Contingencies and Certain Commitments	6 Months Ended
Jun. 29, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies and Certain Commitments	Contingencies and Certain Commitments We and certain of our subsidiaries are subject to numerous contingencies arising in the ordinary course of business, including tax and legal contingencies, guarantees and indemnifications. The following outlines our legal contingencies, guarantees and indemnifications. For a discussion of our tax contingencies, see Note 5B. A. Legal Proceedings Our legal contingencies include, but are not limited to, the following: •Patent litigation, which typically involves challenges to the coverage and/or validity of patents on various products, processes or dosage forms. An adverse outcome could result in loss of patent protection for a product, a significant loss of revenues from a product or impairment of the value of associated assets. We are the plaintiff in the majority of these actions. •Product liability and other product-related litigation related to current or former products, which can include personal injury, consumer fraud, off-label promotion, securities, antitrust and breach of contract claims, among others, and often involves highly complex issues relating to medical causation, label warnings and reliance on those warnings, scientific evidence and findings, actual, provable injury and other matters. •Commercial and other asserted or unasserted matters, which can include acquisition-, licensing-, intellectual property-, collaboration- or co-promotion-related and product-pricing claims and environmental claims and proceedings, and can involve complexities that will vary from matter to matter. •Government investigations, which often are related to the extensive regulation of pharmaceutical companies by national, state and local government agencies in the U.S. and in other jurisdictions. Certain of these contingencies could result in increased expenses and/or losses, including damages, royalty payments, fines and/or civil penalties, which could be substantial, and/or criminal charges. We believe that our claims and defenses in matters in which we are a defendant are substantial, but litigation is inherently unpredictable and excessive verdicts do occur. We do not believe that any of these matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial position. However, we could incur judgments, enter into settlements or revise our expectations regarding the outcome of matters, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and/or our cash flows in the period in which the amounts are accrued or paid. We have accrued for losses that are both probable and reasonably estimable. Substantially all of our contingencies are subject to significant uncertainties and, therefore, determining the likelihood of a loss and/or the measurement of any loss can be complex. Consequently, we are unable to estimate the range of reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts accrued. Our assessments, which result from a complex series of judgments about future events and uncertainties, are based on estimates and assumptions that have been deemed reasonable by management, but that may prove to be incomplete or inaccurate, and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur that might cause us to change those estimates and assumptions. Amounts recorded for legal and environmental contingencies can result from a complex series of judgments about future events and uncertainties and can rely heavily on estimates and assumptions. For proceedings under environmental laws to which a governmental authority is a party, we have adopted a disclosure threshold of $1 million in potential or actual governmental monetary sanctions. The principal pending matters to which we are a party are discussed below. In determining whether a pending matter is a principal matter, we consider both quantitative and qualitative factors to assess materiality, such as, among others, the amount of damages and the nature of other relief sought, if specified; our view of the merits of the claims and of the strength of our defenses; whether the action purports to be, or is, a class action and, if not certified, our view of the likelihood that a class will be certified by the court; the jurisdiction in which the proceeding is pending; whether related actions have been transferred to multidistrict litigation; any experience that we or, to our knowledge, other companies have had in similar proceedings; whether disclosure of the action would be important to a reader of our financial statements, including whether disclosure might change a reader’s judgment about our financial statements in light of all of the information that is available to the reader; the potential impact of the proceeding on our reputation; and the extent of public interest in the matter. In addition, with respect to patent matters in which we are the plaintiff, we consider, among other things, the financial significance of the product protected by the patent(s) at issue. Some of the matters discussed below include those which management believes that the likelihood of possible loss in excess of amounts accrued is remote. A1. Legal Proceedings––Patent Litigation We are involved in suits relating to our patents (or those of our collaboration/licensing partners to which we have licenses or co-promotion rights), including but not limited to, those discussed below. We face claims by generic drug manufacturers that patents covering our products (or those of our collaboration/licensing partners to which we have licenses or co-promotion rights and to which we may or may not be a party), processes or dosage forms are invalid and/or do not cover the product of the generic drug