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 March 31, 2024, 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 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 including timing of related payments. The ability to make such estimates and judgments can be affected by various factors including, among other things, 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; procedural or jurisdictional issues; the uncertainty and unpredictability of the number of potential claims; ability to achieve comprehensive multi-party settlements; complexity of related cross-claims and counterclaims; and/or there are numerous parties involved. To the extent adverse awards, judgments or 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.

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.

In talc cases that have gone to trial, the Company has obtained a number of defense verdicts, but there also have been verdicts against the Company, many of which have been reversed on appeal. In June 2020, the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed in part and affirmed in part a July 2018 verdict of $4.7 billion in Ingham v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., No. ED 207476 (Mo. App.), reducing the overall award to $2.1 billion. An application for transfer of the case to the Missouri Supreme Court was subsequently denied and in June 2021, a petition for certiorari, seeking a review of the Ingham decision by the United States Supreme Court, was denied. In June 2021, the Company paid the award, which, including interest, totaled approximately $2.5 billion. The facts and circumstances, including the terms of the award, were unique to the Ingham decision and not representative of other claims brought against the Company. The Company continues to believe that it has strong legal grounds to contest the other talc verdicts that it has appealed. Notwithstanding the Company’s confidence in the safety of its talc products, in certain circumstances the Company has settled cases.

In October 2021, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. (Old JJCI) implemented a corporate restructuring (the 2021 Corporate Restructuring). As a result of that restructuring, Old JJCI ceased to exist and three new entities were created: (a) LTL Management LLC, a North Carolina limited liability company (LTL or Debtor); (b) Royalty A&M LLC, a North Carolina limited liability company and a direct subsidiary of LTL (RAM); and (c) the Debtor’s direct parent, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., a New Jersey company (New JJCI). The Debtor received certain of Old JJCI’s assets and became solely responsible for the talc-related liabilities of Old JJCI, including all liabilities related in any way to injury or damage, or alleged injury or damage, sustained or incurred in the purchase or use of, or exposure to, talc, including talc contained in any product, or to the risk of, or responsibility for, any such damage or injury, except for any liabilities for which the exclusive remedy is provided under a workers’ compensation statute or act (the Talc-Related Liabilities).

In October 2021, notwithstanding the Company’s confidence in the safety of its talc products, the Debtor filed a voluntary petition with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, seeking relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (the LTL Bankruptcy Case). All litigation against LTL, Old JJCI, New JJCI, the Company, other of their corporate affiliates, identified retailers, insurance companies, and certain other parties (the Protected Parties) was stayed. The LTL Bankruptcy Case was transferred to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey. Claimants filed motions to dismiss the LTL Bankruptcy Case and, following a multiple day hearing, the New Jersey Bankruptcy Court denied those motions in March 2022.

In April 2023, the New Jersey Bankruptcy Court dismissed the LTL Bankruptcy Case, effectively lifting the stay as to all parties and returning the talc litigation to the tort system. LTL re-filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey seeking relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (the LTL 2 Bankruptcy Case). As a result of the new filing, all talc claims against LTL were again automatically stayed pursuant to section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code. Additionally, the New Jersey Bankruptcy Court issued a temporary restraining order staying all litigation as to LTL, Old JJCI, New JJCI, the Company, identified retailers, and certain other parties (the New Protected Parties).

Also in April 2023, the New Jersey Bankruptcy Court issued a decision that granted limited injunctive relief to the Company and the New Protected Parties (the LTL 2 Preliminary Injunction). The LTL 2 Preliminary Injunction remained in force until late August 2023, following the Bankruptcy Court’s extension of the initial LTL 2 Preliminary Injunction in June 2023. Under the LTL 2 Preliminary Injunction, except for in those cases filed in the federal court ovarian cancer multi-district litigation, discovery in all personal injury and wrongful death matters was permitted to proceed.

Furthermore, in April 2023, the Talc Claimants' Committee filed a motion to dismiss the LTL 2 Bankruptcy followed by similar motions from other claimants. Hearings on the motions to dismiss occurred in June 2023. In July 2023, the court dismissed the LTL 2 Bankruptcy case and, the same day, the Company stated its intent to appeal the decision and to continue its efforts to obtain a resolution of the talc claims. In September 2023, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order granting LTL leave to seek a direct appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. In October 2023, the Third Circuit granted LTL’s petition for a direct appeal. Briefing is ongoing.

