Legal Proceedings	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	Legal Proceedings Johnson & Johnson and certain of its subsidiaries are involved in various lawsuits and claims regarding product liability, intellectual property, commercial and other matters; governmental investigations; and other legal proceedings that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of their business. The Company records accruals for loss contingencies associated with these legal matters when it is probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. As of December 31, 2017, the Company has determined that the liabilities associated with certain litigation matters are probable and can be reasonably estimated. The Company has accrued for these matters and will continue to monitor each related legal issue and adjust accruals as might be warranted based on new information and further developments in accordance with ASC 450-20-25. For these and other litigation and regulatory matters discussed below for which a loss is probable or reasonably possible, the Company is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss beyond the amounts already accrued. Amounts accrued for legal contingencies often result from a complex series of judgments about future events and uncertainties that rely heavily on estimates and assumptions. The ability to make such estimates and judgments can be affected by various factors, including whether damages sought in the proceedings are unsubstantiated or indeterminate; scientific and legal discovery has not commenced or is not complete; proceedings are in early stages; matters present legal uncertainties; there are significant facts in dispute; or there are numerous parties involved. In the Company's opinion, based on its examination of these matters, its experience to date and discussions with counsel, the ultimate outcome of legal proceedings, net of liabilities accrued in the Company's balance sheet, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position. However, the resolution of, or increase in accruals for, one or more of these matters in any reporting period may have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations and cash flows for that period. PRODUCT LIABILITY Johnson & Johnson and certain of its subsidiaries are involved in numerous product liability claims and lawsuits involving multiple products. Claimants in these cases seek substantial compensatory and, where available, punitive damages. While the Company believes it has substantial defenses, it is not feasible to predict the ultimate outcome of litigation. The Company has established accruals for product liability claims and lawsuits in compliance with ASC 450-20 based on currently available information, which in some cases may be limited. The Company accrues an estimate of the legal defense costs needed to defend each matter when those costs are probable and can be reasonably estimated. For certain of these matters, the Company has accrued additional amounts such as estimated costs associated with settlements, damages and other losses. To the extent adverse verdicts have been rendered against the Company, the Company does not record an accrual until a loss is determined to be probable and can be reasonably estimated. Product liability accruals can represent projected product liability for thousands of claims around the world, each in different litigation environments and with different fact patterns. Changes to the accruals may be required in the future as additional information becomes available. The most significant of these cases include: the DePuy ASR™ XL Acetabular System and DePuy ASR™ Hip Resurfacing System; the PINNACLE^® Acetabular Cup System; pelvic meshes; RISPERDAL^®; XARELTO^®; body powders containing talc, primarily JOHNSONS^® Baby Powder; and INVOKANA^®. As of December 31, 2017, in the U.S. there were approximately 2,000 plaintiffs with direct claims in pending lawsuits regarding injuries allegedly due to the DePuy ASR™ XL Acetabular System and DePuy ASR™ Hip Resurfacing System, 10,000 with respect to the PINNACLE^® Acetabular Cup System, 53,600 with respect to pelvic meshes, 13,700 with respect to RISPERDAL^®, 22,900 with respect to XARELTO^®, 6,610 with respect to body powders containing talc; and 1,100 with respect to INVOKANA^®. In August 2010, DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. (DePuy) announced a worldwide voluntary recall of its ASR^™ XL Acetabular System and DePuy ASR^™ Hip Resurfacing System used in hip replacement surgery. Claims for personal injury have been made against DePuy and Johnson & Johnson. The number of pending lawsuits is expected to fluctuate as certain lawsuits are settled or dismissed and additional lawsuits are filed. Cases filed in federal courts in the United States have been organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Litigation has also been filed in countries outside of the United States, primarily in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Ireland, Germany and Italy. In November 2013, DePuy reached an agreement with a Court-appointed committee of lawyers representing ASR Hip System plaintiffs to establish a program to settle claims with eligible ASR Hip patients in the United States who had surgery to replace their ASR Hips, known as revision surgery, as of August 31, 2013. DePuy reached additional agreements in February 2015 and March 2017, which further extended the settlement program to include ASR Hip patients who had revision surgeries after August 31, 2013 and prior to February 15, 2017. This settlement program has resolved more than 10,000 claims, with more expected from the recent extension, therefore bringing to resolution significant ASR Hip litigation activity in the United States. However, lawsuits in the United States remain, and the settlement program does not address litigation outside of the United States. In Australia, a class action settlement was reached that resolved the claims of the majority of ASR Hip patients in that country. The Company continues to receive information with respect to potential additional costs associated with this recall on a worldwide basis. The Company has established accruals for the costs associated with the United States settlement program and DePuy ASR^™ Hip-related product liability litigation. Claims for personal injury have also been made against DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson relating to the PINNACLE^® Acetabular Cup System used in hip replacement surgery. The number of pending product liability lawsuits continues to increase, and the Company continues to receive information with respect to potential costs and the anticipated number of cases. Cases filed in federal courts in the United States have been organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Litigation has also been filed in some state courts and in countries outside of the United States, primarily in the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom, a trial is ongoing regarding common issues of liability and a decision is expected in the first half of 2018. The Company has established an accrual for defense costs in connection with product liability litigation associated with the PINNACLE^® Acetabular Cup System. Claims for personal injury have been made against Ethicon, Inc. (Ethicon) and Johnson & Johnson arising out of Ethicon's pelvic mesh devices used to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. The Company continues to receive information with respect to potential costs and additional cases. Cases filed in federal courts in the United States have been organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. The Company has settled or otherwise resolved a majority of the United States cases and the costs associated with these settlements are reflected in the Company's accruals. In addition, class actions and individual personal injury cases or claims have been commenced in various countries outside of the United States, including claims and cases in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Belgium, and class actions in Israel, Australia and Canada, seeking damages for alleged injury resulting from Ethicon's pelvic mesh devices. In Australia, a trial of class action issues is ongoing and a decision is expected in 2018. The Company has established accruals with respect to product liability litigation associated with Ethicon's pelvic mesh products. Claims for personal injury have been made against Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson arising out of the use of RISPERDAL^®, indicated for the treatment of schizophrenia, acute manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder and irritability associated with autism, and related compounds. Lawsuits have been primarily filed in state courts in Pennsylvania, California, and Missouri. Other actions are pending in various courts in the United States and Canada. Product liability lawsuits continue to be filed, and the Company continues to receive information with respect to potential costs and the anticipated number of cases. The Company has established an accrual with respect to product liability litigation associated with RISPERDAL^®. Claims for personal injury arising out of the use of XARELTO^®, an oral anticoagulant, have been made against Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (JPI); Johnson & Johnson; and JPI's collaboration partner for XARELTO^® Bayer AG and certain of its affiliates. The number of pending product liability lawsuits continues to increase, and the Company continues to receive information with respect to potential costs and the anticipated number of cases. Cases filed in federal courts in the United States have been organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. In addition, cases have been filed in state courts across the United States. Many of these cases have been consolidated into a state mass tort litigation in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and there are coordinated proceedings in Delaware, California and Missouri. Class action lawsuits also have been filed in Canada. The Company has established an accrual for defense costs in connection with product liability litigation associated with XARELTO^®. Claims for personal injury have been made against Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. and Johnson & Johnson arising out of the use of body powders containing talc, primarily JOHNSONS^® Baby Powder. The number of pending product liability lawsuits continues to increase, and the Company continues to receive information with respect to potential costs and the anticipated number of cases. Lawsuits have been primarily filed in state courts in Missouri, New Jersey and California. Cases filed in federal courts in the United States have been organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Company has established an accrual for defense costs in connection with product liability litigation associated with body powders containing talc. Claims for personal injury have been made against a number of Johnson & Johnson companies, including Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson, arising out of the use of INVOKANA^®, a prescription medication indicated to improve glycemic control in adults with Type 2 diabetes. The number of pending product liability lawsuits continues to increase, and the Company continues to receive information with respect to potential costs and the anticipated number of cases. Cases filed in federal courts in the United States have been organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Cases have also been filed in state courts in Pennsylvania, California and New Jersey. Class action lawsuits have been filed in Canada. The Company has established an accrual with respect to product liability litigation associated with INVOKANA^®. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Certain subsidiaries of Johnson & Johnson are subject, from time to time, to legal proceedings and claims related to patent, trademark and other intellectual property matters arising out of their businesses. Many of these matters involve challenges to the coverage and/or validity of the patents on various products and allegations that certain of the Company’s products infringe the patents of third parties. Although these subsidiaries believe that they have substantial defenses to these challenges and allegations with respect to all significant patents, there can be no assurance as to the outcome of these matters. A loss in any of these cases could adversely affect the ability of these subsidiaries to sell their products, result in loss of sales due to loss of market exclusivity, require the payment of past damages and future royalties, and may result in a non-cash impairment charge for any associated intangible asset. The most significant of these matters are described below. Medical Devices In June 2009, Rembrandt Vision Technologies, L.P. (Rembrandt) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. (JJVCI) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging that JJVCI's manufacture and sale of its ACUVUE^® ADVANCE and ACUVUE OASYS^® Hydrogel Contact Lenses infringed Rembrandt’s United States Patent No. 5,712,327 and seeking monetary relief. The case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, where a trial in May 2012 resulted in a verdict of non-infringement that was subsequently upheld on appeal. In July 2014, Rembrandt sought a new trial based on alleged new evidence, which the District Court denied. In April 2016, the Court of Appeals overturned that ruling and remanded the case to the District Court for a new trial. A new trial was held in August 2017, and the jury returned a verdict of non-infringement in favor of JJVCI. Rembrandt has appealed the verdict to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In March 2013, Medinol Ltd. (Medinol) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Cordis Corporation (Cordis) and Johnson & Johnson in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that Cordis’s sales of the CYPHER^™ and CYPHER SELECT^™ stents made in the United States since 2005 willfully infringed four of Medinol's patents directed to the geometry of articulated stents. Medinol is seeking damages and attorneys’ fees. After trial in January 2014, the District Court dismissed the case, finding Medinol unreasonably delayed bringing its claims (the laches defense). In September 2014, the District Court denied a motion by Medinol to vacate the judgment and grant it a new trial. Medinol appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, then dismissed the appeal in order to file a petition for review with the United States Supreme Court. In March 2017, the United States Supreme Court held that the laches defense is not available in patent cases and remanded this case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to consider Medinol's appeal of whether Medinol is entitled to seek a new trial. Cordis was divested in 2015, and the Company retained any liability that may result from this case. In November 2016, MedIdea, L.L.C. (MedIdea) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging infringement by the ATTUNE^® Knee System. MedIdea alleges infringement of United States Patent Nos. 6,558,426 (’426); 8,273,132; 8,721,730 and 9,492,280 relating to posterior stabilized knee systems. Specifically, MedIdea alleges that the SOFCAM^TM Contact feature of the ATTUNE^® posterior stabilized knee products infringes the patents-in-suit. MedIdea is seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. In June 2017, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. In December 2017, DePuy Synthes Products, Inc. filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, seeking to invalidate the ’426 patent. In December 2016, Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. and Ethicon Endo-Surgery, LLC (now known as Ethicon LLC) sued Covidien, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking