XML 41 R19.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.19.3

Commitments and Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2019
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 no t recognize any accruals for the actions described below in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, as we did not believe losses were probable. Litigation Related to Sofosbuvir In 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 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 litigation 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. Litigation with Idenix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Idenix), Universita Degli Studi di Cagliari (UDSG), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique and L’Universite Montpellier II In 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 infringes U.S. Patent No. 7,608,600 (the ‘600 patent). Also in 2013, Idenix and UDSG sued us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging that the commercialization of sofosbuvir infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 6,914,054 (the ‘054 patent) and 7,608,597 (the ‘597 patent). In 2014, the court transferred the Massachusetts litigation to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Prior to trial in 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. A jury trial was held in 2016 on the ‘597 patent, and the jury found that we willfully infringed the asserted claims of the ‘597 patent and awarded Idenix $2.54 billion in past damages. In 2018, the judge invalidated Idenix’s ‘597 patent and vacated the jury’s award of $2.54 billion in past damages. Idenix appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), and in October 2019, the CAFC issued an opinion affirming the trial court’s decision that the ‘597 patent is invalid. Idenix may petition for rehearing by the CAFC and seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court. We believe that the possibility of a material adverse outcome on this matter is remote. 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 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 2017, the court granted our motion to transfer the case to California. We have also filed four petitions for inter partes review with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) alleging that all asserted claims are invalid for anticipation and obviousness. In 2018, the District Court stayed the litigation until after the PTAB rules on our petitions for inter partes review. Litigation Related to Axicabtagene Ciloleucel 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 us 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 December 2019 for this lawsuit. 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 2018, ViiV Healthcare Company (ViiV) filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court of Delaware, alleging that the commercialization of bictegravir, sold commercially in combination with tenofovir alafenamide and emtricitabine as Biktarvy, infringes ViiV’s U.S. Patent No. 8,129,385 (the ‘385 patent), which was issued to Shionogi & Co. Ltd. and 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 September 2020 for this lawsuit. In 2018, ViiV also filed a lawsuit against us in the Federal Court of Canada, alleging that our activities relating to our bictegravir compound 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: In 2018, we received notice that Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. (Zydus) submitted an ANDA to FDA requesting permission to manufacture and market generic versions of Truvada at various dosage strengths. In the notice, Zydus 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 Zydus’ manufacture, use or sale of generic versions of Truvada at various dosage strengths. In response, we filed a lawsuit against Zydus in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey for infringement of our patents. In 2019, we reached an agreement with Zydus to resolve the lawsuit, which has been dismissed. The settlement agreement has been filed with the Federal Trade Commission and U.S. Department of Justice as required by law. European Patent Claims In 2015, several parties filed oppositions in the EPO requesting revocation of one of our granted European patents covering sofosbuvir that expires in 2028. In 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 2017, several parties filed oppositions in the EPO requesting revocation of our granted European patent relating to sofosbuvir that expires in 2024. The EPO conducted an oral hearing for this opposition in 2018 and upheld the claims. Two of the original opposing parties have appealed, requesting full revocation. The appeal process may take several years. In 2016, several parties filed oppositions in the EPO requesting revocation of our granted European patent covering TAF that expires in 2021. In 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 2017, several parties filed oppositions in the EPO requesting revocation of our granted European patent relating to TAF hemifumarate that expires in 2032. We responded to these oppositions, and a hearing was held in February 2019. The patent was upheld at this hearing. Three parties have appealed this decision. The appeal process may take several years. In 2016, three parties filed oppositions in the EPO requesting revocation of our granted European patent covering cobicistat that expires in 2027. In 2017, the EPO upheld the validity of the claims of our cobicistat patent. One of the original opposing parties has appealed 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, TAF hemifumarate 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. If we lose patent protection for any of these compounds, 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. Government Investigations and Related Litigation In 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 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. Also in 2014, the former employees served a First Amended Complaint, and 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 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, and the District Court issued an order granting our motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The plaintiffs then filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit). In 2017, the Ninth Circuit granted our motion to stay the case pending an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, and we filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2018, the Solicitor General submitted a brief for the United States to the U.S. Supreme Court stating its intention to file a motion to dismiss under the federal False Claims Act. In January 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition and the case has been remanded to the District Court. In March 2019, the Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, which the District Court is expected to rule upon later this year. In 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 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 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 2018, we received another voluntary request for information related to our speaker programs and advisory boards for our HCV and hepatitis B virus products. We are cooperating with these voluntary requests. In October 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice informed us that, following an investigation, it declined to intervene in a False Claims Act lawsuit against us relating to hepatitis B speaker programs and advisory boards. The complaint has not been served. In 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 for Harvoni and Sovaldi. We are cooperating with this inquiry. In 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. Product Liability We have been named as a defendant in one class action lawsuit and various product liability lawsuits related to Viread, Truvada, Atripla, Complera and Stribild. Plaintiffs allege that Viread, Truvada, Atripla, Complera and/or Stribild caused them to suffer kidney and/or bone injuries. The lawsuits, which are pending in state or federal court in California, Delaware or Floria, involve thousands of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs in these cases seek damages and other relief on various grounds for alleged personal injury and economic loss. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in these actions. While we believe these cases are without merit, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome. If plaintiffs are successful in their claims, we could be required to pay significant monetary damages. Antitrust and Consumer Protection We (along with JT, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company and Johnson & Johnson, Inc.) have been named as defendants in a class action lawsuit filed in 2019 related to various drugs used to treat HIV, including drugs used in combination antiretroviral therapy. Plaintiffs allege that we (and the other defendants) engaged in various conduct to restrain competition in violation of federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws. The lawsuit, a consolidated action pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, seeks to bring claims on behalf of a nationwide class of end-payor purchasers. Plaintiffs seek damages, permanent injunctive relief, and other relief. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this action. While we believe this action is without merit, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome. If plaintiffs are successful in their claims, we could be required to pay significant monetary damages or could be subject to permanent injunctive relief. 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