Contingencies and Environmental Liabilities	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies and Environmental Liabilities	Contingencies and Environmental Liabilities The Company is involved in various claims and legal proceedings of a nature considered normal to its business, including product liability, intellectual property, commercial litigation, and securities litigation, as well as certain additional matters including governmental and environmental matters. In the opinion of the Company, it is unlikely that the resolution of these matters will be material to the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Given the nature of the litigation discussed below and the complexities involved in these matters, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss for such matters until the Company knows, among other factors, (i) what claims, if any, will survive dispositive motion practice, (ii) the extent of the claims, including the size of any potential class, particularly when damages are not specified or are indeterminate, (iii) how the discovery process will affect the litigation, (iv) the settlement posture of the other parties to the litigation and (v) any other factors that may have a material effect on the litigation. The Company records accruals for contingencies when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. These accruals are adjusted periodically as assessments change or additional information becomes available. Generally, for product liability claims, a portion of the overall accrual is actuarially determined and considers such factors as past experience, number of claims reported and estimates of claims incurred but not yet reported. Individually significant contingent losses are accrued when probable and reasonably estimable. Legal defense costs expected to be incurred in connection with a loss contingency are accrued when probable and reasonably estimable. The Company’s decision to obtain insurance coverage is dependent on market conditions, including cost and availability, existing at the time such decisions are made. The Company has evaluated its risks and has determined that the cost of obtaining product liability insurance outweighs the likely benefits of the coverage that is available and, as such, has no insurance for most product liabilities. Product Liability Litigation Dr Scholl’s Foot Powder As previously disclosed, Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the U.S. arising from consumers’ alleged exposure to talc in Dr. Scholl’s foot powder, which Merck acquired through its merger with Schering-Plough Corporation and sold as part of the divestiture of Merck’s consumer care business to Bayer in 2014. In these actions, plaintiffs allege that they were exposed to asbestos-contaminated talc and developed mesothelioma as a result. As of December 31, 2024, approximately 415 cases were pending against Merck in various state courts. Gardasil/Gardasil 9 As previously disclosed, Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the U.S. involving Gardasil (Human Papillomavirus Quadrivalent [Types 6, 11, 16 and 18] Vaccine, Recombinant) and Gardasil 9 (Human Papillomavirus 9-valent Vaccine, Recombinant). As of December 31, 2024, approximately 225 cases were filed and pending against Merck in either federal or state court. In these actions, plaintiffs allege, among other things, that they suffered various personal injuries after vaccination with Gardasil or Gardasil 9, with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) as a predominate alleged injury. In August 2022, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that Gardasil/Gardasil 9 product liability cases pending in federal courts nationwide be transferred to Judge Robert J. Conrad in the Western District of North Carolina for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. In February 2024, the multidistrict litigation was reassigned to Judge Kenneth D. Bell. As previously disclosed, there are fewer than 15 product liability cases pending outside the U.S. On January 28, 2025, a trial commenced in California state court. Plaintiff claims that she suffers from POTS and fibromyalgia as a result of her Gardasil vaccinations. On February 14, 2025, after four weeks of trial and an opportunity to litigate plaintiff’s claims before a jury, plaintiff’s counsel approached Merck and proposed that the jury be discharged and the case adjourned. Merck agreed, subject to an explicit stipulation that Merck would provide no financial or other consideration in exchange for the agreement to adjourn. The case has thus been adjourned until a new trial date of September 15, 2025. Merck is vigorously defending this case and believes that evidence presented in court will show that Gardasil had no role in causing any of plaintiff’s conditions. Governmental Proceedings Civil Investigative Demands As previously disclosed, in June 2024, Merck received a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) from the U.S. Department of Justice, pursuant to a False Claims Act investigation, seeking documents and materials related to Steglatro, Januvia and certain related drugs. The CID states that it is investigating Merck’s price reporting under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program as well as compliance with anti-kickback requirements in connection with patient assistance programs. The Company is cooperating with the investigation. As previously disclosed, in June 2020, Merck received a CID from the U.S. Department of Justice. The CID requests answers to interrogatories, as well as various documents, regarding temperature excursions at a third-party storage facility containing certain Merck products. Merck is cooperating with the government’s investigation and intends to produce information and/or documents as necessary in response to the CID. Inflation Reduction Act As previously disclosed, in June 2023, Merck filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the U.S. government regarding the Inflation Reduction Act’s “Drug Price Negotiation Program” for Medicare (the Program). This litigation seeks relief from the Program by challenging its constitutionality as violative of the First and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Other Matters As previously disclosed, in April 2019, Merck received a set of investigative interrogatories from the California Attorney General’s Office pursuant to its investigation of conduct and agreements that allegedly affected or delayed competition to Lantus in the insulin market. The interrogatories seek information concerning Merck’s development of an insulin glargine product, and its subsequent termination, as well as Merck’s patent litigation against Sanofi S.A. concerning Lantus and the resolution of that litigation. Merck is cooperating with the California Attorney General’s investigation. As previously disclosed, from time to time, the Company’s subsidiaries in China receive inquiries regarding their operations from various Chinese governmental agencies. Some of these inquiries may be related to matters involving other multinational pharmaceutical companies, as well as Chinese entities doing business with such companies. The Company’s policy is to cooperate with these authorities and to provide responses as appropriate. As previously disclosed, from time to time, the Company receives inquiries and is the subject of preliminary investigation activities from competition and other governmental authorities in markets outside the U.S. These authorities may include regulators, administrative authorities, and law enforcement and other similar officials, and these preliminary investigation activities may include site visits, formal or informal requests or demands for documents or materials, inquiries or interviews and similar matters. Certain of these preliminary inquiries or activities may lead to the commencement of formal proceedings. Should those proceedings be determined adversely to the Company, monetary fines and/or remedial undertakings may be required. Securities Litigation In February 2025, a putative class action was filed against Merck and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of Merck common stock between February 2022 and February 2025. Plaintiff alleges that Merck violated federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements and material omissions regarding demand for Gardasil/Gardasil 9 in China. Plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and fees and costs. Commercial and Other Litigation Zetia Antitrust Litigation As previously disclosed, Merck, MSD, Schering Corporation, Schering-Plough Corporation, and MSP Singapore Company LLC (collectively, the Merck Defendants) were defendants in a number of lawsuits filed in 2018 on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of Zetia (ezetimibe) alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws, as well as other state statutory and common law causes of action. The cases were consolidated in a federal multidistrict litigation (Zetia MDL) before Judge Rebecca Beach Smith in the Eastern District of Virginia. In April 2023, the Merck Defendants reached settlements with the direct purchaser and retailer plaintiffs and a settlement with the indirect purchaser class that the court approved in October 2023. As previously disclosed, in 2020 and 2021, United Healthcare Services, Inc. (United Healthcare), Humana Inc. (Humana), Centene Corporation and others (Centene), and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (Kaiser) (collectively, the Insurer Plaintiffs), each filed a lawsuit in a jurisdiction outside of the Eastern District of Virginia against the Merck Defendants and others, making similar allegations as those made in the Zetia MDL, as well as additional allegations about Vytorin. These cases were transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia to proceed with the Zetia MDL. In December 2023, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation remanded the four Insurer Plaintiff cases to the transferor courts in the Northern District of California (Kaiser), the District of Minnesota (United Healthcare), and the District of New Jersey (Humana and Centene). The Merck Defendants filed motions to dismiss in each of the Insurer Plaintiff cases. On December 30, 2024, the court granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss in the Humana and Centene cases, and on January 29, 2025, Humana and Centene filed amended complaints. RotaTeq Antitrust Litigation As previously disclosed, in March 2023, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore filed a putative class action against MSD in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all third-party payors in 35 states that indirectly purchased, paid, and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price of RotaTeq (Rotavirus Vaccine, Live Oral, Pentavalent), other than for resale, from March 3, 2019 to the present. Plaintiff alleges that MSD violated federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws. Plaintiff alleges that MSD has implemented an anticompetitive vaccine bundling scheme whereby MSD leverages its alleged monopoly power in certain pediatric vaccine markets to maintain its alleged monopoly power in the U.S. market for rotavirus vaccines in order to charge supracompetitive prices for RotaTeq. Plaintiff seeks permanent injunctive relief and unspecified monetary damages on purchases of RotaTeq, trebled, and fees and costs. In May 2023, MSD moved to dismiss the complaint. In November 2023, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, dismissing plaintiff’s Idaho and Utah consumer law claims and allowing all other claims to proceed. Bravecto Litigation As previously disclosed, in January 2020, the Company was served with a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Following motion practice, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint in August 2024, seeking to certify a nationwide class action of purchasers or users of Bravecto (fluralaner) products in the U.S. or its territories between May 1, 2014 and July 1, 2021. Plaintiffs contend Bravecto causes neurological events in dogs and cats and alleges violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Breach of Warranty, Product Liability, and related theories. The Company moved to dismiss or, alternatively, to strike the class allegations from the third amended complaint, and that motion is pending. A similar case was filed in Quebec, Canada in May 2019. The Superior Court certified a class of dog owners in Quebec who gave Bravecto Chew to their dogs between February 16, 2017 and November 2, 2018 whose dogs experienced one of the conditions in the post-marketing adverse reactions section of the labeling approved on November 2, 2018. The Company and plaintiffs each appealed the class certification decision. The Court of Appeal of Quebec amended the class period to start July 2, 2014, allowed the second plaintiff to serve as a class representative, and modified the list of conditions in the class definition. The Company sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, which was denied. The case is proceeding in the Superior Court. 