manufacturer. Also, counterclaims, as well as various independent actions, have been filed alleging that our assertions of, or attempts to enforce, patent rights with respect to certain products constitute unfair competition and/or violations of antitrust laws. In addition to the challenges to the U.S. patents that are discussed below, patent rights to certain of our products or those of our collaboration/licensing partners are being challenged in various other jurisdictions. Some of our collaboration or licensing partners face challenges to the validity of their patent rights in non-U.S. jurisdictions. For example, in April 2022, the U.K. High Court issued a judgment finding invalid a BMS patent related to Eliquis due to expire in 2026. In May 2023, the Court of Appeal dismissed BMS’s appeal and in October 2023, the Supreme Court refused BMS permission to appeal. Additional challenges are pending in other jurisdictions. Also, in July 2022, CureVac AG (CureVac) brought a patent infringement action against BioNTech and certain of its subsidiaries in the German Regional Court alleging that Comirnaty infringes certain German utility model patents and certain expired and unexpired European patents. Additional challenges involving Comirnaty patents may be filed against us and/or BioNTech in other jurisdictions in the future. Adverse decisions in these matters could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations. We are also party to patent damages suits in various jurisdictions pursuant to which generic drug manufacturers, payors, governments or other parties are seeking damages from us for allegedly causing delay of generic entry. We also are often involved in other proceedings, such as inter partes review, post-grant review, re-examination or opposition proceedings, before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the European Patent Office, or other foreign counterparts, as well as court proceedings relating to our intellectual property or the intellectual property rights of others, including challenges to such rights initiated by us. Also, if one of our patents (or one of our collaboration/licensing partner’s patents) is found to be invalid by such proceedings, generic or competitive products could be introduced into the market resulting in the erosion of sales of our existing products. For example, several of the patents in our pneumococcal vaccine portfolio have been challenged in inter partes review and post-grant review proceedings in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, as well as outside the U.S. The invalidation of any of the patents in our pneumococcal portfolio could potentially allow additional competitor vaccines, if approved, to enter the marketplace earlier than anticipated. In the event that any of the patents are found valid and infringed, a competitor’s vaccine, if approved, might be prohibited from entering the market or a competitor might be required to pay us a royalty. We are also subject to patent litigation pursuant to which one or more third parties seek damages and/or injunctive relief to compensate for alleged infringement of its patents by our commercial or other activities. If one of our marketed products (or a product of our collaboration/licensing partners to which we have licenses or co-promotion rights) is found to infringe valid patent rights of a third party, such third party may be awarded significant damages or royalty payments, or we may be prevented from further sales of that product. Such damages may be enhanced as much as three-fold if we or one of our subsidiaries is found to have willfully infringed valid patent rights of a third party. Actions In Which We Are The Plaintiff Xeljanz (tofacitinib) Beginning in 2017, we brought patent-infringement actions against several generic manufacturers that filed separate abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) with the FDA seeking approval to market their generic versions of tofacitinib tablets in one or both of 5 mg and 10 mg dosage strengths, and in both immediate and extended release forms. To date, we have settled actions with several manufacturers on terms not material to us. The remaining actions continue in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware as described below. In April 2025, we brought a patent infringement action against Annora Pharma Private Limited (Annora) asserting the infringement and validity of our composition of matter patent, covering immediate release formulations of tofacitinib that was challenged by Annora in its ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of tofacitinib 5 mg and 10 mg immediate release tablets. In May 2025, we settled the action against Annora on terms not material to us. In May 2025, we brought a patent infringement action against Somerset Therapeutics LLC (Somerset) asserting the infringement and validity of our composition of matter patent, covering Xeljanz that was challenged by Somerset in its ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of tofacitinib immediate release (5 mg, 10 mg) tablets. In June 2025, we brought a patent infringement action against Orient Pharma Co., Ltd. (Orient) asserting the infringement and validity of our extended-release formulation patents, covering Xeljanz XR that were challenged by Orient in its ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of tofacitinib extended-release (11 mg, 22 mg) tablets. In June 2025, we brought a patent infringement action against Apotex Inc. asserting the infringement and validity of our composition of matter patent, covering Xeljanz XR that was challenged by Apotex Inc. in its ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of tofacitinib extended-release (11 mg, 22 mg) tablets. Mektovi (binimetinib) Beginning