the legal process, which in complex proceedings of the sort we face often extend for several years. As a result, none of the matters described in this filing, in which we could incur a liability, have progressed sufficiently through discovery and/or the development of important factual information and legal issues to enable us to estimate a range of possible loss, if any, or such amounts are not material. While it is not possible to accurately predict or determine the eventual outcomes of these matters, an adverse determination in one or more of these matters currently pending could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows.
Certain recent developments concerning our legal proceedings and other matters are discussed below:
ANDA Patent Litigation
Otezla ANDA Patent Litigation
Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., et al.
Beginning in June 2018, Celgene filed 19 separate lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (the New Jersey District Court) against Alkem Laboratories Ltd. (Alkem); Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC (Amneal); Annora Pharma Private Ltd. and Hetero USA Inc. (collectively, Hetero); Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. and Aurobindo Pharma USA Inc. (collectively, Aurobindo); Cipla Limited (Cipla Ltd); DRL; Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Heritage Pharmaceuticals Inc. (collectively, Emcure); Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Glenmark); Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Macleods); Mankind Pharma Ltd. (Mankind); MSN Laboratories Private Limited (MSN); Pharmascience Inc. (Pharmascience); Prinston Pharmaceutical Inc. (Prinston); Sandoz Inc. (Sandoz); Shilpa Medicare Ltd. (Shilpa); Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Actavis LLC (collectively, Actavis); Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Torrent); Unichem Laboratories, Ltd. (Unichem); and Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. (Zydus), each for infringement of one or more of the following patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,962,940 (the ’940 Patent), 7,208,516 (the ’516 Patent), 7,427,638 (the ’638 Patent), 7,659,302 (the ’302 Patent), 7,893,101 (the ’101 Patent), 8,455,536 (the ’536 Patent), 8,802,717 (the ’717 Patent), 9,018,243 (the ’243 Patent) and 9,872,854 (the ’854 Patent), which are listed in the Orange Book for Otezla. Each of these lawsuits was based on each defendant’s submission of an ANDA seeking FDA approval to market a generic version of Otezla. The New Jersey District Court consolidated these 19 lawsuits for discovery and case management purposes into a single case, Celgene Corp. v. Sandoz Inc., et al. Each lawsuit seeks an order of the New Jersey District Court making any FDA approval of the respective defendant’s ANDA effective no earlier than the expiration of the applicable patents.
In August 2018, Celgene filed amended complaints against Alkem, Amneal, Aurobindo, Cipla Ltd, DRL, Glenmark, Pharmascience, Sandoz, Actavis, Unichem and Zydus additionally asserting U.S. Patent No. 9,724,330 (the ’330 Patent), which is listed in the Orange Book for Otezla. Between October 15 and November 27, 2018, Celgene filed amended complaints against Alkem, Amneal, Hetero, Aurobindo, Cipla Ltd, DRL, Emcure, Glenmark, Macleods, Mankind, MSN, Pharmascience, Prinston, Sandoz, Actavis, Torrent, Unichem and Zydus additionally asserting U.S. Patent No. 10,092,541 (the ’541 Patent), which is listed in the Orange Book for Otezla. Between March 1 and April 4, 2019, Celgene filed amended complaints against Hetero, MSN and Emcure for infringement of one or more of the above-listed patents. On October 1, 2019, Celgene filed an amended complaint against Mankind for infringement of the ’940, ’302, ’536, ’243 and ’330 Patents. On October 8, 2019, Celgene filed a separate lawsuit against Zydus in the New Jersey District Court for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,093,283 (the ’283 Patent) and 8,629,173, which are not listed in the Orange Book for Otezla. On December 19, 2019, the New Jersey District Court consolidated this lawsuit for discovery and case management purposes into the existing consolidated case, Celgene Corp. v. Sandoz Inc., et al. Each defendant has filed an answer to the above-listed complaints and amended complaints disputing infringement and/or validity of the patents asserted against it. Along with their answers, each of Alkem, Hetero, Cipla
Ltd, DRL, Emcure, Glenmark, Macleods, Mankind, Pharmascience, Sandoz, Shilpa, Actavis, Torrent, Unichem and Zydus filed declaratory judgment counterclaims asserting that some or all of the patents are not infringed and/or are invalid. In August 2019, based on a joint request by Celgene and Glenmark, the New Jersey District Court entered a consent judgment and injunction prohibiting the making, having made, using, selling, offering to sell, importing, or distributing of Glenmark’s apremilast product during the term of the ’940, ’638, ’302, ’101, ’536, ’243, ’330 and ’541 Patents, unless authorized pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement.