340B Program Litigation As previously disclosed, Merck filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to challenge the letter Merck received from the U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) in May 2022 regarding Merck’s 340B Program integrity initiative. On September 17, 2024, the court entered a consent judgment granting Merck the relief it had sought in the litigation, including declarations that HRSA’s May 2022 letter was unlawful and that the version of Merck’s 340B Program integrity initiative at issue in the litigation did not violate Section 340B on its face. Qui Tam Litigation As previously disclosed, in June 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania unsealed a complaint that had been filed against the Company under the federal False Claims Act by two former employees alleging, among other things, that the Company defrauded the U.S. government by falsifying data in connection with a clinical study conducted on the mumps component of the Company’s M-M-R II vaccine. The complaint alleges the fraud took place between 1999 and 2001. The U.S. government had the right to participate in and take over the prosecution of this lawsuit but notified the court that it declined to exercise that right. The two former employees pursued the lawsuit without the involvement of the U.S. government. In July 2023, the court denied relators’ motion for summary judgment, granted two of the Company’s motions for summary judgment, and denied the Company’s remaining motions for summary judgment as moot. The court entered judgment in favor of the Company and dismissed relators’ amended complaint in full with prejudice. Relators appealed that decision, and in August 2024, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. In addition, as previously disclosed, two putative class action lawsuits on behalf of direct purchasers of the M‑M‑R II vaccine, which charge that the Company misrepresented the efficacy of the M-M-R II vaccine in violation of federal antitrust laws and various state consumer protection laws, are pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ state law claims and denied the motion as to plaintiffs’ antitrust claim. The Company appealed, and on October 7, 2024, the Third Circuit reversed-in-part the district court’s order and remanded the case with instructions to enter summary judgment for the Company. On November 20, 2024, plaintiffs-appellees filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc, and on February 10, 2025, the court denied the petition. Merck KGaA Litigation As previously disclosed, in January 2016, to protect its long-established brand rights in the U.S., the Company filed a lawsuit against Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany (KGaA), historically operating as the EMD Group in the U.S., alleging it improperly uses the name “Merck” in the U.S. KGaA has filed suit against the Company in a number of jurisdictions outside of the U.S. alleging, among other things, unfair competition, trademark infringement and/or corporate name infringement. In certain of those jurisdictions, KGaA also alleges breach of the parties’ coexistence agreement. The litigation is ongoing in the U.S. with no trial date set, and also ongoing in jurisdictions outside of the U.S. Patent Litigation From time to time, generic manufacturers of pharmaceutical products file abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) seeking to market generic forms of the Company’s products prior to the expiration of relevant patents owned by the Company. To protect its patent rights, the Company may file patent infringement lawsuits against such generic companies. Similar lawsuits defending the Company’s patent rights may exist in other countries. The Company intends to vigorously defend its patents, which it believes are valid, against infringement by companies attempting to market products prior to the expiration of such patents. As with any litigation, there can be no assurance of the outcomes, which, if adverse, could result in significantly shortened periods of exclusivity for these products and, with respect to products acquired through acquisitions accounted for as business combinations, potentially significant intangible asset impairment charges. Bridion — As previously disclosed, between January and November 2020, the Company received multiple Paragraph IV Certification Letters under the Hatch-Waxman Act notifying the Company that generic drug companies had filed applications to the FDA seeking pre-patent expiry approval to sell generic versions of Bridion (sugammadex) Injection. In March, April and December 2020, the Company filed patent infringement lawsuits in the U.S. District Courts for the District of New Jersey and the Northern District of West Virginia against those generic companies. All actions in the District of New Jersey were consolidated. The West Virginia case was jointly dismissed with prejudice in August 2022 in favor of proceeding in New Jersey. The remaining defendants in the New Jersey action have stipulated to infringement of the asserted claims and withdrew all remaining claims and defenses other than a defense seeking to shorten the patent term extension (PTE) of the sugammadex patent to December 2022. The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey held a one-day trial in December 2022 on this remaining PTE calculation defense. The court ordered a post-trial briefing on this defense and held closing arguments in February 2023. As previously disclosed, in June 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey ruled in Merck’s favor. The court held that Merck’s calculation of PTE for the sugammadex patent covering the compound is not invalid and that the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office correctly granted a full five-year extension. This ruling affirms and validates Merck’s U.S. patent protection for Bridion through at least January 2026. Also in June 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey issued a final judgment prohibiting the FDA from approving any of the pending or tentatively approved generic applications until January 27, 2026, except for any subsequent agreements between defendants and Merck or further order by the court. In July 2023, defendants filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appeal is currently pending. Oral argument took place on February 4, 2025. While the New Jersey action was pending, the Company settled with five generic companies providing that these generic companies can bring their generic versions of Bridion to the market in January 2026 (which may be delayed by any applicable pediatric exclusivity) or earlier under certain circumstances. The Company agreed to stay the lawsuit filed against two generic companies, which in exchange agreed to be bound by a judgment on the merits of the consolidated action in the District of New Jersey. One of the generic companies in the consolidated action requested dismissal of the action against it and the Company did not oppose this request, which was subsequently granted by the court. The Company does not expect this company to bring its generic version of Bridion to the market before January 2026 or later, depending on any applicable pediatric exclusivity. In February 2024, the Company received another Paragraph IV Certification Letter under the Hatch-Waxman Act notifying the Company that Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. (Hikma) had filed an application to the FDA seeking pre-patent expiry approval to sell a generic version of Bridion Injection. In March 2024, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Hikma, postponing FDA approval of the Hikma generic drug for 30 months or until expiration of the sugammadex patent (January 27, 2026) and any potentially applicable pediatric exclusivity or an adverse court decision, if any, whichever may occur earlier. Expiration of the patent, and any potentially applicable pediatric exclusivity, will occur earlier than expiry of the 30-month stay. On April 16, 2024, the district court stayed the case during the pendency of the Federal Circuit appeal noted above. Januvia, Janumet, Janumet XR — As previously disclosed, the FDA granted pediatric exclusivity with respect to Januvia (sitagliptin), Janumet (sitagliptin/metformin HCl), and Janumet XR (sitagliptin and metformin HCl extended-release), which provides a further six months of exclusivity in the U.S. beyond the expiration of all patents listed in the FDA’s Orange Book. Adding this exclusivity to the term of the key patent protection extended exclusivity on these products to January 2023. However, Januvia, Janumet, and Janumet XR contain sitagliptin phosphate monohydrate and the Company has another patent covering certain phosphate salt and polymorphic forms of sitagliptin that expires in May 2027, including pediatric exclusivity (salt/polymorph patent). As previously disclosed, beginning in 2019, a number of generic drug companies filed ANDAs seeking approval of generic forms of Januvia and Janumet along with paragraph IV certifications challenging the validity of the salt/polymorph patent. The Company responded by filing infringement suits which have all been settled. The Company has settled with a total 26 generic companies providing that these generic companies can bring their generic versions of Januvia and Janumet to the market in the U.S. in May 2026 or earlier under certain circumstances, and their generic versions of Janumet XR to the market in July 2026 or earlier under certain circumstances. In March 2021, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Zydus Worldwide DMCC, Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc., and Cadila Healthcare Ltd. (collectively, Zydus). In that lawsuit, the Company alleged infringement of the salt/polymorph patent based on the filing of Zydus’s NDA seeking approval of a form of sitagliptin that is a different from than that used in Januvia. In December 2022, the parties reached settlement that included dismissal of the case without prejudice enabling Zydus to seek final approval of a non-automatically substitutable product. In January 2023, the Company received a Paragraph IV Certification Letter under the Hatch-Waxman Act notifying the Company that Zydus filed an ANDA seeking approval of sitagliptin/metformin HCl tablets and certifying that no valid or enforceable claim of any of the patents listed in FDA’s Orange Book for Janumet will be infringed by the proposed Zydus product. In March 2023, the parties reached settlement enabling Zydus to seek final approval of a non-automatically substitutable product containing a different form of sitagliptin than that used in Janumet. In November 2023, the Company received a Paragraph IV Certification Letter under the Hatch-Waxman Act notifying the Company that Zydus filed an ANDA seeking approval of sitagliptin/metformin HCl Extended Release tablets. In January 2024, the parties reached settlement enabling Zydus to seek final approval of a non-automatically substitutable version containing a different form of sitagliptin than that used in Janumet XR. As a result of these settlement agreements related to the later expiring salt/polymorph patent directed to the specific sitagliptin salt form of the products, the Company expects that Januvia and Janumet will not lose market exclusivity in the U.S. until May 2026 and Janumet XR