in August 2022, two generic companies notified us that they had filed ANDAs with the FDA seeking approval to market generic versions of Mektovi. The companies assert the invalidity and non-infringement of two method of use patents expiring in 2030, a method of use patent expiring in 2031, two method of use patents expiring in 2033, and a product by process patent expiring in 2033. Beginning in September 2022, we brought patent infringement actions against both of the generic filers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, asserting the validity and infringement of all six patents. In January 2025, we settled with one of the generic companies on terms not material to us. In June 2025, we settled with the second generic company on terms not material to us, and the case was dismissed. In August 2022, we received notice from Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Teva) that it had filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of Mektovi. Teva asserts the invalidity and non-infringement of two method of use patents expiring in 2033 and a product by process patent expiring in 2033. In June 2023, we brought a patent infringement action against Teva in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, asserting the validity and infringement of the three patents. In August 2025, the case against Teva was dismissed. Vyndaqel-Vyndamax (tafamidis/tafamidis meglumine) Beginning in June 2023, several generic companies notified us that they had filed ANDAs with the FDA seeking approval to market generic versions of tafamidis capsules (61 mg) or tafamidis meglumine capsules (20 mg), challenging some or all of the patents listed in the FDA’s Orange Book for Vyndamax (tafamidis) and Vyndaqel (tafamidis meglumine). Scripps Research Institute (Scripps) owns the composition of matter patent and the method of treatment patents covering the products, and Pfizer is the exclusive licensee. Pfizer separately owns the crystalline form patent. Beginning in August 2023, we and Scripps brought patent infringement actions against the generic filers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, asserting the validity and infringement of the patents in suit. Pfizer is the sole plaintiff in actions that assert only the infringement and validity of the crystalline form patent. Oxbryta (voxelotor) In January 2024, Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc., Zydus Lifesciences Limited, and Zydus Worldwide DMCC (collectively, Zydus) and MSN Pharmaceuticals Inc. and MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. (collectively, MSN) separately notified us that they had filed ANDAs with the FDA seeking approval to market generic versions of voxelotor tablets, challenging some of the patents listed in the FDA’s Orange Book for Oxbryta (voxelotor tablets in 300 mg and 500 mg strengths and/or for oral suspension) on non-infringement grounds. In March 2024, we filed patent infringement actions against both generic filers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, asserting the validity and infringement of the challenged patents. Zydus and MSN have not challenged our composition of matter patents or method of treatment patents for Oxbryta. Nurtec (rimegepant) In April 2024, Rubicon Research Private Limited, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Changzhou Pharmaceutical Factory, Natco Pharma Limited and Natco Pharma, Inc., MSN, Aurobindo Pharma Limited, Apitoria Pharma Private Limited and Aurobindo Pharma U.S.A. Inc. (collectively, Aurobindo) and Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (collectively, Apotex) notified us that they had filed ANDAs with the FDA seeking approval to market generic versions of rimegepant orally disintegrating tablets, claiming noninfringement and/or challenging the validity of some or all of the patents listed in the FDA’s Orange Book for Nurtec (rimegepant orally disintegrating tablets Eq 75 mg base). In May 2024, we filed patent infringement actions against all the generic filers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Xtandi (enzalutamide) Beginning in August 2024, several generic companies notified us and Astellas that they had filed ANDAs with the FDA seeking approval to market generic versions of Xtandi, challenging some or all of the patents listed in the FDA’s Orange Book for Xtandi. Beginning in August 2024, we brought patent infringement actions against the generic filers in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, asserting the validity and infringement of the patents in suit. Inlyta (axitinib) In October 2024, Sandoz Inc. (Sandoz) notified us that it had filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking approval to market a generic version of Inlyta. Sandoz asserts the invalidity and non-infringement of the crystalline form patent for Inlyta that expires in 2030. In November 2024, we filed suit against Sandoz in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, asserting the validity and infringement of the crystalline form patent for Inlyta. In June 2025, we settled with Sandoz on terms not material to us. Actions in Which We are the Defendant Comirnaty (tozinameran) In March 2022, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Alnylam) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Pfizer and Pharmacia & Upjohn Company LLC, our wholly owned subsidiary, alleging that Comirnaty infringes a U.S. patent issued in February 2022, and seeking unspecified monetary damages. In July 2022, Alnylam filed a second complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Pfizer, Pharmacia & Upjohn Company LLC, BioNTech and BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, alleging that Comirnaty infringes a U.S. patent issued in July 