Following Amgen’s acquisition of the patents-in-suit and the new drug application for Otezla, on February 14, 2020, the New Jersey District Court issued an order substituting Amgen for Celgene as plaintiff in the consolidated action and all related actions, terminating Celgene as plaintiff in the consolidated action and all related actions, and amending the case caption in the consolidated action and all related actions to reflect Amgen as the sole plaintiff.
On March 25, 2020, based on a joint request by Amgen and Unichem, the New Jersey District Court entered a consent judgment and injunction prohibiting the making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing of Unichem’s apremilast product during the term of the ’940, ’638, ’302, ’101, ’536, ’243, ’330 and ’541 Patents, unless authorized pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement. On April 3, 2020, based on a joint request by Amgen and Hetero, the New Jersey District Court entered a consent judgment and injunction prohibiting the making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing of Hetero’s apremilast product during the term of the ’940, ’516, ’638, ’302, ’101, ’536, ’717, ’243, ’330, ’854 and ’541 Patents, unless authorized pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement. On May 28, 2020, based on a joint request by Amgen and Emcure, the New Jersey District Court entered a consent judgment and injunction prohibiting the making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing of Emcure’s apremilast product during the term of the ’638, ’101, ’854 and ’541 Patents unless authorized pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement. On July 7, 2020, the New Jersey District Court ordered a stipulated dismissal without prejudice of all claims, counterclaims, and affirmative defenses between Amgen and Sandoz with respect to the ’717, ’516 and ’854 Patents, leaving the ’940, ’302, ’536, ’243, ’330, ’638, ’101 and ’541 Patents asserted by Amgen against Sandoz in the litigation. On August 6, 2020, based on a joint request by Amgen and Mankind, the New Jersey District Court entered a consent judgment and injunction prohibiting the making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing of Mankind’s apremilast product during the term of the ’940, ’302, ’536, ’243, ’330, ’638, ’101 and ’541 Patents, unless authorized pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement. On August 14, 2020, based on a joint request by Amgen and Macleods, the New Jersey District Court entered a consent judgment and injunction prohibiting the making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing of Macleods’ apremilast product during the term of the ’638 and ’541 Patents, unless authorized pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement. On October 7, 2020, based on a joint request by Amgen and Amneal, the New Jersey District Court entered a consent judgment and injunction prohibiting the making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing of Amneal’s apremilast product during the term of the ’101, ’940, ’638, ’302, ’536, ’243, ’330 and ’541 Patents, unless authorized pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement. On December 30, 2020, based on a joint request by Amgen and Shilpa, the New Jersey District Court entered a consent judgment and injunction prohibiting the making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing of Shilpa’s apremilast product during the term of the ’638, ’101 and ’854 Patents, unless authorized pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement. On January 26, 2021, based on a joint request by Amgen and Actavis, the New Jersey District Court entered a consent judgment and injunction prohibiting the making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing of Actavis’ apremilast product during the term of the ’940, ’516, ’638, ’302, ’536, ’717, ’330, ’854 and ’541 Patents, unless authorized pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement. On March 24, 2021, based on a joint request by Amgen and Prinston, the New Jersey District Court entered a consent judgment and injunction prohibiting the making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing of Prinston’s apremilast product during the term of the ’638 and ’541 Patents, unless authorized pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement. On April 6, 2021, based on a joint request by Amgen and Aurobindo, the New Jersey District Court entered a consent judgment and injunction prohibiting the making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing of Aurobindo’s apremilast product during the term of the ’940, ’516, ’638, ’302, ’101, ’536, ’717, ’243, ’330, ’854 and ’541 Patents, unless authorized pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement.
On May 5, 2021, based on a joint request by Amgen and Cipla, the New Jersey District Court entered a consent judgment and injunction prohibiting the making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing of Cipla’s apremilast product during the term of the ’940, ’638, ’302, ’536, ’330 and ’541 Patents, unless authorized pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement. On May 14, 2021, based on a joint request by Amgen and Torrent, the New Jersey District Court entered a consent judgment and injunction prohibiting the making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing of Torrent’s apremilast product during the term of the ’101, ’638, ’854 and ’541 Patents, unless authorized pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement. On May 19, 2021, based on a joint request by Amgen and Alkem, the New Jersey District Court entered a consent judgment and injunction prohibiting the making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing of Alkem’s apremilast product during the term of the ’940, ’638, ’302, ’536, ’330 and ’541 Patents, unless authorized pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement. On May 25, 2021, based on a joint request by Amgen and MSN, the New Jersey District Court entered a consent judgment and injunction prohibiting the making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing of MSN’s apremilast product during the term of the ’940, ’638, ’302, ’536, ’330 and ’541 Patents, unless authorized pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement. On June 11, 2021, based on a joint request by Amgen and Pharmascience, the New Jersey District Court entered a consent judgment and
injunction prohibiting the making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing of Pharmascience’s apremilast product during the term of the ’243, ’940, ’638, ’302, ’101, ’536, ’330 and ’541 Patents, unless authorized pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement. On June 17, 2021, based on a joint request by Amgen and DRL, the New Jersey District Court entered a consent judgment and injunction prohibiting the making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing of DRL’s apremilast product during the term of the ’638, ’101, ’536 and ’541 Patents, unless authorized pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement.
