COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal Proceedings 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 material 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 or the outcome (including in excess of any accrual) is not expected to be material, and we cannot reasonably estimate the maximum potential exposure or the range of possible loss. In the third quarter of 2021, we reversed a $175 million previously recorded litigation accrual following a favorable court decision. We did not have any material accruals for the matters described below on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020. Litigation Related to Sofosbuvir In 2012, we acquired Pharmasset, Inc. Through the acquisition, we acquired sofosbuvir, a nucleotide analog that acts to inhibit the replication of the HCV. In 2013, we received approval from 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 the University of Minnesota The University of Minnesota (the “University”) has obtained U.S. 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 petitions for inter partes review with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) alleging that all asserted claims are invalid for anticipation and obviousness. The PTAB instituted one of these petitions and a merits hearing was held in February 2021. In 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California stayed the litigation until after the PTAB concludes the inter partes review that it has initiated. In May 2021, the PTAB issued a written decision finding the asserted claims of the University’s patent invalid. In July 2021, the University appealed this decision. The litigation in the U.S. District Court will remain stayed through the appeal proceedings. Litigation with NuCana plc. (“NuCana”) NuCana has obtained European Patent No. 2,955,190 (the “EP ’190 patent”) that allegedly covers sofosbuvir. In Opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office (“EPO”) held in February 2021, the EPO Opposition Division upheld the validity of the EP ’190 patent in amended form. We believe that the amended EP ’190 patent claims are invalid. Subsequently, we initiated proceedings to invalidate the UK counterpart of the EP ’190 patent in the High Court of England & Wales. In March 2021, NuCana filed a counterclaim against us in the High Court of England & Wales alleging patent infringement of the UK counterpart and seeking damages and other relief. In April 2021, NuCana also filed a lawsuit against us in Germany at the Landgericht Düsseldorf alleging patent infringement of the German counterpart of the EP ’190 patent and seeking damages and other relief. The hearing date for the German NuCana case has been scheduled for May 2022. Litigation Related to Axicabtagene Ciloleucel In October 2017, Juno Therapeutics, Inc. and Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (collectively, “Juno”) filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that the commercialization of axicabtagene ciloleucel, sold commercially as Yescarta, infringes on U.S. Patent No. 7,446,190 (the “’190 patent”). A jury trial was held on the ’190 patent, and in December 2019, the jury found that the asserted claims of the ’190 patent were valid, and that we willfully infringed the asserted claims of the ’190 patent. The jury also awarded Juno damages in amounts of $585 million in an up-front payment and a 27.6% running royalty from October 2017 through the date of the jury’s verdict. The parties filed post-trial motions in the first quarter of 2020, and the trial judge entered a judgment in April 2020. The trial judge affirmed the jury’s verdict, enhanced the past damages by 50% and maintained the royalties on future Yescarta sales at 27.6%. In April 2020, we filed an appeal seeking to reverse the judgment or obtain a new trial due to errors made by the trial judge, and in July 2021, the appeals court heard oral arguments. In August 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “CAFC”) reversed the jury verdict finding the asserted claims of Juno’s patent invalid. In October 2021, Juno filed a petition for rehearing with the CAFC. We believe that the likelihood of a material adverse outcome in this matter is remote. 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”) covering ViiV’s dolutegravir. Bictegravir is structurally different from dolutegravir, and we believe that bictegravir does not infringe the claims of the ’385 patent. The court has set a trial date of January 2022 for this lawsuit. ViiV is seeking billions of dollars for alleged damages comprised of ViiV’s lost profits and a royalty on sales of bictegravir from launch through the trial. ViiV calculates these damages based on the cumulative U.S. revenues from Biktarvy since launch, which have totaled $16.4 billion through September 30, 2021. In addition, should a court find that we are liable for infringement, we expect ViiV will seek a royalty on sales after the trial. Although we cannot predict with certainty the ultimate outcome of this litigation, an adverse judgment could result in substantial monetary damages, including ViiV’s lost profits and royalties through trial, and a going-forward royalty stream on future sales. 