XML 28 R17.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.10.0.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES We are a party to various legal actions. The most significant of these are described below. We recognize accruals for such actions to the extent that we conclude that a loss is both probable and reasonably estimable. We accrue for the best estimate of a loss within a range; however, if no estimate in the range is better than any other, then we accrue the minimum amount in the range. If we determine that a loss is reasonably possible and the loss or range of loss can be estimated, we disclose the possible loss. Unless otherwise noted, it is not possible to determine the outcome of these matters, and we cannot reasonably estimate the maximum potential exposure or the range of possible loss. We did not recognize any accruals for the actions described below in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, as we did not believe losses were probable. Litigation Related to Sofosbuvir In January 2012, we acquired Pharmasset, Inc. (Pharmasset). Through the acquisition, we acquired sofosbuvir, a nucleotide analog that acts to inhibit the replication of the hepatitis C virus (HCV). In December 2013, we received approval from U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for sofosbuvir, now known commercially as Sovaldi. Sofosbuvir is also included in all of our marketed HCV products. We have received a number of contractual and intellectual property claims regarding sofosbuvir. While we have carefully considered these claims both prior to and following the acquisition and believe they are without merit, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of such claims or range of loss. We are aware of patents and patent applications owned by third parties that have been or may in the future be alleged by such parties to cover the use of our HCV products. If third parties obtain valid and enforceable patents, and successfully prove infringement of those patents by our HCV products, we could be required to pay significant monetary damages. We cannot predict the ultimate outcome of intellectual property claims related to our HCV products. We have spent, and will continue to spend, significant resources defending against these claims. Interference Proceedings and Litigation with Idenix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Idenix), Universita Degli Studi di Cagliari (UDSG), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique and L’Universite Montpellier II In February 2012, we received notice that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) had declared Interference No. 105,871 (First Idenix Interference) between our U.S. Patent No. 7,429,572 (the ‘572 patent) and Idenix’s pending U.S. Patent Application No. 12/131,868 to determine who was the first to invent certain nucleoside compounds. In January 2014, the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) determined that Pharmasset and not Idenix was the first to invent the compounds. Idenix was acquired by Merck & Co. Inc. (Merck) in August 2014. Idenix has appealed the PTAB’s decisions to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, which has stayed that appeal pending the outcome of the appeal of the interference involving Idenix’s U.S. Patent No. 7,608,600 (the ‘600 patent) as described below. In light of the decision in the Second Idenix Interference in our favor (as described below), we believe that the District Court will dismiss the First Idenix Interference with prejudice or enter judgment against Idenix and in our favor. In December 2013, after receiving our request to do so, the USPTO declared Interference No. 105,981 (Second Idenix Interference) between our pending U.S. Patent Application No. 11/854,218 and Idenix’s ‘600 patent. The ‘600 patent includes claims directed to methods of treating HCV with nucleoside compounds. In March 2015, the PTAB determined that Pharmasset and not Idenix was the first to invent the claimed methods of treating HCV. Idenix appealed this decision in both the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). The CAFC heard oral arguments in September 2016 and affirmed the PTAB decision in June 2017. In November 2017, the CAFC denied Idenix’s petition for a rehearing. Idenix filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States (U.S. Supreme Court) in March 2018. In April 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari; accordingly, the decision finding that Idenix is not entitled to the ‘600 patent is now final. We filed a motion to dismiss Idenix’s simultaneous appeal in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, which was granted. Idenix appealed the dismissal to the CAFC, and that court stayed this second appeal pending a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court in the first appeal. After the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in the first appeal, the CAFC dismissed this second appeal by stipulation of the parties. We believe that any pending actions concerning the ‘600 patent will be dismissed. We believe that the Idenix claims involved in the First and Second Idenix Interferences, and similar U.S. and foreign patents claiming the same compounds, metabolites and uses