a declaration that United States Patent Nos. 6,585,735 (the ’735 patent); 7,118,587; 7,473,253; 8,070,748 and 8,241,284 (the ’284 patent), are either invalid or not infringed by Ethicon’s ENSEAL^® X1 Large Jaw Tissue Sealer product. In April 2017, Covidien LP, Covidien Sales LLC, and Covidien AG (collectively, Covidien) answered and counterclaimed, denying the allegations, asserting willful infringement of the ’735 patent, the ’284 patent and United States Patent Nos. 8,323,310; 9,084,608; 9,241,759 and 9,113,882, and seeking damages and an injunction. Covidien filed a motion for preliminary injunction, which was denied in October 2017. Trial is scheduled for September, 2019. In November 2017, Board of Regents, The University of Texas System and Tissuegen, Inc. filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas against Ethicon, Inc. and Ethicon US, LLC alleging the manufacture and sale of VICRYL^® Plus Antibacterial Sutures and MONOCRYL^® Plus Antibacterial Sutures infringe plaintiffs’ United States Patent Nos. 6,596,296 and 7,033,603 directed to implantable polymer drug releasing biodegradable fibers containing a therapeutic agent. Pharmaceutical In April 2016, MorphoSys AG, a German biotech company, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Janssen Biotech, Inc. (JBI), Genmab U.S. Inc. and Genmab A/S (collectively, Genmab) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. MorphoSys alleges that JBI’s manufacture and sale of DARZALEX^® (daratumumab) willfully infringes MorphoSys’ United States Patent Nos. 8,263,746, 9,200,061 and 9,785,590. MorphoSys is seeking money damages. JBI licenses patents and the commercial rights to DARZALEX^® from Genmab. Trial in the case is scheduled to commence in February 2019. In August 2016, Sandoz Ltd and Hexal AG (collectively, Sandoz) filed a lawsuit in the English High Court against G.D. Searle LLC (a Pfizer company) and Janssen Sciences Ireland UC (JSI) alleging that Searle’s supplementary protection certificate SPC/GB07/038 (SPC), which is exclusively licensed to JSI, is invalid and should be revoked. Janssen-Cilag Limited sells PREZISTA^® (darunavir) in the United Kingdom pursuant to this license. In October 2016, Searle and JSI counterclaimed against Sandoz for threatened infringement of the SPC based on statements of its plans to launch generic darunavir in the United Kingdom. Sandoz admitted that its generic darunavir product would infringe the SPC if it is found valid. Searle and JSI are seeking an order enjoining Sandoz from marketing its generic darunavir before the expiration of the SPC. Following a trial in April 2017, the Court entered a decision holding that the SPC is valid and granting a final injunction. Sandoz has appealed the Court’s decision and the injunction will be stayed pending the appeal. In January 2018, the Court referred the issue on appeal to the Court of Justice for the European Union (CJEU) and stayed the proceedings pending the CJEU’s ruling on the issue. REMICADE^® Related Cases United States Proceedings In September 2013, Janssen Biotech, Inc. (JBI) and NYU Langone Medical Center (NYU) received an Office Action from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rejecting the claims in United States Patent No. 6,284,471 relating to REMICADE^® (infliximab) (the ’471 patent) in a reexamination proceeding instituted by a third party. The ’471 patent expires in September 2018 and is co-owned by JBI and NYU, with NYU having granted JBI an exclusive license to NYU’s rights under the patent. Following several office actions by the patent examiner, including two further rejections, and responses by JBI, the USPTO issued a further action maintaining its rejection of the ’471 patent. JBI filed a notice of appeal to the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board), which issued a decision in November 2016 upholding the examiner's rejection. In January 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's decision. In August 2014, Celltrion Healthcare Co. Ltd. and Celltrion Inc. (collectively, Celltrion) filed an application with the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval to make and sell its own infliximab biosimilar. In March 2015, JBI filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Celltrion and Hospira Healthcare Corporation (Hospira), which has exclusive marketing rights for Celltrion's infliximab biosimilar in the United States, seeking, among other things, a declaratory judgment that their biosimilar product infringes or potentially infringes several JBI patents, including the ’471 patent and United States Patent No. 7,598,083 (the ’083 patent). In August 2016, the District Court granted both Celltrion's and Hospira's motions for summary judgment of invalidity of the ’471 patent. JBI appealed those decisions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In January 2018, the Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal as moot based on its affirmance of the Board’s reexamination decision. In June 2016, JBI filed two additional patent infringement lawsuits asserting the ’083 patent, one against Celltrion and Hospira in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and the other against HyClone Laboratories, Inc., the manufacturer of the cell culture media that Celltrion uses to make its biosimilar product, in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. Although the ’083 patent is already asserted in the existing lawsuit against Celltrion, the additional lawsuit expands the claims to include the sale in the United States of Celltrion's biosimilar product manufactured with cell culture media made in the United States. This additional lawsuit against Celltrion has been consolidated with the existing lawsuit discussed above. Hospira has moved to dismiss all counts of the lawsuit related to the ’083 patent as to it. Celltrion's motion to dismiss all counts of the lawsuit related to the ’083 patent for failure to join all the co-owners of the '083 patent as plaintiffs was denied in October 2017. Trial is scheduled to begin in July 2018. The litigation against HyClone in Utah is stayed pending the outcome of the Massachusetts actions. The FDA approved Celltrion’s infliximab biosimilar for sale in the United States in April 2016. Hospira's parent company, Pfizer Inc., launched Celltrion's infliximab biosimilar in the United States in late 2016. In April 2017, JBI received notice that the FDA approved a marketing application submitted by Samsung Bioepis Co. Ltd. (Samsung) for the sale of its infliximab biosimilar in the United States. In May 2017, JBI filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that the sale of its biosimilar product may infringe three of JBI’s patents. In July 2017, Samsung launched its biosimilar product (commercialized by Merck) in the United States. In November 2017, JBI voluntarily dismissed this lawsuit. Litigation Against Filers of Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) The following summarizes lawsuits pending against generic companies that have filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) with the FDA, or undertaken similar regulatory processes outside of the United States, seeking to market generic forms of products sold by various subsidiaries of Johnson & Johnson prior to expiration of the applicable patents covering those products. These ANDAs typically include allegations of non-infringement, invalidity and unenforceability of the applicable patents. In the event the subsidiaries are not successful in these actions, or the statutory 30-month stays of the ANDAs expire before the United States District Court rulings are obtained, the third-party companies involved will have the ability, upon approval of the FDA, to introduce generic versions of the products at issue to the market, resulting in the potential for substantial market share and revenue losses for those products, and which may result in a non-cash impairment charge in any associated intangible asset. In addition, from time to time, subsidiaries may settle these actions and such settlements can involve the introduction of generic versions of the products at issue to the market prior to the expiration of the relevant patents. The inter partes review (IPR) process with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), created under the 2011 America Invents Act, is also being used by generic companies in conjunction with these ANDAs and lawsuits to challenge patents held by the Company’s subsidiaries. ZYTIGA^® In July 2015, Janssen Biotech, Inc., Janssen Oncology, Inc. and Janssen Research & Development, LLC (collectively, Janssen) and BTG International Ltd. (BTG) initiated a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against a number of generic companies (and certain of their affiliates and/or suppliers) who filed ANDAs seeking approval to market a generic version of ZYTIGA^® 250mg before the expiration of United States Patent No. 8,822,438 (the ’438 patent). The generic companies currently include Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC and Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC (collectively, Amneal); Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (collectively, Apotex); Citron Pharma LLC (Citron); Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. (collectively, Dr. Reddy’s); Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Mylan Inc. (collectively, Mylan); Par Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. (collectively, Par); Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries, Inc. (collectively, Sun); Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Teva); Wockhardt Bio A.G.; Wockhardt USA LLC and Wockhardt Ltd. (collectively, Wockhardt); West-Ward Pharmaceutical Corp. (West-Ward) and Hikma Pharmaceuticals, LLC (Hikma). In February 2018, the court heard oral arguments on a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement filed by certain defendants. The parties await a decision. If the decision is unfavorable, the stay could be lifted and a generic version of ZYTIGA^® could enter the market. Janssen and BTG also initiated patent infringement lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Amerigen Pharmaceuticals Limited (Amerigen) in May 2016, and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in June 2016, each of whom filed an ANDA seeking approval to market its generic version of ZYTIGA^® before the expiration of the ’438 patent. In August 2015, Janssen and BTG filed an additional jurisdictional protective lawsuit against the Mylan defendants in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, which has been stayed. In August 2017, Janssen and BTG initiated a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Teva, who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of ZYTIGA^® 500mg before the expiration of the ’438 patent. In January 2018, Janssen dismissed its lawsuit against Sun after it withdrew its ANDA. In each of the above lawsuits, Janssen is seeking an order enjoining the defendants from marketing their generic versions of ZYTIGA^® before the expiration of the ’438 patent. Several generic companies including Amerigen, Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC (Argentum), Mylan, Wockhardt, Actavis, Amneal, Dr. Reddy’s, Sun, Teva, West-Ward and Hikma filed Petitions for Inter Partes Review (IPR) with the USPTO, seeking to invalidate the ’438 patent. In January 2018, the USPTO issued decisions invalidating the '438 patent, and Janssen is appealing this decision. The IPR decisions are not binding on the district court in the pending litigation. In October 2017, Janssen Inc. and Janssen Oncology, Inc. (collectively, Janssen) initiated two Notices of Application under Section 6 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations against Teva Canada Limited (Teva) and the Minister of Health in Canada in response to Teva's filing Abbreviated New Drug Submissions (ANDS) and seeking approval to market generic versions of ZYTIGA^®250mg and ZYTIGA^®500mgbefore the expiration of Canadian Patent No. 2,661,422. In November 2017, Janssen initiated a Notice of Application under Section 6 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations against Apotex Inc. (Apotex) and the Minister of Health in Canada in response to Apotex’s filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Submission (ANDS) seeking approval to market a generic version of ZYTIGA^®before the expiration of Canadian Patent No. 2,661,422. In each of these Notices of Application, Janssen is seeking an order prohibiting the Minister of Health from issuing a Notice of Compliance with respect to Teva's and Apotex's ANDS before the expiration of Janssen's patent. COMPLERA^® In August and September 2015, Janssen Pharmaceutica NV and Janssen Sciences Ireland UC (collectively, Janssen) and Gilead Sciences, Inc. and Gilead Sciences Ireland UC (collectively, Gilead) initiated patent infringement lawsuits in the United States District Courts for the District of Delaware and the District of West Virginia, respectively, against Mylan, Inc. and Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, Mylan), who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of COMPLERA^® before the expiration of United States Patent Nos. 8,841,310, 7,125,879 and 8,101,629. In July 2017, the West Virginia lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice by stipulation of the parties. In the Delaware lawsuit, Janssen and Gilead amended their complaint to add claims for patent infringement with respect to United States Patent Nos. 8,080,551; 7,399,856; 7,563,922; 8,101,752 and 8,618,291. In November 2017, the parties entered into a settlement agreement. XARELTO^® Beginning in October 2015, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (JPI) and Bayer Pharma AG and Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH (collectively, Bayer) filed patent infringement lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against a number of generic companies who filed ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of XARELTO^® before expiration of Bayer’s United States Patent Nos. 7,157,456 , 7,585,860 and 7,592,339 relating to XARELTO^®. JPI is the exclusive sublicensee of the asserted patents. The following generic companies are named defendants: Aurobindo Pharma Limited and Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. (collectively, Aurobindo); Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc. (Breckenridge); InvaGen Pharmaceuticals Inc. (InvaGen); Micro Labs USA Inc. and Micro Labs Ltd (collectively, Micro); Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Mylan); Prinston Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Sigmapharm Laboratories, LLC (Sigmapharm); Torrent Pharmaceuticals, Limited and Torrent Pharma Inc. (collectively, Torrent). All defendants except Mylan and Sigmapharm have agreed to have their cases stayed and to be bound by the outcome of any final judgment rendered against any of the other defendants. Trial is scheduled for March 2018. Beginning in April 2017, JPI and Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH and Bayer AG (collectively, Bayer AG) filed patent infringement lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against a number of generic companies who filed ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of XARELTO^® before expiration of Bayer AG’s United States Patent No. 9,539,218 (’218) relating to XARELTO^®. The following generic companies are named defendants: Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited, Alembic Global Holding SA and Alembic Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Aurobindo; Breckenridge; InvaGen; Lupin Limited and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, Lupin); Micro; Mylan; Sigmapharm; Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. (collectively, Taro) and Torrent. Lupin has counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity of United States Patent No. 9,415,053, but Lupin dismissed its counterclaims after it was provided a covenant not to sue on that patent. Aurobindo, Taro, Torrent and Micro have agreed to have their cases stayed and to be bound by the outcome of any final judgment rendered against any of the other defendants. The ’218 cases have been consolidated for discovery and trial, and are currently set for trial in April 2019. In each of these lawsuits, JPI is seeking an order enjoining the defendants from marketing their generic versions of XARELTO^® before the expiration of the relevant patents. PREZISTA^® In September 2017, Janssen Sciences Ireland UC and Janssen Products, L.P. (collectively, Janssen) initiated a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. and Aurobindo Pharma USA Inc. (collectively, Aurobindo), who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of PREZISTA^®before the expiration of United States Patent Nos. 8,518,987; 7,700,645; 7,126,015; and 7,595,408. In January 2018, the parties entered into a settlement agreement. In November 2017, Janssen Inc. initiated Notices of Application under Section 6 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations against Apotex Inc. (Apotex) and the Minister of Health in Canada in response to Apotex’s filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Submission (ANDS) seeking approval to market a generic version of PREZISTA^®before the expiration of Canadian Patent Nos. 2,485,834 and 2,336,160, which is owned by the United States and the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois. Janssen is seeking an order prohibiting the Minister of Health from issuing a Notice of Compliance with respect to Apotex's ANDS before the expiration of the relevant patents. RISPERDAL CONSTA^® In November 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) instituted an Inter Partes Review filed by Luye Pharma Group Ltd., Luye Pharma (USA) Ltd., Sandong Luye Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and Nanjing Luye Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., seeking to invalidate United States Patent No. 6,667,061 relating to RISPERDAL CONSTA^®. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. markets RISPERDAL CONSTA^®pursuant to a license from Alkermes Pharma Ireland Ltd. In November 2017, the USPTO issued a decision upholding the validity of the patent. INVOKANA^®/INVOKAMET^® Beginning in July 2017, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Cilag GmbH International and Janssen Pharmaceutica NV (collectively, Janssen) and Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation (MTPC) filed patent infringement lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado and the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against a number of generic companies who filed ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of INVOKANA^® and/or INVOKAMET^®before expiration of MTPC’s United States Patent Nos. 7,943,582 and/or 8,513,202 relating to INVOKANA^® and INVOKAMET^®. Janssen is the exclusive licensee of the asserted patents. The following generic companies are named defendants: Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (Apotex); Aurobindo Pharma USA Inc. (Aurobindo); Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and MacLeods Pharma USA, Inc.; InvaGen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (InvaGen); Prinston Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd; Hetero USA, Inc., Hetero Labs Limited Unit-V and Hetero Labs Limited; MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. and MSN Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Laurus Labs Ltd.; Indoco Remedies Ltd.; Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. (Zydus); Sandoz, Inc. (Sandoz); Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; and Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Beginning in July 2017, Janssen and MTPC filed patent infringement lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against Sandoz and InvaGen, who filed ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of INVOKANA^® and/or INVOKAMET^®before expiration of MTPC’s United States Patent No. 7,943,788 (the '788 patent) relating to INVOKANA^® and INVOKAMET^®and against Zydus, who filed ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of INVOKANA^® and INVOKAMET^® before expiration of the '788 patent, MTPC's United States Patent No. 8,222,219 relating to INVOKANA^® and INVOKAMET^® and MTPC’s United States Patent No. 8,785,403 relating to INVOKAMET^®, and against Aurobindo, who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of INVOKANA^® before expiration of the ’788 patent and the ’219 patent relating to INVOKANA^®. Janssen is the exclusive licensee of the asserted patents. In October 2017, the Colorado lawsuits against Sandoz were dismissed. In December 2017, the Delaware lawsuits against Apotex and Teva were dismissed. In each of these lawsuits, Janssen and MTPC are seeking an order enjoining the defendants from marketing their generic versions of INVOKANA^®and/or INVOKAMET^® before the expiration of the relevant patents. VELETRI^® In July 2017, Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Actelion) initiated a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (collectively, Sun Pharmaceutical), who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of VELETRI^®before the expiration of United States Patent No. 8,598,227. Actelion is seeking an order enjoining Sun Pharmaceutical from marketing its generic version of VELETRI^®before the expiration of the patent. Trial is scheduled to commence in June 2019. OPSUMIT^® In January 2018, Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Actelion) initiated a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. (Zydus) and Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC (Amneal), who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of OPSUMIT^®before the expiration of United States Patent No. 7,094,781. In the lawsuit, Actelion is seeking an order enjoining Zydus and Amneal from marketing generic versions of OPSUMIT^® before the expiration of the patent. INVEGA SUSTENNA^® In January 2018, Janssen Pharmaceutica NV and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, Janssen) initiated a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Teva), who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of INVEGA SUSTENNA^® before the expiration of United States Patent No. 9,439,906. In the lawsuit, Janssen is seeking an order enjoining Teva from marketing a generic version of INVEGA SUSTENNA^® before the expiration of the patent. IMBRUVICA^® Beginning in January 2018, Pharmacyclics LLC (Pharmacyclics) and Janssen Biotech, Inc. (Janssen) filed patent infringement lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against a number of generic companies who filed ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of IMBRUVICA^®before expiration of Pharmacyclics’ United States Patent Nos. 8,008,309, 7,514,444, 8,697,711, 8,735,403, 8,957,079, 9,181,257, 8,754,091, 8,497,277, 8,925,015, 8,476,284, 8,754,090, 8,999,999, 9,125,889, 9,801,881, 9,801,883, 9,814,721, 9,795,604, 9,296,753, 9,540,382, 9,713,617 and/or 9,725,455 relating to IMBRUVICA^®. Janssen is the exclusive licensee of the asserted patents. The following generic companies are named defendants: Cipla Limited and Cipla USA Inc. (Cipla); Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, Fresenius Kabi USA, Inc., and Fresenius Kabi Oncology Limited (Fresenius Kabi); Sandoz Inc. and Lek Pharmaceuticals d.d. (Sandoz); Shilpa Medicare Limited (Shilpa); Sun Pharma Global FZE and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (Sun); Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (Teva); and Zydus Worldwide DMCC and Cadila Healthcare Limited (Zydus). In each of the lawsuits, Pharmacyclics and Janssen are seeking an order enjoining the defendants from marketing generic versions of IMBRUVICA^®before the expiration of the relevant patents. GOVERNMENT PROCEEDINGS Like other companies in the pharmaceutical and medical devices industries, Johnson & Johnson and certain of its subsidiaries are subject to extensive regulation by national, state and local government agencies in the United States and other countries in which they operate. As a result, interaction with government agencies is ongoing. The most significant litigation brought by, and investigations conducted by, government agencies are listed below. It is possible that criminal charges and substantial fines and/or civil penalties or damages could result from government investigations or litigation. Average Wholesale Price (AWP) Litigation Johnson & Johnson and several of its pharmaceutical subsidiaries (the J&J AWP Defendants), along with numerous other pharmaceutical companies, were named as defendants in a series of lawsuits in state and federal courts involving allegations that the pricing and marketing of certain pharmaceutical products amounted to fraudulent and otherwise actionable conduct because, among other things, the companies allegedly reported an inflated Average Wholesale Price (AWP) for the drugs at issue. Payors alleged that they used those AWPs in calculating provider reimbursement levels. The plaintiffs in these cases included three classes of private persons or entities that paid for any portion of the purchase of the drugs at issue based on AWP, and state government entities that made Medicaid payments for the drugs at issue based on AWP. Many of these cases, both federal actions and state actions removed to federal court, were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in a multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, where all claims against the J&J AWP Defendants were ultimately dismissed. The J&J AWP Defendants also prevailed in a case brought by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Other AWP cases have been resolved through court order or settlement. Two cases remain pending. In a case brought by Illinois, the parties are awaiting assignment of a trial date. In New Jersey, a putative class action based upon AWP allegations is pending against Centocor, Inc. and Ortho Biotech Inc. (both now Janssen Biotech, Inc.), Johnson & Johnson and ALZA Corporation. Opioids Litigation Beginning in 2014 and continuing to the present, Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (JPI), along with other pharmaceutical companies, have been named in numerous lawsuits brought by certain state and local governments related to the marketing of opioids, including DURAGESIC^®, NUCYNTA^® and NUCYNTA^® ER. To date, complaints against pharmaceutical companies, including Johnson & Johnson and JPI, have been filed in state court by the state Attorneys General in Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, Ohio and Oklahoma. Complaints against the manufacturers also have been filed in state or federal court by city, county and local government agencies in the following states: Arkansas; California; Connecticut; Florida; Georgia; Illinois; Kentucky; Louisiana; Mississippi; Missouri; Nevada; New Hampshire; New Jersey; New Mexico; New York; Ohio; Oklahoma; Oregon; Pennsylvania; Tennessee; Texas; Washington and West Virginia. These actions allege a variety of claims related to opioids marketing practices, including false advertising, unfair competition, public nuisance, consumer fraud violations, deceptive acts and practices, false claims and unjust enrichment. The suits generally seek penalties and/or injunctive and monetary relief. These cases are in early stages of litigation. In October 2017, Johnson & Johnson and JPI were both served with a motion to consolidate 66 pending matters into a federal Multi District Litigation in the Southern District of Ohio. In December 2017, the MDL was approved in the Northern District of Ohio and there are approximately 190 cases that have been transferred to the MDL. Johnson & Johnson, JPI and other pharmaceutical companies have also received subpoenas or requests for information related to opioids marketing practices from the following state Attorneys General: Alaska, Indiana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Tennessee and Washington. In September 2017, Johnson & Johnson and JPI were contacted by the Texas and Colorado Attorney General’s Offices on behalf of approximately 38 states regarding a multi-state Attorney General investigation. The multi-state coalition served Johnson & Johnson and JPI with subpoenas as part of the investigation. Johnson & Johnson and JPI have also received requests for information from the ranking minority member of the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs regarding the sales, marketing, and educational strategies related to the promotion of opioids use. Other In August 2012, DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., DePuy, Inc. (now DePuy Synthes, Inc.), and Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc. received an informal request from the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts and the Civil Division of the United States Department of Justice (the United States) for the production of materials relating to the DePuy ASR™ XL Hip device. In July 2014, the United States notified the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts that it had declined to intervene in a qui tam case filed pursuant to the False Claims Act against the companies. In February 2016, the District Court granted the companies’ motion to dismiss with prejudice, unsealed the qui tam complaint, and denied the qui tam relators’ request for leave to file a further amended complaint. The qui tam relators appealed the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. In July 2017, the First Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal in part, reversed in part, and affirmed the decision to deny the relators’ request to file a third amended complaint. The relators’ remaining claims are now pending before the District Court. Since October 2013, a group of State Attorneys General have issued Civil Investigative Demands relating to the development, sales and marketing of several of DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc.'s hip products. The states are seeking monetary and injunctive relief, and DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. has entered into a tolling agreement with the states. In July 2014, the Oregon Department of Justice, which was investigating these matters independently of the other states, announced a settlement of its ASR™ XL Hip device investigation with the State of Oregon. In October 2012, Johnson & Johnson was contacted by the California Attorney General's office regarding a multi-state Attorney General investigation of the marketing of surgical mesh products for hernia and urogynecological purposes by Johnson & Johnson's subsidiary, Ethicon, Inc. (Ethicon). Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon have since entered into a series of tolling agreements with the 47 states and the District of Columbia participating in the multi-state investigation and have responded to Civil Investigative Demands served by certain of the participating states. The states are seeking monetary and injunctive relief. In May 2016, California and Washington filed civil complaints against Johnson & Johnson, Ethicon Inc. and Ethicon US, LLC alleging violations of their consumer protection statutes. Similar complaints were filed against the companies by Kentucky in August 2016 and by Mississippi in October 2017. Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon have entered into a new tolling agreement with the remaining 43 states and the District of Columbia. In December 2012, Therakos, Inc. (Therakos), formerly a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson and part of the Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. (OCD) franchise, received a letter from the civil division of the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania informing Therakos that the United States Attorney's Office was investigating the sales and marketing of Uvadex^® (methoxsalen) and the Uvar Xts^® and Cellex^® Systems during the period 2000 to the present. The United States Attorney's Office requested that OCD and Johnson & Johnson preserve documents that could relate to the investigation. Therakos was subsequently acquired by an affiliate of Gores Capital Partners III, L.P. in January 2013, and OCD was divested in June 2014. Following the divestiture of OCD, Johnson & Johnson retains OCD’s portion of any liability that may result from the investigation for activity that occurred prior to the sale of Therakos. In March 2014 and March 2016, the United States Attorney’s Office requested that Johnson & Johnson produce certain documents, and Johnson & Johnson is cooperating with those requests. In June 2014, the Mississippi Attorney General filed a complaint in Chancery Court of The First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi against Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. (now Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.) (JJCI). The complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose alleged health risks associated with female consumers' use of talc contained in JOHNSON'S^® Baby Powder and JOHNSON'S^® Shower to Shower (a product no longer sold by JJCI) and seeks injunctive and monetary relief. The parties have agreed to adjourn the trial date and currently expect the trial to be re-scheduled to the fall of 2018. In March 2016, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (JPI) received a Civil Investigative Demand from the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York related to JPI’s contractual relationships with pharmacy benefit managers over the period from January 1, 2006 to the present with regard to certain of JPI's pharmaceutical products. The demand was issued in connection with an investigation under the False Claims Act. In January 2017, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (JPI) received a Civil Investigative Demand from the United States Department of Justice relating to allegations concerning the sales and marketing practices of OLYSIO^®. In December 2017, Johnson & Johnson and JPI were served with a whistleblower lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging the off-label promotion of OLYSIO^® and additional products, including NUCYNTA^®, XARELTO^®, LEVAQUIN^® and REMICADE^®. At this time, the federal and state governments have declined to intervene and the lawsuit, which is related to the Civil Investigative Demand, is being prosecuted by a former company employee. JPI filed a motion to dismiss in the United States District Court for the Central District of California in January 2018. In February 2017, Johnson & Johnson received a subpoena from the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts seeking the production of records pertaining to payments to any 501(c)(3) charitable organization that provides financial assistance to Medicare patients. Multiple pharmaceutical companies have publicly reported receipt of subpoenas and ongoing inquiries similar to this one and the one described below. Actelion Pharmaceuticals US, Inc. (Actelion US), received a subpoena in May 2016, with follow-up requests in June and December 2016, from the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts. The subpoena seeks the production of records pertaining to Actelion US’ payments to 501(c)(3) charitable organizations that provide financial assistance to Medicare patients. In March 2017, Janssen Biotech, Inc. received a Civil Investigative Demand from the United States Department of Justice regarding a False Claims Act investigation concerning management and advisory services provided to rheumatology and gastroenterology practices that purchased REMICADE^® or SIMPONI ARIA^®. In April and September 2017, Johnson & Johnson received subpoenas from the United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts seeking documents broadly relating to pharmaceutical copayment support programs for DARZALEX^®, OLYSIO^®, REMICADE^®, SIMPONI^®, STELARA^®and ZYTIGA^®. The subpoenas also seek documents relating to Average Manufacturer Price and Best Price reporting to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services related to those products, as well as rebate payments to state Medicaid agencies. In June 2017, Johnson & Johnson received a subpoena from the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts seeking information regarding practices pertaining to the sterilization of DePuy Synthes, Inc. spinal implants at three hospitals in Boston as well as interactions of Company employees with physicians at these hospitals. Johnson & Johnson is producing documents in response to this subpoena. From time to time, Johnson & Johnson has received requests from a variety of United States Congressional Committees to produce information relevant to ongoing congressional inquiries. It is the policy of Johnson & Johnson to cooperate with these inquiries by producing the requested information. GENERAL LITIGATION In June 2009, following the public announcement that Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. (OCD) had received a grand jury subpoena from the United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, in connection with an investigation that has since been closed, multiple class action complaints were filed against OCD by direct purchasers seeking damages for alleged price fixing. These cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as In re Blood Reagent Antitrust Litigation. Following the appeal and reversal of its initial grant of a motion for class certification, on remand, the District Court in October 2015 again granted a motion by the plaintiffs for class certification. In July 2017, the Court issued an opinion granting in part and denying in part OCD's motion for summary judgment. The Court granted summary judgment concerning allegations of price fixing in 2005 and 2008, and denied summary judgment concerning allegations of price fixing in 2001. Trial has been set for June 2018. OCD was divested in 2014 and Johnson & Johnson retained any liability that may result from these cases. In June 2011, DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. (DePuy) filed suit against Orthopaedic Hospital (OH) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana seeking a declaratory judgment that DePuy did not owe OH royalties under a 1999 development agreement. In January 2012, OH filed a breach of contract case in California federal court, which was later consolidated with the Indiana case. In February 2014, OH brought suit for patent infringement relating to the same technology, and that action was also consolidated with the Indiana case. In August 2017, the court denied DePuy’s motions for summary judgment. A trial date has not been set. In September 2011, Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Inc. and McNeil Consumer Healthcare Division of Johnson & Johnson Inc. received a Notice of Civil Claim filed by Nick Field in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada (the BC Civil Claim). The BC Civil Claim is a putative class action brought on behalf of persons who reside in British Columbia and who purchased during the period between September 20, 2001 and in or about December 2010 one or more various McNeil infants' or children's over-the-counter medicines that were manufactured at the Fort Washington, Pennsylvania facility. The BC Civil Claim alleges that the defendants violated the BC Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, and other Canadian statutes and common laws, by selling medicines that were allegedly not safe and/or effective or did not comply with Canadian Good Manufacturing Practices. The class certification hearing scheduled for October 2015 was adjourned, and the Court entered a Consent Order of Dismissal in November 2017 concluding this action. In addition, in April 2016, a putative class action was filed against Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Sales and Logistics Company, LLC and McNeil PPC, Inc. (now known as Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc.) in New Jersey Superior Court, Camden County on behalf of persons who reside in the state of New Jersey who purchased various McNeil over-the-counter products from December 2008 through the present. The complaint alleges violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. Following the grant of a motion to dismiss and the filing of an amended complaint, in May 2017, the Court denied a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Discovery is underway. In May 2014, two purported class actions were filed in federal court, one in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and one in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, against Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. (now Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.) (JJCI) alleging violations of state consumer fraud statutes based on nondisclosure of alleged health risks associated with talc contained in JOHNSON'S^®Baby Powder and JOHNSON'S^® Shower to Shower (a product no longer sold by JJCI). Both cases seek injunctive relief and monetary damages; neither includes a claim for personal injuries. In October 2016, both cases were transferred to the United States District Court for the District Court of New Jersey as part of a newly created federal multi-district litigation. In July 2017, the Court granted Johnson & Johnson's and JJCI’s motion to dismiss one of the cases. The plaintiff has appealed. In September 2017, the plaintiff in the second case voluntarily dismissed their complaint. In August 2014, United States Customs and Border Protection (US CBP) issued a Penalty Notice against Janssen Ortho LLC (Janssen Ortho), assessing penalties for the alleged improper classification of darunavir ethanolate (the active pharmaceutical ingredient in PREZISTA^®) in connection with its importation into the United States. In October 2014, Janssen Ortho submitted a Petition for Relief in response to the Penalty Notice. In May 2015, US CBP issued an Amended Penalty Notice assessing substantial penalties and Janssen Ortho filed a Petition for Relief in July 2015. In March and April 2015, over 30 putative class action complaints were filed by contact lens patients in a number of courts around the United States against Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. (JJVCI) and other contact lens manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, alleging vertical and horizontal conspiracies to fix the retail prices of contact lenses. The complaints allege that the manufacturers reached agreements with each other and certain distributors and retailers concerning the prices at which some contact lenses could be sold to consumers. The plaintiffs are seeking damages and injunctive relief. All of the class action cases were transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida in June 2015. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint in November 2015. In June 2016, the Court denied motions to dismiss filed by JJVCI and other defendants. Discovery is ongoing. In March 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. In August 2015, two third-party payors filed a purported class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Janssen Ortho LLC, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson (as well as certain Bayer entities), alleging that the defendants improperly marketed and promoted XARELTO^® as safer and more effective than less expensive alternative medications while failing to fully disclose its risks. The complaint seeks damages. In May 2017, a purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against Lifescan Inc., Johnson & Johnson, other diabetes test strip manufacturers and certain Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs). The complaint alleges that consumers paid inflated prices for glucose monitor test strips as a consequence of undisclosed rebates and other incentives paid by manufacturers to PBMs. The complaint includes RICO, ERISA, and state consumer protection claims. The complaint seeks equitable relief and damages. In November 2017, the case was ordered transferred to United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. In May 2017, Lonza Sales AG (Lonza) filed a Request for Arbitration with the London Court of International Arbitration against Janssen Research & Development, LLC (Janssen). Lonza alleges that Janssen breached a 2005 agreement between the parties by sublicensing certain Lonza technology used in the manufacture of daratumumab without Lonza’s consent. Lonza seeks monetary damages. In September 2017, Strategic Products Group, Inc. (SPG) filed an antitrust complaint against Lifescan, Inc. and Lifescan Scotland, Ltd. (collectively, Lifescan) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola Division). SPG, the exclusive distributor of Unistrip blood glucose meter test strips, alleges that Lifescan has monopolized or is attempting to monopolize the market for blood glucose meter test strips compatible with certain Lifescan meters. The complaint seeks damages. In September 2017, Pfizer, Inc. (Pfizer) filed an antitrust complaint against Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Biotech, Inc. (collectively Janssen) in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Pfizer alleges that Janssen has violated federal antitrust laws through its contracting strategies for REMICADE^®. The complaint seeks damages and injunctive relief. In November 2017, Janssen moved to dismiss the complaint. Beginning in September 2017, multiple purported class actions were filed against Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Biotech, Inc. (collectively Janssen) alleging that Janssen’s REMICADE^® contracting strategies violated federal and state antitrust and consumer laws and seeking damages and injunctive relief. In November 2017, the cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as In re Remicade Antitrust Litigation. In October 2017, certain United States service members and their families brought a complaint against a number of pharmaceutical and medical devices companies, including Johnson & Johnson and certain of its subsidiaries, alleging that the defendants violated the United States Anti-Terrorism Act. The complaint alleges that the defendants provided funding for terrorist organizations through their sales practices pursuant to pharmaceutical and medical device contracts with the Iraqi Ministry of Health. Andover Healthcare, Inc. filed a Lanham act case against Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. in April 2017 in the United Stated District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Andover asserts that the claim “not made with natural rubber latex” on COACH^® Sports Wrap, BAND-AID^® Brand SECURE-FLEX^® Wrap and BAND-AID^® Brand HURT-FREE^® Wrap is false. Andover seeks actual damages and pre-judgment interest thereon, disgorgement of profits, treble damages, attorney’s fees and injunctive relief. The Court denied a motion to dismiss, an answer was filed and discovery is underway. In February 2018, a securities class action lawsuit was filed against Johnson & Johnson in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that Johnson & Johnson violated the federal Securities laws by failing to adequately disclose the alleged asbestos contamination in body powders containing talc, primarily JOHNSONS^® Baby Powder. The lawsuit was assigned to the District Court Judge managing the personal injury multi-district litigation. Johnson & Johnson or its subsidiaries are also parties to a number of proceedings brought under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, commonly known as Superfund, and comparable state, local or foreign laws in which the primary relief sought is the cost of past and/or future remediation.