2022, and seeking unspecified monetary damages. In May 2023, Alnylam filed a separate complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Pfizer and Pharmacia & Upjohn Company LLC alleging that Comirnaty infringes four additional U.S. patents issued on various dates in 2023 and seeking unspecified monetary damages. In February 2025, one of the patents asserted in the May 2023 complaint was dismissed from the litigation by stipulation of the parties. In July 2025, the District Court issued a judgment that Comirnaty does not infringe any of the patents asserted by Alnylam. In August 2022, ModernaTX, Inc. (ModernaTX) and Moderna US, Inc. (Moderna) sued Pfizer, BioNTech, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH and BioNTech US Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging that Comirnaty infringes three U.S. patents. In its complaint, Moderna stated that it is seeking damages for alleged infringement occurring after March 7, 2022. In March 2024, the U.S. Patent Office Patent Trial & Appeal Board instituted a review of two of the three patents in suit. In March 2025, the U.S. Patent Office issued a decision holding that the two Moderna patents were invalid. In August 2022, ModernaTX filed a patent infringement action in Germany against Pfizer and certain subsidiary companies, as well as BioNTech and certain subsidiary companies, alleging that Comirnaty infringes two European patents. In March 2025, a German court found the asserted patents infringed; no decision on invalidity was rendered. In September 2022, ModernaTX filed patent infringement actions in the U.K. and in the Netherlands against Pfizer and certain subsidiary companies, as well as BioNTech and certain subsidiary companies, on the same two European patents. In its complaints, ModernaTX stated that it is seeking damages for alleged infringement occurring after March 7, 2022. In November 2023, one of the European patents was revoked by the European Patent Office. In December 2023, the other European patent was declared invalid by a court in the Netherlands (the invalidity decision is limited to the Netherlands). In July 2024, the U.K. court revoked one patent, ruling that it was invalid, and held that the other patent was valid and infringed. In July 2025, the U.K. Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court ruling that the other patent is valid and infringed. ModernaTX has also filed additional patent infringement actions against Pfizer and BioNTech in certain other ex-U.S. jurisdictions. In April 2023, Arbutus Biopharma Corporation (Arbutus) and Genevant Sciences GmbH (Genevant) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Pfizer and BioNTech alleging that Comirnaty and its manufacture infringe five U.S. patents, and seeking unspecified monetary damages. In April 2024, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA and GlaxoSmithKline LLC (collectively, GSK Group) sued Pfizer and Pharmacia & Upjohn Company LLC, BioNTech, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH and BioNTech US Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that Comirnaty infringes five U.S. patents and seeking unspecified money damages. In August 2024, GSK Group filed an amended complaint alleging that Comirnaty infringes three additional U.S. patents. In July 2025, GSK Group sued several Pfizer and BioNTech entities in Ireland, alleging that Comirnaty infringes three European patents. Also in July 2025, GSK Group sued several Pfizer and BioNTech entities in the Unified Patent Court, alleging that Comirnaty infringes two European patents, both of which are at issue in the Irish lawsuit. In January 2025, Promosome LLC filed a complaint in the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Munich, against Pfizer and BioNTech and certain of their subsidiaries alleging that Comirnaty infringes a European patent that is in force only in France, Germany and Sweden, and seeking unspecified monetary damages in connection with the manufacture and sale of Comirnaty in France, Germany and Sweden. Paxlovid In June 2022, Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Enanta) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Pfizer alleging that the active ingredient in Paxlovid, nirmatrelvir, infringes a U.S. patent issued in June 2022, and seeking unspecified monetary damages. In December 2024, the District Court issued an order granting Pfizer’s motion for summary judgment, finding Enanta’s patent invalid. Matters Involving Pfizer and its Collaboration/Licensing Partners Comirnaty (tozinameran) In July 2022, Pfizer, BioNTech and BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH filed a declaratory judgment complaint against CureVac in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking a judgment of non-infringement for three U.S. patents relating to Comirnaty. In May 2023, the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Also in May 2023, CureVac asserted that Comirnaty infringes the three patents that were the subject of our declaratory judgment complaint, and in May and July 2023, CureVac asserted that Comirnaty infringes a number of additional U.S. patents. Orgovyx (relugolix) Beginning in January 2025, several generic companies notified us that they had filed ANDAs with the FDA seeking approval to sell a generic form of relugolix (Orgovyx), and challenging one or more patents listed in the FDA’s Orange Book for Orgovyx which are licensed to Pfizer. In March 2025, we, along with Sumitomo Pharma Switzerland GBBH, Sumitomo Pharma America, Inc., Takeda and Takeda Pharmaceuticals International AG jointly filed separate patent infringement actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against the generic companies, asserting the infringement and validity