Contingencies and commitments

Contingencies

In the ordinary course of business, we are involved in various legal proceedings and other matters, including those discussed in this Note, that are complex in nature and have outcomes that are difficult to predict.

We record accruals for loss contingencies to the extent that we conclude that it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the related loss can be reasonably estimated. We evaluate, on a quarterly basis, developments in legal proceedings and other matters that could cause an increase or decrease in the amount of the liability that has been accrued previously.

Our legal proceedings range from cases brought by a single plaintiff or defendant to class actions with thousands of putative class members. These legal proceedings, as well as other matters, involve various aspects of our business and a variety of claims (including but not limited to patent infringement, marketing, pricing and trade practices and securities law), some of which present novel factual allegations and/or unique legal theories. In each of the matters described in this filing, plaintiffs seek an award of a not-yet-quantified amount of damages or an amount that is not material. In addition, a number of the matters pending against us are at very early stages of the legal process (which in complex proceedings of the sort faced by us often extend for several years). As a result, none of the matters described in this filing have progressed sufficiently through discovery and/or development of important factual information and legal issues to enable us to estimate a range of possible loss, if any, or such amounts are not material. While it is not possible to accurately predict or determine the eventual outcomes of these items, an adverse determination in one or more of these items currently pending could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

Certain of our legal proceedings and other matters are discussed below:

Sandoz Patent Litigation

On June 24, 2013, Sandoz, Inc. filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Amgen and Roche. Sandoz's complaint alleges that Sandoz has initiated a Phase III clinical study of an etanercept product in patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque-type psoriasis and it intends to seek FDA regulatory approval to market and sell etanercept in the United States upon completion of the clinical trial. Sandoz seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, invalidity and unenforceability of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,063,182 and 8,163,522. These patents are owned by Roche, and Amgen holds an exclusive license to these patents. The '182 and '522 patents expire in November 2028 and April 2029, respectively. On defendants’ motion, the court entered judgment dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on November 19, 2013. On December 12, 2013, Sandoz appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Onyx Litigation

Between August 28, 2013 and September 16, 2013, nine plaintiffs filed purported class action lawsuits against Onyx, its directors, Amgen and Arena Acquisition Company (Arena), and unnamed “John Doe” defendants in connection with Amgen’s acquisition of Onyx. Seven of those purported class actions were brought in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo, captioned Lawrence I. Silverstein and Phil Rosen v. Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (August 28, 2013) (“Silverstein”), Laura Robinson v. Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (originally filed in the Superior Court for the County of San Francisco on August 28, 2013, and re-filed in the Superior Court for the County of San Mateo on August 29, 2013) (“Robinson”), John Solak v. Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (August 30, 2013), Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System and Hubert Chow v. Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (September 3, 2013) (“Louisiana Municipal”), Laurine Jonopulos v. Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (September 4, 2013) (“Jonopulos”), Clifford G. Martin v. Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (September 9, 2013) (“Martin”) and Merrill L. Magowan v. Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. (September 9, 2013) (“Magowan”). The eighth and ninth purported class actions were brought in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Mark D. Smilow, IRA v. Onyx Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. (August 29, 2013) and William L. Fitzpatric v. Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (September 16, 2013) (“Fitzpatric”). On September 5, 2013, the plaintiff in the John Solak case filed a request for dismissal of the case without prejudice. On September 10, 2013, the plaintiff in the Mark D. Smilow, IRA case filed a notice and proposed order of voluntary dismissal of the case without prejudice. On September 10, 2013, plaintiffs in the Silverstein and Louisiana Municipal cases filed an amended complaint alleging substantially the same claims and seeking substantially the same relief as in their individual purported class action lawsuits. Each of the lawsuits alleges that the Onyx director defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Onyx shareholders, and that the other defendants aided and abetted such breaches, by seeking to sell Onyx through an allegedly unfair process and for an unfair price and on unfair terms. The Magowan and Fitzpatric complaints and the amended complaint filed in the Silverstein and Louisiana Municipal cases also alleged that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties with respect to the contents of the tender offer solicitation material. Each of the lawsuits sought, among other things, rescission of the merger agreement and attorneys’ fees and costs, and certain of the lawsuits sought other relief. The Silverstein, Robinson, Louisiana Municipal and Jonopulos cases were designated as “complex” and assigned to the Honorable Marie S. Weiner, who subsequently entered an order consolidating the Silverstein, Robinson, Louisiana Municipal, Jonopulos, Martin and Magowan cases (the Consolidated Cases). On October 31, 2013, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Cases filed a consolidated class action complaint seeking certification of a class and alleging breach of fiduciary duties of loyalty and good faith against the Onyx directors and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties against Onyx. The complaint sought certification of a class of all Onyx shareholders, damages (including pre- and post-judgment interest), attorneys’ fees and expenses plus other relief. The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Cases simultaneously filed a notice of dismissal without prejudice of Amgen and Arena. Onyx and the Onyx directors filed demurrers to the consolidated class action complaint on November 22, 2013. Following a January 3, 2014 hearing, on January 9, 2014, the court entered an order overruling the demurrer on the breach of fiduciary duty of loyalty and good faith against the Onyx directors and sustained the demurrer without leave to amend against Onyx.