will not lose market exclusivity in the U.S. until July 2026, although Zydus has received FDA approval for a non-automatically substitutable form of sitagliptin that differs from the form in the Company’s sitagliptin products. In March 2024, the Company received another Paragraph IV Certification Letter under the Hatch-Waxman Act from Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Azurity) asserting that a different sitagliptin product subject to its ANDA does not infringe the salt/polymorph patent. In May 2024, Merck filed a civil action in the U.S. District Court of Delaware alleging infringement. The case was dismissed without prejudice in July 2024. Following the dismissal, the Company granted Azurity a covenant not to assert the salt/polymorph patent against the Azurity product that is the subject of such ANDA. Supplementary Protection Certificates (SPCs) for Janumet expired in April 2023 for the majority of European countries. Prior to expiration, generic companies sought revocation of the Janumet SPCs in a number of European countries. In February 2022, a Finnish court referred certain questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union that could impact the validity of the Janumet SPCs in Europe. A decision was rendered on December 19, 2024. The decision provides guidance on points of law and does not directly apply these to the Janumet SPCs. Thus, additional proceedings in certain countries where generic companies were prevented from launching products during the SPC period may be necessary to determine whether the SPCs are valid and if not, whether damages are appropriate. Those countries include Belgium, Czech Republic, Ireland, Finland, France, Slovakia and Switzerland. If the Janumet SPCs are ultimately upheld, the Company has reserved its rights related to the pursuit of damages for those countries where a generic launched prior to expiry of the Janumet SPC. In October 2023, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Sawai Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. and Medisa Shinyaku Co., Ltd (collectively, Defendants) in the Tokyo District Court seeking an injunction to stop the manufacture, sale and offer for sale of the Defendants’ sitagliptin dihydrogen phosphate product, while the Company’s patents and patent term extensions are in force. The lawsuit is in response to the Defendants’ application for marketing authorization to sell a generic sitagliptin dihydrogen phosphate product, in the anhydrate form, which was approved in August 2023. Merck asserts that the Defendants’ activity infringes a patent term extension associated with Merck’s patent directed to the sitagliptin compound patent. Keytruda — As previously disclosed, in November 2022, the Company filed a complaint against The Johns Hopkins University (JHU) in the U.S. District Court of Maryland. This action concerns patents emerging from a joint research collaboration between Merck and JHU regarding the use of pembrolizumab, which Merck sells under the trade name Keytruda. Merck and JHU partnered to design and conduct a clinical study administering Keytruda to cancer patients having tumors that had the genetic biomarker known as microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H). After the conclusion of the study, JHU secured U.S. patents citing the joint research study. Merck alleges that JHU has breached the collaboration agreement by filing and obtaining these patents without informing or involving Merck and then licensing the patents to others. Merck therefore brought this action for breach of contract, declaratory judgment of noninfringement, and promissory estoppel. JHU answered the complaint in April and May 2023, denying Merck’s claims, and counterclaiming for willful infringement of nine issued U.S. patents, including a demand for damages. Between November 30, 2023 and March 13, 2024, the Company filed inter partes review petitions with the United States Patent & Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), challenging the validity of all nine patents asserted in the case. Between June 2024 and October 2024, the PTAB instituted a review of all nine asserted patents. In July 2024, the district court granted Merck’s motion to stay the case in its entirety pending the outcome of the PTAB proceeding instituted in June 2024. Lynparza — As previously disclosed, in December 2022, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP received a Paragraph IV Certification Letter under the Hatch-Waxman Act notifying AstraZeneca that Natco Pharma Limited (Natco) has filed an application to the FDA seeking pre-patent expiry approval to sell generic versions of Lynparza (olaparib) tablet. In February 2023, AstraZeneca and the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Natco. This lawsuit, which asserts one or more patents covering olaparib, automatically stays FDA approval of the generic application until June 2025 or until an adverse court decision, if any, whichever may occur earlier. In May, June, July, and November 2024, AstraZeneca and the Company filed additional patent infringement lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Natco asserting additional patents covering olaparib. In December 2023, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP received a second Paragraph IV Certification Letter under the Hatch-Waxman Act notifying AstraZeneca that Sandoz Inc. has filed an application to the FDA seeking pre-patent expiry approval to sell generic versions of Lynparza (olaparib) tablet. In February 2024, AstraZeneca and the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Sandoz. This lawsuit, which asserts one or more patents covering olaparib, automatically stays FDA approval of the generic application until June 2026 or until an adverse court decision, if any, whichever may occur earlier. In May, July, and November 2024, AstraZeneca and the Company filed additional patent infringement lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Sandoz asserting additional patents covering olaparib. In May 2024, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP received a third Paragraph IV Certification Letter under the Hatch-Waxman Act notifying AstraZeneca that Cipla USA, Inc. and Cipla Limited (collectively, Cipla) filed an application to the FDA seeking pre-patent expiry approval to sell generic versions of Lynparza (olaparib) tablet. In June 2024, AstraZeneca and the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Cipla. This lawsuit, which asserts one or more patents covering olaparib, automatically stays FDA approval of the generic application until November 2026 or until an adverse court decision, if any, whichever may occur earlier. In June, July, and November 2024, AstraZeneca and the Company filed additional patent infringement lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Cipla asserting additional patents covering olaparib. In November 2024, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP received another Paragraph IV Certification Letter under the Hatch-Waxman Act notifying AstraZeneca that Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. filed an application to the FDA seeking pre-patent expiry approval to sell generic versions of Lynparza (olaparib) tablet. In November 2024, AstraZeneca and the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Zydus. This lawsuit, which asserts one or more patents covering olaparib, automatically stays FDA approval of the generic application until May 2027 or until an adverse court decision, if any, whichever may occur earlier. In November 2024, AstraZeneca and the Company filed an additional patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Zydus asserting an additional patent covering olaparib. Other Litigation There are various other pending legal proceedings involving the Company, principally product liability and intellectual property lawsuits. While it is not feasible to predict the outcome of such proceedings, in the opinion of the Company, either the likelihood of loss is remote or any reasonably possible loss associated with the resolution of such proceedings is not expected to be material to the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows either individually or in the aggregate. Legal Defense Reserves Legal defense costs expected to be incurred in connection with a loss contingency are accrued when probable and reasonably estimable. Some of the significant factors considered in the review of these legal defense reserves are as follows: the actual costs incurred by the Company; the development of the Company’s legal defense strategy and structure in light of the scope of its litigation; the number of cases being brought against the Company; the costs and outcomes of completed trials and the most current information regarding anticipated timing, progression, and related costs of pre-trial activities and trials in the associated litigation. The amount of legal defense reserves as of December 31, 2024 and 2023 of approximately $225 million and $210 million, respectively, represents the Company’s best estimate of the minimum amount of defense costs to be incurred in connection with its outstanding litigation; however, events such as additional trials and other events that could arise in the course of its litigation could affect the ultimate amount of legal defense costs to be incurred by the Company. The Company will continue to monitor its legal defense costs and review the adequacy of the associated reserves and may determine to increase the reserves at any time in the future if, based upon the factors set forth, it believes it would be appropriate to do so. Environmental Matters The Company and its subsidiaries are parties to a number of proceedings brought under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, commonly known as Superfund, and other federal and state equivalents. These proceedings seek to require the operators of hazardous waste disposal facilities, transporters of waste to the sites and generators of hazardous waste disposed of at the sites to clean up the sites or to reimburse the government for cleanup costs. The Company has been made a party to these proceedings as an alleged generator of waste disposed of at the sites. In each case, the government alleges that the defendants are jointly and severally liable for the cleanup costs. Although joint and several liability is alleged, these proceedings are frequently resolved so that the allocation of cleanup costs among the parties more nearly reflects the relative contributions of the parties to the site situation. The Company’s potential liability varies greatly from site to site. For some sites the potential liability is de minimis and for others the final costs of cleanup have not yet been determined. While it is not feasible to predict the outcome of many of these proceedings brought by federal or state agencies or private litigants, in the opinion of the Company, such proceedings should not ultimately result in any liability which would have a material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of operations or liquidity of the Company. The Company has taken an active role in identifying and accruing for these costs and such amounts do not include any reduction for anticipated recoveries of cleanup costs from former site owners or operators or other recalcitrant potentially responsible parties. In management’s opinion, the liabilities for all environmental matters that are probable and reasonably estimable have been accrued and totaled $41 million and $42 million at December 31, 2024 and 2023, respectively. These liabilities are undiscounted, do not consider potential recoveries from other parties and will be paid out over the periods of remediation for the applicable sites, which are expected to occur primarily over the next 15 years. Although it is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome of these matters, or the ultimate costs of remediation, management does not believe that any reasonably possible expenditures that may be incurred in excess of the liabilities accrued should exceed approximately $46 million in the aggregate. Management also does not believe that these expenditures should result in a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or liquidity for any year.