Legal Proceedings

Johnson & Johnson and certain of its subsidiaries are involved in various lawsuits and claims regarding product liability, intellectual property, commercial and other matters; governmental investigations; and other legal proceedings that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of their business.

The Company records accruals for loss contingencies associated with these legal matters when it is probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. As of December 31, 2017, the Company has determined that the liabilities associated with certain litigation matters are probable and can be reasonably estimated. The Company has accrued for these matters and will continue to monitor each related legal issue and adjust accruals as might be warranted based on new information and further developments in accordance with ASC 450-20-25. For these and other litigation and regulatory matters discussed below for which a loss is probable or reasonably possible, the Company is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss beyond the amounts already accrued. Amounts accrued for legal contingencies often result from a complex series of judgments about future events and uncertainties that rely heavily on estimates and assumptions. The ability to make such estimates and judgments can be affected by various factors, including whether damages sought in the proceedings are unsubstantiated or indeterminate; scientific and legal discovery has not commenced or is not complete; proceedings are in early stages; matters present legal uncertainties; there are significant facts in dispute; or there are numerous parties involved.

In the Company's opinion, based on its examination of these matters, its experience to date and discussions with counsel, the ultimate outcome of legal proceedings, net of liabilities accrued in the Company's balance sheet, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position. However, the resolution of, or increase in accruals for, one or more of these matters in any reporting period may have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations and cash flows for that period.

PRODUCT LIABILITY

Johnson & Johnson and certain of its subsidiaries are involved in numerous product liability claims and lawsuits involving multiple products. Claimants in these cases seek substantial compensatory and, where available, punitive damages. While the Company believes it has substantial defenses, it is not feasible to predict the ultimate outcome of litigation. The Company has established accruals for product liability claims and lawsuits in compliance with ASC 450-20 based on currently available information, which in some cases may be limited. The Company accrues an estimate of the legal defense costs needed to defend each matter when those costs are probable and can be reasonably estimated. For certain of these matters, the Company has accrued additional amounts such as estimated costs associated with settlements, damages and other losses. To the extent adverse verdicts have been rendered against the Company, the Company does not record an accrual until a loss is determined to be probable and can be reasonably estimated. Product liability accruals can represent projected product liability for thousands of claims around the world, each in different litigation environments and with different fact patterns. Changes to the accruals may be required in the future as additional information becomes available.

The most significant of these cases include: the DePuy ASR™ XL Acetabular System and DePuy ASR™ Hip Resurfacing System; the PINNACLE^® Acetabular Cup System; pelvic meshes; RISPERDAL^®; XARELTO^®; body powders containing talc, primarily JOHNSONS^® Baby Powder; and INVOKANA^®. As of December 31, 2017, in the U.S. there were approximately 2,000 plaintiffs with direct claims in pending lawsuits regarding injuries allegedly due to the DePuy ASR™ XL Acetabular System and DePuy ASR™ Hip Resurfacing System, 10,000 with respect to the PINNACLE^® Acetabular Cup System, 53,600 with respect to pelvic meshes, 13,700 with respect to RISPERDAL^®, 22,900 with respect to XARELTO^®, 6,610 with respect to body powders containing talc; and 1,100 with respect to INVOKANA^®.

In August 2010, DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. (DePuy) announced a worldwide voluntary recall of its ASR^™ XL Acetabular System and DePuy ASR^™ Hip Resurfacing System used in hip replacement surgery. Claims for personal injury have been made against DePuy and Johnson & Johnson. The number of pending lawsuits is expected to fluctuate as certain lawsuits are settled or dismissed and additional lawsuits are filed. Cases filed in federal courts in the United States have been organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Litigation has also been filed in countries outside of the United States, primarily in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Ireland, Germany and Italy. In November 2013, DePuy reached an agreement with a Court-appointed committee of lawyers representing ASR Hip System plaintiffs to establish a program to settle claims with eligible ASR Hip patients in the United States who had surgery to replace their ASR Hips, known as revision surgery, as of August 31, 2013. DePuy reached additional agreements in February 2015 and March 2017, which further extended the settlement program to include ASR Hip patients who had revision surgeries after August 31, 2013 and prior to February 15, 2017. This settlement program has resolved more than 10,000 claims, with more expected from the recent extension, therefore bringing to resolution significant ASR Hip litigation activity in the United States. However, lawsuits in the United States remain, and the settlement program does not address litigation outside of the United States. In Australia, a class action settlement was reached that resolved the claims of the majority of ASR Hip patients in that country. The Company continues to receive information with respect to potential additional costs associated with this recall on a worldwide basis. The Company has established accruals for the costs associated with the United States settlement program and DePuy ASR^™ Hip-related product liability litigation.

Claims for personal injury have also been made against DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson relating to the PINNACLE^® Acetabular Cup System used in hip replacement surgery. The number of pending product liability lawsuits continues to increase, and the Company continues to receive information with respect to potential costs and the anticipated number of cases. Cases filed in federal courts in the United States have been organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Litigation has also been filed in some state courts and in countries outside of the United States, primarily in the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom, a trial is ongoing regarding common issues of liability and a decision is expected in the first half of 2018. The Company has established an accrual for defense costs in connection with product liability litigation associated with the PINNACLE^® Acetabular Cup System.

Claims for personal injury have been made against Ethicon, Inc. (Ethicon) and Johnson & Johnson arising out of Ethicon's pelvic mesh devices used to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. The Company continues to receive information with respect to potential costs and additional cases. Cases filed in federal courts in the United States have been organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. The Company has settled or otherwise resolved a majority of the United States cases and the costs associated with these settlements are reflected in the Company's accruals. In addition, class actions and individual personal injury cases or claims have been commenced in various countries outside of the United States, including claims and cases in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Belgium, and class actions in Israel, Australia and Canada, seeking damages for alleged injury resulting from Ethicon's pelvic mesh devices. In Australia, a trial of class action issues is ongoing and a decision is expected in 2018. The Company has established accruals with respect to product liability litigation associated with Ethicon's pelvic mesh products.

Claims for personal injury have been made against Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson arising out of the use of RISPERDAL^®, indicated for the treatment of schizophrenia, acute manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder and irritability associated with autism, and related compounds. Lawsuits have been primarily filed in state courts in Pennsylvania, California, and Missouri. Other actions are pending in various courts in the United States and Canada. Product liability lawsuits continue to be filed, and the Company continues to receive information with respect to potential costs and the anticipated number of cases. The Company has established an accrual with respect to product liability litigation associated with RISPERDAL^®.

Claims for personal injury arising out of the use of XARELTO^®, an oral anticoagulant, have been made against Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (JPI); Johnson & Johnson; and JPI's collaboration partner for XARELTO^® Bayer AG and certain of its affiliates. The number of pending product liability lawsuits continues to increase, and the Company continues to receive information with respect to potential costs and the anticipated number of cases. Cases filed in federal courts in the United States have been organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. In addition, cases have been filed in state courts across the United States. Many of these cases have been consolidated into a state mass tort litigation in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and there are coordinated proceedings in Delaware, California and Missouri. Class action lawsuits also have been filed in Canada. The Company has established an accrual for defense costs in connection with product liability litigation associated with XARELTO^®.

Claims for personal injury have been made against Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. and Johnson & Johnson arising out of the use of body powders containing talc, primarily JOHNSONS^® Baby Powder. The number of pending product liability lawsuits continues to increase, and the Company continues to receive information with respect to potential costs and the anticipated number of cases. Lawsuits have been primarily filed in state courts in Missouri, New Jersey and California. Cases filed in federal courts in the United States have been organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Company has established an accrual for defense costs in connection with product liability litigation associated with body powders containing talc.

Claims for personal injury have been made against a number of Johnson & Johnson companies, including Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson, arising out of the use of INVOKANA^®, a prescription medication indicated to improve glycemic control in adults with Type 2 diabetes. The number of pending product liability lawsuits continues to increase, and the Company continues to receive information with respect to potential costs and the anticipated number of cases. Cases filed in federal courts in the United States have been organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Cases have also been filed in state courts in Pennsylvania, California and New Jersey. Class action lawsuits have been filed in Canada. The Company has established an accrual with respect to product liability litigation associated with INVOKANA^®.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Certain subsidiaries of Johnson & Johnson are subject, from time to time, to legal proceedings and claims related to patent, trademark and other intellectual property matters arising out of their businesses. Many of these matters involve challenges to the coverage and/or validity of the patents on various products and allegations that certain of the Company’s products infringe the patents of third parties. Although these subsidiaries believe that they have substantial defenses to these challenges and allegations with respect to all significant patents, there can be no assurance as to the outcome of these matters. A loss in any of these cases could adversely affect the ability of these subsidiaries to sell their products, result in loss of sales due to loss of market exclusivity, require the payment of past damages and future royalties, and may result in a non-cash impairment charge for any associated intangible asset. The most significant of these matters are described below.

Medical Devices

In June 2009, Rembrandt Vision Technologies, L.P. (Rembrandt) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. (JJVCI) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging that JJVCI's manufacture and sale of its ACUVUE^® ADVANCE and ACUVUE OASYS^® Hydrogel Contact Lenses infringed Rembrandt’s United States Patent No. 5,712,327 and seeking monetary relief. The case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, where a trial in May 2012 resulted in a verdict of non-infringement that was subsequently upheld on appeal. In July 2014, Rembrandt sought a new trial based on alleged new evidence, which the District Court denied. In April 2016, the Court of Appeals overturned that ruling and remanded the case to the District Court for a new trial. A new trial was held in August 2017, and the jury returned a verdict of non-infringement in favor of JJVCI. Rembrandt has appealed the verdict to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

In March 2013, Medinol Ltd. (Medinol) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Cordis Corporation (Cordis) and Johnson & Johnson in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that Cordis’s sales of the CYPHER^™ and CYPHER SELECT^™ stents made in the United States since 2005 willfully infringed four of Medinol's patents directed to the geometry of articulated stents. Medinol is seeking damages and attorneys’ fees. After trial in January 2014, the District Court dismissed the case, finding Medinol unreasonably delayed bringing its claims (the laches defense). In September 2014, the District Court denied a motion by Medinol to vacate the judgment and grant it a new trial. Medinol appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, then dismissed the appeal in order to file a petition for review with the United States Supreme Court. In March 2017, the United States Supreme Court held that the laches defense is not available in patent cases and remanded this case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to consider Medinol's appeal of whether Medinol is entitled to seek a new trial. Cordis was divested in 2015, and the Company retained any liability that may result from this case.

In November 2016, MedIdea, L.L.C. (MedIdea) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging infringement by the ATTUNE^® Knee System. MedIdea alleges infringement of United States Patent Nos. 6,558,426 (’426); 8,273,132; 8,721,730 and 9,492,280 relating to posterior stabilized knee systems. Specifically, MedIdea alleges that the SOFCAM^TM Contact feature of the ATTUNE^® posterior stabilized knee products infringes the patents-in-suit. MedIdea is seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. In June 2017, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. In December 2017, DePuy Synthes Products, Inc. filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, seeking to invalidate the ’426 patent.

In December 2016, Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. and Ethicon Endo-Surgery, LLC (now known as Ethicon LLC) sued Covidien, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking a declaration that United States Patent Nos. 6,585,735 (the ’735 patent); 7,118,587; 7,473,253; 8,070,748 and 8,241,284 (the ’284 patent), are either invalid or not infringed by Ethicon’s ENSEAL^® X1 Large Jaw Tissue Sealer product. In April 2017, Covidien LP, Covidien Sales LLC, and Covidien AG (collectively, Covidien) answered and counterclaimed, denying the allegations, asserting willful infringement of the ’735 patent, the ’284 patent and United States Patent Nos. 8,323,310; 9,084,608; 9,241,759 and 9,113,882, and seeking damages and an injunction. Covidien filed a motion for preliminary injunction, which was denied in October 2017. Trial is scheduled for September, 2019.

