Litigation	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Matters and Contingencies	Litigation The Company is involved in various disputes, governmental and/or regulatory inquiries, investigations and proceedings, tax proceedings and litigation matters, both in the U.S. and abroad, that arise from time to time, some of which could result in losses, including damages, fines and/or civil penalties, and/or criminal charges against the Company. These matters are often complex and have outcomes that are difficult to predict. In addition, in connection with the Combination, the Company has generally assumed liability for, and control of, pending and threatened legal matters relating to the Upjohn Business – including certain matters initiated against Pfizer described below – and has agreed to indemnify Pfizer for liabilities arising out of such assumed legal matters. Pfizer, however, has agreed to retain various matters – including certain specified competition law matters – to the extent they arise from conduct during the pre-Distribution period and has agreed to indemnify the Company for liabilities arising out of such matters. While the Company believes that it has meritorious defenses with respect to the claims asserted against it and the assumed legal matters referenced above, and intends to vigorously defend its position, the process of resolving these matters is inherently uncertain and may develop over a long period of time, and so it is not possible to predict the ultimate resolution of any such matter. It is possible that an unfavorable resolution of any of the ongoing matters could have a material effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, ability to pay dividends and/or stock price. Some of these governmental inquiries, investigations, proceedings and litigation matters with which the Company is involved are described below, and unless otherwise disclosed, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of the matter or to provide an estimate of the range of reasonably possible material losses. The Company records accruals for loss contingencies to the extent we conclude it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company is also involved in other pending proceedings for which, in the opinion of the Company based upon facts and circumstances known at the time, either the likelihood of loss is remote or any reasonably possible loss associated with the resolution of such proceedings is not expected to be material to the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows, ability to pay dividends and/or stock price. If and when any reasonably possible losses associated with the resolution of such other pending proceedings, in the opinion of the Company, become material, the Company will disclose such matters. Legal costs are recorded as incurred and are classified in SG&A in the Company’s condensed consolidated statements of operations. EpiPen® Auto-Injector Litigation The Company has been named as a defendant in putative indirect purchaser class actions relating to the pricing and/or marketing of the EpiPen® Auto-Injector. The plaintiffs in these cases assert violations of various federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws, RICO as well as common law claims. Plaintiffs’ claims include purported challenges to the prices charged for the EpiPen® Auto-Injector and/or the marketing of the product in packages containing two auto-injectors, as well as allegedly anti-competitive conduct. A former Mylan N.V. officer and other non-Viatris affiliated companies are also defendants in some of the class actions. Plaintiffs’ seek monetary damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. These lawsuits were filed in various federal and state courts and have either been dismissed or transferred into a MDL in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas and have been consolidated. The District Court certified an antitrust class that applies to 17 states and a RICO class. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the remaining claims asserted by plaintiffs is pending. On February 14, 2020, the Company, together with other non-Viatris affiliated companies, were named as defendants in a putative direct purchaser class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas relating to the pricing and/or marketing of the EpiPen® Auto-Injector. The plaintiff in this case asserts federal antitrust claims which are based on allegations that are similar to those in the putative indirect purchaser class actions discussed above. On November 3, 2020, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint that is substantially similar to the allegations in the amended complaint. Plaintiffs’ seek monetary damages, declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees and costs. Beginning in March 2020, the Company, together with other non-Viatris affiliated companies, were named as defendants in putative direct purchaser class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota relating to contracts with certain pharmacy benefit managers concerning EpiPen® Auto-Injector. The plaintiffs claim that the alleged conduct resulted in the exclusion or restriction of competing products and the elimination of pricing constraints in violation of RICO and federal antitrust law. These actions have been consolidated. Plaintiffs’ seek monetary damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. On April 24, 2017, Sanofi Aventis U.S., LLC (“Sanofi”) filed a lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. This lawsuit has been transferred into the aforementioned MDL and alleges exclusive dealing and anti-competitive marketing practices in violation of the antitrust laws in connection with the sale and marketing of the EpiPen® Auto-Injector. Sanofi seeks monetary damages, declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees and costs. The Court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Sanofi’s claims. Sanofi’s appeal is pending. The Company has a total accrual of approximately $10.0 million related to this matter at March 31, 2021, which is included in other current liabilities in the condensed consolidated balance sheets. Although it is reasonably possible that the Company may incur additional losses from these matters, any amount cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. In addition, the Company expects to incur additional legal and other professional service expenses associated with such matters in future periods and will recognize these expenses as services are received. The Company believes that the ultimate amount paid for these services and claims could have a material effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, ability to pay dividends and/or stock price in future periods. Drug Pricing Matters Department of Justice On December 3, 2015, the Company received a subpoena from the Antitrust Division of the DOJ seeking information relating to the marketing, pricing, and sale of certain of our generic products and any communications with competitors about such products. On September 8, 2016, the Company, as well as certain employees and a member of senior management, received subpoenas from the DOJ seeking similar information. Related search warrants also were executed. On May 10, 2018, the Company received a civil investigative demand from the Civil Division of the DOJ seeking information relating to the pricing and sale of its generic drug products. We are fully cooperating with these investigations, which we believe are related to a broader industry-wide investigation of the generic pharmaceutical industry. Civil Litigation Beginning in 2016, the Company, along with other manufacturers, has been named as a defendant in lawsuits generally alleging anticompetitive conduct with respect to generic drugs. The lawsuits have been filed by plaintiffs, including putative classes of direct purchasers, indirect purchasers, and indirect resellers, as well as individual direct and indirect purchasers and certain cities and counties. They allege harm under federal and state laws, including federal and state antitrust laws, state consumer protection laws and unjust enrichment claims. Some of the lawsuits also name as defendants the Company’s President, including allegations against him with respect to a single drug product, and one of the Company’s sales employees, including allegations against him with respect to certain generic drugs. The lawsuits have been consolidated in an MDL proceeding in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (“EDPA”). Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs. Attorneys General Litigation On December 21, 2015, the Company received a subpoena and interrogatories from the Connecticut Office of the Attorney General seeking information relating to the marketing, pricing and sale of certain of the Company’s generic products and communications with competitors about such products. On December 14, 2016, attorneys general of certain states originally filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against several generic pharmaceutical drug manufacturers, including the Company, alleging anticompetitive conduct with respect to, among other things, a single drug product. The complaint has subsequently been amended, including on June 18, 2018, to add attorneys general alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws, as well as violations of various states’ consumer protection laws. This lawsuit has been transferred to the aforementioned MDL proceeding in the EDPA. The operative complaint includes attorneys general of forty-seven states, the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The Company is alleged to have engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to four generic drug products. The amended complaint also includes claims asserted by attorneys general of thirty-seven states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico against certain individuals, including the Company’s President, with respect to a single drug product. The amended complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, disgorgement, attorneys’ fees and costs, and certain states seek monetary damages, civil penalties, and restitution. On May 10, 2019, certain attorneys general filed a new complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against various drug manufacturers and individuals, including the Company and one of its sales employees, alleging anticompetitive conduct with respect to additional generic drugs. On November 1, 2019, the complaint was amended, adding additional states as plaintiffs. The operative complaint is brought by attorneys general of forty-eight states, certain territories and the District of Columbia. The amended complaint also includes claims asserted by attorneys general of forty-three states and certain territories against several individuals, including a Company sales employee. The amended complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, disgorgement, attorneys’ fees and costs, and certain states seek monetary damages, civil penalties, and restitution. This lawsuit has been transferred to the aforementioned MDL proceeding in the EDPA. On June 10, 2020, attorneys general of forty-six states, certain territories and the District of Columbia filed a new complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against drug manufacturers, including the Company, and individual defendants (none from the Company), alleging anticompetitive conduct with respect to additional generic drugs. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, disgorgement, attorneys’ fees and costs, and certain states seek monetary damages, civil penalties, and restitution. This lawsuit has been transferred to the aforementioned MDL proceeding in the EDPA. Securities Related Litigation Purported class action complaints were filed in October 2016 against Mylan N.V. and Mylan Inc. (collectively “Mylan”), certain of Mylan’s former directors and officers, and certain of the Company’s current directors and officers (collectively, for purposes of this paragraph, the “defendants”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”) on behalf of certain purchasers of securities of Mylan on the NASDAQ. The complaints alleged that defendants made false or misleading statements and omissions of purportedly material fact, in violation of federal securities laws, in connection with disclosures relating to the classification of their EpiPen® Auto-Injector as a non-innovator drug for purposes of the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. On March 20, 2017, a consolidated amended complaint was filed alleging substantially similar claims, but adding allegations that defendants made false or misleading statements and omissions of purportedly material fact in connection with allegedly anticompetitive conduct with respect to EpiPen® Auto-Injector and certain generic drugs. The operative complaint is the third amended consolidated complaint, which was filed on June 17, 2019, and contains the allegations as described above against Mylan, certain of Mylan’s former directors and officers, and certain of the Company’s current directors, officers, and employees (collectively, for purposes of this paragraph, the “defendants”). A class has been certified covering all persons or entities that purchased Mylan common stock between February 21, 2012 and May 24, 2019 excluding defendants, certain of the Company’s current directors and officers, former directors and officers of Mylan, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in which defendants have or had a controlling interest. Plaintiffs seek damages and costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees and expert costs. On April 30, 2017, a similar lawsuit was filed in the Tel Aviv District Court (Economic Division) in Israel, which has been stayed pending a decision in the SDNY class action litigation. On February 26, 2019, MYL Litigation Recovery I LLC (“MYL Plaintiff”) (an assignee of entities that purportedly purchased stock of Mylan N.V.) filed an additional complaint in the SDNY against Mylan, certain of Mylan’s former officers and directors, and an officer of the Company asserting allegations pertaining to EpiPen® Auto-Injector under the federal securities laws that overlap in part with those asserted in the third amended complaint identified above. MYL Plaintiff’s complaint seeks monetary damages as well as the plaintiff’s costs. On May 6, 2020, MYL Plaintiff filed an amended complaint including additional allegations in connection with purportedly anticompetitive conduct with respect to EpiPen® Auto-Injector. MYL Plaintiff subsequently filed a summons on October 30, 2020, naming Mylan, certain of Mylan’s former officers and directors, and certain of the Company’s current officers, directors, and employees in New York State Court, County of New York, claiming investment losses suffered as a result of purportedly false and misleading statements in connection with allegedly anticompetitive conduct concerning generic pharmaceuticals. Plaintiff is seeking monetary and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. The parties have resolved both matters filed by MYL Plaintiff and they have been dismissed with prejudice. On February 14, 2020, the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority filed a complaint against Mylan in the SDNY asserting allegations pertaining to EpiPen® Auto-Injector and certain generic drugs under the federal securities laws that overlap with those asserted in the third amended complaint identified above. The Abu Dhabi Investment Authority’s complaint seeks monetary damages as well as the plaintiff’s fees and costs. On June 26, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed by the Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi, which was subsequently amended on November 13, 2020, against Mylan N.V., certain of Mylan N.V.’s former directors and officers, and an officer and director of the Company (collectively for the purposes of this paragraph, the “defendants”) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on behalf of certain purchasers of securities of Mylan N.V. The amended complaint alleges that defendants made false or misleading statements and omissions of purportedly material fact, in violation of federal securities laws, in connection with disclosures relating to the Morgantown manufacturing plant and inspections at the plant by the FDA. Plaintiff seeks certification of a class of purchasers of Mylan N.V. securities between February 16, 2016 and May 7, 2019. The complaint seeks monetary damages, as well as the plaintiff’s fees and costs. On February 15, 2021, a complaint was filed by Skandia Mutual Life Ins. Co., Lansforsakringar AB, KBC Asset Management N.V., and GIC Private Limited, against the Company, certain of Mylan N.V.’s former directors and officers, a current director and officer of the Company, and current employees of the Company. The Complaint asserts claims which are based on allegations that are similar to those in the SDNY and the Western District of Pennsylvania complaints identified above. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, costs and expenses and attorneys’ fees. Opioids The Company, along with other manufacturers, distributors, pharmacies, pharmacy benefit managers, and individual healthcare providers is a defendant in more than 1,000 cases in the United States and Canada filed by various plaintiffs, including counties, cities and other local governmental entities, asserting civil claims related to sales, marketing and/or distribution practices with respect to prescription opioid products. In addition, lawsuits have been filed as putative class actions including on behalf of children with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome due to alleged exposure to opioids. The lawsuits generally seek equitable relief and monetary damages (including punitive and/or exemplary damages) based on a variety of legal theories, including various statutory and/or common law claims, such as negligence, public nuisance and unjust enrichment. The vast majority of these lawsuits have been consolidated in an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District Court of Ohio. In November 2019, the Company received a subpoena from the New York Department of Financial Services as part of an industry-wide inquiry into the effect of opioid prescriptions on New York health insurance premiums. The Company is fully cooperating with this subpoena request. European Commission Proceedings Perindopril On July 9, 2014, the Commission issued a decision finding that the Company as well as several other companies, had violated EU competition rules relating to the product Perindopril and fined the Company approximately €17.2 million. The Company paid approximately $21.7 million related to this matter during the fourth quarter of 2014. The decision was affirmed on appeal by the General Court of the EU and is now on appeal to the CJEU. The Company has received a notice from an organization representing health insurers in the Netherlands stating an intention to commence follow-on litigation and asserting monetary damages. Citalopram On June 19, 2013, the Commission issued a decision finding that the Company as well as several other companies, had violated EU competition rules relating to the product Citalopram and fined the Company approximately €7.8 million, jointly and severally with Merck KGaA. The decision was affirmed on appeal by the General Court of the EU and the CJEU. The Commission’s matter as to the Company is now closed. The Company has received notices from European NHS and health insurers stating an intention to commence follow-on litigation and asserting monetary damages. The NHS England and Wales has instituted litigation against all parties to the Commission’s decision, including the Company. This litigation is currently stayed. The Company has also sought indemnification from Merck KGaA with respect to the €7.8 million portion of the fine for which Merck KGaA and the Company were held jointly and severally liable. Merck KGaA has counterclaimed against the Company seeking the same indemnification. In June 2018, the Frankfurt Regional Court issued a judgment ordering the Company to indemnify Merck KGaA with respect to the amount for which the parties were held jointly and severally liable. The Company has appealed this decision. The proceedings are currently stayed. The Company has accrued approximately €15.8 million as of March 31, 2021 related to this matter. It is reasonably possible that we will incur additional losses above the amount accrued but we cannot estimate a range of such reasonably possible losses at this time. There are no assurances, however, that settlements reached and/or adverse judgments received, if any, will not exceed amounts accrued. U.K. Competition and Markets Authority Paroxetine On August 12, 2011, the Company received notice that the Office of Fair Trading (now the “CMA”) opened an investigation regarding possible infringement of the Competition Act 1998 and Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, with respect to alleged agreements related to Paroxetine. The CMA issued a decision on February 12, 2016, finding that the Company, Merck KGaA, and other companies were liable for infringing EU and U.K. competition rules. The CMA issued a penalty to Merck KGaA of approximately £5.8 million, for which the Company is jointly and severally liable for approximately £2.7 million. On appeal, the CAT affirmed the CMA’s decision but reduced the penalty to Merck KGaA to approximately £3.9 million, and reduced the amount for which the Company is jointly and severally liable to approximately £2.05 million. The Company has also received a notice from the NHS England and Wales stating an intention to commence follow- on litigation and asserting monetary damages. The Company has accrued approximately £10.1 million as of March 31, 2021 related to this matter. It is reasonably possible that the Company will incur additional losses above the amount accrued but we cannot estimate a range of such reasonably possible losses at this time. There are no assurances, however, that settlements reached and/or adverse judgments received, if any, will not exceed amounts accrued. Product Liability Like other pharmaceutical companies, the Company is involved in a number of product liability lawsuits related to alleged personal injuries arising out of certain products manufactured/or distributed by the Company, including but not limited to those discussed below. Plaintiffs in these cases generally seek damages and other relief on various grounds for alleged personal injury and economic loss. The Company has accrued approximately $101.0 million as of March 31, 2021 for its product liability matters. It is reasonably possible that we will incur additional losses and fees above the amount accrued but we cannot estimate a range of such reasonably possible losses or legal fees related to these claims at this time. There are no assurances, however, that settlements reached and/or adverse judgments received, if any, will not exceed amounts accrued. Nitrosamines The Company, along with numerous other manufacturers, retailers, and others, are parties to litigation relating to alleged trace amounts of nitrosamine impurities in certain products, including valsartan and ranitidine. The vast majority of these lawsuits in the United States are pending in two MDLs, namely an MDL pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey concerning valsartan and an MDL pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida concerning raniditine. The lawsuits against the Company in the MDLs include putative class actions seeking the refund of the purchase price and other economic and punitive damages allegedly sustained by consumers and end payors as well as individuals seeking compensatory and punitive damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by ingestion of the medications. Similar lawsuits pertaining to valsartan have been filed in Canada and other countries. The Company has also received claims and inquiries related to these products, as well as requests to indemnify purchasers of the Company’s API and/ or finished dose forms of these products. The original master complaints concerning ranitidine were dismissed on December 31, 2020. The Company has not been named as a defendant in the amended master complaints, though it is still named in certain short form personal injury complaints. The end-payor plaintiffs in the ranitidine matter have filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Lipitor A number of individual and multi-plaintiff lawsuits have been filed against Pfizer in various federal and state courts alleging that the plaintiffs developed type 2 diabetes purportedly as a result of the ingestion of Lipitor. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages. In February 2014, the federal actions were transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. Since 2016, certain cases in the MDL were remanded to certain state courts. In 2017, the District Court granted Pfizer’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of the cases pending in the MDL. In June 2018, this dismissal was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The state court proceedings remain pending in various jurisdictions, including in California, Missouri, and New York. On January 27, 2021, the California Court granted Pfizer’s motion to exclude the opinions of plaintiffs’ only general causation expert in connection with his opinions involving the three lowest doses of Lipitor (10, 20 and 40 mg). Viagra Since April 2016, an MDL has been pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, in which plaintiffs allege that they developed melanoma and/or the exacerbation of melanoma purportedly as a result of the ingestion of Viagra. Additional cases filed against Eli Lilly and Company (“Lilly”) with respect to Cialis have also been consolidated in the MDL. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages. In January 2020, the District Court granted Pfizer’s and Lilly’s motion to exclude all of plaintiffs’ general causation opinions. As a result, in April 2020, the District Court entered summary judgment in favor of defendants and dismissed all of plaintiffs’ claims. In April 2020, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The parties have reached a settlement in principle. Dilantin Since 2018, a number of individual and multi-plaintiff lawsuits have been filed against Pfizer and related entities in various federal and state courts, alleging that the plaintiffs developed cerebellar atrophy as a result of the ingestion of Dilantin. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages. The cases are in various stages, from the initial pleading stage to discovery, and some at the bellwether case selection phase. Intellectual Property The Company is involved in a number of patent litigation lawsuits involving the validity and/or infringement of patents held by branded pharmaceutical manufacturers including but not limited to the matters described below. The Company uses its business judgment to decide to market and sell certain products, in each case based on its belief that the applicable patents are invalid and/or that its products do not infringe, notwithstanding the fact that allegations of patent infringement(s) or other potential third party rights have not been finally resolved by the courts. The risk involved in doing so can be substantial because the remedies available to the owner of a patent for infringement may include, a reasonable royalty on sales or damages measured by the profits lost by the patent owner. If there is a finding of willful infringement, damages may be increased up to three times. Moreover, because of the discount pricing typically involved with bioequivalent products, patented branded products generally realize a substantially higher profit margin than generic and biosimilar products. The Company also faces challenges to its patents, including suits in various jurisdictions pursuant to which generic drug manufacturers, payers, governments, or other parties are seeking damages for allegedly causing delay of generic entry. An adverse decision in any of these matters could have an adverse effect that is material to our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, ability to pay dividends and/or stock price. The Company has accrued approximately $301.7 million as of March 31, 2021 for its intellectual property matters. It is reasonably possible that we will incur additional losses and fees above the amount accrued but we cannot estimate a range of such reasonably possible losses or legal fees related to these claims at this time. There are no assurances, however, that settlements reached and/or adverse judgments received, if any, will not exceed amounts accrued. Insulin Glargine On October 24, 2017, Sanofi and affiliated entities (collectively for the purposes of this section, “Sanofi”), sued Mylan GmbH and other Mylan entities in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey asserting that Mylan GmbH’s new drug application for insulin glargine injection 100 Units/mL vials and prefilled injection pens (SEMGLEE® vial and pens) infringed 18 U.S. patents. 2 of the 18 patents covered the insulin glargine formulation. Both of these patents have been held invalid and all appeals have concluded. These two patents were the only patents asserted against the SEMGLEE® vial product. The 16 other asserted patents relate to a pen injection device (“device patents”) and were asserted only against the SEMGLEE® pen injection device. Prior to trial, Sanofi dismissed 12 of those device patents from the case and granted the Company a covenant not to sue with respect to them. On June 17, 2019, following the District Court’s claim construction order, the District Court entered judgment of non-infringement with respect to the asserted claims of three of the four remaining device patents (U.S. Patent Numbers 8,603,044, 8,679,069, 8,992,486). Only one device patent remained for trial (U.S. Patent Number 9,526,844). On March 9, 2020, the District Court issued an opinion after trial finding all asserted claims of the ‘844 patent not infringed and invalid for lack of written description. Sanofi’s appeal is pending. On September 10, 2018, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“MPI”) filed IPR petitions challenging five device patents (the ‘844, ‘044, ‘069, ‘486, and ‘008 patents). On April 2, 2020 and May 29, 2020, the PTAB issued final written decisions in the IPR proceedings finding all challenged claims unpatentable except for two claims of the ‘008 patent for which Sanofi granted the Company a covenant not to sue as described above. Sanofi’s appeals of all these IPR decisions are pending. On March 26, 2021, the PTAB issued a final written decision in an IPR proceeding in which MPI challenged an additional Sanofi device patent (U.S. Patent Number RE47,614) and found all challenged claims unpatentable. On June 11, 2020, the FDA approved the SEMGLEE® vial and pen products, which MPI began selling on August 31, 2020. Dimethyl Fumarate On June 30, 2017, Biogen MA Inc. and Biogen International GmbH (collectively, “Biogen”) sued MPI in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia asserting that MPI’s abbreviated new drug application for dimethyl fumarate delayed-release capsules containing 120 mg and 240 mg of dimethyl fumarate (generic for Tecfidera®) infringed six U.S. patents that Biogen had listed in the Orange Book: 6,509,376, 7,320,999, 7,619,001, 7,803,840, 8,759,393, and 8,399,514. All patents except for the ‘514 expired during the litigation and were dismissed from the case. After a trial involving only the ’514 patent on June 18, 2020, the District Court issued a judgment finding all claims of the ’514 patent invalid for lack of adequate written description. Biogen’s appeal is pending. On July 13, 2018, MPI filed an IPR petition challenging the ’514 patent based only on obviousness. On February 5, 2020, the PTAB issued a final written decision finding the claims not obvious. MPI’s appeal is pending. On August 17, 2020, the FDA approved MPI’s dimethyl fumarate delayed-release capsules, which MPI began selling on August 18, 2020. Lyrica - United Kingdom Beginning in 2014, Pfizer was involved in patent litigation in the English courts concerning the validity of its Lyrica pain use patent. In 2015, the High Court of Justice in London ordered that the NHS England issue guidance for prescribers and pharmacists directing the prescription and dispensing of Lyrica by brand when pregabalin was prescribed for the treatment of neuropathic pain and entered a preliminary injunction against certain Sandoz group companies preventing the sale of Sandoz’s full label pregabalin product. Pfizer undertook to compensate certain generic companies and NHS entities for losses caused by these orders, which remained in effect until patent expiration in July 2017. In November 2018, the U.K. Supreme Court ruled that all the relevant claims directed to neuropathic pain were invalid. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories filed a claim for monetary damages, interest, and costs in May 2020, followed by the Scottish Ministers and fourteen Scottish Health Boards (together, NHS Scotland) in July 2020. In September 2020, Teva, Sandoz, Ranbaxy, Actavis, and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, together with 32 other NHS entities (together, NHS England, Wales, and Northern Ireland) filed their claims. Lyrica - Canada In June 2014, Pharmascience Inc. (“PMS”) commenced an action against Pfizer Canada Inc., Warner-Lambert Company and Warner-Lambert Company LLC (the Pfizer Canada Defendants) seeking damages in connection with an earlier unsuccessful patent litigation brought by the Pfizer Canada Defendants involving pregabalin. PMS claims lost profit damages from November 30, 2010, the date it received tentative regulatory approval for its pregabalin product, to February 13, 2013, the date Pfizer’s patent case against PMS was dismissed. A trial is scheduled for July 2021. Other Litigation The Company is involved in various other legal proceedings including commercial, contractual, employment, or other similar matters that are considered normal to its business. The Company has approximately $17.0 million accrued related to these various other legal proceedings at March 31, 2021.