The Company is involved in various claims and legal proceedings of a nature considered normal to its business, including product liability, intellectual property, commercial litigation, and securities litigation, as well as certain additional matters including governmental and environmental matters. In the opinion of the Company, it is unlikely that the resolution of these matters will be material to the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Given the nature of the litigation discussed below and the complexities involved in these matters, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss for such matters until the Company knows, among other factors, (i) what claims, if any, will survive dispositive motion practice, (ii) the extent of the claims, including the size of any potential class, particularly when damages are not specified or are indeterminate, (iii) how the discovery process will affect the litigation, (iv) the settlement posture of the other parties to the litigation and (v) any other factors that may have a material effect on the litigation.

The Company records accruals for contingencies when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. These accruals are adjusted periodically as assessments change or additional information becomes available. Generally, for product liability claims, a portion of the overall accrual is actuarially determined and considers such factors as past experience, number of claims reported and estimates of claims incurred but not yet reported. Individually significant contingent losses are accrued when probable and reasonably estimable. Legal defense costs expected to be incurred in connection with a loss contingency are accrued when probable and reasonably estimable.

The Company’s decision to obtain insurance coverage is dependent on market conditions, including cost and availability, existing at the time such decisions are made. The Company has evaluated its risks and has determined that the cost of obtaining product liability insurance outweighs the likely benefits of the coverage that is available and, as such, has no insurance for most product liabilities.