In November 2017, Board of Regents, The University of Texas System and Tissuegen, Inc. filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas against Ethicon, Inc. and Ethicon US, LLC alleging the manufacture and sale of VICRYL^® Plus Antibacterial Sutures and MONOCRYL^® Plus Antibacterial Sutures infringe plaintiffs’ United States Patent Nos. 6,596,296 and 7,033,603 directed to implantable polymer drug releasing biodegradable fibers containing a therapeutic agent.

Pharmaceutical

In April 2016, MorphoSys AG, a German biotech company, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Janssen Biotech, Inc. (JBI), Genmab U.S. Inc. and Genmab A/S (collectively, Genmab) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. MorphoSys alleges that JBI’s manufacture and sale of DARZALEX^® (daratumumab) willfully infringes MorphoSys’ United States Patent Nos. 8,263,746, 9,200,061 and 9,785,590. MorphoSys is seeking money damages. JBI licenses patents and the commercial rights to DARZALEX^® from Genmab. Trial in the case is scheduled to commence in February 2019.

In August 2016, Sandoz Ltd and Hexal AG (collectively, Sandoz) filed a lawsuit in the English High Court against G.D. Searle LLC (a Pfizer company) and Janssen Sciences Ireland UC (JSI) alleging that Searle’s supplementary protection certificate SPC/GB07/038 (SPC), which is exclusively licensed to JSI, is invalid and should be revoked. Janssen-Cilag Limited sells PREZISTA^® (darunavir) in the United Kingdom pursuant to this license. In October 2016, Searle and JSI counterclaimed against Sandoz for threatened infringement of the SPC based on statements of its plans to launch generic darunavir in the United Kingdom. Sandoz admitted that its generic darunavir product would infringe the SPC if it is found valid. Searle and JSI are seeking an order enjoining Sandoz from marketing its generic darunavir before the expiration of the SPC. Following a trial in April 2017, the Court entered a decision holding that the SPC is valid and granting a final injunction. Sandoz has appealed the Court’s decision and the injunction will be stayed pending the appeal. In January 2018, the Court referred the issue on appeal to the Court of Justice for the European Union (CJEU) and stayed the proceedings pending the CJEU’s ruling on the issue.

REMICADE^® Related Cases

United States Proceedings

In September 2013, Janssen Biotech, Inc. (JBI) and NYU Langone Medical Center (NYU) received an Office Action from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rejecting the claims in United States Patent No. 6,284,471 relating to REMICADE^® (infliximab) (the ’471 patent) in a reexamination proceeding instituted by a third party. The ’471 patent expires in September 2018 and is co-owned by JBI and NYU, with NYU having granted JBI an exclusive license to NYU’s rights under the patent. Following several office actions by the patent examiner, including two further rejections, and responses by JBI, the USPTO issued a further action maintaining its rejection of the ’471 patent. JBI filed a notice of appeal to the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board), which issued a decision in November 2016 upholding the examiner's rejection. In January 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's decision.

In August 2014, Celltrion Healthcare Co. Ltd. and Celltrion Inc. (collectively, Celltrion) filed an application with the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval to make and sell its own infliximab biosimilar. In March 2015, JBI filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Celltrion and Hospira Healthcare Corporation (Hospira), which has exclusive marketing rights for Celltrion's infliximab biosimilar in the United States, seeking, among other things, a declaratory judgment that their biosimilar product infringes or potentially infringes several JBI patents, including the ’471 patent and United States Patent No. 7,598,083 (the ’083 patent). In August 2016, the District Court granted both Celltrion's and Hospira's motions for summary judgment of invalidity of the ’471 patent. JBI appealed those decisions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In January 2018, the Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal as moot based on its affirmance of the Board’s reexamination decision.

In June 2016, JBI filed two additional patent infringement lawsuits asserting the ’083 patent, one against Celltrion and Hospira in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and the other against HyClone Laboratories, Inc., the manufacturer of the cell culture media that Celltrion uses to make its biosimilar product, in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. Although the ’083 patent is already asserted in the existing lawsuit against Celltrion, the additional lawsuit expands the claims to include the sale in the United States of Celltrion's biosimilar product manufactured with cell culture media made in the United States. This additional lawsuit against Celltrion has been consolidated with the existing lawsuit discussed above. Hospira has moved to dismiss all counts of the lawsuit related to the ’083 patent as to it. Celltrion's motion to dismiss all counts of the lawsuit related to the ’083 patent for failure to join all the co-owners of the '083 patent as plaintiffs was denied in October 2017. Trial is scheduled to begin in July 2018. The litigation against HyClone in Utah is stayed pending the outcome of the Massachusetts actions.

The FDA approved Celltrion’s infliximab biosimilar for sale in the United States in April 2016. Hospira's parent company, Pfizer Inc., launched Celltrion's infliximab biosimilar in the United States in late 2016.

In April 2017, JBI received notice that the FDA approved a marketing application submitted by Samsung Bioepis Co. Ltd. (Samsung) for the sale of its infliximab biosimilar in the United States. In May 2017, JBI filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that the sale of its biosimilar product may infringe three of JBI’s patents. In July 2017, Samsung launched its biosimilar product (commercialized by Merck) in the United States. In November 2017, JBI voluntarily dismissed this lawsuit.

Litigation Against Filers of Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs)

The following summarizes lawsuits pending against generic companies that have filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) with the FDA, or undertaken similar regulatory processes outside of the United States, seeking to market generic forms of products sold by various subsidiaries of Johnson & Johnson prior to expiration of the applicable patents covering those products. These ANDAs typically include allegations of non-infringement, invalidity and unenforceability of the applicable patents. In the event the subsidiaries are not successful in these actions, or the statutory 30-month stays of the ANDAs expire before the United States District Court rulings are obtained, the third-party companies involved will have the ability, upon approval of the FDA, to introduce generic versions of the products at issue to the market, resulting in the potential for substantial market share and revenue losses for those products, and which may result in a non-cash impairment charge in any associated intangible asset. In addition, from time to time, subsidiaries may settle these actions and such settlements can involve the introduction of generic versions of the products at issue to the market prior to the expiration of the relevant patents. The inter partes review (IPR) process with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), created under the 2011 America Invents Act, is also being used by generic companies in conjunction with these ANDAs and lawsuits to challenge patents held by the Company’s subsidiaries.

ZYTIGA^®

In July 2015, Janssen Biotech, Inc., Janssen Oncology, Inc. and Janssen Research & Development, LLC (collectively, Janssen) and BTG International Ltd. (BTG) initiated a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against a number of generic companies (and certain of their affiliates and/or suppliers) who filed ANDAs seeking approval to market a generic version of ZYTIGA^® 250mg before the expiration of United States Patent No. 8,822,438 (the ’438 patent). The generic companies currently include Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC and Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC (collectively, Amneal); Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (collectively, Apotex); Citron Pharma LLC (Citron); Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. (collectively, Dr. Reddy’s); Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Mylan Inc. (collectively, Mylan); Par Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. (collectively, Par); Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries, Inc. (collectively, Sun); Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Teva); Wockhardt Bio A.G.; Wockhardt USA LLC and Wockhardt Ltd. (collectively, Wockhardt); West-Ward Pharmaceutical Corp. (West-Ward) and Hikma Pharmaceuticals, LLC (Hikma). In February 2018, the court heard oral arguments on a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement filed by certain defendants. The parties await a decision. If the decision is unfavorable, the stay could be lifted and a generic version of ZYTIGA^® could enter the market.

Janssen and BTG also initiated patent infringement lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Amerigen Pharmaceuticals Limited (Amerigen) in May 2016, and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in June 2016, each of whom filed an ANDA seeking approval to market its generic version of ZYTIGA^® before the expiration of the ’438 patent.

In August 2015, Janssen and BTG filed an additional jurisdictional protective lawsuit against the Mylan defendants in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, which has been stayed.

In August 2017, Janssen and BTG initiated a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Teva, who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of ZYTIGA^® 500mg before the expiration of the ’438 patent.

In January 2018, Janssen dismissed its lawsuit against Sun after it withdrew its ANDA.

In each of the above lawsuits, Janssen is seeking an order enjoining the defendants from marketing their generic versions of ZYTIGA^® before the expiration of the ’438 patent.

Several generic companies including Amerigen, Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC (Argentum), Mylan, Wockhardt, Actavis, Amneal, Dr. Reddy’s, Sun, Teva, West-Ward and Hikma filed Petitions for Inter Partes Review (IPR) with the USPTO, seeking to invalidate the ’438 patent. In January 2018, the USPTO issued decisions invalidating the '438 patent, and Janssen is appealing this decision. The IPR decisions are not binding on the district court in the pending litigation.

In October 2017, Janssen Inc. and Janssen Oncology, Inc. (collectively, Janssen) initiated two Notices of Application under Section 6 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations against Teva Canada Limited (Teva) and the Minister of Health in Canada in response to Teva's filing Abbreviated New Drug Submissions (ANDS) and seeking approval to market generic versions of ZYTIGA^®250mg and ZYTIGA^®500mgbefore the expiration of Canadian Patent No. 2,661,422.

In November 2017, Janssen initiated a Notice of Application under Section 6 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations against Apotex Inc. (Apotex) and the Minister of Health in Canada in response to Apotex’s filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Submission (ANDS) seeking approval to market a generic version of ZYTIGA^®before the expiration of Canadian Patent No. 2,661,422.

In each of these Notices of Application, Janssen is seeking an order prohibiting the Minister of Health from issuing a Notice of Compliance with respect to Teva's and Apotex's ANDS before the expiration of Janssen's patent.

COMPLERA^®

In August and September 2015, Janssen Pharmaceutica NV and Janssen Sciences Ireland UC (collectively, Janssen) and Gilead Sciences, Inc. and Gilead Sciences Ireland UC (collectively, Gilead) initiated patent infringement lawsuits in the United States District Courts for the District of Delaware and the District of West Virginia, respectively, against Mylan, Inc. and Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, Mylan), who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of COMPLERA^® before the expiration of United States Patent Nos. 8,841,310, 7,125,879 and 8,101,629. In July 2017, the West Virginia lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice by stipulation of the parties.

In the Delaware lawsuit, Janssen and Gilead amended their complaint to add claims for patent infringement with respect to United States Patent Nos. 8,080,551; 7,399,856; 7,563,922; 8,101,752 and 8,618,291. In November 2017, the parties entered into a settlement agreement.

XARELTO^®

Beginning in October 2015, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (JPI) and Bayer Pharma AG and Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH (collectively, Bayer) filed patent infringement lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against a number of generic companies who filed ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of XARELTO^® before expiration of Bayer’s United States Patent Nos. 7,157,456 , 7,585,860 and 7,592,339 relating to XARELTO^®. JPI is the exclusive sublicensee of the asserted patents. The following generic companies are named defendants: Aurobindo Pharma Limited and Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. (collectively, Aurobindo); Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc. (Breckenridge); InvaGen Pharmaceuticals Inc. (InvaGen); Micro Labs USA Inc. and Micro Labs Ltd (collectively, Micro); Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Mylan); Prinston Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Sigmapharm Laboratories, LLC (Sigmapharm); Torrent Pharmaceuticals, Limited and Torrent Pharma Inc. (collectively, Torrent). All defendants except Mylan and Sigmapharm have agreed to have their cases stayed and to be bound by the outcome of any final judgment rendered against any of the other defendants. Trial is scheduled for March 2018.

Beginning in April 2017, JPI and Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH and Bayer AG (collectively, Bayer AG) filed patent infringement lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against a number of generic companies who filed ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of XARELTO^® before expiration of Bayer AG’s United States Patent No. 9,539,218 (’218) relating to XARELTO^®. The following generic companies are named defendants: Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited, Alembic Global Holding SA and Alembic Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Aurobindo; Breckenridge; InvaGen; Lupin Limited and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, Lupin); Micro; Mylan; Sigmapharm; Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. (collectively, Taro) and Torrent. Lupin has counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity of United States Patent No. 9,415,053, but Lupin dismissed its counterclaims after it was provided a covenant not to sue on that patent. Aurobindo, Taro, Torrent and Micro have agreed to have their cases stayed and to be bound by the outcome of any final judgment rendered against any of the other defendants. The ’218 cases have been consolidated for discovery and trial, and are currently set for trial in April 2019.