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. In January 2020, the court held a summary trial to assess ViiV’s infringement allegations. In April 2020, the court determined that bictegravir does not infringe the claims of the ’282 patent and dismissed the case. ViiV appealed this decision, and in June 2021, the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal upheld the Federal Court of Canada’s decision. ViiV has sought leave to appeal to the Canadian Supreme Court. In November and December 2019, ViiV filed lawsuits in France, Germany, Ireland and the UK asserting the relevant national designations of European Patent No. 3 045 206 (“EP ’206”); in Australia asserting Australian Patent No. 2006239177; in Japan asserting Japanese Patent No. 4295353; and in Korea asserting Korean Patent Nos. 1848819 (“KR ’819”) and 1363875. These patents all relate to molecules that ViiV claims would act as integrase inhibitors. We believe that bictegravir does not infringe the claims of any of ViiV’s patents. In 2019, we filed an opposition in the EPO requesting revocation of EP ’206. The EPO hearing took place in January 2021, and the patent claims, which do not cover bictegravir, were maintained in amended form. Both parties have appealed this decision. Additionally, in 2020, we filed a petition in the Korean Intellectual Property Office requesting invalidation of KR ’819. Following a trial, a tribunal of the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board found KR ’819 to be invalid. In March 2021, ViiV appealed this decision. In April 2021, the court in Germany held a hearing on the issue of infringement, and in September 2021, determined that Gilead does not infringe ViiV’s EP ’206 patent both in its original form and as amended by the EPO. ViiV has appealed this decision. In all jurisdictions, to the extent that the claims of ViiV’s patents are interpreted to cover bictegravir, we believe that those claims are invalid. We cannot predict the ultimate outcome of intellectual property claims related to bictegravir. Litigation Relating to Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis In August 2019, we filed petitions requesting inter partes review of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,044,509, 9,579,333, 9,937,191 and 10,335,423 (collectively, “HHS Patents”) by PTAB. The HHS Patents are assigned to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) and purport to claim a process of protecting a primate host from infection by an immunodeficiency retrovirus by administering a combination of emtricitabine and tenofovir or TDF prior to exposure of the host to the immunodeficiency retrovirus, a process commonly known as pre-exposure prophylaxis (“PrEP”). In November 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court of Delaware, alleging that the sale of Truvada and Descovy for use as PrEP infringes the HHS Patents. In February 2020, PTAB declined to institute our petitions for inter partes review of the HHS Patents. In April 2020, we filed a breach of contract lawsuit against the U.S. federal government in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging violations of four material transfer agreements (“MTAs”) related to the research underlying the HHS Patents and a clinical trial agreement (“CTA”) by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention related to PrEP research. Although we cannot predict with certainty the ultimate outcome of these litigation matters, we believe that the U.S. federal government breached the MTAs and CTA, that Truvada and Descovy do not infringe the HHS Patents and that the HHS Patents are invalid over prior art descriptions of Truvada’s use for PrEP and post-exposure prophylaxis as well because physicians and patients were using the claimed methods years before HHS filed the applications for the patents. A trial date for the lawsuit in the Court of Federal Claims has been set for June 2022, and a trial date for the lawsuit in the District Court of Delaware has been set for May 2023. 