As previously disclosed, Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the U.S. arising from consumers’ alleged exposure to talc in Dr. Scholl’s foot powder, which Merck acquired through its merger with Schering-Plough Corporation and sold as part of the divestiture of Merck’s consumer care business to Bayer in 2014. In these actions, plaintiffs allege that they were exposed to asbestos-contaminated talc and developed mesothelioma as a result. As of December 31, 2024, approximately 415 cases were pending against Merck in various state courts.

As previously disclosed, Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the U.S. involving Gardasil (Human Papillomavirus Quadrivalent [Types 6, 11, 16 and 18] Vaccine, Recombinant) and Gardasil 9 (Human Papillomavirus 9-valent Vaccine, Recombinant). As of December 31, 2024, approximately 225 cases were filed and pending against Merck in either federal or state court. In these actions, plaintiffs allege, among other things, that they suffered various personal injuries after vaccination with Gardasil or Gardasil 9, with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) as a predominate alleged injury. In August 2022, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that Gardasil/Gardasil 9 product liability cases pending in federal courts nationwide be transferred to Judge Robert J. Conrad in the Western District of North Carolina for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. In February 2024, the multidistrict litigation was reassigned to Judge Kenneth D. Bell. As previously disclosed, there are fewer than 15 product liability cases pending outside the U.S.

On January 28, 2025, a trial commenced in California state court. Plaintiff claims that she suffers from POTS and fibromyalgia as a result of her Gardasil vaccinations. On February 14, 2025, after four weeks of trial and an opportunity to litigate plaintiff’s claims before a jury, plaintiff’s counsel approached Merck and proposed that the jury be discharged and the case adjourned. Merck agreed, subject to an explicit stipulation that Merck would provide no financial or other consideration in exchange for the agreement to adjourn. The case has thus been adjourned until a new trial date of September 15, 2025. Merck is vigorously defending this case and believes that evidence presented in court will show that Gardasil had no role in causing any of plaintiff’s conditions.

As previously disclosed, in June 2024, Merck received a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) from the U.S. Department of Justice, pursuant to a False Claims Act investigation, seeking documents and materials related to Steglatro, Januvia and certain related drugs. The CID states that it is investigating Merck’s price reporting under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program as well as compliance with anti-kickback requirements in connection with patient assistance programs. The Company is cooperating with the investigation.

As previously disclosed, in June 2020, Merck received a CID from the U.S. Department of Justice. The CID requests answers to interrogatories, as well as various documents, regarding temperature excursions at a third-party storage facility containing certain Merck products. Merck is cooperating with the government’s investigation and intends to produce information and/or documents as necessary in response to the CID.

As previously disclosed, in June 2023, Merck filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the U.S. government regarding the Inflation Reduction Act’s “Drug Price Negotiation Program” for Medicare (the Program). This litigation seeks relief from the Program by challenging its constitutionality as violative of the First and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

As previously disclosed, in April 2019, Merck received a set of investigative interrogatories from the California Attorney General’s Office pursuant to its investigation of conduct and agreements that allegedly affected or delayed competition to Lantus in the insulin market. The interrogatories seek information concerning Merck’s development of an insulin glargine product, and its subsequent termination, as well as Merck’s patent litigation against Sanofi S.A. concerning Lantus and the resolution of that litigation. Merck is cooperating with the California Attorney General’s investigation.

As previously disclosed, from time to time, the Company’s subsidiaries in China receive inquiries regarding their operations from various Chinese governmental agencies. Some of these inquiries may be related to matters involving other multinational pharmaceutical companies, as well as Chinese entities doing business with such companies. The Company’s policy is to cooperate with these authorities and to provide responses as appropriate.

As previously disclosed, from time to time, the Company receives inquiries and is the subject of preliminary investigation activities from competition and other governmental authorities in markets outside the U.S. These authorities may include regulators, administrative authorities, and law enforcement and other similar officials, and these preliminary investigation activities may include site visits, formal or informal requests or demands for documents or materials, inquiries or interviews and similar matters. Certain of these preliminary inquiries or activities may lead to the commencement of formal proceedings. Should those proceedings be determined adversely to the Company, monetary fines and/or remedial undertakings may be required.

In February 2025, a putative class action was filed against Merck and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of Merck common stock between February 2022 and February 2025. Plaintiff alleges that Merck violated federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements and material omissions regarding demand for Gardasil/Gardasil 9 in China. Plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and fees and costs.

As previously disclosed, Merck, MSD, Schering Corporation, Schering-Plough Corporation, and MSP Singapore Company LLC (collectively, the Merck Defendants) were defendants in a number of lawsuits filed in 2018 on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of Zetia (ezetimibe) alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws, as well as other state statutory and common law causes of action. The cases were consolidated in a federal multidistrict litigation (Zetia MDL) before Judge Rebecca Beach Smith in the Eastern District of Virginia. In April 2023, the Merck Defendants reached settlements with the direct purchaser and retailer plaintiffs and a settlement with the indirect purchaser class that the court approved in October 2023.