of the patents in suit. A2. Legal Proceedings––Product Litigation We are defendants in numerous cases, including but not limited to those discussed below, related to our pharmaceutical and other products. Plaintiffs in these cases seek damages and other relief on various grounds for alleged personal injury and economic loss. Asbestos Between 1967 and 1982, Warner-Lambert owned American Optical Corporation (American Optical), which manufactured and sold respiratory protective devices and asbestos safety clothing. In connection with the sale of American Optical in 1982, Warner-Lambert agreed to indemnify the purchaser for certain liabilities, including certain asbestos-related and other claims. Warner-Lambert was acquired by Pfizer in 2000 and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer. Warner-Lambert is actively engaged in the defense of, and will continue to explore various means of resolving, these claims. Numerous lawsuits against American Optical, Pfizer and certain of its previously owned subsidiaries are pending in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged personal injury from exposure to products allegedly containing asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials sold by Pfizer and certain of its previously owned subsidiaries. There also are a small number of lawsuits pending in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged exposure to asbestos in facilities owned or formerly owned by Pfizer or its subsidiaries. Docetaxel A number of lawsuits have been filed against Hospira and Pfizer in various federal and state courts alleging that plaintiffs who were treated with Docetaxel developed permanent hair loss. Hospira is a wholly-owned subsidiary that we acquired in September 2015. The significant majority of the cases also name other defendants, including the manufacturer of the branded product, Taxotere. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages. Additional lawsuits have been filed in which plaintiffs allege they developed blocked tear ducts following their treatment with Docetaxel. In 2016, the federal cases were transferred for coordinated pre-trial proceedings to an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. In 2022, the eye injury cases were transferred for coordinated pre-trial proceedings to an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Zantac A number of lawsuits have been filed against Pfizer in various federal and state courts alleging that plaintiffs developed various types of cancer, or face an increased risk of developing cancer, purportedly as a result of the ingestion of Zantac. The significant majority of these cases also name other defendants that have historically manufactured and/or sold Zantac. Pfizer has not sold Zantac since 2006, and only sold an OTC version of the product. In 2006, Pfizer sold the consumer business that included its Zantac OTC rights to Johnson & Johnson and transferred the assets and liabilities related to Zantac OTC to Johnson & Johnson in connection with the sale. Plaintiffs in these cases seek compensatory and punitive damages. In February 2020, the federal actions were transferred for coordinated pre-trial proceedings to an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the Federal MDL Court). Plaintiffs in the MDL filed against Pfizer and many other defendants a master personal injury complaint, a consolidated consumer class action complaint alleging, among other things, claims under consumer protection statutes of all 50 states, and a medical monitoring complaint seeking to certify medical monitoring classes under the laws of 13 states. In December 2022, the Federal MDL Court granted defendants’ Daubert motions to exclude plaintiffs’ expert testimony and motion for summary judgment on general causation, which has resulted in the dismissal of all complaints in the litigation. Plaintiffs have appealed the Federal MDL Court’s rulings. In addition, (i) Pfizer has received service of Canadian class action complaints naming Pfizer and other defendants, and seeking compensatory and punitive damages for personal injury and economic loss, allegedly arising from the defendants’ sale of Zantac in Canada; and (ii) the State of New Mexico and the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore separately filed civil actions against Pfizer and many other defendants in state courts, alleging various state statutory and common law claims in connection with the defendants’ alleged sale of Zantac in those jurisdictions. In April 2021, a Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding was created in the Superior Court of California in Alameda County to coordinate personal injury actions against Pfizer and other defendants filed in California state court. Coordinated proceedings have also been created in other state courts. The large majority of the state court cases have been filed in the Superior Court of Delaware in New Castle County. Many of these Zantac-related cases have been outstanding for a number of years. From time to time, Pfizer has explored and will continue to explore opportunistic settlements of these matters. As of August 2025, Pfizer had settled, or entered into definitive agreements or agreements-in-principle to settle, subject to certain conditions, a substantial majority of the cases filed in state courts in which the plaintiff alleges use of a Pfizer product. The remaining unresolved state court cases continue in various state courts. Chantix Beginning in August 2021, a number of putative class actions have been filed against Pfizer in various U.S. federal courts following Pfizer’s voluntary recall of Chantix due to the presence of a nitrosamine, N-nitroso-varenicline. Plaintiffs assert that they suffered economic harm