In October 2023, the Company stated that it was pursuing the following four parallel and alternative pathways to achieve a comprehensive and final resolution of the talc claims: (i) the appeal of the LTL 2 dismissal decision; (ii) pursuing a consensual “prepackaged” bankruptcy case, as “strongly encouraged” by the Bankruptcy Court in its dismissal decision; (iii) aggressively litigating the talc claims in the tort system; and (iv) pursuing affirmative claims against experts for false and defamatory narratives regarding the Company’s talc powder products.

Following the dismissal of LTL 2, new lawsuits were filed, cases across the country that had been stayed were reactivated, and trials have commenced. The majority of the cases are pending in federal court, organized in a multi-district litigation (MDL) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. In the MDL, case-specific discovery is proceeding with an expectation that a trial will occur in early 2025. In March 2024, the court granted the Company's motion for a renewed Daubert hearing and set a briefing schedule.

cosmetic talc in the United States, excluding claims related to mesothelioma or State consumer protection claims, in exchange for the payment by the Company of present value of approximately $6.475 billion payable over 25 years (nominal value of approximately $8.4 billion, discounted at a rate of 4.4%). The claims encompassed by the Proposed Plan constitute 99.75% of pending lawsuits against the Company relating to its talc powder products. Mesothelioma and State consumer protection claims are being addressed outside the Proposed Plan. The Company separately has resolved 95% of the mesothelioma lawsuits filed to date, and has agreements in principle to resolve the State claims.

To account for these settlements and the contemplated comprehensive resolution through the Proposed Plan, the Company recorded an incremental charge of approximately $2.7 billion, for a total reserve as of the first fiscal quarter 2024 at a present value of approximately $11 billion (or nominal value of approximately $13.7 billion). Approximately one-third of the reserve is recorded as a current liability. The recorded amount remains the Company's best estimate of probable loss.

In February 2019, the Company’s talc supplier, Imerys Talc America, Inc. and two of its affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc. and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc. (collectively, Imerys) filed a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of the United States Code (the Bankruptcy Code) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Imerys Bankruptcy). The Imerys Bankruptcy relates to Imerys’s potential liability for personal injury from exposure to talcum powder sold by Imerys. In its bankruptcy, Imerys alleges it has claims against the Company for indemnification and rights to joint insurance proceeds. In its bankruptcy, Imerys proposed a chapter 11 plan (the Imerys Plan) that contemplated all talc-related claims against it being channeled to a trust along with its alleged indemnification rights against the Company. Following confirmation and consummation of the plan, the trust would pay talc claims pursuant to proposed trust distribution procedures (the TDP) and then seek indemnification from the Company.

In February 2021, Cyprus Mines Corporation (Cyprus), which had owned certain Imerys talc mines, filed a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code and filed its Disclosure Statement and Plan (the Cyprus Plan). The Cyprus Plan contemplates a settlement with Imerys and talc claimants where Cyprus would make a monetary contribution to a trust established under the Imerys Plan in exchange for an injunction against talc claims asserted against it and certain affiliated parties.

After the confirmation hearing was canceled, Imerys, the Imerys Tort Claimants’ Committee, and the Imerys Future Claimants’ Representative, along with Cyprus, the Cyprus Tort Claimants’ Committee, and the Cyprus Future Claimants’ Representative engaged in mediation. The Bankruptcy Court also authorized Imerys and Cyprus to proceed with mediation with certain of their insurers.

In September 2023, Imerys and Cyprus filed amended plans of reorganization. The amended plans contemplate a similar construct as the prior Imerys and Cyprus Plans, including all talc claims against Imerys and Cyprus (and certain other protected parties) being channeled to a trust along with Imerys’s and Cyprus’s alleged indemnification rights against the Company. In January 2024, Imerys and Cyprus each filed a disclosure statement for its respective Chapter 11 plans. On April 29, 2024, the Company, Imerys and Cyprus reached an agreement in principle on monetary and non-monetary terms to resolve their ongoing disputes, including disputes raised in the Imerys and Cyprus bankruptcies.

In February 2018, a securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain named officers in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that the Company violated the federal securities laws by failing to disclose alleged asbestos contamination in body powders containing talc, primarily JOHNSON’S Baby Powder, and that purchasers of the Company’s shares suffered losses as a result. In April 2019, the Company moved to dismiss the complaint. In December 2019, the Court denied, in part, the motion to dismiss. In April 2021, briefing on Plaintiff’s motion for class certification was completed. The case was stayed in May 2022 pursuant to the LTL Bankruptcy Case and was reopened in May 2023. In December 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for class certification. In January 2024, Defendants filed a petition with the Third Circuit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) for permission to appeal the Court’s order granting class certification, and in February 2024, the Third Circuit granted Defendants' petition. Fact discovery closed in February 2024 and the Court ordered the parties to mediate. The Court stayed the case pending the mediation, which is scheduled for May 2024.