The Company is involved in various disputes, governmental and/or regulatory inquiries, investigations and proceedings, tax proceedings and litigation matters, both in the U.S. and abroad, that arise from time to time, some of which could result in losses, including damages, fines and/or civil penalties, and/or criminal charges against the Company. These matters are often complex and have outcomes that are difficult to predict.

In addition, in connection with the Combination, the Company has generally assumed liability for, and control of, pending and threatened legal matters relating to the Upjohn Business – including certain matters initiated against Pfizer described below – and has agreed to indemnify Pfizer for liabilities arising out of such assumed legal matters. Pfizer, however, has agreed to retain various matters – including certain specified competition law matters – to the extent they arise from conduct during the pre-Distribution period and has agreed to indemnify the Company for liabilities arising out of such matters.

While the Company believes that it has meritorious defenses with respect to the claims asserted against it and the assumed legal matters referenced above, and intends to vigorously defend its position, the process of resolving these matters is inherently uncertain and may develop over a long period of time, and so it is not possible to predict the ultimate resolution of any such matter. It is possible that an unfavorable resolution of any of the ongoing matters could have a material effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, ability to pay dividends and/or stock price.

Some of these governmental inquiries, investigations, proceedings and litigation matters with which the Company is involved are described below, and unless otherwise disclosed, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of the matter or to provide an estimate of the range of reasonably possible material losses. The Company records accruals for loss contingencies to the extent we conclude it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company is also involved in other pending proceedings for which, in the opinion of the Company based upon facts and circumstances known at the time, either the likelihood of loss is remote or any reasonably possible loss associated with the resolution of such proceedings is not expected to be material to the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows, ability to pay dividends and/or stock price. If and when any reasonably possible losses associated with the resolution of such other pending proceedings, in the opinion of the Company, become material, the Company will disclose such matters.

The Company has been named as a defendant in putative indirect purchaser class actions relating to the pricing and/or marketing of the EpiPen® Auto-Injector. The plaintiffs in these cases assert violations of various federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws, RICO as well as common law claims. Plaintiffs’ claims include purported challenges to the prices charged for the EpiPen® Auto-Injector and/or the marketing of the product in packages containing two auto-injectors, as well as allegedly anti-competitive conduct. A former Mylan N.V. officer and other non-Viatris affiliated companies are also defendants in some of the class actions. Plaintiffs’ seek monetary damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. These lawsuits were filed in various federal and state courts and have either been dismissed or transferred into a MDL in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas and have been consolidated. The District Court certified an antitrust class that applies to 17 states and a RICO class. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the remaining claims asserted by plaintiffs is pending.

On February 14, 2020, the Company, together with other non-Viatris affiliated companies, were named as defendants in a putative direct purchaser class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas relating to the pricing and/or marketing of the EpiPen® Auto-Injector. The plaintiff in this case asserts federal antitrust claims which are based on allegations that are similar to those in the putative indirect purchaser class actions discussed above. On November 3, 2020, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint that is substantially similar to the allegations in the amended complaint. Plaintiffs’ seek monetary damages, declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees and costs.

Beginning in March 2020, the Company, together with other non-Viatris affiliated companies, were named as defendants in putative direct purchaser class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota relating to contracts with certain pharmacy benefit managers concerning EpiPen® Auto-Injector. The plaintiffs claim that the alleged conduct resulted in the exclusion or restriction of competing products and the elimination of pricing constraints in violation of

On April 24, 2017, Sanofi Aventis U.S., LLC (“Sanofi”) filed a lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. This lawsuit has been transferred into the aforementioned MDL and alleges exclusive dealing and anti-competitive marketing practices in violation of the antitrust laws in connection with the sale and marketing of the EpiPen® Auto-Injector. Sanofi seeks monetary damages, declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees and costs. The Court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Sanofi’s claims. Sanofi’s appeal is pending.

The Company has a total accrual of approximately $10.0 million related to this matter at March 31, 2021, which is included in other current liabilities in the condensed consolidated balance sheets. Although it is reasonably possible that the Company may incur additional losses from these matters, any amount cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. In addition, the Company expects to incur additional legal and other professional service expenses associated with such matters in future periods and will recognize these expenses as services are received. The Company believes that the ultimate amount paid for these services and claims could have a material effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, ability to pay dividends and/or stock price in future periods.

On December 3, 2015, the Company received a subpoena from the Antitrust Division of the DOJ seeking information relating to the marketing, pricing, and sale of certain of our generic products and any communications with competitors about such products. On September 8, 2016, the Company, as well as certain employees and a member of senior management, received subpoenas from the DOJ seeking similar information. Related search warrants also were executed.