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. Starting in December 2019, we received letters from Lupin Ltd., Apotex Inc., Shilpa Medicare Ltd., Sunshine Lake Pharma Co. Ltd., Laurus Labs, Natco Pharma Ltd., Macleods Pharma Ltd., Hetero Labs Ltd. and Cipla Ltd. (collectively, “generic manufacturers”) indicating that they have submitted ANDAs to FDA requesting permission to market and manufacture generic versions of certain of our tenofovir alafenamide (“TAF”)-containing products. Between them, these generic manufacturers seek to market generic versions of Odefsey, Descovy and Vemlidy. Some generic manufacturers have challenged the validity of four patents listed on the Orange Book and associated with TAF, while others have challenged the validity of two of our Orange Book-listed patents associated with TAF. We filed lawsuits against the generic manufacturers, and we intend to enforce and defend our intellectual property. In October 2021, we received a letter from Lupin Ltd. indicating that it has submitted an ANDA to the FDA requesting permission to market and manufacture a generic version of Symtuza. We are evaluating the letter and intend to enforce and defend our intellectual property. 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. An appeal hearing originally scheduled for July 2021 has been canceled and a new date has not yet been set by the EPO. 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. In 2016, several parties filed oppositions in the EPO requesting revocation of our granted European patent covering TAF that expires in 2026. In 2017, the EPO upheld the validity of the claims of our TAF patent. Three parties have appealed this decision. The appeal hearing was held in March 2021, and the validity of all claims were upheld. In 2017, several parties filed oppositions in the EPO requesting revocation of our granted European patent relating to TAF hemifumarate that expires in 2032. In 2019, the EPO upheld the validity of the claims of our TAF hemifumarate patent. Three parties have appealed this decision. 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. Two parties have appealed this decision. The appeal process may take several years for all EPO opposition proceedings. 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 EMA. 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. Antitrust and Consumer Protection We (along with Japan Tobacco, Inc. (“Japan Tobacco”), Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (“BMS”) and Johnson & Johnson, Inc.) have been named as defendants in class action lawsuits filed in 2019 and 2020 related to various drugs used to treat HIV, including drugs used in combination antiretroviral therapy. Japan Tobacco was dismissed from the lawsuit after a favorable court ruling on the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs allege that we (and the other remaining defendants) engaged in various conduct to restrain competition in violation of federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws. The lawsuits, which have been consolidated, are pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuits seek to bring claims on behalf of two nationwide classes - one of direct purchasers consisting largely of wholesalers, and another of end-payor purchasers, including health insurers and individual patients. Plaintiffs seek damages, permanent injunctive relief and other relief. In September 2021, we, along with BMS and generic manufacturer Teva Pharmaceuticals USA (“Teva”), were named as defendants in similar lawsuits filed by CVS, Rite Aid, Walgreens, Safeway, Kroger, Albertsons and HEB (the “Retailers”) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Retailers are opting out of the proposed direct purchaser class and, based on assignments by their wholesalers, seek to bring claims substantially the same as the putative class. In September 2020, we, along with generic manufacturers Cipla Ltd. and Cipla USA Inc. (together, “Cipla”), were named as defendants in a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by Jacksonville Police Officers and Fire Fighters Health Insurance Trust (“Jacksonville Trust”) on behalf of end-payor purchasers. Jacksonville Trust claims that the 2014 settlement agreement between us and Cipla, which settled a patent dispute relating to patents covering our Emtriva, Truvada, and Atripla products and permitted generic entry prior to patent expiry, violates certain federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The Plaintiff seeks damages, permanent injunctive relief and other relief. In February 2021, we along with BMS and Teva were named as defendants in a lawsuit filed in the First Judicial District Court for the State of New Mexico, County of Santa Fe by the New Mexico Attorney General. The New Mexico Attorney General alleges that we (and the other defendants) restrained competition in violation of New Mexico antitrust and consumer protection laws. The New Mexico Attorney General seeks damages and other relief. 