A lawsuit was brought against the Company in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego alleging violations of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) relating to JOHNSON’S Baby Powder. In that lawsuit, the plaintiffs allege that the Company violated the CLRA by failing to provide required Proposition 65 warnings. In July 2019, the Company filed a notice of removal to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California and plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint shortly thereafter. In October 2019, the Company moved to dismiss the second amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In response to those motions, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint. In December 2019, the Company moved to dismiss the third amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In April 2020, the Court granted the motion to dismiss but granted leave to amend. In May 2020, plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Complaint but indicated that they would be filing a motion for leave to file a fifth amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed a Fifth Amended Complaint in August 2020. The Company moved to dismiss the Fifth Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In January 2021, the Court issued an Order and opinion ruling in the Company’s favor and granting the motion to dismiss

with prejudice. In February 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiffs filed their opening brief in July 2021. The company filed its responsive brief in October 2021. After the Notice of Suggestion of Bankruptcy was filed with the Ninth Circuit, a stay was imposed, and the Court held the reply deadline in abeyance. In September 2023, the stay lifted. On April 29, 2024, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's order dismissing the case with prejudice.

In June 2014, the Mississippi Attorney General filed a complaint in Chancery Court of The First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi against the Company and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. (now known as Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.) (collectively, JJCI). The complaint alleges that JJCI violated the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act by failing 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 divested in 2012) and seeks injunctive and monetary relief. In February 2022, the trial court set the case for trial to begin in February 2023. However, in October 2022, the LTL bankruptcy court issued an order staying the case. In March 2023, the Third Circuit issued the mandate to dismiss the LTL Bankruptcy Case and in April 2023, the New Jersey Bankruptcy Court dismissed the LTL Bankruptcy Case, effectively lifting the stay as to this matter. The State requested a new trial setting. Later in April 2023, the trial court set a new trial date for April 2024. The Company filed summary judgment and Daubert motions. The State filed a limited Daubert motion. The parties agreed to the Court's request for mediation. The Company has reached an agreement to resolve this matter.

In January 2020, the State of New Mexico filed a consumer protection case alleging that the Company deceptively marketed and sold its talcum powder products by making misrepresentations about the safety of the products and the presence of carcinogens, including asbestos. In March 2022, the New Mexico court denied the Company’s motion to compel the State of New Mexico to engage in discovery of state agencies and denied the Company’s request for interlocutory appeal of that decision. The Company then filed a Petition for Writ of Superintending Control and a Request for a Stay to the New Mexico Supreme Court on the issue of the State of New Mexico’s discovery obligations. In April 2022, in view of the efforts to resolve talc-related claims in the LTL Bankruptcy Case, the Company and the State agreed to a 60-day stay of all matters except for the pending writ before the New Mexico Supreme Court, which expired in June 2022. Thereafter, the Company moved to enjoin prosecution of the case in the LTL Bankruptcy Case. In October 2022, the bankruptcy court issued an order staying the case. In December 2022, the State filed an appeal to the Third Circuit concerning the stay order. Separately, in September 2022, the New Mexico Supreme Court granted the Company's request for a stay pending further briefing on the scope of the State of New Mexico’s discovery obligations. In March 2023, the Third Circuit issued the mandate to dismiss the LTL Bankruptcy Case and in April 2023, the New Jersey Bankruptcy Court dismissed the LTL Bankruptcy Case, effectively lifting the stay as to this matter. While the State notified the New Mexico Supreme Court of the lifted stay of litigation in April 2023, the Court has not taken any action since being notified of the lifting of the stay and it remains in effect. The Company has reached an agreement to resolve this matter.