Federal Securities Litigation - In re Amgen Inc. Securities Litigation

The six federal class action stockholder complaints filed against Amgen Inc., Kevin W. Sharer, Richard D. Nanula, Dennis M. Fenton, Roger M. Perlmutter, Brian M. McNamee, George J. Morrow, Edward V. Fritzky, Gilbert S. Omenn and Franklin P. Johnson, Jr., (the Federal Defendants) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the California Central District Court) on April 17, 2007 (Kairalla v. Amgen Inc., et al.), May 1, 2007 (Mendall v. Amgen Inc., et al., & Jaffe v. Amgen Inc., et al.), May 11, 2007 (Eldon v. Amgen Inc., et al.), May 21, 2007 (Rosenfield v. Amgen Inc., et al.) and June 18, 2007 (Public Employees' Retirement Association of Colorado v. Amgen Inc., et al.) were consolidated by the California Central District Court into one action captioned In re Amgen Inc. Securities Litigation. The consolidated complaint was filed with the California Central District Court on October 2, 2007. The consolidated complaint alleges that Amgen and these officers and directors made false statements that resulted in: (i) deceiving the investing public regarding Amgen's prospects and business; (ii) artificially inflating the prices of Amgen's publicly traded securities and (iii) causing plaintiff and other members of the class to purchase Amgen publicly traded securities at inflated prices. The complaint also makes off-label marketing allegations that, throughout the class period, the Federal Defendants improperly marketed Aranesp^® and EPOGEN^® for off-label uses while aware that there were alleged safety signals with these products. The plaintiffs seek class certification, compensatory damages, legal fees and other relief deemed proper. The Federal Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on November 8, 2007. On February 4, 2008, the California Central District Court granted in part, and denied in part, the Federal Defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. Specifically, the California Central District Court granted the Federal Defendants' motion to dismiss as to individual defendants Fritzky, Omenn, Johnson, Fenton and McNamee, but denied the Federal Defendants' motion to dismiss as to individual defendants Sharer, Nanula, Perlmutter and Morrow.

A class certification hearing before the California Central District Court, was held on July 17, 2009, and on August 12, 2009, the California Central District Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On August 28, 2009, Amgen filed a petition for permission to appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the Ninth Circuit Court) under Rule 23(f), regarding the Order on Class Certification and the Ninth Circuit Court granted Amgen's permission to appeal on December 11, 2009. On February 2, 2010, the California Central District Court granted Amgen's motion to stay the underlying action pending the outcome of the Ninth Circuit Court 23(f) appeal. On October 14, 2011, the appeal under Rule 23(f) was argued before the Ninth Circuit Court and on December 28, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court denied the appeal. Amgen filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on March 3, 2012, and on June 11, 2012, the Court granted Amgen's petition. Oral argument occurred on November 5, 2012. On February 27, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court and remanded the case back to the California Central District Court for further proceedings. A revised July 28, 2015, trial date has been set by the California Central District Court.