purportedly as a result of purchasing Chantix or generic varenicline medicines sold by Pfizer. Plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide and state-specific classes and seek various remedies, including damages and medical monitoring. In December 2022, the federal actions were transferred for coordinated pre-trial proceedings to an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Depo-Provera A number of lawsuits have been filed against Pfizer and certain subsidiaries in various federal and state courts alleging that plaintiffs who used the injectable version of Depo-Provera (active ingredient medroxyprogesterone acetate, or MPA) for contraception developed meningioma. The cases also name other defendants, including the manufacturers of generic versions of injectable MPA for contraception. Plaintiffs assert claims against Pfizer relating to both Depo-Provera and generic MPA products, and seek compensatory and punitive damages. In February 2025, the federal cases were transferred for coordinated pre-trial proceedings to an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. A3. Legal Proceedings––Commercial and Other Matters Monsanto-Related Matters In 1997, Monsanto Company (Former Monsanto) contributed certain chemical manufacturing operations and facilities to a newly formed corporation, Solutia Inc. (Solutia), and spun off the shares of Solutia. In 2000, Former Monsanto merged with Pharmacia & Upjohn Company to form Pharmacia. Pharmacia then transferred its agricultural operations to a newly created subsidiary, named Monsanto Company (New Monsanto), which it spun off in a two-stage process that was completed in 2002. Pharmacia was acquired by Pfizer in 2003 and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer. In connection with its spin-off that was completed in 2002, New Monsanto assumed, and agreed to indemnify Pharmacia for, any liabilities related to Pharmacia’s former agricultural business. New Monsanto has defended and/or is defending Pharmacia in connection with various claims and litigation arising out of, or related to, the agricultural business, and has been indemnifying Pharmacia when liability has been imposed or settlement has been reached regarding such claims and litigation. In connection with its spin-off in 1997, Solutia assumed, and agreed to indemnify Pharmacia for, liabilities related to Former Monsanto’s chemical businesses. As the result of its reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, Solutia’s indemnification obligations relating to Former Monsanto’s chemical businesses are primarily limited to sites that Solutia has owned or operated. In addition, in connection with its spin-off that was completed in 2002, New Monsanto assumed, and agreed to indemnify Pharmacia for, any liabilities primarily related to Former Monsanto’s chemical businesses, including, but not limited to, any such liabilities that Solutia assumed. Solutia’s and New Monsanto’s assumption of, and agreement to indemnify Pharmacia for, these liabilities apply to pending actions and any future actions related to Former Monsanto’s chemical businesses in which Pharmacia is named as a defendant, including, without limitation, actions asserting environmental claims, including alleged exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls. Solutia and/or New Monsanto are defending Pharmacia in connection with various claims and litigation arising out of, or related to, Former Monsanto’s chemical businesses, and have been indemnifying Pharmacia when liability has been imposed or settlement has been reached regarding such claims and litigation. In 2018, Bayer AG acquired Monsanto Company (New Monsanto), which is now a subsidiary of Bayer AG. Since the acquisition, New Monsanto has continued to defend and indemnify Pharmacia for these liabilities. Environmental Matters In 2009, as part of our acquisition of Wyeth, we assumed responsibility for environmental remediation at the Wyeth Holdings LLC (formerly known as Wyeth Holdings Corporation and American Cyanamid Company) discontinued industrial chemical facility in Bound Brook, New Jersey. Since that time, we have executed or have become a party to a number of administrative settlement agreements, orders on consent, and/or judicial consent decrees, with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and/or federal and state natural resource trustees to perform remedial design, removal and remedial actions, and related environmental remediation activities, and to resolve alleged damages to natural resources, at the Bound Brook facility. We have accrued for the currently estimated costs of these activities. We are also party to a number of other proceedings brought under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, and other state, local or foreign laws in which the primary relief sought is the cost of past and/or future remediation. Contracts with Iraqi Ministry of Health In 2017, a number of U.S. service members, civilians, and their families brought a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against a number of pharmaceutical and medical devices companies, including Pfizer and certain of its subsidiaries, alleging that the defendants violated the U.S. Anti-Terrorism Act. The complaint alleges that the defendants provided funding for terrorist organizations through their sales practices pursuant to pharmaceutical and medical device contracts with the Iraqi Ministry of Health and seeks monetary relief. In July 2020, the District Court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissed all of plaintiffs’ claims. In January 2022, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s decision. In June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order granting