In each of these lawsuits, JPI is seeking an order enjoining the defendants from marketing their generic versions of XARELTO^® before the expiration of the relevant patents.

PREZISTA^®

In September 2017, Janssen Sciences Ireland UC and Janssen Products, L.P. (collectively, Janssen) initiated a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. and Aurobindo Pharma USA Inc. (collectively, Aurobindo), who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of PREZISTA^®before the expiration of United States Patent Nos. 8,518,987; 7,700,645; 7,126,015; and 7,595,408. In January 2018, the parties entered into a settlement agreement.

In November 2017, Janssen Inc. initiated Notices of Application under Section 6 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations against Apotex Inc. (Apotex) and the Minister of Health in Canada in response to Apotex’s filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Submission (ANDS) seeking approval to market a generic version of PREZISTA^®before the expiration of Canadian Patent Nos. 2,485,834 and 2,336,160, which is owned by the United States and the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois. Janssen is seeking an order prohibiting the Minister of Health from issuing a Notice of Compliance with respect to Apotex's ANDS before the expiration of the relevant patents.

RISPERDAL CONSTA^®

In November 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) instituted an Inter Partes Review filed by Luye Pharma Group Ltd., Luye Pharma (USA) Ltd., Sandong Luye Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and Nanjing Luye Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., seeking to invalidate United States Patent No. 6,667,061 relating to RISPERDAL CONSTA^®. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. markets RISPERDAL CONSTA^®pursuant to a license from Alkermes Pharma Ireland Ltd. In November 2017, the USPTO issued a decision upholding the validity of the patent.

INVOKANA^®/INVOKAMET^®

Beginning in July 2017, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Cilag GmbH International and Janssen Pharmaceutica NV (collectively, Janssen) and Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation (MTPC) filed patent infringement lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado and the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against a number of generic companies who filed ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of INVOKANA^® and/or INVOKAMET^®before expiration of MTPC’s United States Patent Nos. 7,943,582 and/or 8,513,202 relating to INVOKANA^® and INVOKAMET^®. Janssen is the exclusive licensee of the asserted patents. The following generic companies are named defendants: Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (Apotex); Aurobindo Pharma USA Inc. (Aurobindo); Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and MacLeods Pharma USA, Inc.; InvaGen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (InvaGen); Prinston Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd; Hetero USA, Inc., Hetero Labs Limited Unit-V and Hetero Labs Limited; MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. and MSN Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Laurus Labs Ltd.; Indoco Remedies Ltd.; Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. (Zydus); Sandoz, Inc. (Sandoz); Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; and Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Beginning in July 2017, Janssen and MTPC filed patent infringement lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against Sandoz and InvaGen, who filed ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of INVOKANA^® and/or INVOKAMET^®before expiration of MTPC’s United States Patent No. 7,943,788 (the '788 patent) relating to INVOKANA^® and INVOKAMET^®and against Zydus, who filed ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of INVOKANA^® and INVOKAMET^® before expiration of the '788 patent, MTPC's United States Patent No. 8,222,219 relating to INVOKANA^® and INVOKAMET^® and MTPC’s United States Patent No. 8,785,403 relating to INVOKAMET^®, and against Aurobindo, who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of INVOKANA^® before expiration of the ’788 patent and the ’219 patent relating to INVOKANA^®. Janssen is the exclusive licensee of the asserted patents. In October 2017, the Colorado lawsuits against Sandoz were dismissed. In December 2017, the Delaware lawsuits against Apotex and Teva were dismissed.

In each of these lawsuits, Janssen and MTPC are seeking an order enjoining the defendants from marketing their generic versions of INVOKANA^®and/or INVOKAMET^® before the expiration of the relevant patents.

VELETRI^®

In July 2017, Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Actelion) initiated a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (collectively, Sun Pharmaceutical), who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of VELETRI^®before the expiration of United States Patent No. 8,598,227. Actelion is seeking an order enjoining Sun Pharmaceutical from marketing its generic version of VELETRI^®before the expiration of the patent. Trial is scheduled to commence in June 2019.

OPSUMIT^®

In January 2018, Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Actelion) initiated a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. (Zydus) and Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC (Amneal), who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of OPSUMIT^®before the expiration of United States Patent No. 7,094,781. In the lawsuit, Actelion is seeking an order enjoining Zydus and Amneal from marketing generic versions of OPSUMIT^® before the expiration of the patent.

INVEGA SUSTENNA^®

In January 2018, Janssen Pharmaceutica NV and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, Janssen) initiated a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Teva), who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of INVEGA SUSTENNA^® before the expiration of United States Patent No. 9,439,906. In the lawsuit, Janssen is seeking an order enjoining Teva from marketing a generic version of INVEGA SUSTENNA^® before the expiration of the patent.

IMBRUVICA^®

Beginning in January 2018, Pharmacyclics LLC (Pharmacyclics) and Janssen Biotech, Inc. (Janssen) filed patent infringement lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against a number of generic companies who filed ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of IMBRUVICA^®before expiration of Pharmacyclics’ United States Patent Nos. 8,008,309, 7,514,444, 8,697,711, 8,735,403, 8,957,079, 9,181,257, 8,754,091, 8,497,277, 8,925,015, 8,476,284, 8,754,090, 8,999,999, 9,125,889, 9,801,881, 9,801,883, 9,814,721, 9,795,604, 9,296,753, 9,540,382, 9,713,617 and/or 9,725,455 relating to IMBRUVICA^®. Janssen is the exclusive licensee of the asserted patents. The following generic companies are named defendants: Cipla Limited and Cipla USA Inc. (Cipla); Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, Fresenius Kabi USA, Inc., and Fresenius Kabi Oncology Limited (Fresenius Kabi); Sandoz Inc. and Lek Pharmaceuticals d.d. (Sandoz); Shilpa Medicare Limited (Shilpa); Sun Pharma Global FZE and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (Sun); Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (Teva); and Zydus Worldwide DMCC and Cadila Healthcare Limited (Zydus).

In each of the lawsuits, Pharmacyclics and Janssen are seeking an order enjoining the defendants from marketing generic versions of IMBRUVICA^®before the expiration of the relevant patents.

GOVERNMENT PROCEEDINGS

Like other companies in the pharmaceutical and medical devices industries, Johnson & Johnson and certain of its subsidiaries are subject to extensive regulation by national, state and local government agencies in the United States and other countries in which they operate. As a result, interaction with government agencies is ongoing. The most significant litigation brought by, and investigations conducted by, government agencies are listed below. It is possible that criminal charges and substantial fines and/or civil penalties or damages could result from government investigations or litigation.

Average Wholesale Price (AWP) Litigation

Johnson & Johnson and several of its pharmaceutical subsidiaries (the J&J AWP Defendants), along with numerous other pharmaceutical companies, were named as defendants in a series of lawsuits in state and federal courts involving allegations that the pricing and marketing of certain pharmaceutical products amounted to fraudulent and otherwise actionable conduct because, among other things, the companies allegedly reported an inflated Average Wholesale Price (AWP) for the drugs at issue. Payors alleged that they used those AWPs in calculating provider reimbursement levels. The plaintiffs in these cases included three classes of private persons or entities that paid for any portion of the purchase of the drugs at issue based on AWP, and state government entities that made Medicaid payments for the drugs at issue based on AWP. Many of these cases, both federal actions and state actions removed to federal court, were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in a multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, where all claims against the J&J AWP Defendants were ultimately dismissed. The J&J AWP Defendants also prevailed in a case brought by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Other AWP cases have been resolved through court order or settlement. Two cases remain pending. In a case brought by Illinois, the parties are awaiting assignment of a trial date. In New Jersey, a putative class action based upon AWP allegations is pending against Centocor, Inc. and Ortho Biotech Inc. (both now Janssen Biotech, Inc.), Johnson & Johnson and ALZA Corporation.

Opioids Litigation

Beginning in 2014 and continuing to the present, Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (JPI), along with other pharmaceutical companies, have been named in numerous lawsuits brought by certain state and local governments related to the marketing of opioids, including DURAGESIC^®, NUCYNTA^® and NUCYNTA^® ER. To date, complaints against pharmaceutical companies, including Johnson & Johnson and JPI, have been filed in state court by the state Attorneys General in Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, Ohio and Oklahoma. Complaints against the manufacturers also have been filed in state or federal court by city, county and local government agencies in the following states: Arkansas; California; Connecticut; Florida; Georgia; Illinois; Kentucky; Louisiana; Mississippi; Missouri; Nevada; New Hampshire; New Jersey; New Mexico; New York; Ohio; Oklahoma; Oregon; Pennsylvania; Tennessee; Texas; Washington and West Virginia. These actions allege a variety of claims related to opioids marketing practices, including false advertising, unfair competition, public nuisance, consumer fraud violations, deceptive acts and practices, false claims and unjust enrichment. The suits generally seek penalties and/or injunctive and monetary relief. These cases are in early stages of litigation. In October 2017, Johnson & Johnson and JPI were both served with a motion to consolidate 66 pending matters into a federal Multi District Litigation in the Southern District of Ohio. In December 2017, the MDL was approved in the Northern District of Ohio and there are approximately 190 cases that have been transferred to the MDL.

Johnson & Johnson, JPI and other pharmaceutical companies have also received subpoenas or requests for information related to opioids marketing practices from the following state Attorneys General: Alaska, Indiana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Tennessee and Washington. In September 2017, Johnson & Johnson and JPI were contacted by the Texas and Colorado Attorney General’s Offices on behalf of approximately 38 states regarding a multi-state Attorney General investigation. The multi-state coalition served Johnson & Johnson and JPI with subpoenas as part of the investigation. Johnson & Johnson and JPI have also received requests for information from the ranking minority member of the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs regarding the sales, marketing, and educational strategies related to the promotion of opioids use.

Other

In August 2012, DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., DePuy, Inc. (now DePuy Synthes, Inc.), and Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc. received an informal request from the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts and the Civil Division of the United States Department of Justice (the United States) for the production of materials relating to the DePuy ASR™ XL Hip device. In July 2014, the United States notified the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts that it had declined to intervene in a qui tam case filed pursuant to the False Claims Act against the companies. In February 2016, the District Court granted the companies’ motion to dismiss with prejudice, unsealed the qui tam complaint, and denied the qui tam relators’ request for leave to file a further amended complaint. The qui tam relators appealed the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. In July 2017, the First Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal in part, reversed in part, and affirmed the decision to deny the relators’ request to file a third amended complaint. The relators’ remaining claims are now pending before the District Court.

Since October 2013, a group of State Attorneys General have issued Civil Investigative Demands relating to the development, sales and marketing of several of DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc.'s hip products. The states are seeking monetary and injunctive relief, and DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. has entered into a tolling agreement with the states. In July 2014, the Oregon Department of Justice, which was investigating these matters independently of the other states, announced a settlement of its ASR™ XL Hip device investigation with the State of Oregon.

In October 2012, Johnson & Johnson was contacted by the California Attorney General's office regarding a multi-state Attorney General investigation of the marketing of surgical mesh products for hernia and urogynecological purposes by Johnson & Johnson's subsidiary, Ethicon, Inc. (Ethicon). Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon have since entered into a series of tolling agreements with the 47 states and the District of Columbia participating in the multi-state investigation and have responded to Civil Investigative Demands served by certain of the participating states. The states are seeking monetary and injunctive relief. In May 2016, California and Washington filed civil complaints against Johnson & Johnson, Ethicon Inc. and Ethicon US, LLC alleging violations of their consumer protection statutes. Similar complaints were filed against the companies by Kentucky in August 2016 and by Mississippi in October 2017. Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon have entered into a new tolling agreement with the remaining 43 states and the District of Columbia.