Forty-two states and the District of Columbia (including Mississippi and New Mexico) have commenced a joint investigation into the Company’s marketing of its talcum powder products. At this time, the multi-state group has not asserted any claims against the Company. Five states have issued Civil Investigative Demands seeking documents and other information. The Company has produced documents to Arizona, North Carolina, Texas, and Washington and entered into confidentiality agreements. The Company has not received any follow up requests from those states. In March 2022, each of the forty-two states agreed to mediation of their claims in the LTL Bankruptcy Case. In July 2022, New Mexico and Mississippi indicated they would no longer voluntarily submit to further mediation in the LTL Bankruptcy and would proceed with their respective cases in state court. In March 2023, the mediation was terminated. In January 2024, the Company reached an agreement in principle with the multi-state group of state Attorneys General, subject to ongoing negotiation of non-monetary terms. The unique procedural history and status of the New Mexico and Mississippi matters specifically have been discussed above.

Beginning in 2014 and continuing to the present, the Company and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (JPI), along with other pharmaceutical companies, have been named in close to 3,500 lawsuits related to the marketing of opioids, including DURAGESIC, NUCYNTA and NUCYNTA ER. The majority of the cases were filed by state and local governments, which were subject to a final settlement in 2021. As of January 2024, the Company and JPI have settled or otherwise resolved the opioid claims advanced by all government entity claimants except the City of Baltimore, a number of school districts, and other claimants. Similar lawsuits have also been filed by private plaintiffs and organizations, including but not limited to the following: individual plaintiffs on behalf of children born with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome (NAS); hospitals; and health insurers/payors.

The Company and JPI continue to defend the cases brought by the remaining government entity litigants as well as the cases brought by private litigants, including NAS claimants, hospitals, and health insurers/payors. Counting the private litigant cases, there are approximately 35 remaining opioid cases against the Company and JPI in various state courts, 435 remaining cases in the Ohio MDL, and 4 additional cases in other federal courts. Some of these cases have been dismissed and are being appealed by the plaintiffs and certain others are scheduled for trial in 2024, 2025, or 2026.

In addition, the Province of British Columbia filed suit against the Company and its Canadian affiliate Janssen Inc., and many other industry members, in Canada, and is seeking to have that action certified as an opt in class action on behalf of other provincial/territorial and the federal governments in Canada. Additional proposed class actions have been filed in Canada against the Company and Janssen Inc., and many other industry members, by and on behalf of people who used opioids (for personal injuries), municipalities and First Nations bands. These actions allege a variety of claims related to opioid marketing practices, including false advertising, unfair competition, public nuisance, consumer fraud violations, deceptive acts and practices, false claims and unjust enrichment. An adverse judgment in any of these lawsuits could result in the imposition of large monetary penalties and significant damages including, punitive damages, cost of abatement, substantial fines, equitable remedies and other sanctions.

In November 2019, a shareholder filed a derivative complaint against the Company as the nominal defendant and certain current and former directors and officers as defendants in the Superior Court of New Jersey. The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties related to the marketing of opioids, and that the Company has suffered damages as a result of those alleged breaches. A series of additional derivative complaints making similar allegations against the same and similar defendants were filed in New Jersey state and federal courts in 2019 and 2020. By 2022, all but two state court cases had been voluntarily dismissed. In February 2022, the state court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss one of the two cases, and the shareholder that brought the second case filed a notice of dismissal. The shareholder whose complaint was dismissed appealed the state court’s dismissal order, and briefing on the appeal concluded in October 2022. In February 2024, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the shareholder's amended complaint. In March 2024, the shareholder filed a notice of petition for certification with the Supreme Court of New Jersey seeking review of the appellate court's decision.

The Company 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. From time to time, even if it has substantial defenses, the Company considers isolated settlements based on a variety of circumstances. 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, Contingencies. 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. 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.

In August 2010, DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. (DePuy) announced a worldwide voluntary recall of its ASR XL Acetabular System and DePuy ASR Hip Resurfacing System (ASR Hip) used in hip replacement surgery. Claims for personal injury have been made against DePuy and the Company. 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, India and Italy. In November 2013, DePuy reached an agreement with a Court-appointed committee of lawyers representing ASR Hip 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 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 2013 and prior to February 15, 2017. This settlement program has resolved more than 10,000 claims, thereby 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. In Canada, the Company has reached agreements to settle the class actions filed 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 ASR Hip-related product liability litigation.

Claims for personal injury have also been made against DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. and the Company (collectively, DePuy) relating to the PINNACLE Acetabular Cup System used in hip replacement surgery. 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. Most 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 (Texas MDL). Beginning on June 1, 2022, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ceased transfer of new cases into the Texas MDL, and there are now cases pending in federal court outside the Texas MDL. Litigation also has been filed in state courts and in countries outside of the United States. During the first quarter of 2019, DePuy established a United States settlement program to resolve these cases. As part of the settlement program, adverse verdicts have been settled. The Company has established an accrual for product liability litigation associated with the PINNACLE Acetabular Cup System and the related settlement program.