certiorari, vacating the Court of Appeals’ decision, and remanding the case to the Court of Appeals. Allergan Complaint for Indemnity In 2019, Pfizer was named as a defendant in a complaint, along with King, filed by Allergan Finance LLC (Allergan) in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, asserting claims for indemnity related to Kadian, which was owned for a short period by King in 2008, prior to Pfizer’s acquisition of King in 2010. This suit was voluntarily discontinued without prejudice in January 2021. Breach of Contract – Comirnaty In 2023, Pfizer and BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH initiated separate formal proceedings against the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Romania and Hungary in Belgium’s Court of First Instance of Brussels. Pfizer and BioNTech are seeking an order from the Court holding those countries to their commitments for COVID-19 vaccine orders, which were placed as part of their contracts signed in 2021. A4. Legal Proceedings––Government Investigations Like other multi-national pharmaceutical companies, we are subject to extensive regulation by government agencies in the U.S., other developed markets and multiple emerging markets in which we operate. Criminal charges, substantial fines and/or civil penalties, limitations on our ability to conduct business in applicable jurisdictions, corporate integrity or deferred prosecution agreements, as well as reputational harm and increased public interest in the matter could result from government investigations in the U.S. and other jurisdictions in which we do business. These matters often involve government requests for information on a voluntary basis or through subpoenas after which the government may seek additional information through follow-up requests or additional subpoenas. In addition, in a qui tam lawsuit in which the government declines to intervene, the relator may still pursue a suit for the recovery of civil damages and penalties on behalf of the government. Among the investigations by government agencies are the matters discussed below. Greenstone Antitrust Litigation In 2019 and 2020, Attorneys General of more than 50 states and territories filed two complaints in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against a number of pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer and Greenstone—a former Pfizer subsidiary that sold generic drugs. As to Greenstone and Pfizer, the complaints allege anticompetitive conduct in violation of federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws. The State Attorney General complaints were initially transferred to an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated pre-trial proceedings but were transferred back to the District of Connecticut in April 2024. The Greenstone antitrust litigation also includes civil complaints filed in federal and state court by private and governmental plaintiffs against Pfizer, Greenstone, and a number of other defendants. These related civil lawsuits assert allegations that generally overlap with those asserted by the State Attorneys General. All of the related federal lawsuits are part of the MDL pending in Pennsylvania. Subpoena relating to Tris Pharma/Quillivant XR In October 2018, we received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) seeking records relating to our relationship with another drug manufacturer and its production and manufacturing of drugs including, but not limited to, Quillivant XR. We have produced records in response to this request and, in June 2025, the SDNY and numerous related states on whose behalf the SDNY had been investigating, declined to intervene in a qui tam action that had been filed by a relator. Government Inquiries relating to Meridian Medical Technologies In February 2019, we received a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the SDNY. The CID seeks records and information related to alleged quality issues involving the manufacture of auto-injectors at Pfizer’s former Meridian site. In August 2019, we received a HIPAA subpoena issued by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Missouri, in coordination with the Department of Justice’s Consumer Protection Branch, seeking similar records and information. We have produced records in response to these and subsequent requests. U.S. Department of Justice Inquiries relating to India Operations In March 2020, we received an informal request from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Consumer Protection Branch seeking documents relating to our manufacturing operations in India, including at our former facility located at Irrungattukottai in India. In April 2020, we received a similar request from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the SDNY regarding a civil investigation concerning operations at our facilities in India. We have produced records pursuant to these requests. Zantac––State of New Mexico and Mayor and City Council of Baltimore Civil Actions See Legal Proceedings––Product Litigation––Zantac above for information regarding civil actions separately filed by the State of New Mexico and the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore alleging various state statutory and common law claims in connection with the defendants’ alleged sale of Zantac in those jurisdictions. Government Inquiries relating to Xeljanz In April 2023, we received a HIPAA subpoena issued by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Virginia, in coordination with the Department of Justice’s Commercial Litigation Branch, seeking records and information related to programs Pfizer sponsored in retail pharmacies relating to Xeljanz. We have produced records pursuant to this request. B. Guarantees and Indemnifications