In December 2012, Therakos, Inc. (Therakos), formerly a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson and part of the Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. (OCD) franchise, received a letter from the civil division of the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania informing Therakos that the United States Attorney's Office was investigating the sales and marketing of Uvadex^® (methoxsalen) and the Uvar Xts^® and Cellex^® Systems during the period 2000 to the present. The United States Attorney's Office requested that OCD and Johnson & Johnson preserve documents that could relate to the investigation. Therakos was subsequently acquired by an affiliate of Gores Capital Partners III, L.P. in January 2013, and OCD was divested in June 2014. Following the divestiture of OCD, Johnson & Johnson retains OCD’s portion of any liability that may result from the investigation for activity that occurred prior to the sale of Therakos. In March 2014 and March 2016, the United States Attorney’s Office requested that Johnson & Johnson produce certain documents, and Johnson & Johnson is cooperating with those requests.

In June 2014, the Mississippi Attorney General filed a complaint in Chancery Court of The First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi against Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. (now Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.) (JJCI). The complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose alleged health risks associated with female consumers' use of talc contained in JOHNSON'S^® Baby Powder and JOHNSON'S^® Shower to Shower (a product no longer sold by JJCI) and seeks injunctive and monetary relief. The parties have agreed to adjourn the trial date and currently expect the trial to be re-scheduled to the fall of 2018.

In March 2016, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (JPI) received a Civil Investigative Demand from the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York related to JPI’s contractual relationships with pharmacy benefit managers over the period from January 1, 2006 to the present with regard to certain of JPI's pharmaceutical products. The demand was issued in connection with an investigation under the False Claims Act.

In January 2017, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (JPI) received a Civil Investigative Demand from the United States Department of Justice relating to allegations concerning the sales and marketing practices of OLYSIO^®. In December 2017, Johnson & Johnson and JPI were served with a whistleblower lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging the off-label promotion of OLYSIO^® and additional products, including NUCYNTA^®, XARELTO^®, LEVAQUIN^® and REMICADE^®. At this time, the federal and state governments have declined to intervene and the lawsuit, which is related to the Civil Investigative Demand, is being prosecuted by a former company employee. JPI filed a motion to dismiss in the United States District Court for the Central District of California in January 2018.

In February 2017, Johnson & Johnson received a subpoena from the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts seeking the production of records pertaining to payments to any 501(c)(3) charitable organization that provides financial assistance to Medicare patients. Multiple pharmaceutical companies have publicly reported receipt of subpoenas and ongoing inquiries similar to this one and the one described below.

Actelion Pharmaceuticals US, Inc. (Actelion US), received a subpoena in May 2016, with follow-up requests in June and December 2016, from the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts. The subpoena seeks the production of records pertaining to Actelion US’ payments to 501(c)(3) charitable organizations that provide financial assistance to Medicare patients.

In March 2017, Janssen Biotech, Inc. received a Civil Investigative Demand from the United States Department of Justice regarding a False Claims Act investigation concerning management and advisory services provided to rheumatology and gastroenterology practices that purchased REMICADE^® or SIMPONI ARIA^®.

In April and September 2017, Johnson & Johnson received subpoenas from the United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts seeking documents broadly relating to pharmaceutical copayment support programs for DARZALEX^®, OLYSIO^®, REMICADE^®, SIMPONI^®, STELARA^®and ZYTIGA^®. The subpoenas also seek documents relating to Average Manufacturer Price and Best Price reporting to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services related to those products, as well as rebate payments to state Medicaid agencies.

In June 2017, Johnson & Johnson received a subpoena from the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts seeking information regarding practices pertaining to the sterilization of DePuy Synthes, Inc. spinal implants at three hospitals in Boston as well as interactions of Company employees with physicians at these hospitals. Johnson & Johnson is producing documents in response to this subpoena.

From time to time, Johnson & Johnson has received requests from a variety of United States Congressional Committees to produce information relevant to ongoing congressional inquiries. It is the policy of Johnson & Johnson to cooperate with these inquiries by producing the requested information.

GENERAL LITIGATION

In June 2009, following the public announcement that Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. (OCD) had received a grand jury subpoena from the United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, in connection with an investigation that has since been closed, multiple class action complaints were filed against OCD by direct purchasers seeking damages for alleged price fixing. These cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as In re Blood Reagent Antitrust Litigation. Following the appeal and reversal of its initial grant of a motion for class certification, on remand, the District Court in October 2015 again granted a motion by the plaintiffs for class certification. In July 2017, the Court issued an opinion granting in part and denying in part OCD's motion for summary judgment. The Court granted summary judgment concerning allegations of price fixing in 2005 and 2008, and denied summary judgment concerning allegations of price fixing in 2001. Trial has been set for June 2018. OCD was divested in 2014 and Johnson & Johnson retained any liability that may result from these cases.

In June 2011, DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. (DePuy) filed suit against Orthopaedic Hospital (OH) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana seeking a declaratory judgment that DePuy did not owe OH royalties under a 1999 development agreement. In January 2012, OH filed a breach of contract case in California federal court, which was later consolidated with the Indiana case. In February 2014, OH brought suit for patent infringement relating to the same technology, and that action was also consolidated with the Indiana case. In August 2017, the court denied DePuy’s motions for summary judgment. A trial date has not been set.

In September 2011, Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Inc. and McNeil Consumer Healthcare Division of Johnson & Johnson Inc. received a Notice of Civil Claim filed by Nick Field in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada (the BC Civil Claim). The BC Civil Claim is a putative class action brought on behalf of persons who reside in British Columbia and who purchased during the period between September 20, 2001 and in or about December 2010 one or more various McNeil infants' or children's over-the-counter medicines that were manufactured at the Fort Washington, Pennsylvania facility. The BC Civil Claim alleges that the defendants violated the BC Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, and other Canadian statutes and common laws, by selling medicines that were allegedly not safe and/or effective or did not comply with Canadian Good Manufacturing Practices. The class certification hearing scheduled for October 2015 was adjourned, and the Court entered a Consent Order of Dismissal in November 2017 concluding this action. In addition, in April 2016, a putative class action was filed against Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Sales and Logistics Company, LLC and McNeil PPC, Inc. (now known as Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc.) in New Jersey Superior Court, Camden County on behalf of persons who reside in the state of New Jersey who purchased various McNeil over-the-counter products from December 2008 through the present. The complaint alleges violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. Following the grant of a motion to dismiss and the filing of an amended complaint, in May 2017, the Court denied a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Discovery is underway.

In May 2014, two purported class actions were filed in federal court, one in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and one in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, against Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. (now Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.) (JJCI) alleging violations of state consumer fraud statutes based on nondisclosure of alleged health risks associated with talc contained in JOHNSON'S^®Baby Powder and JOHNSON'S^® Shower to Shower (a product no longer sold by JJCI). Both cases seek injunctive relief and monetary damages; neither includes a claim for personal injuries. In October 2016, both cases were transferred to the United States District Court for the District Court of New Jersey as part of a newly created federal multi-district litigation. In July 2017, the Court granted Johnson & Johnson's and JJCI’s motion to dismiss one of the cases. The plaintiff has appealed. In September 2017, the plaintiff in the second case voluntarily dismissed their complaint.

In August 2014, United States Customs and Border Protection (US CBP) issued a Penalty Notice against Janssen Ortho LLC (Janssen Ortho), assessing penalties for the alleged improper classification of darunavir ethanolate (the active pharmaceutical ingredient in PREZISTA^®) in connection with its importation into the United States. In October 2014, Janssen Ortho submitted a Petition for Relief in response to the Penalty Notice. In May 2015, US CBP issued an Amended Penalty Notice assessing substantial penalties and Janssen Ortho filed a Petition for Relief in July 2015.

In March and April 2015, over 30 putative class action complaints were filed by contact lens patients in a number of courts around the United States against Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. (JJVCI) and other contact lens manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, alleging vertical and horizontal conspiracies to fix the retail prices of contact lenses. The complaints allege that the manufacturers reached agreements with each other and certain distributors and retailers concerning the prices at which some contact lenses could be sold to consumers. The plaintiffs are seeking damages and injunctive relief. All of the class action cases were transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida in June 2015. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint in November 2015. In June 2016, the Court denied motions to dismiss filed by JJVCI and other defendants. Discovery is ongoing. In March 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.

In August 2015, two third-party payors filed a purported class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Janssen Ortho LLC, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson (as well as certain Bayer entities), alleging that the defendants improperly marketed and promoted XARELTO^® as safer and more effective than less expensive alternative medications while failing to fully disclose its risks. The complaint seeks damages.

In May 2017, a purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against Lifescan Inc., Johnson & Johnson, other diabetes test strip manufacturers and certain Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs). The complaint alleges that consumers paid inflated prices for glucose monitor test strips as a consequence of undisclosed rebates and other incentives paid by manufacturers to PBMs. The complaint includes RICO, ERISA, and state consumer protection claims. The complaint seeks equitable relief and damages. In November 2017, the case was ordered transferred to United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

In May 2017, Lonza Sales AG (Lonza) filed a Request for Arbitration with the London Court of International Arbitration against Janssen Research & Development, LLC (Janssen). Lonza alleges that Janssen breached a 2005 agreement between the parties by sublicensing certain Lonza technology used in the manufacture of daratumumab without Lonza’s consent. Lonza seeks monetary damages.

In September 2017, Strategic Products Group, Inc. (SPG) filed an antitrust complaint against Lifescan, Inc. and Lifescan Scotland, Ltd. (collectively, Lifescan) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola Division). SPG, the exclusive distributor of Unistrip blood glucose meter test strips, alleges that Lifescan has monopolized or is attempting to monopolize the market for blood glucose meter test strips compatible with certain Lifescan meters. The complaint seeks damages.

In September 2017, Pfizer, Inc. (Pfizer) filed an antitrust complaint against Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Biotech, Inc. (collectively Janssen) in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Pfizer alleges that Janssen has violated federal antitrust laws through its contracting strategies for REMICADE^®. The complaint seeks damages and injunctive relief. In November 2017, Janssen moved to dismiss the complaint.

Beginning in September 2017, multiple purported class actions were filed against Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Biotech, Inc. (collectively Janssen) alleging that Janssen’s REMICADE^® contracting strategies violated federal and state antitrust and consumer laws and seeking damages and injunctive relief. In November 2017, the cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as In re Remicade Antitrust Litigation.

In October 2017, certain United States service members and their families brought a complaint against a number of pharmaceutical and medical devices companies, including Johnson & Johnson and certain of its subsidiaries, alleging that the defendants violated the United States Anti-Terrorism Act. The complaint alleges that the defendants provided funding for terrorist organizations through their sales practices pursuant to pharmaceutical and medical device contracts with the Iraqi Ministry of Health.

Andover Healthcare, Inc. filed a Lanham act case against Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. in April 2017 in the United Stated District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Andover asserts that the claim “not made with natural rubber latex” on COACH^® Sports Wrap, BAND-AID^® Brand SECURE-FLEX^® Wrap and BAND-AID^® Brand HURT-FREE^® Wrap is false. Andover seeks actual damages and pre-judgment interest thereon, disgorgement of profits, treble damages, attorney’s fees and injunctive relief. The Court denied a motion to dismiss, an answer was filed and discovery is underway.

In February 2018, a securities class action lawsuit was filed against Johnson & Johnson in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that Johnson & Johnson violated the federal Securities laws by failing to adequately disclose the alleged asbestos contamination in body powders containing talc, primarily JOHNSONS^® Baby Powder. The lawsuit was assigned to the District Court Judge managing the personal injury multi-district litigation.

Johnson & Johnson or its subsidiaries are also parties to a number of proceedings brought under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, commonly known as Superfund, and comparable state, local or foreign laws in which the primary relief sought is the cost of past and/or future remediation.