thereof, are invalid. As a result, we filed an Impeachment Action in the Federal Court of Canada to invalidate Idenix Canadian Patent No. 2,490,191 (the ‘191 patent), which is the Canadian patent that corresponds to the ‘600 patent. Idenix asserted that the commercialization of Sovaldi in Canada will infringe its ‘191 patent and that our Canadian Patent No. 2,527,657, corresponding to our ‘572 patent, is invalid. In November 2015, the Canadian court held that Idenix’s patent is invalid and that our patent is valid. Idenix appealed the decision to the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal in November 2015. In July 2017, the Canadian Federal Appeal Court affirmed the lower court’s decision in our favor. In September 2017, Idenix appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. In April 2018, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear Idenix’s appeal. The decision invalidating Idenix’s Canadian patent is now final. In January 2013, we filed a legal action in the Federal Court of Australia seeking to invalidate Idenix’s Australian patent corresponding to the ‘600 patent. In April 2013, Idenix asserted that the commercialization of Sovaldi in Australia infringes its Australian patent corresponding to the ‘600 patent. In March 2016, the Australian court revoked Idenix’s Australian patent. Idenix appealed this decision, and in December 2017, the Federal Court of Australia dismissed Idenix’s appeal. In January 2018, Idenix applied for Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court of Australia and, in April 2018, the High Court of Australia refused to hear Idenix’s appeal. The decision revoking Idenix’s Australian patent is now final. In March 2014, the European Patent Office (EPO) granted Idenix European Patent No. 1 523 489 (the ‘489 patent), which corresponds to the ‘600 patent. The same day that the ‘489 patent was granted, we filed an opposition with the EPO seeking to revoke the ‘489 patent. An opposition hearing was held in February 2016, and the EPO ruled in our favor and revoked the ‘489 patent. Idenix has appealed. In March 2014, Idenix also initiated infringement proceedings against us in the United Kingdom (UK), Germany and France alleging that the commercialization of Sovaldi would infringe the UK, German and French counterparts of the ‘489 patent. A trial was held in the UK in October 2014. In December 2014, the High Court of Justice of England and Wales (UK Court) invalidated all challenged claims of the ‘489 patent on multiple grounds. Idenix appealed. In November 2016, the appeals court affirmed the UK Court’s decision invalidating Idenix’s patent, and in April 2017, the UK Supreme Court refused Idenix’s application for permission to appeal. In March 2015, the German court in Düsseldorf determined that the Idenix patent was highly likely to be invalid and stayed the infringement proceedings pending the outcome of the opposition hearing held by the EPO in February 2016. Idenix has not appealed this decision of the German court staying the proceedings. Upon Idenix’s request, the French proceedings have been stayed. In December 2013, Idenix, UDSG, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique and L’Université Montpellier II sued us in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that the commercialization of sofosbuvir will infringe the ‘600 patent and that an interference exists between the ‘600 patent and our U.S. Patent No. 8,415,322. Also in December 2013, Idenix and UDSG sued us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging that the commercialization of sofosbuvir will infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,914,054 (the ‘054 patent) and 7,608,597 (the ‘597 patent). In June 2014, the court transferred the Massachusetts litigation to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Prior to trial in December 2016, Idenix committed to give us a covenant not to sue with respect to any claims arising out of the ‘054 patent related to sofosbuvir and withdrew that patent from the trial. In addition, Idenix declined to litigate the ‘600 patent infringement action at trial in light of the appeal then pending at the CAFC regarding who was the first to invent the subject matter claimed in the ‘600 patent. In January 2017, the District Court stayed Idenix’s infringement claim on the ‘600 patent pending the outcome of the appeal of the Second Idenix Interference. Since the U.S. Supreme Court denied Idenix’s petition for certiorari in the Second Idenix Interference, we believe that any pending actions concerning the ‘600 patent will be dismissed. A jury trial was held in December 2016 on the ‘597 patent. In December 2016, the jury found that we willfully infringed the asserted claims of the ‘597 patent and awarded Idenix $2.54 billion in past damages. In September 2017, the judge invalidated Idenix’s ‘597 patent and vacated the jury’s award of $2.54 billion in past damages. Idenix has appealed this decision to the CAFC. We believe the Delaware court’s decision correctly found that, as a matter of law, the ‘597 patent is invalid, and we remain confident in the merits of our case on appeal. We believe that the possibility of a material adverse outcome on this matter is remote. Litigation with Merck In August 2013, Merck