Trial on the consolidated patent infringement action against Sandoz and Zydus was held at the New Jersey District Court from June 14 to 25, 2021, with closing arguments on July 28, 2021.
On September 28, 2021, consistent with its September 20, 2021 opinion and order, the New Jersey District Court entered final judgment in favor of Amgen and against Zydus with respect to claims 3 and 6 of the ’638 Patent, claim 6 of the ’536 Patent and claims 2 and 27 of the ’283 Patent; and final judgment in favor of Zydus and against Amgen with respect to claims 1 and 15 of the ’101 Patent and claims 2, 19 and 21 of the ’541 Patent. The final judgment ordered that the effective date of any final approval by the FDA of Zydus’s ANDA must be after expiration of the three infringed patents (the ’638, ’536 and ’283 Patents) and any regulatory exclusivity to which Amgen may become entitled. The final judgment also includes an injunction prohibiting Zydus from making, using, offering to sell, or selling in the United States, or importing into the United States, Zydus’s generic apremilast products during the term of the three infringed patents. On October 27, 2021, Zydus filed a notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit Court with respect to the ’638 Patent. On October 28, 2021, Amgen filed a notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit Court.
On October 12, 2021, the New Jersey District Court also entered final judgment in favor of Amgen and against Sandoz with respect to claims 3 and 6 of the ’638 Patent, claim 6 of the ’536 Patent and claims 1 and 15 of the ’101 Patent; and final judgment in favor of Sandoz and against Amgen with respect to claims 2, 19 and 21 of the ’541 Patent. The final judgment ordered that the effective date of any final approval by the FDA of Sandoz’s ANDA must be after expiration of the three infringed patents (the ’638, ’536 and ’101 Patents) and any regulatory exclusivity to which Amgen may become entitled. The final judgment also includes an injunction prohibiting Sandoz from making, using, offering to sell, or selling in the United States, or importing into the United States, Sandoz’s generic apremilast products during the term of the three infringed patents. On November 9, 2021, Sandoz filed a notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit Court with respect to the ‘638 and ‘101 Patents. On November 10, 2021, Amgen filed a notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit Court.
ENBREL Patent Litigation
Immunex Corporation, et al. v. Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd.
On April 30, 2019, two affiliates of Amgen Inc., Immunex Corporation and Amgen Manufacturing, Limited (collectively, Amgen), along with Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. (Roche), filed a lawsuit in the New Jersey District Court against Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. (Bioepis). This lawsuit stems from Bioepis’ submission of an application for FDA licensure of an etanercept product as biosimilar to Amgen’s ENBREL. Amgen and Roche have asserted infringement of five patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,063,182, 8,163,522 (the ’522 Patent), 7,915,225, 8,119,605 and 8,722,631. By their complaint, Amgen and Roche seek an injunction to prohibit Bioepis from commercializing its biosimilar etanercept product in the United States prior to the expiry of such patents. On August 5, 2019, Bioepis responded to the complaint, denying infringement and seeking judgment that the patents-in-suit are invalid, unenforceable and/or not infringed. On January 9, 2020 and subject to the terms of a confidential stipulation and court order of January 6, 2020, the New Jersey District Court entered a consent injunction that prohibits Bioepis from making, using, offering to sell, selling or importing into the United States Bioepis’ etanercept product. Amgen and Bioepis entered into an agreement with respect to an injunction regarding etanercept as set out in the New Jersey District Court’s order of January 6, 2020. On January 15, 2020, the New Jersey District Court entered an order administratively staying the case pursuant to a joint request of Amgen and Bioepis.
On November 2, 2021, Amgen and Bioepis, with the consent of Roche, jointly submitted to the New Jersey District Court a confidential stipulation and a form of final judgment and order of permanent injunction resolving the dispute between the parties and enjoining Bioepis from making, using, offering to sell, or selling within the United States, or importing into the United States, any product containing etanercept until the April 24, 2029 expiry of Roche’s ’522 Patent. On November 3, 2021, the New Jersey District Court entered final judgment and ordered a permanent injunction against Bioepis in conformity with the parties’ submission.
Repatha Patent Litigation
Amgen Inc., et al. v. Sanofi, et al.