State Derivative Litigation

Larson v. Sharer, et al.

The three state stockholder derivative complaints filed against Amgen Inc., Kevin W. Sharer, George J. Morrow, Dennis M. Fenton, Brian M. McNamee, Roger M. Perlmutter, David Baltimore, Gilbert S. Omenn, Judith C. Pelham, Frederick W. Gluck, Jerry D. Choate, J. Paul Reason, Frank J. Biondi, Jr., Leonard D. Schaeffer, Frank C. Herringer, Richard D. Nanula, Willard H. Dere, Edward V. Fritzky, Franklin P. Johnson, Jr. and Donald B. Rice as defendants (the State Defendants) on May 1, 2007 (Larson v. Sharer, et al., & Anderson v. Sharer, et al.), and August 13, 2007 (Weil v. Sharer, et al.) in the Superior Court of the State of California, Ventura County (the Superior Court) were consolidated by the Superior Court under one action captioned Larson v. Sharer, et al. The consolidated complaint was filed on July 5, 2007. The complaint alleges that the State Defendants breached their fiduciary duties, wasted corporate assets, were unjustly enriched and violated the California Corporations Code. Plaintiffs allege that the State Defendants failed to disclose and/or misrepresented results of Aranesp^® clinical studies, marketed both Aranesp^® and EPOGEN^® for off-label uses and that these actions or inactions caused stockholders to suffer damages. The complaints also allege insider trading by the State Defendants. The plaintiffs seek treble damages based on various causes of action, reformed corporate governance, equitable and/or injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement of profits, benefits and other compensation, and legal costs.

An amended consolidated complaint was filed on March 13, 2008, adding Anthony Gringeri as a State Defendant and removing the causes of action for insider selling and misappropriation of information, violation of California Corporations Code Section 25402 and violation of California Corporations Code Section 25403. On July 14, 2008, the Superior Court dismissed without prejudice the consolidated state derivative class action. The judge also ordered a stay of any re-filing of an amended complaint until the federal court has determined in the In re Amgen Inc. Securities Litigation action whether any securities fraud occurred. On July 3, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation to permit the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint asserting additional grounds for the defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

Federal Derivative Litigation

On May 7, 2007, the stockholder derivative lawsuit of Durgin v. Sharer, et al., was filed in the California Central District Court and named Amgen Inc., Kevin W. Sharer, George J. Morrow, Dennis M. Fenton, Brian M. McNamee, Roger M. Perlmutter, David Baltimore, Gilbert S. Omenn, Judith C. Pelham, Frederick W. Gluck, Jerry D. Choate, J. Paul Reason, Frank J. Biondi, Jr., Leonard D. Schaeffer, Frank C. Herringer, Richard D. Nanula, Edward V. Fritzky and Franklin P. Johnson, Jr. as defendants. The complaint alleges the same claims and requests the same relief as in the three state stockholder derivative complaints now consolidated as Larson v. Sharer, et al. The case has been stayed for all purposes until thirty days after a final ruling on the motion to dismiss by the California Central District Court in the In re Amgen Inc. Securities Litigation action.

On September 21, 2007, the stockholder derivative lawsuit of Rosenblum v. Sharer, et al., was filed in the California Central District Court. This lawsuit was brought by a stockholder who previously made a demand on the Amgen Board on May 14, 2007. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties, wasted corporate assets and were unjustly enriched. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to disclose and/or misrepresented results of Aranesp^® clinical studies, marketed both Aranesp^® and EPOGEN^® for off-label uses and that these actions or inactions as well as the Amgen market strategy caused damage to the Company resulting in several inquiries, investigations and lawsuits that are costly to defend. The complaint also alleges insider trading by the defendants. The plaintiffs seek treble damages based on various causes of action, reformed corporate governance, equitable and/or injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement of profits, benefits and other compensation, and legal costs. The case was stayed for all purposes until thirty days after a final ruling on the motion to dismiss by the California Central District Court in the In re Amgen Inc. Securities Litigation action.