As previously disclosed, in 2020 and 2021, United Healthcare Services, Inc. (United Healthcare), Humana Inc. (Humana), Centene Corporation and others (Centene), and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (Kaiser) (collectively, the Insurer Plaintiffs), each filed a lawsuit in a jurisdiction outside of the Eastern District of Virginia against the Merck Defendants and others, making similar allegations as those made in the Zetia MDL, as well as additional allegations about Vytorin. These cases were transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia to proceed with the Zetia MDL.

In December 2023, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation remanded the four Insurer Plaintiff cases to the transferor courts in the Northern District of California (Kaiser), the District of Minnesota (United Healthcare), and the District of New Jersey (Humana and Centene). The Merck Defendants filed motions to dismiss in each of the Insurer Plaintiff cases. On December 30, 2024, the court granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss in the Humana and Centene cases, and on January 29, 2025, Humana and Centene filed amended complaints.

As previously disclosed, in March 2023, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore filed a putative class action against MSD in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all third-party payors in 35 states that indirectly purchased, paid, and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price of RotaTeq (Rotavirus Vaccine, Live Oral, Pentavalent), other than for resale, from March 3, 2019 to the present. Plaintiff alleges that MSD violated federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws. Plaintiff alleges that MSD has implemented an anticompetitive vaccine bundling scheme whereby MSD leverages its alleged monopoly power in certain pediatric vaccine markets to maintain its alleged monopoly power in the U.S. market for rotavirus vaccines in order to charge supracompetitive prices for RotaTeq. Plaintiff seeks permanent injunctive relief and unspecified monetary damages on purchases of RotaTeq, trebled, and fees and costs. In May 2023, MSD moved to dismiss the complaint. In November 2023, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, dismissing plaintiff’s Idaho and Utah consumer law claims and allowing all other claims to proceed.

As previously disclosed, in January 2020, the Company was served with a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Following motion practice, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint in August 2024, seeking to certify a nationwide class action of purchasers or users of Bravecto (fluralaner) products in the U.S. or its territories between May 1, 2014 and July 1, 2021. Plaintiffs contend Bravecto causes neurological events in dogs and cats and alleges violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Breach of Warranty, Product Liability, and related theories. The Company moved to dismiss or, alternatively, to strike the class allegations from the third amended complaint, and that motion is pending. A similar case was filed in Quebec, Canada in May 2019. The

Superior Court certified a class of dog owners in Quebec who gave Bravecto Chew to their dogs between February 16, 2017 and November 2, 2018 whose dogs experienced one of the conditions in the post-marketing adverse reactions section of the labeling approved on November 2, 2018. The Company and plaintiffs each appealed the class certification decision. The Court of Appeal of Quebec amended the class period to start July 2, 2014, allowed the second plaintiff to serve as a class representative, and modified the list of conditions in the class definition. The Company sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, which was denied. The case is proceeding in the Superior Court.

As previously disclosed, Merck filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to challenge the letter Merck received from the U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) in May 2022 regarding Merck’s 340B Program integrity initiative. On September 17, 2024, the court entered a consent judgment granting Merck the relief it had sought in the litigation, including declarations that HRSA’s May 2022 letter was unlawful and that the version of Merck’s 340B Program integrity initiative at issue in the litigation did not violate Section 340B on its face.

As previously disclosed, in June 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania unsealed a complaint that had been filed against the Company under the federal False Claims Act by two former employees alleging, among other things, that the Company defrauded the U.S. government by falsifying data in connection with a clinical study conducted on the mumps component of the Company’s M-M-R II vaccine. The complaint alleges the fraud took place between 1999 and 2001. The U.S. government had the right to participate in and take over the prosecution of this lawsuit but notified the court that it declined to exercise that right. The two former employees pursued the lawsuit without the involvement of the U.S. government. In July 2023, the court denied relators’ motion for summary judgment, granted two of the Company’s motions for summary judgment, and denied the Company’s remaining motions for summary judgment as moot. The court entered judgment in favor of the Company and dismissed relators’ amended complaint in full with prejudice. Relators appealed that decision, and in August 2024, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision.

In addition, as previously disclosed, two putative class action lawsuits on behalf of direct purchasers of the M‑M‑R II vaccine, which charge that the Company misrepresented the efficacy of the M-M-R II vaccine in violation of federal antitrust laws and various state consumer protection laws, are pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ state law claims and denied the motion as to plaintiffs’ antitrust claim. The Company appealed, and on October 7, 2024, the Third Circuit reversed-in-part the district court’s order and remanded the case with instructions to enter summary judgment for the Company. On November 20, 2024, plaintiffs-appellees filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc, and on February 10, 2025, the court denied the petition.

As previously disclosed, in January 2016, to protect its long-established brand rights in the U.S., the Company filed a lawsuit against Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany (KGaA), historically operating as the EMD Group in the U.S., alleging it improperly uses the name “Merck” in the U.S. KGaA has filed suit against the Company in a number of jurisdictions outside of the U.S. alleging, among other things, unfair competition, trademark infringement and/or corporate name infringement. In certain of those jurisdictions, KGaA also alleges breach of the parties’ coexistence agreement. The litigation is ongoing in the U.S. with no trial date set, and also ongoing in jurisdictions outside of the U.S.

From time to time, generic manufacturers of pharmaceutical products file abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) seeking to market generic forms of the Company’s products prior to the expiration of relevant patents owned by the Company. To protect its patent rights, the Company may file patent infringement lawsuits against such generic companies. Similar lawsuits defending the Company’s patent rights may exist in other countries. The Company intends to vigorously defend its patents, which it believes are valid, against infringement by companies attempting to market products prior to the expiration of such patents. As with any litigation, there can be no assurance of the outcomes, which, if adverse, could result in significantly shortened periods of exclusivity for these products and, with respect to products acquired through acquisitions accounted for as business combinations, potentially significant intangible asset impairment charges.

Bridion — As previously disclosed, between January and November 2020, the Company received multiple Paragraph IV Certification Letters under the Hatch-Waxman Act notifying the Company that generic drug companies had filed applications to the FDA seeking pre-patent expiry approval to sell generic versions of Bridion (sugammadex)

Injection. In March, April and December 2020, the Company filed patent infringement lawsuits in the U.S. District Courts for the District of New Jersey and the Northern District of West Virginia against those generic companies. All actions in the District of New Jersey were consolidated. The West Virginia case was jointly dismissed with prejudice in August 2022 in favor of proceeding in New Jersey. The remaining defendants in the New Jersey action have stipulated to infringement of the asserted claims and withdrew all remaining claims and defenses other than a defense seeking to shorten the patent term extension (PTE) of the sugammadex patent to December 2022. The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey held a one-day trial in December 2022 on this remaining PTE calculation defense. The court ordered a post-trial briefing on this defense and held closing arguments in February 2023.