Claims for personal injury have been made against Ethicon, Inc. (Ethicon) and the Company 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 had been organized as a multi-district litigation (MDL) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. In March 2021, the MDL Court entered an order closing the MDL. The MDL Court has remanded cases for trial to the jurisdictions where the case was originally filed and additional pelvic mesh lawsuits have been filed, and remain, outside of the MDL. The Company has settled or otherwise resolved the majority of the United States cases and the estimated costs associated with these settlements and the remaining cases are reflected in the Company’s accruals. In addition, class actions and individual personal injury cases or claims seeking damages for alleged injury resulting from Ethicon’s pelvic mesh devices have been commenced in various countries outside of the United States, including claims and cases in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Ireland, Italy, Spain and Slovenia and class actions in Israel, Australia, Canada and South Africa. The vast majority of these actions are now resolved. The Company has established accruals with respect to product liability litigation associated with Ethicon’s pelvic mesh products.

Following a June 2016 worldwide market withdrawal of Ethicon Physiomesh Flexible Composite Mesh (Physiomesh), claims for personal injury have been made against Ethicon, Inc. (Ethicon) and the Company alleging personal injury arising out of the use of this hernia mesh device. Cases filed in federal courts in the United States have been organized as a multi-district litigation (MDL) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. A multi-county litigation (MCL) also has been formed in New Jersey state court and assigned to Atlantic County for cases pending in New Jersey. In addition to the matters in the MDL and MCL, there are additional lawsuits pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, which are part of the MDL for polypropylene mesh devices manufactured by C.R. Bard, Inc., and lawsuits pending in two New Jersey MCLs formed for Proceed/Proceed Ventral Patch and Prolene Hernia systems, and lawsuits pending outside the United States. In May 2021, Ethicon

and lead counsel for the plaintiffs entered into a term sheet to resolve approximately 3,600 Physiomesh cases (covering approximately 4,300 plaintiffs) pending in the MDL and MCL at that time. A master settlement agreement (MSA) was entered into in September 2021 and includes 3,729 cases in the MDL and MCL. Other than a small number of cases still pending in the MDL, all Physiomesh matters in the United States have been resolved or are undergoing formal review for purposes of settlement.

Claims have also been filed against Ethicon and the Company alleging personal injuries arising from the PROCEED Mesh and PROCEED Ventral Patch hernia mesh products. In March 2019, the New Jersey Supreme Court entered an order consolidating these cases pending in New Jersey as an MCL in Atlantic County Superior Court. Additional cases have been filed in various federal and state courts in the United States, and in jurisdictions outside the United States.

In October 2022, an agreement in principle, subject to various conditions, was reached to settle the majority of the pending cases involving Proceed, Proceed Ventral Patch, Prolene Hernia System and related multi-layered mesh products, as well as a number of unfiled claims. All litigation activities in the two New Jersey MCLs are stayed pending effectuation of the proposed settlement. Future cases that are filed in the New Jersey MCLs will be subject to docket control orders requiring early expert reports and discovery requirements.

Claims for personal injury have been made against Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and the Company arising out of the use of RISPERDAL, and related compounds, indicated for the treatment of schizophrenia, acute manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder and irritability associated with autism. Lawsuits primarily have been filed in state courts in Pennsylvania, California, and Missouri. Other actions are pending in various courts in the United States and Canada. The Company continues to defend RISPERDAL product liability lawsuits, and continues to evaluate potential costs related to those claims. The Company has successfully defended a number of these cases but there have been verdicts against the Company, including a verdict in October 2019 of $8.0 billion of punitive damages related to one plaintiff, which the trial judge reduced to $6.8 million in January 2020. In September 2021, the Company entered into a settlement in principle with the counsel representing plaintiffs in this matter and in substantially all of the outstanding cases in the United States. The costs associated with this and other settlements are reflected in the Company’s accruals.