contacted us requesting that we pay royalties on the sales of sofosbuvir and obtain a license to U.S. Patent No. 7,105,499 (the ‘499 patent) and U.S. Patent No. 8,481,712 (the ‘712 patent), which it co-owns with Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The ‘499 and ‘712 patents cover compounds which do not include, but may relate to, sofosbuvir. We filed a lawsuit in August 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeking a declaratory judgment that the Merck patents are invalid and not infringed. Initially, in March 2016, a jury determined that we had not established that Merck’s patents are invalid for lack of written description or lack of enablement and awarded Merck $200 million in damages. However, in June 2016, the court ruled in our favor on our defense of unclean hands and determined that Merck may not recover any damages from us for the ‘499 and ‘712 patents. The judge has determined that Merck is required to pay our attorney’s fees due to the exceptional nature of this case. In July 2017, the court issued a decision setting the amount of attorney fees awarded to us. Merck filed notices of appeal to the CAFC regarding the court’s decision on our defense of unclean hands and its award of attorney’s fees. In April 2018, the CAFC affirmed the court’s decision on unclean hands. Merck may file a further petition for review by the U.S. Supreme Court. If the decision on our defense of unclean hands is reversed subsequently and Merck’s patent is upheld, we may be required to pay damages and a royalty on sales of sofosbuvir-containing products following the appeal. In that event, the judge has indicated that she will determine the amount of the royalty, if necessary, at the conclusion of any appeal in this case. Litigation with the University of Minnesota The University of Minnesota (the University) has obtained Patent No. 8,815,830 (the ‘830 patent), which purports to broadly cover nucleosides with antiviral and anticancer activity. In August 2016, the University filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging that the commercialization of sofosbuvir-containing products infringes the ‘830 patent. We believe the ‘830 patent is invalid and will not be infringed by the continued commercialization of sofosbuvir. In October 2017, the court granted our motion to transfer the case to California. We have also filed four petitions for inter partes review with the PTAB alleging that all asserted claims are invalid for anticipation and obviousness. In March 2018, the District Court stayed the litigation until after the PTAB rules on our petitions for inter partes review. Petitions for Inter Partes Review filed by Initiative for Medicines, Access & Knowledge In October 2017, we received notice that Initiative for Medicines, Access & Knowledge (I-MAK) submitted multiple petitions requesting inter partes review to the PTAB alleging that certain patents associated with sofosbuvir are invalid as either not novel or obvious. We strongly believe I-MAK’s petitions are without merit and that sofosbuvir, the only approved HCV drug of its kind, is both novel and not obvious. Accordingly, we defended against these allegations, and the PTAB declined to institute all ten of I-MAK’s petitions for inter partes review. European Patent Claims In February 2015, several parties filed oppositions in the EPO requesting revocation of one of our granted European patents covering sofosbuvir that expires in 2028. In October 2016, the EPO upheld the validity of certain claims of our sofosbuvir patent. We have appealed this decision, seeking to restore all of the original claims, and several of the original opposing parties have also appealed, requesting full revocation. The appeal process may take several years. In April 2017, several parties filed oppositions in the EPO requesting revocation of our granted European patent relating to sofosbuvir that expires in 2024. The EPO is scheduled to conduct an oral hearing for this opposition in September 2018. In January 2016, several parties filed oppositions in the EPO requesting revocation of our granted European patent covering TAF that expires in 2021. In July 2017, the EPO upheld the validity of the claims of our TAF patent. Three parties have appealed this decision. The appeal process may take several years. In July 2017, several parties filed oppositions in the EPO requesting revocation of our granted European patent relating to TAF hemifumarate that expires in 2032. We have responded to these oppositions. The EPO has not yet set a date for the oral hearing regarding this opposition. In March 2016, three parties filed oppositions in the EPO requesting revocation of our granted European patent covering cobicistat that expires in 2027. In December 2017, the EPO upheld the validity of the claims of our cobicistat patent. The parties that filed the oppositions may appeal this decision. The appeal process may take several years. While we are confident in the strength of our patents, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of these oppositions. If we are unsuccessful in defending these oppositions, some or all of our patent claims may be narrowed or revoked and the patent protection for sofosbuvir, TAF and cobicistat in the European Union could