In October 2014, Amgen initiated a series of lawsuits that were consolidated by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Delaware District Court) in December 2014 into a single case against Sanofi, Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC and Aventisub LLC, formerly doing business as Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc. (collectively, Sanofi) and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Regeneron), addressing seven of our patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,563,698; 8,829,165 (the ’165 Patent); 8,859,741 (the ’741 Patent); 8,871,913; 8,871,914; 8,883,983; and 8,889,834. These patents describe and claim monoclonal antibodies to PCSK9. By its complaints, Amgen seeks an injunction to prevent the infringing manufacture, use and sale of Sanofi and Regeneron’s alirocumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting PCSK9. In January 2016, the Delaware District Court granted Amgen’s motion to amend the complaint to add its affiliates, Amgen Manufacturing, Limited and Amgen USA Inc., as plaintiffs and to add the allegation that Sanofi and Regeneron’s infringement of Amgen’s patents is willful.
In February 2016, the Delaware District Court entered a stipulated order finding alirocumab and the drug product containing it, PRALUENT infringe certain of Amgen’s patents, including claims 2, 7, 9, 15, 19 and 29 of the ’165 Patent and claim 7 of the ’741 Patent. In March 2016, the Delaware District Court entered judgment in favor of Amgen following a five-day jury trial and a unanimous jury verdict that these patent claims are all valid. In January 2017, the Delaware District Court denied Sanofi and Regeneron’s post-trial motions seeking a new trial and for judgment as a matter of law, and granted Amgen’s motion for a permanent injunction prohibiting the infringing manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale or import of alirocumab in the United States. Sanofi and Regeneron filed an appeal of the judgment and the permanent injunction to the Federal Circuit Court. In February 2017, following a motion by Sanofi and Regeneron, the Federal Circuit Court entered a stay of the permanent injunction during the pendency of the appeal. In October 2017, the Federal Circuit Court reversed in part the judgment of the Delaware District Court and remanded for a new trial two of the patent validity defenses (lack of written description and enablement of the claimed inventions), and affirmed the Delaware District Court’s judgment of infringement of claims 2, 7, 9, 15, 19 and 29 of the ’165 Patent and claim 7 of the ’741 Patent and the third patent validity defense (finding that the claimed inventions were not obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field of the patents).
In March 2018, the Federal Circuit Court issued a mandate returning the case to the Delaware District Court for a new trial on two of Sanofi and Regeneron’s challenges to the validity of our patents (lack of written description and enablement of the claimed inventions) and for further consideration of a permanent injunction. In July 2018, Amgen filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Federal Circuit Court’s conclusion that the judgment affirming the validity of Amgen’s patents was based, in part, on an erroneous application of the law of written description. On January 7, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Amgen’s petition for certiorari. On remand, the Delaware District Court scheduled a new trial on Sanofi and Regeneron’s challenges to the validity of our patents based on lack of written description and enablement of the claimed inventions. The Delaware District Court also entered judgment on the pleadings for Sanofi and Regeneron on Amgen’s claim of willful infringement.
On February 25, 2019, a jury of the Delaware District Court again unanimously upheld the validity of claims 19 and 29 of the ’165 Patent and claim 7 of the ’741 Patent. The jury also found that claims 7 and 15 of the ’165 Patent meet the enablement requirement, but are invalid for failure to meet the written description requirement. On March 18, 2019, Sanofi and Regeneron filed post-trial motions seeking to reverse the jury verdict against them or for a new trial, and Amgen filed a motion for a permanent injunction. On August 28, 2019, the Delaware District Court ruled on the post-trial motions, denying Sanofi and Regeneron’s request for a new trial and their request to reverse the jury verdict that the ’165 Patent and the ’741 Patent provide written description support for the claimed inventions. The Delaware District Court also ruled as a matter of law that claims 19 and 29 of the ’165 Patent and claim 7 of the ’741 Patent are invalid for failing to meet the enablement requirement, overturning the jury verdict.
On October 23, 2019, Amgen filed a notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit Court and based on the subsequent hearing, on February 11, 2021 the Federal Circuit Court issued a decision affirming the Delaware District Court’s ruling. Amgen filed a petition for rehearing en banc which was denied on June 21, 2021. On November 18, 2021, Amgen filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the invalidation of claims 19 and 29 of the ’165 Patent and claim 7 of the ’741 Patent as lacking an enabling disclosure of the invention. On January 11, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court requested that Sanofi and Regeneron file a response to Amgen’s petition, which is due March 14, 2022.
Patent Disputes in the International Region
We are involved in and expect future involvement in additional disputes regarding our PCSK9 patents in other jurisdictions and regions. This includes matters filed against us and that we have filed in Germany, Spain and Japan.