Claims for personal injury have been made against a number of Johnson & Johnson companies, including Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and the Company, arising out of the use of ELMIRON, a prescription medication indicated for the relief of bladder pain or discomfort associated with interstitial cystitis. These lawsuits, which allege that ELMIRON contributes to the development of permanent retinal injury and vision loss, have been filed in both state and federal courts across the United States. In December 2020, lawsuits filed in federal courts in the United States, including putative class action cases seeking medical monitoring, were organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (MDL). In addition, cases have been filed in various state courts of New Jersey, which have been coordinated in a multi-county litigation in Bergen County, as well as the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia, which have been coordinated and granted mass tort designation. In addition, three class action lawsuits have been filed in Canada. The Company continues to defend ELMIRON product liability lawsuits and continues to evaluate potential costs related to those claims. Other than a small number of cases in the MDL filed by one law firm, all U.S. based ELMIRON matters have been resolved or are undergoing formal review for purposes of settlement. The Company has established accruals for defense and indemnity costs associated with ELMIRON related product liability litigation.

Certain subsidiaries of the Company 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 scope and/or validity of patents that relate to various products and allegations that certain of the Company’s products infringe the intellectual property rights 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

The Company’s subsidiaries have brought lawsuits against generic companies that have filed ANDAs with the U.S. FDA (or similar lawsuits outside of the United States) seeking to market generic versions of products sold by various subsidiaries of the Company prior to expiration of the applicable patents covering those products. These lawsuits typically include allegations of non-infringement and/or invalidity of patents listed in FDA’s publication “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations” (commonly known as the Orange Book). In each of these lawsuits, the Company’s subsidiaries are seeking an order enjoining the defendant from marketing a generic version of a product before the expiration of the relevant patents (Orange Book Listed Patents). In the event the Company’s subsidiaries are not successful in an action, or any automatic statutory stay expires before the court rulings are obtained, the generic companies involved would have the ability, upon regulatory approval, to introduce generic versions of their products to the market, resulting in the potential for substantial market share and revenue losses for the applicable products, and which may result in a non-cash impairment charge in any associated intangible asset. In addition, from time to time, the Company’s subsidiaries may settle these types of 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.

Beginning in March 2021, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Bayer Pharma AG; Bayer AG; and Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH filed patent infringement lawsuits in United States district courts against generic manufacturers who have filed ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of XARELTO before expiration of certain Orange Book Listed Patents. The following entities are named defendants: Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc.; Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd.; Lupin Limited; Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.; Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc.; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Mylan Inc.; Mankind Pharma Limited; Apotex Inc.; Apotex Corp.; Auson Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Auson Pharmaceuticals Co. Ltd.; Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd; Macleods Pharma USA, Inc.; Indoco Remedies Limited; FPP Holding Company LLC; Umedica Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.; Aurobindo Pharma Limited; Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc.; Cipla Ltd.; Cipla USA Inc.; InvaGen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Prinston Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The following U.S. patents are included in one or more cases: 9,539,218 and 10,828,310. In January 2024, the Company entered into a confidential settlement agreement with Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Macleods Pharma USA, Inc. In February 2024, the Company entered into confidential settlement agreements with Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (as to U.S. Patent No. 9,539,218), as well as Indoco Remedies Limited and FPP Holding Company LLC. In March 2024, the Company entered into confidential settlement agreements with Umedica Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.

Beginning in January 2023 Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd and Actelion Pharmaceuticals US, Inc. filed patent infringement lawsuits in United States district courts against generic manufacturers who have filed ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of OPSUMIT before expiration of certain Orange Book Listed Patents. The following entities are named defendants: Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.; and Torrent Pharma Inc. The following U.S. patents are included in one or more cases: 7,094,781; and 10,946,015.

Beginning in January 2018, Janssen Pharmaceutica NV and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. filed patent infringement lawsuits in United States district courts against generic manufacturers who have filed ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of INVEGA SUSTENNA before expiration of the Orange Book Listed Patent. The following entities are named defendants: Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Mylan Laboratories Limited; Pharmascience Inc.; Mallinckrodt PLC; Specgx LLC; Tolmar, Inc.; and Accord Healthcare, Inc. The following U.S. patent is included in one or more cases: 9,439,906.

Beginning in February 2018, Janssen Inc. and Janssen Pharmaceutica NV initiated a Statement of Claim under Section 6 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations against generic manufacturers who have filed ANDSs seeking approval to market generic versions of INVEGA SUSTENNA before expiration of the listed patent. The following entities are named defendants: Pharmascience Inc. and Apotex Inc. The following Canadian patent is included in one or more cases: 2,655,335.