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 or could be subject to permanent injunctive relief awarded in favor of plaintiffs. 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 experience kidney, bone and/or tooth injuries. The lawsuits, which are pending in state or federal court in California, Delaware, Missouri and New Jersey, involve more than 24,000 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. Government Investigation In 2017, we 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. Qui Tam Litigation A former sales employee filed a qui tam lawsuit against Gilead in March 2017 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Following the government’s decision not to intervene in the suit, the relator served us with a Second Amended Complaint in January 2021. The lawsuit alleges that Gilead’s HCV patient access programs, clinical educator programs, speaker programs, and other sales and marketing programs violated the federal False Claims Act and various state false claims acts. In July 2021, the relator filed a Third Amended Complaint, removing allegations against us regarding our patient access programs, clinical educator programs and relationships with specialty pharmacies. The relator seeks all available relief under these statutes. Two former employees filed a qui tam lawsuit against Gilead in April 2020 in California state court. These same former employees had previously filed a qui tam lawsuit in federal court in California, and the U.S. Department of Justice declined intervention and moved to dismiss relators’ federal False Claims Act claims. Relators subsequently voluntarily dismissed their federal lawsuit and refiled their lawsuit in California state court. Following the California Attorney General’s Office’s decision not to intervene, relators served Gilead with their complaint in August 2020. The complaint alleges violations of the California False Claims Act (“CFCA”) and employment law claims. Relators seek all available relief under the CFCA. Health Choice Advocates, LLC (“Health Choice”) filed a qui tam lawsuit against Gilead in April 2020 in New Jersey state court. Following the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office’s decision not to intervene in the suit, Health Choice served us with their original complaint in August 2020. The lawsuit alleges that Gilead violated the New Jersey False Claims Act through our clinical educator programs for Sovaldi and Harvoni and our HCV and HIV patient access programs. The lawsuit seeks all available relief under the New Jersey False Claims Act. In April 2021, the trial court granted our motion to dismiss with prejudice. Health Choice has appealed the trial court’s dismissal. Health Choice filed another qui tam lawsuit against Gilead in May 2020 making similar allegations in Texas state court. Following the Texas Attorney General’s Office’s decision not to intervene in the suit, Health Choice served us with their original complaint in October 2020. The lawsuit alleges that Gilead violated the Texas Medicare Fraud Prevention Act (“TMFPA”) through our clinical educator programs for Sovaldi and Harvoni and our HCV and HIV patient access programs. The lawsuit seeks all available relief under the TMFPA. In September 2021, the Texas Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court Appeals District granted our request to stay the Texas litigation. The case is stayed pending final judgment in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania lawsuit filed in March 2017, as discussed above. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in these actions. While we believe these cases are without merit, we cannot predict the ultimate outcomes. If any of these plaintiffs are successful in their claims, we could be required to pay significant monetary damages. Securities Litigation Immunomedics and several of its former officers and directors have been named as defendants in putative class actions filed in 2018 and 2019, which were consolidated in September 2019. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in November 2019 and an amended complaint in July 2021. Plaintiffs allege that Immunomedics and the individual defendants violated the federal securities laws in connection with Immunomedics’ Biologics License Application for Trodelvy, and seek certification of a class of shareholders, damages and other relief. The consolidated lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. While we believe this case 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. 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.