In February 2016, the European Patent Office (EPO) granted European Patent No. 2,215,124 (EP 2,215,124) to Amgen. This patent describes and claims monoclonal antibodies to PCSK9 and methods of treatment and Sanofi filed an opposition to the patent in the EPO seeking to invalidate it. In November 2016, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A. and Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A. filed a joint opposition against Amgen’s patent, and each of Lilly, Regeneron and Strawman Ltd. also filed oppositions to Amgen’s patent. In November 2018, the EPO confirmed the validity of Amgen’s EP 2,215,124, which was appealed to the Technical Board of Appeal (TBA). On October 29, 2020, the TBA upheld the validity of certain claims, including claims that protect Repatha, but ruled that broader claims encompassing PRALUENT were invalid. As a result of the TBA’s decision, national litigations regarding PRALUENT in Europe are in the process of being resolved. In Germany, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH and Regeneron have filed actions seeking damages arising from the provisional enforcement of an injunction against PRALUENT that was lifted after the TBA’s October 29, 2020 ruling.
On April 24, 2020, the Supreme Court of Japan declined to hear Sanofi K.K.’s appeals making final the Japanese High Court’s decisions that PRALUENT infringes Amgen’s valid patent rights in Japan. On June 24, 2020, Amgen filed written answers to the invalidity trials initiated by Regeneron on February 12, 2020 before the Japan Patent Office seeking to invalidate Amgen’s Japanese patents that were previously held infringed by PRALUENT and valid over challenges filed by Sanofi K.K. The Japanese Patent Office dismissed Regeneron’s invalidity trials and Regeneron has appealed the decisions to the Japanese High Court. Damages proceedings against Sanofi K.K. are ongoing before the Tokyo District Court, where Sanofi K.K. has initiated new validity challenges to Amgen patents in Japan.
NEUPOGEN (filgrastim)/Neulasta Patent Litigation
Amgen Inc., et al. v. Hospira Inc. et al.
On February 11, 2020, Amgen Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary, Amgen Manufacturing, Limited (collectively, Amgen), filed a lawsuit in the Delaware District Court against Hospira Inc. and Pfizer Inc. (collectively, Pfizer). This lawsuit stems from Pfizer’s submission of an application for FDA licensure of a pegfilgrastim product as biosimilar to Amgen’s Neulasta. Amgen has asserted infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,273,707 (the ’707 Patent) and seeks, among other remedies, injunctive relief to prohibit Pfizer from infringing the ’707 Patent. On March 4, 2020, Pfizer filed a motion requesting the Delaware District Court to dismiss the complaint by Amgen alleging noninfringement of the ’707 Patent. In June 2020, the FDA approved Pfizer’s NYVEPRIA, a biosimilar to Amgen’s Neulasta.
On April 6, 2021, the Delaware District Court stayed further proceedings in the matter pending claim construction of the patent claims and, based on a subsequent hearing, determined on June 11, 2021 that the term at issue required no construction. Currently pending before the Delaware District Court is Pfizer’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement, which has been fully briefed. No date has been set for argument on the motion.
Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Challenge
Apotex PTAB Challenge
In February 2017, the PTAB of the USPTO granted Apotex’s petition to institute inter partes review (IPR) proceeding of U.S. Patent No. 8,952,138 (the ’138 Patent), challenging claims of the ’138 Patent as unpatentable. In May 2017, Amgen filed its response. In February 2018, the PTAB issued a final decision holding all but one claim of the ’138 Patent as unpatentable and Apotex filed a request for rehearing in March 2018.
On May 20, 2019, the PTAB issued a decision denying Apotex’s request for rehearing on the PTAB’s finding and sua sponte amending the final decision with a finding that the one remaining claim in Amgen’s ’138 Patent is unpatentable. On July 22, 2019, Amgen filed a notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit Court with respect to all claims held to be unpatentable. On August 5, 2019, Apotex provided notice that it would not participate in the appeal. On September 16, 2019, the USPTO filed a notice of intervention on the appeal. On March 24, 2020, the Federal Circuit Court vacated the decision by the PTAB and remanded the case to the PTAB for proceeding consistent with the Federal Circuit Court’s decision in Arthrex Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
On July 14, 2020, Amgen and Apotex filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR proceedings stating that there is no current dispute between the parties with respect to the ’138 Patent. On July 29, 2020, the U.S. government filed a petition for writ of certiorari with respect to the cases that the Federal Circuit Court remanded to the PTAB, including the case regarding the ’138 Patent, for proceedings consistent with its decision in Arthrex Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., requesting that such remanded cases be held pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s disposition of the petition for writ of certiorari in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., No. 19-1434. On August 25, 2020, Amgen filed its response to the U.S. government’s petition for writ of certiorari indicating that Amgen did not intend to respond unless requested by the U.S. Supreme Court.