Thereafter, on May 1, 2008, plaintiff in Rosenblum v. Sharer, et al., filed an amended complaint which removed Dennis Fenton as a defendant and also eliminated the claims for insider selling by defendants. On July 30, 2008, the California Central District Court granted Amgen and the defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice and also granted a stay of the case pending resolution of the In re Amgen Inc. Securities Litigation action.

ERISA Litigation

On August 20, 2007, the ERISA class action lawsuit of Harris v. Amgen Inc., et al., was filed in the California Central District Court and named Amgen Inc., Kevin W. Sharer, Frank J. Biondi, Jr., Jerry Choate, Frank C. Herringer, Gilbert S. Omenn, David Baltimore, Judith C. Pelham, Frederick W. Gluck, Leonard D. Schaeffer, Jacqueline Allred, Raul Cermeno, Jackie Crouse, Lori Johnston, Michael Kelly and Charles Bell as defendants. Plaintiffs claim that Amgen and the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to inform current and former employees who participated in the Amgen Retirement and Savings Plan and the Retirement and Savings Plan for Amgen Manufacturing Limited of the alleged off-label promotion of both Aranesp^® and EPOGEN^® while a number of studies allegedly demonstrated safety concerns in patients using ESAs. On February 4, 2008, the California Central District Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice as to plaintiff Harris, who had filed claims against Amgen Inc. The claims alleged by the second plaintiff, Ramos, were also dismissed but the court granted the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint. On February 1, 2008, the plaintiffs appealed the decision by the California Central District Court to dismiss the claims of both plaintiffs Harris and Ramos to the Ninth Circuit Court. On May 19, 2008, plaintiff Ramos in the Harris v. Amgen Inc., et al., action filed another lawsuit captioned Ramos v. Amgen Inc., et al., in the California Central District Court. The lawsuit is another ERISA class action. The Ramos v. Amgen Inc., et al., matter names the same defendants in the Harris v. Amgen Inc., et al., matter plus four new defendants: Amgen Manufacturing Limited, Richard Nanula, Dennis Fenton and the Fiduciary Committee. On July 14, 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court reversed the California Central District Court's decision in the Harris matter and remanded the case back to the California Central District Court. In the meantime, a third ERISA class action was filed by Don Hanks on June 2, 2009 in the California Central District Court alleging the same ERISA violations as in the Harris and Ramos lawsuits.

On August 10, 2009, the Harris, Ramos and Hanks matters were consolidated by the California Central District Court into one action captioned Harris, et. al. v. Amgen Inc. On October 13, 2009, the California Central District Court granted plaintiffs Harris' and Ramos' motion to be appointed interim co-lead counsel. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 11, 2009 and added two additional plaintiffs, Jorge Torres and Albert Cappa. Amgen filed a motion to dismiss the amended/consolidated complaint, and on March 2, 2010, the California Central District Court dismissed the entire lawsuit without prejudice. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 23, 2010. Amgen then filed another motion to dismiss on April 20, 2010. On June 16, 2010, the California Central District Court entered an order dismissing the entire lawsuit with prejudice. On June 24, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court. On June 4, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court reversed the decision of the California Central District Court and remanded the case back to the California Central District Court for further proceedings. On June 18, 2013, Amgen petitioned the Ninth Circuit Court for rehearing and/or rehearing en banc. The Ninth Circuit Court issued an amended opinion and denied Amgen’s petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc on October 23, 2013. Amgen moved for a stay of the mandate which the Ninth Circuit Court granted on November 5, 2013. A petition for certiorari was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on January 21, 2014.

Commitments

We lease certain facilities and equipment related primarily to administrative, R&D, sales and marketing activities under non-cancelable operating leases that expire through 2032. The following table summarizes the minimum future rental commitments under non-cancelable operating leases as of December 31, 2013 (in millions):



2014	$	140
2015	125
2016	114
2017	95
2018	86
Thereafter	345
Total minimum operating lease commitments	$	905

Included in the table above are future rental commitments for abandoned leases in the amount of $293 million. Rental expense on operating leases for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, was $125 million, $117 million and $131 million, respectively.