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 material 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 or the outcome (including in excess of any accrual) is not expected to be material, and we cannot reasonably estimate the maximum potential exposure or the range of possible loss. In the third quarter of 2021, we reversed a $175 million previously recorded litigation accrual following a favorable court decision.

In 2012, we acquired Pharmasset, Inc. Through the acquisition, we acquired sofosbuvir, a nucleotide analog that acts to inhibit the replication of the HCV. In 2013, we received approval from 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.

The University of Minnesota (the “University”) has obtained U.S. 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 petitions for inter partes review with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) alleging that all asserted claims are invalid for anticipation and obviousness. The PTAB instituted one of these petitions and a merits hearing was held in February 2021. In 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California stayed the litigation until after the PTAB concludes the inter partes review that it has initiated. In May 2021, the PTAB issued a written decision finding the asserted claims of the University’s patent invalid. In July 2021, the University appealed this decision. The litigation in the U.S. District Court will remain stayed through the appeal proceedings.

NuCana has obtained European Patent No. 2,955,190 (the “EP ’190 patent”) that allegedly covers sofosbuvir. In Opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office (“EPO”) held in February 2021, the EPO Opposition Division upheld the validity of the EP ’190 patent in amended form. We believe that the amended EP ’190 patent claims are invalid. Subsequently, we initiated proceedings to invalidate the UK counterpart of the EP ’190 patent in the High Court of England & Wales. In March 2021, NuCana filed a counterclaim against us in the High Court of England & Wales alleging patent infringement of the UK counterpart and seeking damages and other relief. In April 2021, NuCana also filed a lawsuit against us in Germany at the Landgericht Düsseldorf alleging patent infringement of the German counterpart of the EP ’190 patent and seeking damages and other relief. The hearing date for the German NuCana case has been scheduled for May 2022.

In October 2017, Juno Therapeutics, Inc. and Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (collectively, “Juno”) filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that the commercialization of axicabtagene ciloleucel, sold commercially as Yescarta, infringes on U.S. Patent No. 7,446,190 (the “’190 patent”). A jury trial was held on the ’190 patent, and in December 2019, the jury found that the asserted claims of the ’190 patent were valid, and that we willfully infringed the asserted claims of the ’190 patent. The jury also awarded Juno damages in amounts of $585 million in an up-front payment and a 27.6% running royalty from October 2017 through the date of the jury’s verdict. The parties filed post-trial motions in the first quarter of 2020, and the trial judge entered a judgment in April 2020. The trial judge affirmed the jury’s verdict, enhanced the past damages by 50% and maintained the royalties on future Yescarta sales at 27.6%. In April 2020, we filed an appeal seeking to reverse the judgment or obtain a new trial due to errors made by the trial judge, and in July 2021, the appeals court heard oral arguments. In August 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “CAFC”) reversed the jury verdict finding the asserted claims of Juno’s patent invalid. In October 2021, Juno filed a petition for rehearing with the CAFC. We believe that the likelihood of a material adverse outcome in this matter is remote.

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”) covering ViiV’s dolutegravir. Bictegravir is structurally different from dolutegravir, and we believe that bictegravir does not infringe the claims of the ’385 patent. The court has set a trial date of January 2022 for this lawsuit. ViiV is seeking billions of dollars for alleged damages comprised of ViiV’s lost profits and a royalty on sales of bictegravir from launch through the trial. ViiV calculates these damages based on the cumulative U.S. revenues from Biktarvy since launch, which have totaled $16.4 billion through September 30, 2021. In addition, should a court find that we are liable for infringement, we expect ViiV will seek a royalty on sales after the trial. Although we cannot predict with certainty the ultimate outcome of this litigation, an adverse judgment could result in substantial monetary damages, including ViiV’s lost profits and royalties through trial, and a going-forward royalty stream on future sales.

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. In January 2020, the court held a summary trial to assess ViiV’s infringement allegations. In April 2020, the court determined that bictegravir does not infringe the claims of the ’282 patent and dismissed the case. ViiV appealed this decision, and in June 2021, the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal upheld the Federal Court of Canada’s decision. ViiV has sought leave to appeal to the Canadian Supreme Court.

In November and December 2019, ViiV filed lawsuits in France, Germany, Ireland and the UK asserting the relevant national designations of European Patent No. 3 045 206 (“EP ’206”); in Australia asserting Australian Patent No. 2006239177; in Japan asserting Japanese Patent No. 4295353; and in Korea asserting Korean Patent Nos. 1848819 (“KR ’819”) and 1363875. These patents all relate to molecules that ViiV claims would act as integrase inhibitors. We believe that bictegravir does not infringe the claims of any of ViiV’s patents. In 2019, we filed an opposition in the EPO requesting revocation of EP ’206. The EPO hearing took place in January 2021, and the patent claims, which do not cover bictegravir, were maintained in amended form. Both parties have appealed this decision. Additionally, in 2020, we filed a petition in the Korean Intellectual Property Office requesting invalidation of KR ’819. Following a trial, a tribunal of the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board found KR ’819 to be invalid. In March 2021, ViiV appealed this decision. In April 2021, the court in Germany held a hearing on the issue of infringement, and in September 2021, determined that Gilead does not infringe ViiV’s EP ’206 patent both in its original form and as amended by the EPO. ViiV has appealed this decision.