Beginning in 2016, the Company, along with other manufacturers, has been named as a defendant in lawsuits generally alleging anticompetitive conduct with respect to generic drugs. The lawsuits have been filed by plaintiffs, including putative classes of direct purchasers, indirect purchasers, and indirect resellers, as well as individual direct and indirect purchasers and certain cities and counties. They allege harm under federal and state laws, including federal and state antitrust laws, state consumer protection laws and unjust enrichment claims. Some of the lawsuits also name as defendants the Company’s President, including allegations against him with respect to a single drug product, and one of the Company’s sales employees, including allegations against him with respect to certain generic drugs. The lawsuits have been consolidated in an MDL proceeding in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (“EDPA”). Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs.

On December 21, 2015, the Company received a subpoena and interrogatories from the Connecticut Office of the Attorney General seeking information relating to the marketing, pricing and sale of certain of the Company’s generic products and communications with competitors about such products. On December 14, 2016, attorneys general of certain states originally filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against several generic pharmaceutical drug manufacturers, including the Company, alleging anticompetitive conduct with respect to, among other things, a single drug product. The complaint has subsequently been amended, including on June 18, 2018, to add attorneys general alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws, as well as violations of various states’ consumer protection laws. This lawsuit has been transferred to the aforementioned MDL proceeding in the EDPA. The operative complaint includes attorneys general of forty-seven states, the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The Company is alleged to have engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to four generic drug products. The amended complaint also

includes claims asserted by attorneys general of thirty-seven states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico against certain individuals, including the Company’s President, with respect to a single drug product. The amended complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, disgorgement, attorneys’ fees and costs, and certain states seek monetary damages, civil penalties, and restitution.

On May 10, 2019, certain attorneys general filed a new complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against various drug manufacturers and individuals, including the Company and one of its sales employees, alleging anticompetitive conduct with respect to additional generic drugs. On November 1, 2019, the complaint was amended, adding additional states as plaintiffs. The operative complaint is brought by attorneys general of forty-eight states, certain territories and the District of Columbia. The amended complaint also includes claims asserted by attorneys general of forty-three states and certain territories against several individuals, including a Company sales employee. The amended complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, disgorgement, attorneys’ fees and costs, and certain states seek monetary damages, civil penalties, and restitution. This lawsuit has been transferred to the aforementioned MDL proceeding in the EDPA.

On June 10, 2020, attorneys general of forty-six states, certain territories and the District of Columbia filed a new complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against drug manufacturers, including the Company, and individual defendants (none from the Company), alleging anticompetitive conduct with respect to additional generic drugs. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, disgorgement, attorneys’ fees and costs, and certain states seek monetary damages, civil penalties, and restitution. This lawsuit has been transferred to the aforementioned MDL proceeding in the EDPA.

Purported class action complaints were filed in October 2016 against Mylan N.V. and Mylan Inc. (collectively “Mylan”), certain of Mylan’s former directors and officers, and certain of the Company’s current directors and officers (collectively, for purposes of this paragraph, the “defendants”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”) on behalf of certain purchasers of securities of Mylan on the NASDAQ. The complaints alleged that defendants made false or misleading statements and omissions of purportedly material fact, in violation of federal securities laws, in connection with disclosures relating to the classification of their EpiPen® Auto-Injector as a non-innovator drug for purposes of the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. On March 20, 2017, a consolidated amended complaint was filed alleging substantially similar claims, but adding allegations that defendants made false or misleading statements and omissions of purportedly material fact in connection with allegedly anticompetitive conduct with respect to EpiPen® Auto-Injector and certain generic drugs.

The operative complaint is the third amended consolidated complaint, which was filed on June 17, 2019, and contains the allegations as described above against Mylan, certain of Mylan’s former directors and officers, and certain of the Company’s current directors, officers, and employees (collectively, for purposes of this paragraph, the “defendants”). A class has been certified covering all persons or entities that purchased Mylan common stock between February 21, 2012 and May 24, 2019 excluding defendants, certain of the Company’s current directors and officers, former directors and officers of Mylan, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in which defendants have or had a controlling interest. Plaintiffs seek damages and costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees and expert costs.

On February 26, 2019, MYL Litigation Recovery I LLC (“MYL Plaintiff”) (an assignee of entities that purportedly purchased stock of Mylan N.V.) filed an additional complaint in the SDNY against Mylan, certain of Mylan’s former officers and directors, and an officer of the Company asserting allegations pertaining to EpiPen® Auto-Injector under the federal securities laws that overlap in part with those asserted in the third amended complaint identified above. MYL Plaintiff’s complaint seeks monetary damages as well as the plaintiff’s costs. On May 6, 2020, MYL Plaintiff filed an amended complaint including additional allegations in connection with purportedly anticompetitive conduct with respect to EpiPen® Auto-Injector.

MYL Plaintiff subsequently filed a summons on October 30, 2020, naming Mylan, certain of Mylan’s former officers and directors, and certain of the Company’s current officers, directors, and employees in New York State Court, County of New York, claiming investment losses suffered as a result of purportedly false and misleading statements in connection with

On February 14, 2020, the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority filed a complaint against Mylan in the SDNY asserting allegations pertaining to EpiPen® Auto-Injector and certain generic drugs under the federal securities laws that overlap with those asserted in the third amended complaint identified above. The Abu Dhabi Investment Authority’s complaint seeks monetary damages as well as the plaintiff’s fees and costs.

On June 26, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed by the Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi, which was subsequently amended on November 13, 2020, against Mylan N.V., certain of Mylan N.V.’s former directors and officers, and an officer and director of the Company (collectively for the purposes of this paragraph, the “defendants”) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on behalf of certain purchasers of securities of Mylan N.V. The amended complaint alleges that defendants made false or misleading statements and omissions of purportedly material fact, in violation of federal securities laws, in connection with disclosures relating to the Morgantown manufacturing plant and inspections at the plant by the FDA. Plaintiff seeks certification of a class of purchasers of Mylan N.V. securities between February 16, 2016 and May 7, 2019. The complaint seeks monetary damages, as well as the plaintiff’s fees and costs.