Beginning in September 2020, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceutica NV, and Janssen Research & Development, LLC filed patent infringement lawsuits in United States district courts against generic manufacturers who have filed ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of INVEGA TRINZA before expiration of the Orange Book Listed Patent. The following entities are named defendants: Mylan Laboratories Limited; Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.; and Mylan Institutional LLC. The following U.S. patent is included in one or more cases: 10,143,693. In May 2023, the District Court issued a decision finding that Mylan’s proposed generic product infringes the asserted patent and that the patent is not invalid. Mylan has appealed the verdict.

Beginning in November 2021, Janssen Products, L.P., Janssen Sciences Ireland Unlimited Company, Gilead Sciences, Inc. and Gilead Sciences Ireland UC filed patent infringement lawsuits in United States district courts against generic manufacturers who have filed ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of SYMTUZA before expiration of certain Orange Book Listed Patents. The following entities are named defendants: Lupin Limited; Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; MSN Laboratories Private Ltd.; MSN Life Sciences Private Ltd.; MSN Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Apotex Inc.; and Apotex Corp. The following U.S. patents are included in one or more cases: 10,039,718 and 10,786,518.

Beginning in May 2022, Aragon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen Biotech, Inc. (collectively, Janssen), Sloan Kettering Institute for Cancer Research (SKI) and The Regents of the University of California filed patent infringement lawsuits in United States district courts against generic manufacturers who have filed ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of ERLEADA before expiration of certain Orange Book Listed Patents. The following entities are named defendants: Zydus Worldwide DMCC; Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA), Inc.; Zydus Lifesciences Limited; Sandoz Inc.; Eugia Pharma Specialities Limited; Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc.; Auromedics Pharma LLC; Hetero Labs Limited Unit V; and Hetero USA, Inc. The following U.S. patents are included in one or more cases: 9,481,663; 9,884,054; 10,052,314 (which reissued as RE49,353); 10,702,508; 10,849,888; 8,445,507; 8,802,689; 9,388,159; 9,987,261; and RE49,353.

Beginning in November 2022, Actelion Pharmaceuticals US Inc., Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd and Nippon Shinyaku Co., Ltd. filed patent infringement lawsuits in United States district courts against generic manufacturers who have filed ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of UPTRAVI intravenous before expiration of certain Orange Book Listed Patents. The following entities are named defendants: Lupin Ltd.; Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Cipla Limited; Cipla USA Inc.; MSN Laboratories Private Ltd.; and MSN Pharmaceuticals Inc. The following U.S. patents are included in one or more cases: 8,791,122 and 9,284,280. In February 2024, the Company entered into a confidential settlement agreement with Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Beginning in May 2023, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Janssen Pharmaceutica NV filed patent infringement lawsuits in United States district courts against generic manufacturers who have filed ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of SPRAVATO before expiration of certain Orange Book Listed Patents. The following entities are named defendants: Sandoz Inc.; Hikma Pharmaceuticals Inc. USA; Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC; and Alkem Laboratories Ltd. The following U.S. patents are included in one or more cases: 10,869,844; 11,173,134; 11,311,500; and 11,446,260.

Beginning in January 2024, Janssen Inc. and Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation initiated Statements of Claim under Section 6 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations against a generic manufacturer who filed an ANDS seeking approval to market generic versions of INVOKANA before expiration of the listed patents. The following entity is a named defendant: Jamp Pharma Corporation. The following Canadian patents are included in one ore more cases: 2,534,024 and 2,671,357.

In March 2016, Abiomed, Inc. (Abiomed) filed a declaratory judgment action against Maquet Cardiovascular LLC (Maquet) in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking a declaration that the Impella does not infringe certain Maquet patents, currently U.S. Patent Nos. 7,022,100 (’100); 8,888,728; 9,327,068; 9,545,468; 9,561,314; and 9,597,437. Maquet counterclaimed for infringement of each of those patents. After claim construction, Maquet alleged infringement of only the ’100 patent. In

Like other companies in the pharmaceutical and medical technologies industries, the Company 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. Such regulation has been the basis of government investigations and litigations. 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.

In July 2018, the Public Prosecution Service in Rio de Janeiro and representatives from the Brazilian antitrust authority CADE inspected the offices of more than 30 companies including Johnson & Johnson do Brasil Indústria e Comércio de Produtos para Saúde Ltda. The authorities appear to be investigating allegations of possible anti-competitive behavior and possible improper payments in the medical device industry. The Company continues to respond to inquiries regarding the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act from the United States Department of Justice and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

In July 2023, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued Civil Investigative Demands to the Company, Johnson & Johnson Surgical Vision, Inc., and Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. (collectively, J&J Vision) in connection with a civil investigation under the False Claims Act relating to free or discounted intraocular lenses and equipment used in eye surgery, such as phacoemulsification and laser systems. J&J Vision has begun producing documents and information responsive to the Civil Investigative Demands. J&J Vision is in ongoing discussions with the DOJ regarding its inquiry.