On June 21, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided United States v. Arthrex, Inc. On June 28, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the government’s pending certiorari petition and vacated and remanded the Federal Circuit Court’s judgment for further consideration under Arthrex.
On September 2, 2021, the Federal Circuit Court issued a remand to permit Amgen to request rehearing of the PTAB’s final written decision holding that all claims of the ’138 Patent as unpatentable.
On October 4, 2021, Amgen filed a request for the USPTO Director for a rehearing and review of the Final Written Decision pursuant to Arthrex. On November 22, 2021, the Director denied this request. On December 6, 2021, Amgen filed the Notice of Director review with the patent office.
Pfizer PTAB Challenge
On February 10, 2021, Pfizer filed a petition to institute IPR proceeding at the USPTO of U.S. Patent No. 8,273,707 (the ’707 Patent), challenging claims of the ’707 Patent as unpatentable. Amgen’s preliminary response was filed on May 18, 2021.
On August 17, 2021, the PTAB of the USPTO granted Pfizer’s petition to institute IPR of the ’707 Patent. On August 23, 2021, the PTAB issued the schedule for the proceeding, including oral argument (if requested) on May 18, 2022. On November 17, 2021, Amgen filed its Patent Owner’s Response.
Breach of Contract Action
Novartis Pharma AG v. Amgen Inc.
On April 4, 2019, Amgen filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the New York Southern District Court) against Novartis seeking a declaratory judgment that Novartis materially breached two collaboration agreements Amgen and Novartis entered into in 2015 and 2017 (the 2015 Agreement and the 2017 Agreement, respectively) related to the development and commercialization of Aimovig due to Novartis’ affiliate Sandoz GmbH entering into a contract manufacturing agreement with Alder BioPharmaceuticals, Inc. (Alder) related to eptinezumab, an expected direct competitor to Aimovig and entrant in the CGRP-related migraine therapy market. Amgen seeks to terminate its collaboration agreements with Novartis and also seeks damages from Novartis for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. Also on April 4, 2019, Novartis initiated a separate lawsuit against Amgen in the same court seeking declaratory judgment that Novartis, alternatively, did not materially breach the collaboration agreements or, even if it did breach the collaboration agreements, such breach was not material and has been cured, and that Amgen may not terminate the collaboration agreements. On April 8, 2019, Amgen answered Novartis’ complaint and filed counterclaims seeking a declaratory judgment that Novartis materially breached the collaboration agreements due to its affiliate Sandoz GmbH entering into the contract manufacturing agreement with Alder. In its counterclaim, Amgen seeks to terminate its collaboration agreements with Novartis and also seeks damages from Novartis for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. On July 16, 2019, Novartis filed an amended complaint adding a claim for breach of contract alleging Novartis is owed amounts associated with 2018 budget overruns, and Amgen responded with a counterclaim alleging additional breaches by Novartis of the collaboration agreements. On September 17, 2019 and October 8, 2019, Novartis and Amgen, respectively, each filed its motion for judgment on the pleadings. On February 3, 2020, Amgen was granted leave to file its amended counterclaims. On February 4, 2020, Amgen filed its amended answer to Novartis’ first amended complaint and second amended counterclaims for affirmative relief to add a fraudulent inducement claim. On February 18, 2020, Novartis filed its answer and affirmative defenses to Amgen’s second amended counterclaims.
On June 9, 2020, the New York Southern District Court entered an order granting Novartis’ motion for judgment on the pleadings that Novartis did not breach the 2017 Agreement, and denying Amgen’s motions for judgment on the pleadings seeking dismissal of Novartis’ amended complaint that Novartis did not breach the 2015 Agreement or the 2017 Agreement, and Novartis timely cured any breach. On June 23, 2020, Amgen filed a motion for clarification and/or reconsideration of the June 9, 2020 order, which was denied on September 14, 2020.
On June 2, 2021, the parties executed agreements to settle two claims in the litigation, relating to the 2018 budget overrun dispute and certain counterclaims alleging breaches by Novartis of the 2015 and 2017 Agreements related to the development and commercialization of Aimovig, and to amend and restate the 2017 collaboration agreement. As part of the agreement, Amgen paid $48 million to Novartis to resolve the 2018 budget dispute.
On October 26, 2021, the New York Southern District Court held a status conference with the parties and set the dates for Novartis’ opening brief for its motion for partial summary judgment on two claims, fraudulent inducement and negligent misrepresentation.
On January 31, 2022, the parties resolved all claims in the litigation.