In August 2019, we filed petitions requesting inter partes review of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,044,509, 9,579,333, 9,937,191 and 10,335,423 (collectively, “HHS Patents”) by PTAB. The HHS Patents are assigned to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) and purport to claim a process of protecting a primate host from infection by an immunodeficiency retrovirus by administering a combination of emtricitabine and tenofovir or TDF prior to exposure of the host to the immunodeficiency retrovirus, a process commonly known as pre-exposure prophylaxis (“PrEP”). In November 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court of Delaware, alleging that the sale of Truvada and Descovy for use as PrEP infringes the HHS Patents. In February 2020, PTAB declined to institute our petitions for inter partes review of the HHS Patents. In April 2020, we filed a breach of contract lawsuit against the U.S. federal government in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging violations of four material transfer agreements (“MTAs”) related to the research underlying the HHS Patents and a clinical trial agreement (“CTA”) by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention related to PrEP research. Although we cannot predict with certainty the ultimate outcome of these litigation matters, we believe that the U.S. federal government breached the MTAs and CTA, that Truvada and Descovy do not infringe the HHS Patents and that the HHS Patents are invalid over prior art descriptions of Truvada’s use for PrEP and post-exposure prophylaxis as well because physicians and patients were using the claimed methods years before HHS filed the applications for the patents. A trial date for the lawsuit in the Court of Federal Claims has been set for June 2022, and a trial date for the lawsuit in the District Court of Delaware has been set for May 2023.

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.

Starting in December 2019, we received letters from Lupin Ltd., Apotex Inc., Shilpa Medicare Ltd., Sunshine Lake Pharma Co. Ltd., Laurus Labs, Natco Pharma Ltd., Macleods Pharma Ltd., Hetero Labs Ltd. and Cipla Ltd. (collectively, “generic manufacturers”) indicating that they have submitted ANDAs to FDA requesting permission to market and manufacture generic versions of certain of our tenofovir alafenamide (“TAF”)-containing products. Between them, these generic manufacturers seek to market generic versions of Odefsey, Descovy and Vemlidy. Some generic manufacturers have challenged the validity of four patents listed on the Orange Book and associated with TAF, while others have challenged the validity of two of our Orange Book-listed patents associated with TAF. We filed lawsuits against the generic manufacturers, and we intend to enforce and defend our intellectual property.

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. An appeal hearing originally scheduled for July 2021 has been canceled and a new date has not yet been set by the EPO.

The appeal process may take several years for all EPO opposition proceedings. 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 EMA. 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.

We (along with Japan Tobacco, Inc. (“Japan Tobacco”), Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (“BMS”) and Johnson & Johnson, Inc.) have been named as defendants in class action lawsuits filed in 2019 and 2020 related to various drugs used to treat HIV, including drugs used in combination antiretroviral therapy. Japan Tobacco was dismissed from the lawsuit after a favorable court ruling on the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs allege that we (and the other remaining defendants) engaged in various conduct to restrain competition in violation of federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws. The lawsuits, which have been consolidated, are pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuits seek to bring claims on behalf of two nationwide classes - one of direct purchasers consisting largely of wholesalers, and another of end-payor purchasers, including health insurers and individual patients. Plaintiffs seek damages, permanent injunctive relief and other relief. In September 2021, we, along with BMS and generic manufacturer Teva Pharmaceuticals USA (“Teva”), were named as defendants in similar lawsuits filed by CVS, Rite Aid, Walgreens, Safeway, Kroger, Albertsons and HEB (the “Retailers”) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Retailers are opting out of the proposed direct purchaser class and, based on assignments by their wholesalers, seek to bring claims substantially the same as the putative class.