be substantially shortened or eliminated entirely. If our patents are revoked, and no other European patents are granted covering these compounds, our exclusivity may be based entirely on regulatory exclusivity granted by the European Medicines Agency. Sovaldi has been granted regulatory exclusivity that will prevent generic sofosbuvir from entering the European Union for 10 years following approval of Sovaldi, or January 2024. If we lose patent protection for sofosbuvir prior to 2028, our revenues and results of operations could be negatively impacted for the years including and succeeding the year in which such exclusivity is lost, which may cause our stock price to decline. Litigation Related to Axicabtagene Ciloleucel In October 2017, we acquired Kite, which is now our wholly-owned subsidiary. Through the acquisition, we acquired axicabtagene ciloleucel, a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy. In October 2017, we received approval from FDA for axicabtagene ciloleucel, now known commercially as Yescarta. We own patents and patent applications that claim axicabtagene ciloleucel chimeric DNA segments. Third parties may have, or may obtain rights to, patents that allegedly could be used to prevent or attempt to prevent us from commercializing axicabtagene ciloleucel or to require us to obtain a license in order to commercialize axicabtagene ciloleucel. For example, we are aware that Juno Therapeutics, Inc. (Juno) has exclusively licensed Patent No. 7,446,190 (the ‘190 patent), which was issued to Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. In September 2017, Juno and Sloan Kettering Cancer Center filed a lawsuit against Kite in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that the commercialization of axicabtagene ciloleucel infringes the ‘190 patent. In October 2017, following FDA approval for Yescarta, Juno filed a second complaint alleging that axicabtagene ciloleucel infringes the ‘190 patent. Juno subsequently moved to dismiss the September 2017 complaint and has maintained the October 2017 complaint. The court has set a trial date of March 2019 for this lawsuit. In August 2015, Kite filed a petition for inter partes review in the USPTO alleging that the asserted claims of the ‘190 patent are invalid as obvious. In December 2016, the PTAB determined that the claims of the ‘190 patent are not invalid due to obviousness. In February 2017, Kite filed a Notice of Appeal to the CAFC. In June 2018, the CAFC affirmed the PTAB’s determination that the ‘190 patent claims are not invalid due to obviousness. We cannot predict the ultimate outcome of intellectual property claims related to axicabtagene ciloleucel. If Juno’s patent is upheld as valid and Juno successfully proves infringement of that patent by axicabtagene ciloleucel, we could be required to pay significant monetary damages or we could be prevented from selling Yescarta unless we were able to obtain a license to this patent. Such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Litigation Related to Bictegravir In February 2018, ViiV Healthcare Company (ViiV) filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court of Delaware, alleging that the commercialization of bictegravir, now known commercially as Biktarvy, infringes ViiV’s U.S. Patent No. 8,129,385 (the ‘385 patent), which was issued to Shionogi & Co. Ltd. & GlaxoSmithKline LLC. The ‘385 patent is the compound patent covering ViiV’s dolutegravir. Bictegravir is structurally different from dolutegravir, and we believe that bictegravir does not infringe the claims of the ‘385 patent. To the extent that ViiV’s patent claims are interpreted to cover bictegravir, we believe those claims are invalid. The USPTO has granted us patents covering bictegravir. The court has set a trial date of August 2020 for this lawsuit. In February 2018, ViiV also filed a lawsuit against us in the Federal Court of Canada, alleging that our activities relating to our bictegravir product have infringed ViiV’s Canadian Patent No. 2,606,282 (the ‘282 patent), which was issued to Shionogi & Co. Ltd. and ViiV. The ‘282 patent is the compound patent covering ViiV’s dolutegravir. We believe that bictegravir does not infringe the claims of the ‘282 patent. To the extent that ViiV’s patent claims are interpreted to cover bictegravir, we believe those claims are invalid. We cannot predict the ultimate outcome of intellectual property claims related to bictegravir. If ViiV’s patents are upheld as valid and ViiV successfully proves infringement of those patents by bictegravir, we could be required to pay significant monetary damages. Litigation with Generic Manufacturers As part of the approval process for some of our products, FDA granted us a New Chemical Entity (NCE) exclusivity period during which other manufacturers’ applications for approval of generic versions of our product will not be approved. Generic manufacturers may challenge the patents protecting products that have been granted NCE exclusivity one year prior to the end of the NCE exclusivity period. Generic manufacturers have sought and may continue to seek FDA approval for a similar or identical drug through an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA), the application form typically used by manufacturers