On February 15, 2021, a complaint was filed by Skandia Mutual Life Ins. Co., Lansforsakringar AB, KBC Asset Management N.V., and GIC Private Limited, against the Company, certain of Mylan N.V.’s former directors and officers, a current director and officer of the Company, and current employees of the Company. The Complaint asserts claims which are based on allegations that are similar to those in the SDNY and the Western District of Pennsylvania complaints identified above. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, costs and expenses and attorneys’ fees.

The Company, along with other manufacturers, distributors, pharmacies, pharmacy benefit managers, and individual healthcare providers is a defendant in more than 1,000 cases in the United States and Canada filed by various plaintiffs, including counties, cities and other local governmental entities, asserting civil claims related to sales, marketing and/or distribution practices with respect to prescription opioid products. In addition, lawsuits have been filed as putative class actions including on behalf of children with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome due to alleged exposure to opioids.

The lawsuits generally seek equitable relief and monetary damages (including punitive and/or exemplary damages) based on a variety of legal theories, including various statutory and/or common law claims, such as negligence, public nuisance and unjust enrichment. The vast majority of these lawsuits have been consolidated in an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District Court of Ohio.

On July 9, 2014, the Commission issued a decision finding that the Company as well as several other companies, had violated EU competition rules relating to the product Perindopril and fined the Company approximately €17.2 million. The Company paid approximately $21.7 million related to this matter during the fourth quarter of 2014. The decision was affirmed on appeal by the General Court of the EU and is now on appeal to the CJEU. The Company has received a notice from an organization representing health insurers in the Netherlands stating an intention to commence follow-on litigation and asserting monetary damages.

and severally with Merck KGaA. The decision was affirmed on appeal by the General Court of the EU and the CJEU. The Commission’s matter as to the Company is now closed. The Company has received notices from European NHS and health insurers stating an intention to commence follow-on litigation and asserting monetary damages. The NHS England and Wales has instituted litigation against all parties to the Commission’s decision, including the Company. This litigation is currently stayed.

The Company has also sought indemnification from Merck KGaA with respect to the €7.8 million portion of the fine for which Merck KGaA and the Company were held jointly and severally liable. Merck KGaA has counterclaimed against the Company seeking the same indemnification. In June 2018, the Frankfurt Regional Court issued a judgment ordering the Company to indemnify Merck KGaA with respect to the amount for which the parties were held jointly and severally liable. The Company has appealed this decision. The proceedings are currently stayed.

The Company has accrued approximately €15.8 million as of March 31, 2021 related to this matter. It is reasonably possible that we will incur additional losses above the amount accrued but we cannot estimate a range of such reasonably possible losses at this time. There are no assurances, however, that settlements reached and/or adverse judgments received, if any, will not exceed amounts accrued.

On August 12, 2011, the Company received notice that the Office of Fair Trading (now the “CMA”) opened an investigation regarding possible infringement of the Competition Act 1998 and Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, with respect to alleged agreements related to Paroxetine. The CMA issued a decision on February 12, 2016, finding that the Company, Merck KGaA, and other companies were liable for infringing EU and U.K. competition rules. The CMA issued a penalty to Merck KGaA of approximately £5.8 million, for which the Company is jointly and severally liable for approximately £2.7 million. On appeal, the CAT affirmed the CMA’s decision but reduced the penalty to Merck KGaA to approximately £3.9 million, and reduced the amount for which the Company is jointly and severally liable to approximately £2.05 million.

The Company has accrued approximately £10.1 million as of March 31, 2021 related to this matter. It is reasonably possible that the Company will incur additional losses above the amount accrued but we cannot estimate a range of such reasonably possible losses at this time. There are no assurances, however, that settlements reached and/or adverse judgments received, if any, will not exceed amounts accrued.

Like other pharmaceutical companies, the Company is involved in a number of product liability lawsuits related to alleged personal injuries arising out of certain products manufactured/or distributed by the Company, including but not limited to those discussed below. Plaintiffs in these cases generally seek damages and other relief on various grounds for alleged personal injury and economic loss.

The Company has accrued approximately $101.0 million as of March 31, 2021 for its product liability matters. It is reasonably possible that we will incur additional losses and fees above the amount accrued but we cannot estimate a range of such reasonably possible losses or legal fees related to these claims at this time. There are no assurances, however, that settlements reached and/or adverse judgments received, if any, will not exceed amounts accrued.

The Company, along with numerous other manufacturers, retailers, and others, are parties to litigation relating to alleged trace amounts of nitrosamine impurities in certain products, including valsartan and ranitidine. The vast majority of these lawsuits in the United States are pending in two MDLs, namely an MDL pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey concerning valsartan and an MDL pending in the United States District Court for the Southern

District of Florida concerning raniditine. The lawsuits against the Company in the MDLs include putative class actions seeking the refund of the purchase price and other economic and punitive damages allegedly sustained by consumers and end payors as well as individuals seeking compensatory and punitive damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by ingestion of the medications. Similar lawsuits pertaining to valsartan have been filed in Canada and other countries. The Company has also received claims and inquiries related to these products, as well as requests to indemnify purchasers of the Company’s API and/ or finished dose forms of these products. The original master complaints concerning ranitidine were dismissed on December 31, 2020. The Company has not been named as a defendant in the amended master complaints, though it is still named in certain short form personal injury complaints. The end-payor plaintiffs in the ranitidine matter have filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

A number of individual and multi-plaintiff lawsuits have been filed against Pfizer in various federal and state courts alleging that the plaintiffs developed type 2 diabetes purportedly as a result of the ingestion of Lipitor. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages. In February 2014, the federal actions were transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. Since 2016, certain cases in the MDL were remanded to certain state courts. In 2017, the District Court granted Pfizer’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of the cases pending in the MDL. In June 2018, this dismissal was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The state court proceedings remain pending in various jurisdictions, including in California, Missouri, and New York. On January 27, 2021, the California Court granted Pfizer’s motion to exclude the opinions of plaintiffs’ only general causation expert in connection with his opinions involving the three lowest doses of Lipitor (10, 20 and 40 mg).