In July 2016, the Company and Janssen Products, LP were served with a qui tam complaint pursuant to the False Claims Act filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging the off-label promotion of two HIV products, PREZISTA and INTELENCE, and anti-kickback violations in connection with the promotion of these products. The complaint was filed under seal in December 2012. The federal and state governments have declined to intervene, and the lawsuit is being prosecuted by the relators. The Court denied summary judgment on all claims in December 2021. Daubert motions were granted in part and denied in part in January 2022, and the case is proceeding to trial. Trial is scheduled for May 2024.

In March 2017, Janssen Biotech, Inc. (JBI) 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 August 2019, the United States Department of Justice notified JBI that it was closing the investigation. Subsequently, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts unsealed a qui tam False Claims Act complaint, which was served on the Company. The Department of Justice had declined to intervene in the qui tam lawsuit in August 2019. The Company filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted in part and denied in part. Discovery is underway.

The Company or its subsidiaries are also parties to various 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 Company’s agreement to implement remediation activities at designated hazardous waste sites or to reimburse the government or third parties for the costs they have incurred in performing remediation as such sites.

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 in United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 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. In July 2020, the District Court dismissed the complaint. In January 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the District Court’s decision. In June 2023, defendants filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.

In February 2024, a putative class action was filed against the Company, the Pension & Benefits Committee of Johnson & Johnson, and certain named officers and employees, in United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges that defendants breached fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by allegedly mismanaging the Company’s prescription-drug benefits program. The complaint seeks damages and other relief.

In October 2020, Fortis Advisors LLC (Fortis), in its capacity as representative of the former stockholders of Auris Health Inc. (Auris), filed a complaint against the Company, Ethicon Inc., and certain named officers and employees (collectively, Ethicon) in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The complaint alleges breach of contract, fraud, and other causes of action against Ethicon in connection with Ethicon’s acquisition of Auris in 2019. The complaint seeks damages and other relief. In December 2021, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss certain causes of action. All claims against the individual defendants were dismissed. The trial was held in January 2024 and the decision is pending.

In June 2019, the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a Civil Investigative Demand to the Company and Janssen Biotech, Inc. (collectively, Janssen) in connection with its investigation of whether Janssen’s REMICADE contracting practices violate federal antitrust laws. The Company has produced documents and information responsive to the Civil Investigative Demand. Janssen is in ongoing discussions with the FTC staff regarding its inquiry.

In February 2022, the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued Civil Investigative Demands to Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Biotech, Inc. (collectively, Janssen) in connection with its investigation of whether advertising practices for REMICADE violate federal law. Janssen has produced documents and information responsive to the Civil Investigative Demands. Janssen is in ongoing discussions with the FTC staff regarding the inquiry.

In October 2018, two separate putative class actions were filed against Actelion Pharmaceutical Ltd., Actelion Pharmaceuticals U.S., Inc., and Actelion Clinical Research, Inc. (collectively Actelion) in United States District Court for the District of Maryland and United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The complaints allege that Actelion violated state and federal antitrust and unfair competition laws by allegedly refusing to supply generic pharmaceutical manufacturers with samples of TRACLEER. TRACLEER is subject to a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which imposes restrictions on distribution of the product. In January 2019, the plaintiffs dismissed the District of Columbia case and filed a consolidated complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. In September 2019, the district court granted Actelion's motion to dismiss the complaint. In April 2024, the Fourth Circuit reversed the decision of the district court. Plaintiff's motion for class certification and Actelion's motion for summary judgment currently are pending before the district court.

In December 2023, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and Janssen Biotech Inc. (collectively Janssen) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The complaint alleges that Janssen violated federal and state antitrust laws and other state laws by delaying biosimilar competition with STELARA through Janssen's enforcement of patent rights covering STELARA. The complaint seeks damages and other relief. In March 2024, Janssen filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

In June 2022, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. filed a Demand for Arbitration against Emergent Biosolutions Inc. et al (EBSI) with the American Arbitration Association, alleging that EBSI breached the parties’ Manufacturing Services Agreement for the Company’s COVID-19 vaccine. In July 2022, Emergent filed its answering statement and counterclaims. The hearing is scheduled for July 2024.