As previously disclosed, in June 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey ruled in Merck’s favor. The court held that Merck’s calculation of PTE for the sugammadex patent covering the compound is not invalid and that the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office correctly granted a full five-year extension. This ruling affirms and validates Merck’s U.S. patent protection for Bridion through at least January 2026. Also in June 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey issued a final judgment prohibiting the FDA from approving any of the pending or tentatively approved generic applications until January 27, 2026, except for any subsequent agreements between defendants and Merck or further order by the court.

While the New Jersey action was pending, the Company settled with five generic companies providing that these generic companies can bring their generic versions of Bridion to the market in January 2026 (which may be delayed by any applicable pediatric exclusivity) or earlier under certain circumstances. The Company agreed to stay the lawsuit filed against two generic companies, which in exchange agreed to be bound by a judgment on the merits of the consolidated action in the District of New Jersey. One of the generic companies in the consolidated action requested dismissal of the action against it and the Company did not oppose this request, which was subsequently granted by the court. The Company does not expect this company to bring its generic version of Bridion to the market before January 2026 or later, depending on any applicable pediatric exclusivity.

In February 2024, the Company received another Paragraph IV Certification Letter under the Hatch-Waxman Act notifying the Company that Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. (Hikma) had filed an application to the FDA seeking pre-patent expiry approval to sell a generic version of Bridion Injection. In March 2024, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Hikma, postponing FDA approval of the Hikma generic drug for 30 months or until expiration of the sugammadex patent (January 27, 2026) and any potentially applicable pediatric exclusivity or an adverse court decision, if any, whichever may occur earlier. Expiration of the patent, and any potentially applicable pediatric exclusivity, will occur earlier than expiry of the 30-month stay. On April 16, 2024, the district court stayed the case during the pendency of the Federal Circuit appeal noted above.

Januvia, Janumet, Janumet XR — As previously disclosed, the FDA granted pediatric exclusivity with respect to Januvia (sitagliptin), Janumet (sitagliptin/metformin HCl), and Janumet XR (sitagliptin and metformin HCl extended-release), which provides a further six months of exclusivity in the U.S. beyond the expiration of all patents listed in the FDA’s Orange Book. Adding this exclusivity to the term of the key patent protection extended exclusivity on these products to January 2023. However, Januvia, Janumet, and Janumet XR contain sitagliptin phosphate monohydrate and the Company has another patent covering certain phosphate salt and polymorphic forms of sitagliptin that expires in May 2027, including pediatric exclusivity (salt/polymorph patent).

As previously disclosed, beginning in 2019, a number of generic drug companies filed ANDAs seeking approval of generic forms of Januvia and Janumet along with paragraph IV certifications challenging the validity of the salt/polymorph patent. The Company responded by filing infringement suits which have all been settled. The Company has settled with a total 26 generic companies providing that these generic companies can bring their generic versions of Januvia and Janumet to the market in the U.S. in May 2026 or earlier under certain circumstances, and their generic versions of Janumet XR to the market in July 2026 or earlier under certain circumstances.

In March 2021, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Zydus Worldwide DMCC, Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc., and Cadila Healthcare Ltd. (collectively, Zydus). In that lawsuit, the Company alleged infringement of the salt/polymorph patent based on the filing of Zydus’s NDA seeking approval of a form of sitagliptin that is a different from than that used in Januvia. In December 2022, the parties reached settlement that included dismissal of the case without prejudice enabling Zydus to seek final approval of a non-automatically substitutable product.

In January 2023, the Company received a Paragraph IV Certification Letter under the Hatch-Waxman Act notifying the Company that Zydus filed an ANDA seeking approval of sitagliptin/metformin HCl tablets and certifying that no valid or enforceable claim of any of the patents listed in FDA’s Orange Book for Janumet will be infringed by the proposed Zydus product. In March 2023, the parties reached settlement enabling Zydus to seek final approval of a non-automatically substitutable product containing a different form of sitagliptin than that used in Janumet. In November 2023, the Company received a Paragraph IV Certification Letter under the Hatch-Waxman Act notifying the Company that Zydus filed an ANDA seeking approval of sitagliptin/metformin HCl Extended Release tablets. In January 2024, the parties reached settlement enabling Zydus to seek final approval of a non-automatically substitutable version containing a different form of sitagliptin than that used in Janumet XR.

As a result of these settlement agreements related to the later expiring salt/polymorph patent directed to the specific sitagliptin salt form of the products, the Company expects that Januvia and Janumet will not lose market exclusivity in the U.S. until May 2026 and Janumet XR will not lose market exclusivity in the U.S. until July 2026, although Zydus has received FDA approval for a non-automatically substitutable form of sitagliptin that differs from the form in the Company’s sitagliptin products.

In March 2024, the Company received another Paragraph IV Certification Letter under the Hatch-Waxman Act from Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Azurity) asserting that a different sitagliptin product subject to its ANDA does not infringe the salt/polymorph patent. In May 2024, Merck filed a civil action in the U.S. District Court of Delaware alleging infringement. The case was dismissed without prejudice in July 2024. Following the dismissal, the Company granted Azurity a covenant not to assert the salt/polymorph patent against the Azurity product that is the subject of such ANDA.

Supplementary Protection Certificates (SPCs) for Janumet expired in April 2023 for the majority of European countries. Prior to expiration, generic companies sought revocation of the Janumet SPCs in a number of European countries. In February 2022, a Finnish court referred certain questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union that could impact the validity of the Janumet SPCs in Europe. A decision was rendered on December 19, 2024. The decision provides guidance on points of law and does not directly apply these to the Janumet SPCs. Thus, additional proceedings in certain countries where generic companies were prevented from launching products during the SPC period may be necessary to determine whether the SPCs are valid and if not, whether damages are appropriate. Those countries include Belgium, Czech Republic, Ireland, Finland, France, Slovakia and Switzerland. If the Janumet SPCs are ultimately upheld, the Company has reserved its rights related to the pursuit of damages for those countries where a generic launched prior to expiry of the Janumet SPC.

In October 2023, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Sawai Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. and Medisa Shinyaku Co., Ltd (collectively, Defendants) in the Tokyo District Court seeking an injunction to stop the manufacture, sale and offer for sale of the Defendants’ sitagliptin dihydrogen phosphate product, while the Company’s patents and patent term extensions are in force. The lawsuit is in response to the Defendants’ application for marketing authorization to sell a generic sitagliptin dihydrogen phosphate product, in the anhydrate form, which was approved in August 2023. Merck asserts that the Defendants’ activity infringes a patent term extension associated with Merck’s patent directed to the sitagliptin compound patent.