seeking approval of a generic drug. The sale of generic versions of our products earlier than their patent expiration would have a significant negative effect on our revenues and results of operations. To seek approval for a generic version of a product having NCE status, a generic company may submit its ANDA to FDA four years after the branded product’s approval. Current legal proceedings of significance with generic manufacturers include: HIV Products In February 2016, we received notice that Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Mylan) submitted an ANDA to FDA requesting permission to manufacture and market a generic version of Tybost (cobicistat). In the notice, Mylan alleges that the patent covering cobicistat is invalid as obvious and that Mylan’s generic product cannot infringe an invalid claim. In March 2016, we filed lawsuits against Mylan in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. The parties have agreed to dismiss the action in West Virginia, and the trial in Delaware was stayed. The patent in suit that covers Tybost is also listed in the Orange Book for Stribild and Genvoya. In November 2017, we received notice that Mylan submitted an ANDA to FDA requesting permission to manufacture and market a generic version of Evotaz (atazanavir/cobicistat) and challenging the validity of our cobicistat compound patent, citing the arguments it has made in the ongoing litigation involving Tybost. In December 2017, we filed a lawsuit against Mylan in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. In July 2018, we reached an agreement with Mylan to resolve all pending lawsuits. The settlement agreement has been filed with the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice as required by law. In May 2017, we received notice that Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC (Amneal) submitted an ANDA to FDA requesting permission to manufacture and market a generic version of Truvada at low dosage strengths. In the notice, Amneal alleges that two patents associated with emtricitabine are invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by Amneal’s manufacture, use or sale of generic versions of Truvada at low dosage strengths. In July 2017, we filed a lawsuit against Amneal in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware for infringement of our patents. In June 2018, we reached an agreement with Amneal to resolve the lawsuit. The settlement agreement has been filed with the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice as required by law. In April and May 2018, we received notice that Aurobindo Pharma USA Inc. (Aurobindo) submitted an ANDA to FDA requesting permission to manufacture and market generic versions of Truvada at low dosage strengths. In the May notice, Aurobindo alleges that two patents associated with emtricitabine are invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by Aurobindo’s manufacture, use or sale of generic versions of Truvada at low dosage strengths. In May 2018, we filed a lawsuit against Aurobindo in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware for infringement of our patents. In May 2018, we received notice that Strides Pharma Inc. (Strides) submitted an ANDA to FDA requesting permission to manufacture and market a generic version of Truvada. In the notice, Strides alleges that two patents associated with emtricitabine and four patents associated with the emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate fixed-dose combination are invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by Strides’ manufacture, use or sale of a generic version of Truvada. In June 2018, we filed a lawsuit against Strides in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey for infringement of our patents. HCV Products In February 2018, we received notices from Natco Pharma Limited (Natco) and Teva Pharmaceuticals (Teva) that they have each submitted an ANDA to FDA requesting permission to manufacture and market a generic version of Sovaldi. In Teva’s notice, it alleges that nine patents associated with sofosbuvir are invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by Teva’s manufacture, use or sale of generic versions of Sovaldi. In March 2018, we filed lawsuits against Teva in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware for infringement of these patents. In Natco’s notice, it alleges that two patents associated with sofosbuvir are invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by Natco’s manufacture, use or sale of generic versions of Sovaldi. Natco did not challenge all patents listed on the Orange Book for Sovaldi. In March 2018, we filed lawsuits against Natco in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware for infringement of these patents. TAF Litigation In January 2016, AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Inc. (AHF) filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Gilead, Japan Tobacco, Inc. and Japan Tobacco International, U.S.A. (together, JT), and Emory University. In April 2016, AHF amended its complaint to add Janssen and Johnson & Johnson Inc. (J&J) as defendants. AHF claims that U.S. Patent Nos. 7,390,791; 7,800,788; 8,754,065; 8,148,374; and 8,633,219 are invalid. In addition, AHF claims that Gilead, independently