Since April 2016, an MDL has been pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, in which plaintiffs allege that they developed melanoma and/or the exacerbation of melanoma purportedly as a result of the ingestion of Viagra. Additional cases filed against Eli Lilly and Company (“Lilly”) with respect to Cialis have also been consolidated in the MDL. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages. In January 2020, the District Court granted Pfizer’s and Lilly’s motion to exclude all of plaintiffs’ general causation opinions. As a result, in April 2020, the District Court entered summary judgment in favor of defendants and dismissed all of plaintiffs’ claims. In April 2020, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The parties have reached a settlement in principle.

Since 2018, a number of individual and multi-plaintiff lawsuits have been filed against Pfizer and related entities in various federal and state courts, alleging that the plaintiffs developed cerebellar atrophy as a result of the ingestion of Dilantin. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages. The cases are in various stages, from the initial pleading stage to discovery, and some at the bellwether case selection phase.

The Company is involved in a number of patent litigation lawsuits involving the validity and/or infringement of patents held by branded pharmaceutical manufacturers including but not limited to the matters described below. The Company uses its business judgment to decide to market and sell certain products, in each case based on its belief that the applicable patents are invalid and/or that its products do not infringe, notwithstanding the fact that allegations of patent infringement(s) or other potential third party rights have not been finally resolved by the courts. The risk involved in doing so can be substantial because the remedies available to the owner of a patent for infringement may include, a reasonable royalty on sales or damages measured by the profits lost by the patent owner. If there is a finding of willful infringement, damages may be increased up to three times. Moreover, because of the discount pricing typically involved with bioequivalent products, patented branded products generally realize a substantially higher profit margin than generic and biosimilar products. The Company also faces challenges to its patents, including suits in various jurisdictions pursuant to which generic drug manufacturers, payers, governments, or other parties are seeking damages for allegedly causing delay of generic entry. An adverse decision in any of these matters could have an adverse effect that is material to our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, ability to pay dividends and/or stock price.

The Company has accrued approximately $301.7 million as of March 31, 2021 for its intellectual property matters. It is reasonably possible that we will incur additional losses and fees above the amount accrued but we cannot estimate a range of such reasonably possible losses or legal fees related to these claims at this time. There are no assurances, however, that settlements reached and/or adverse judgments received, if any, will not exceed amounts accrued.

On October 24, 2017, Sanofi and affiliated entities (collectively for the purposes of this section, “Sanofi”), sued Mylan GmbH and other Mylan entities in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey asserting that Mylan GmbH’s new drug application for insulin glargine injection 100 Units/mL vials and prefilled injection pens (SEMGLEE® vial and pens) infringed 18 U.S. patents. 2 of the 18 patents covered the insulin glargine formulation. Both of these patents have been held invalid and all appeals have concluded. These two patents were the only patents asserted against the SEMGLEE® vial product.

The 16 other asserted patents relate to a pen injection device (“device patents”) and were asserted only against the SEMGLEE® pen injection device. Prior to trial, Sanofi dismissed 12 of those device patents from the case and granted the Company a covenant not to sue with respect to them. On June 17, 2019, following the District Court’s claim construction order, the District Court entered judgment of non-infringement with respect to the asserted claims of three of the four remaining device patents (U.S. Patent Numbers 8,603,044, 8,679,069, 8,992,486).

On September 10, 2018, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“MPI”) filed IPR petitions challenging five device patents (the ‘844, ‘044, ‘069, ‘486, and ‘008 patents). On April 2, 2020 and May 29, 2020, the PTAB issued final written decisions in the IPR proceedings finding all challenged claims unpatentable except for two claims of the ‘008 patent for which Sanofi granted the Company a covenant not to sue as described above. Sanofi’s appeals of all these IPR decisions are pending.

On June 30, 2017, Biogen MA Inc. and Biogen International GmbH (collectively, “Biogen”) sued MPI in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia asserting that MPI’s abbreviated new drug application for dimethyl fumarate delayed-release capsules containing 120 mg and 240 mg of dimethyl fumarate (generic for Tecfidera®) infringed six U.S. patents that Biogen had listed in the Orange Book: 6,509,376, 7,320,999, 7,619,001, 7,803,840, 8,759,393, and 8,399,514. All patents except for the ‘514 expired during the litigation and were dismissed from the case.

Beginning in 2014, Pfizer was involved in patent litigation in the English courts concerning the validity of its Lyrica pain use patent. In 2015, the High Court of Justice in London ordered that the NHS England issue guidance for prescribers and pharmacists directing the prescription and dispensing of Lyrica by brand when pregabalin was prescribed for the treatment of neuropathic pain and entered a preliminary injunction against certain Sandoz group companies preventing the sale of Sandoz’s full label pregabalin product. Pfizer undertook to compensate certain generic companies and NHS entities for losses caused by these orders, which remained in effect until patent expiration in July 2017. In November 2018, the U.K. Supreme Court ruled that all the relevant claims directed to neuropathic pain were invalid.

Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories filed a claim for monetary damages, interest, and costs in May 2020, followed by the Scottish Ministers and fourteen Scottish Health Boards (together, NHS Scotland) in July 2020. In September 2020, Teva, Sandoz, Ranbaxy, Actavis, and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, together with 32 other NHS entities (together, NHS England, Wales, and Northern Ireland) filed their claims.

In June 2014, Pharmascience Inc. (“PMS”) commenced an action against Pfizer Canada Inc., Warner-Lambert Company and Warner-Lambert Company LLC (the Pfizer Canada Defendants) seeking damages in connection with an earlier unsuccessful patent litigation brought by the Pfizer Canada Defendants involving pregabalin. PMS claims lost profit damages from November 30, 2010, the date it received tentative regulatory approval for its pregabalin product, to February 13, 2013, the date Pfizer’s patent case against PMS was dismissed. A trial is scheduled for July 2021.