Keytruda — As previously disclosed, in November 2022, the Company filed a complaint against The Johns Hopkins University (JHU) in the U.S. District Court of Maryland. This action concerns patents emerging from a joint research collaboration between Merck and JHU regarding the use of pembrolizumab, which Merck sells under the trade name Keytruda. Merck and JHU partnered to design and conduct a clinical study administering Keytruda to cancer patients having tumors that had the genetic biomarker known as microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H). After the conclusion of the study, JHU secured U.S. patents citing the joint research study. Merck alleges that JHU has breached the collaboration agreement by filing and obtaining these patents without informing or involving Merck and then licensing the patents to others. Merck therefore brought this action for breach of contract, declaratory judgment of noninfringement, and promissory estoppel. JHU answered the complaint in April and May 2023, denying Merck’s claims, and counterclaiming for willful infringement of nine issued U.S. patents, including a demand for damages. Between November 30, 2023 and March 13, 2024, the Company filed inter partes review petitions with the United States Patent & Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), challenging the validity of all nine patents asserted in the case. Between June 2024 and October 2024, the PTAB instituted a review of all nine asserted patents. In July 2024, the district court granted Merck’s motion to stay the case in its entirety pending the outcome of the PTAB proceeding instituted in June 2024.

Lynparza — As previously disclosed, in December 2022, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP received a Paragraph IV Certification Letter under the Hatch-Waxman Act notifying AstraZeneca that Natco Pharma Limited (Natco) has filed an application to the FDA seeking pre-patent expiry approval to sell generic versions of Lynparza (olaparib) tablet. In February 2023, AstraZeneca and the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S.

District Court for the District of New Jersey against Natco. This lawsuit, which asserts one or more patents covering olaparib, automatically stays FDA approval of the generic application until June 2025 or until an adverse court decision, if any, whichever may occur earlier. In May, June, July, and November 2024, AstraZeneca and the Company filed additional patent infringement lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Natco asserting additional patents covering olaparib.

In December 2023, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP received a second Paragraph IV Certification Letter under the Hatch-Waxman Act notifying AstraZeneca that Sandoz Inc. has filed an application to the FDA seeking pre-patent expiry approval to sell generic versions of Lynparza (olaparib) tablet. In February 2024, AstraZeneca and the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Sandoz. This lawsuit, which asserts one or more patents covering olaparib, automatically stays FDA approval of the generic application until June 2026 or until an adverse court decision, if any, whichever may occur earlier. In May, July, and November 2024, AstraZeneca and the Company filed additional patent infringement lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Sandoz asserting additional patents covering olaparib.

In May 2024, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP received a third Paragraph IV Certification Letter under the Hatch-Waxman Act notifying AstraZeneca that Cipla USA, Inc. and Cipla Limited (collectively, Cipla) filed an application to the FDA seeking pre-patent expiry approval to sell generic versions of Lynparza (olaparib) tablet. In June 2024, AstraZeneca and the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Cipla. This lawsuit, which asserts one or more patents covering olaparib, automatically stays FDA approval of the generic application until November 2026 or until an adverse court decision, if any, whichever may occur earlier. In June, July, and November 2024, AstraZeneca and the Company filed additional patent infringement lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Cipla asserting additional patents covering olaparib.

In November 2024, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP received another Paragraph IV Certification Letter under the Hatch-Waxman Act notifying AstraZeneca that Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. filed an application to the FDA seeking pre-patent expiry approval to sell generic versions of Lynparza (olaparib) tablet. In November 2024, AstraZeneca and the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Zydus. This lawsuit, which asserts one or more patents covering olaparib, automatically stays FDA approval of the generic application until May 2027 or until an adverse court decision, if any, whichever may occur earlier. In November 2024, AstraZeneca and the Company filed an additional patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Zydus asserting an additional patent covering olaparib.

There are various other pending legal proceedings involving the Company, principally product liability and intellectual property lawsuits. While it is not feasible to predict the outcome of such proceedings, in the opinion of the Company, either the likelihood of loss is remote or any reasonably possible loss associated with the resolution of such proceedings is not expected to be material to the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows either individually or in the aggregate.

Legal defense costs expected to be incurred in connection with a loss contingency are accrued when probable and reasonably estimable. Some of the significant factors considered in the review of these legal defense reserves are as follows: the actual costs incurred by the Company; the development of the Company’s legal defense strategy and structure in light of the scope of its litigation; the number of cases being brought against the Company; the costs and outcomes of completed trials and the most current information regarding anticipated timing, progression, and related costs of pre-trial activities and trials in the associated litigation. The amount of legal defense reserves as of December 31, 2024 and 2023 of approximately $225 million and $210 million, respectively, represents the Company’s best estimate of the minimum amount of defense costs to be incurred in connection with its outstanding litigation; however, events such as additional trials and other events that could arise in the course of its litigation could affect the ultimate amount of legal defense costs to be incurred by the Company. The Company will continue to monitor its legal defense costs and review the adequacy of the associated reserves and may determine to increase the reserves at any time in the future if, based upon the factors set forth, it believes it would be appropriate to do so.

The Company and its subsidiaries are parties to a number of proceedings brought under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, commonly known as Superfund, and other federal and state equivalents. These proceedings seek to require the operators of hazardous waste disposal facilities, transporters of waste to the sites and generators of hazardous waste disposed of at the sites to clean up the sites or

to reimburse the government for cleanup costs. The Company has been made a party to these proceedings as an alleged generator of waste disposed of at the sites. In each case, the government alleges that the defendants are jointly and severally liable for the cleanup costs. Although joint and several liability is alleged, these proceedings are frequently resolved so that the allocation of cleanup costs among the parties more nearly reflects the relative contributions of the parties to the site situation. The Company’s potential liability varies greatly from site to site. For some sites the potential liability is de minimis and for others the final costs of cleanup have not yet been determined. While it is not feasible to predict the outcome of many of these proceedings brought by federal or state agencies or private litigants, in the opinion of the Company, such proceedings should not ultimately result in any liability which would have a material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of operations or liquidity of the Company. The Company has taken an active role in identifying and accruing for these costs and such amounts do not include any reduction for anticipated recoveries of cleanup costs from former site owners or operators or other recalcitrant potentially responsible parties.

In management’s opinion, the liabilities for all environmental matters that are probable and reasonably estimable have been accrued and totaled $41 million and $42 million at December 31, 2024 and 2023, respectively. These liabilities are undiscounted, do not consider potential recoveries from other parties and will be paid out over the periods of remediation for the applicable sites, which are expected to occur primarily over the next 15 years. Although it is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome of these matters, or the ultimate costs of remediation, management does not believe that any reasonably possible expenditures that may be incurred in excess of the liabilities accrued should exceed approximately $46 million in the aggregate. Management also does not believe that these expenditures should result in a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or liquidity for any year.