Antitrust Class Action
Sensipar Antitrust Class Actions
From February to April 2019, four plaintiffs filed putative class action lawsuits against Amgen and various entities affiliated with Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Teva) alleging anticompetitive conduct in connection with settlements between Amgen and manufacturers of generic cinacalcet product. Two of those actions were brought in the Delaware District Court, captioned UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund v. Amgen Inc., et al. (February 21, 2019) (Local 1500) and Cesar Castillo, Inc. v. Amgen Inc., et al. (February 26, 2019) (Castillo). The third action was brought in the New Jersey District Court, captioned Teamsters Local 237 Welfare Fund, et al. v. Amgen Inc., et al. (March 14, 2019) (Local 237) and the fourth action was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the Eastern Pennsylvania District Court), captioned KPH Healthcare Services, Inc. a/k/a Kinney Drugs, Inc. v. Amgen Inc., et al (April 10, 2019) (KPH). Each of the lawsuits is brought on behalf of a putative class of direct or indirect purchasers of Sensipar and alleges that the plaintiffs have overpaid for Sensipar as a result of Amgen’s conduct that allegedly improperly delayed market entry by manufacturers of generic cinacalcet products. The lawsuits focus predominantly on the settlement among Amgen, Watson Laboratories, Inc. (Watson) and Teva of the parties’ patent infringement litigation. Each of the lawsuits seeks, among other things, treble damages, equitable relief and attorneys’ fees and costs. On April 10, 2019, the plaintiff in the KPH lawsuit filed a motion seeking to have the four lawsuits consolidated and designated as a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Eastern Pennsylvania District Court, and the plaintiff in the Local 1500 lawsuit filed a motion seeking to have the four lawsuits, along with Cipla Ltd. v. Amgen Inc., consolidated and designated as an MDL in the Delaware District Court.
On July 31, 2019, the MDL panel entered an order consolidating in the Delaware District Court the four class action lawsuits. On September 13, 2019, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints, and on October 15, 2019, Amgen filed its motion to dismiss both the direct purchaser plaintiffs’ consolidated class action complaint and the indirect purchaser end payor plaintiffs’ complaint. On December 6, 2019, the plaintiffs responded to Amgen’s motion to dismiss and, on January 10, 2020, Amgen filed its response. On February 6, 2020, the motions in the class action lawsuits were transferred to the U.S. Magistrate Judge for the District of Delaware (Magistrate Judge) for a recommendation. The MDL panel certified its conditional transfer order on February 6, 2020 transferring the additional class action lawsuit brought in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, captioned MSP Recovery Claims v. Amgen Inc., et al., to the Delaware District Court.
On July 22, 2020, the Magistrate Judge issued a recommendation to the Delaware District Court that the claims against Amgen be dismissed but leave be given to plaintiffs to amend their complaints. On August 5, 2020, the plaintiffs filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation. On August 19, 2020, Amgen filed a response to the plaintiffs’ objections. On November 30, 2020, the District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation in part and denied it in part, denying Amgen’s motion to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiffs adequately alleged reverse payment claims but granted Amgen’s motion to dismiss with respect to the other Federal antitrust claims. On December 23, 2020, Teva, Watson and Actavis filed a motion for interlocutory appeal and for a stay pending appeal and Amgen filed its joinder (the 1292 Motion). On January 5, 2021, a joint status report was filed advising the Delaware District Court that the defendants are still considering whether to withdraw the 1292 Motion and plaintiffs’ offer to stay discovery, pending further rulings on motions to dismiss the amended complaints. On January 19, 2021, a joint status report was filed pursuant to the Delaware District Court’s January 6, 2021 order along with a stipulation to defer the 1292 Motion until after rulings on the amended complaints.
On February 16, 2021, the plaintiffs in the antitrust class action lawsuit brought on behalf of putative classes of direct or indirect purchasers of Sensipar filed their amended complaints. On March 4, 2021, a stipulation and order regarding the filing of a second amended complaint were filed to add another plaintiff: Teamsters Western Region & Local 177 Health Care Fund. On March 17, 2021, a defendant, MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC, filed its notice of voluntary dismissal. On March 30, 2021, the remaining defendants, including Amgen, filed their motions to dismiss the second amended complaint.
On April 27, 2021, plaintiffs filed their oppositions to defendants’ (including Amgen’s) motion to dismiss, and defendants’ reply was filed on May 25, 2021. A hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss was held in the Delaware District Court on July 13, 2021.