and together with JT, Akros, Janssen and J&J, is violating federal and state antitrust and unfair competition laws in the market for sales of TAF by offering TAF as part of a fixed-dose combination product with elvitegravir, cobicistat and emtricitabine (Genvoya), a fixed-dose combination product with emtricitabine and rilpivirine (Odefsey) and in a fixed-dosed combination product with emtricitabine (Descovy). AHF sought a declaratory judgment of invalidity against each of the patents as well as monetary damages. In May 2016, we, JT, Janssen and J&J filed motions to dismiss all of AHF’s claims, which AHF opposed. In June 2016, a hearing was held on the motions to dismiss. In July 2016, the judge granted our and the other defendants’ motions and dismissed all of AHF’s claims. AHF subsequently appealed the court’s decision dismissing the challenge to the validity of our TAF patents. In May 2018, the Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision dismissing AHF’s claims. Government Investigations and Related Litigation In June 2011, we received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California requesting documents related to the manufacture, and related quality and distribution practices, of Complera, Atripla, Truvada, Viread, Emtriva, Hepsera and Letairis. We cooperated with the government’s inquiry. In April 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice informed us that, following an investigation, it declined to intervene in a False Claims Act lawsuit filed by two former employees. In April 2014, the former employees served a First Amended Complaint. In January 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order granting in its entirety, without prejudice, our motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. In February 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint and in June 2015, the District Court issued an order granting our motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. In July 2015, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In July 2017, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the case back to the District Court. In October 2017, the Ninth Circuit granted our motion to stay the case pending an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. In December 2017, we filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. We expect the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether it will hear the case later this year. In February 2016, we received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts requesting documents related to our support of 501(c)(3) organizations that provide financial assistance to patients and documents concerning our provision of financial assistance to patients for our HCV products. We are cooperating with this inquiry. In October 2017, we received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts requesting documents related to our copay coupon program and Medicaid price reporting methodology. We are cooperating with this inquiry. In September 2017, we received a voluntary request for information from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania requesting information related to our reimbursement support offerings, clinical education programs and interactions with specialty pharmacies for Sovaldi and Harvoni. In June 2018, we received another voluntary request for information related to our speaker programs and advisory boards for our HCV and hepatitis B virus (HBV) products. We are cooperating with these voluntary requests. In October 2017, we received a subpoena from the California Department of Insurance and the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office requesting documents related to our marketing activities, reimbursement support offerings, clinical education programs and interactions with specialty pharmacies. We are cooperating with this inquiry. In November 2017, Health Choice Advocates LLC served us with a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging violations of the False Claims Act and similar state statutes through our marketing activities, reimbursement support offerings and clinical education programs for Sovaldi and Harvoni. The lawsuit was unsealed after the United States and 31 plaintiff-states declined to intervene in the action. In February 2018, we filed two motions to dismiss the complaint. In July 2018, the District Court entered an order dismissing the matter without prejudice as to all claims. In November 2017, we received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services requesting documents related to our Frontlines of Communities in the United States (FOCUS) program. We are cooperating with this inquiry. In November 2017, we also received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York requesting documents related to our promotional speaker programs for HIV. We are cooperating with this inquiry. Other Matters We are a party to various legal actions that arose in the ordinary course of our business. We do not believe that these other legal actions will have a material adverse impact on our consolidated business, financial position or results of operations.

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

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