In September 2020, we, along with generic manufacturers Cipla Ltd. and Cipla USA Inc. (together, “Cipla”), were named as defendants in a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by Jacksonville Police Officers and Fire Fighters Health Insurance Trust (“Jacksonville Trust”) on behalf of end-payor purchasers. Jacksonville Trust claims that the 2014 settlement agreement between us and Cipla, which settled a patent dispute relating to patents covering our Emtriva, Truvada, and Atripla products and permitted generic entry prior to patent expiry, violates certain federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The Plaintiff seeks damages, permanent injunctive relief and other relief.

In February 2021, we along with BMS and Teva were named as defendants in a lawsuit filed in the First Judicial District Court for the State of New Mexico, County of Santa Fe by the New Mexico Attorney General. The New Mexico Attorney General alleges that we (and the other defendants) restrained competition in violation of New Mexico antitrust and consumer protection laws. The New Mexico Attorney General seeks damages and other relief.

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 experience kidney, bone and/or tooth injuries. The lawsuits, which are pending in state or federal court in California, Delaware, Missouri and New Jersey, involve more than 24,000 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.

A former sales employee filed a qui tam lawsuit against Gilead in March 2017 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Following the government’s decision not to intervene in the suit, the relator served us with a Second Amended Complaint in January 2021. The lawsuit alleges that Gilead’s HCV patient access programs, clinical educator programs, speaker programs, and other sales and marketing programs violated the federal False Claims Act and various state false claims acts. In July 2021, the relator filed a Third Amended Complaint, removing allegations against us regarding our patient access programs, clinical educator programs and relationships with specialty pharmacies. The relator seeks all available relief under these statutes.

Two former employees filed a qui tam lawsuit against Gilead in April 2020 in California state court. These same former employees had previously filed a qui tam lawsuit in federal court in California, and the U.S. Department of Justice declined intervention and moved to dismiss relators’ federal False Claims Act claims. Relators subsequently voluntarily dismissed their federal lawsuit and refiled their lawsuit in California state court. Following the California Attorney General’s Office’s decision not to intervene, relators served Gilead with their complaint in August 2020. The complaint alleges violations of the California False Claims Act (“CFCA”) and employment law claims. Relators seek all available relief under the CFCA.

Health Choice Advocates, LLC (“Health Choice”) filed a qui tam lawsuit against Gilead in April 2020 in New Jersey state court. Following the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office’s decision not to intervene in the suit, Health Choice served us with their original complaint in August 2020. The lawsuit alleges that Gilead violated the New Jersey False Claims Act through our clinical educator programs for Sovaldi and Harvoni and our HCV and HIV patient access programs. The lawsuit seeks all available relief under the New Jersey False Claims Act. In April 2021, the trial court granted our motion to dismiss with prejudice. Health Choice has appealed the trial court’s dismissal.

Health Choice filed another qui tam lawsuit against Gilead in May 2020 making similar allegations in Texas state court. Following the Texas Attorney General’s Office’s decision not to intervene in the suit, Health Choice served us with their original complaint in October 2020. The lawsuit alleges that Gilead violated the Texas Medicare Fraud Prevention Act (“TMFPA”) through our clinical educator programs for Sovaldi and Harvoni and our HCV and HIV patient access programs. The lawsuit seeks all available relief under the TMFPA. In September 2021, the Texas Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court Appeals District granted our request to stay the Texas litigation. The case is stayed pending final judgment in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania lawsuit filed in March 2017, as discussed above.

Immunomedics and several of its former officers and directors have been named as defendants in putative class actions filed in 2018 and 2019, which were consolidated in September 2019. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in November 2019 and an amended complaint in July 2021. Plaintiffs allege that Immunomedics and the individual defendants violated the federal securities laws in connection with Immunomedics’ Biologics License Application for Trodelvy, and seek certification of a class of shareholders, damages and other relief. The consolidated lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. While we believe this case 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.