Humira Biosimilar Antitrust Class Actions
From March to May 2019, twelve purported class actions against Amgen, along with AbbVie Inc. and AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd. (collectively, AbbVie), were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the Illinois Northern District Court). The cases are captioned: UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund v. AbbVie Inc., et al. (March 18, 2019) (Local 1500); Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund v. AbbVie Inc., et al. (March 20, 2019); Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. AbbVie Inc., et al. (March 22, 2019); Pipe Trades Services MN Welfare Fund v. AbbVie Inc., et al. (March 29, 2019); St. Paul Electrical Workers’ Health Plan v. AbbVie Inc., et al. (March 29, 2019); Welfare Plan of the International Union of Operating Engineers Locals 137, 137A, 137B, 137C and 137R v. AbbVie Inc., et al. (April 1,
2019); Law Enforcement Health Benefits, Inc. v. AbbVie, Inc., et al. (April 9, 2019) (Law Enforcement); Kentucky Laborers District Council Health and Welfare Fund v. AbbVie, Inc., et al. (April 16, 2019); Sheet Metal Workers’ Local Union No. 28 Welfare Fund v. AbbVie, Inc., et al. (April 19, 2019) (Sheet Metal Workers’); Locals 302 & 612 of The International Union of Operating Engineers-Employers Construction Industry Health And Security Trust Fund v. AbbVie Inc., et al. (April 25, 2019) (Construction Industry); Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Co., d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana and HMO Louisiana, Inc. v. AbbVie Inc., et al. (April 30, 2019) (Louisiana Health); and Cleveland Bakers and Teamsters Health and Welfare Fund v. AbbVie Inc., et al. (May 10, 2019) (Cleveland Bakers) (collectively, Humira Antitrust Class Actions).
In each of the Humira Antitrust Class Actions, the plaintiffs bring federal antitrust claims along with various state law claims under common law and antitrust, consumer protection and unfair competition statutes. In each case, the plaintiffs specifically allege that AbbVie has unlawfully monopolized the alleged market for Humira and biosimilars of Humira, including by creating an allegedly unlawful so-called patent thicket around Humira. In the Local 1500, Sheet Metal Workers’ and Construction Industry cases, the plaintiffs further allege that AbbVie entered into allegedly unlawful market division agreements with Amgen and other companies that had developed Humira biosimilars, including Bioepis, Mylan, Sandoz, Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC (Fresenius), Pfizer Inc. and Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., in connection with the settlement of patent litigation relating to Humira, whereby Amgen and the other defendants that have developed Humira biosimilars were permitted to market those products in Europe as early as October 2018, while remaining off the market in the United States until 2023. In each of the Humira Antitrust Class Actions other than the Local 1500 and Construction Industry cases, the plaintiffs allege that AbbVie and Amgen entered into an allegedly unlawful settlement agreement under which Amgen allegedly agreed to delay its entry into the U.S. market with AMGEVITA, its Humira biosimilar, in exchange for an alleged promise of exclusivity as the sole Humira biosimilar in that market for five months, beginning in January 2023. In each of the Humira Antitrust Class Actions, plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, treble damages and attorney’s fees on behalf of a putative class of third-party payers and/or consumers that have indirectly purchased, paid for or provided reimbursement for Humira in the United States. Defendants’ responses to the first six complaints were stayed by the court. On June 4, 2019, the Illinois Northern District Court entered an order consolidating the twelve purported class action cases for pre-trial purposes.
On August 9, 2019, the plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint, naming as defendants Amgen, along with AbbVie, Bioepis, Sandoz and Fresenius. On October 11, 2019, the defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint (as well as brief individual motions), challenging the legal sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ allegations to state any claim for relief under the law. On November 19, 2019, plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss. On December 20, 2019, defendants filed their reply in support of the motion to dismiss. On June 8, 2020, the Illinois Northern District Court issued an order granting the motion by the defendants to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint. On June 29, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a status report asking the Illinois Northern District Court to convert the dismissal to one with prejudice. On June 30, 2020, the Illinois Northern District Court granted the motion. On July 28, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. On October 5, 2020, the plaintiffs-appellants filed their opening brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Plaintiffs-appellants amicus briefs were filed in October 2020, including one by the FTC and one on behalf of 20 states, each filed on October 13, 2020. On December 21, 2020, the defendants-appellees filed their opposition brief. Defendants-appellees amicus briefs, including one by the DoJ, were filed on December 28, 2020. On February 25, 2021, oral argument was held by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on the appeal by plaintiffs-appellants of the lower court’s dismissal of the consolidated complaint with prejudice.
U.S. Tax Litigation
Amgen Inc. & Subsidiaries v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
See Note 6, Income taxes, for discussion of the IRS tax dispute and the Company’s petition in the U.S. Tax Court.
Commitments – U.S. repatriation tax
Under the 2017 Tax Act, we elected to pay in eight annual installments the repatriation tax related primarily to prior indefinitely invested earnings of our foreign operations. The following table summarizes the remaining scheduled repatriation tax payments as of December 31, 2021 (in millions):
Amounts
2022$587 
20231,100 
20241,467 
20251,834 
Total remaining U.S. repatriation tax commitments$4,988