In the ordinary course of business and in connection with the sale of assets and businesses and other transactions, we often indemnify our counterparties against certain liabilities that may arise in connection with the transaction or that are related to events and activities prior to or following a transaction. If the indemnified party were to make a successful claim pursuant to the terms of the indemnification, we may be required to reimburse the loss. These indemnifications are generally subject to various restrictions and limitations. Historically, we have not paid significant amounts under these provisions and, as of June 29, 2025, the estimated fair value of these indemnification obligations is not material to Pfizer. In addition, in connection with our entry into certain agreements and other transactions, our counterparties may be obligated to indemnify us. For example, our global agreement with BioNTech to co-develop a mRNA-based coronavirus vaccine program aimed at preventing COVID-19 infection includes certain indemnity provisions pursuant to which each of BioNTech and Pfizer has agreed to indemnify the other for certain liabilities that may arise in connection with certain third-party claims relating to Comirnaty. See Note 7D for information on Pfizer Inc.’s guarantee of the debt issued by PNIF in May 2025 and see Note 7D in our 2024 Form 10-K, for information on Pfizer Inc.’s guarantee of the debt issued by Pfizer Investment Enterprises Pte. Ltd. (a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer) in May 2023. We have also guaranteed the long-term debt of certain subsidiaries of Pfizer and certain companies that we acquired and that now are subsidiaries of Pfizer. C. Contingent Consideration for Acquisitions We may be required to make payments to sellers for certain prior business combinations that are contingent upon future events or outcomes. See Note 1D in our 2024 Form 10-K.

We believe that our claims and defenses in matters in which we are a defendant are substantial, but litigation is inherently unpredictable and excessive verdicts do occur. We do not believe that any of these matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial position. However, we could incur judgments, enter into settlements or revise our expectations regarding the outcome of matters, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and/or our cash flows in the period in which the amounts are accrued or paid.

We have accrued for losses that are both probable and reasonably estimable. Substantially all of our contingencies are subject to significant uncertainties and, therefore, determining the likelihood of a loss and/or the measurement of any loss can be complex. Consequently, we are unable to estimate the range of reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts accrued. Our assessments, which result from a complex series of judgments about future events and uncertainties, are based on estimates and assumptions that have been deemed reasonable by management, but that may prove to be incomplete or inaccurate, and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur that might cause us to change those estimates and assumptions.

The principal pending matters to which we are a party are discussed below. In determining whether a pending matter is a principal matter, we consider both quantitative and qualitative factors to assess materiality, such as, among others, the amount of damages and the nature of other relief sought, if specified; our view of the merits of the claims and of the strength of our defenses; whether the action purports to be, or is, a class action and, if not certified, our view of the likelihood that a class will be certified by the court; the jurisdiction in which the proceeding is pending; whether related actions have been transferred to multidistrict litigation; any experience that we or, to our knowledge, other companies have had in similar proceedings; whether disclosure of the action would be important to a reader of our financial statements, including whether disclosure might change a reader’s judgment about our financial statements in light of all of the information that is available to the reader; the potential impact of the proceeding on our reputation; and the extent of public interest in the matter. In addition, with respect to patent matters in which we are the plaintiff, we consider, among other things, the financial significance of the product protected by the patent(s) at issue. Some of the matters discussed below include those which management believes that the likelihood of possible loss in excess of amounts accrued is remote.

We are involved in suits relating to our patents (or those of our collaboration/licensing partners to which we have licenses or co-promotion rights), including but not limited to, those discussed below. We face claims by generic drug manufacturers that patents covering our products (or those of our collaboration/licensing partners to which we have licenses or co-promotion rights and to which we may or may not be a party), processes or dosage forms are invalid and/or do not cover the product of the generic drug manufacturer. Also, counterclaims, as well as various independent actions, have been filed alleging that our assertions of, or attempts to enforce, patent rights with respect to certain products constitute unfair competition and/or violations of antitrust laws. In addition to the challenges to the U.S. patents that are discussed below, patent rights to certain of our products or those of our collaboration/licensing partners are being challenged in various other jurisdictions. Some of our collaboration or licensing partners face challenges to the validity of their patent rights in non-U.S. jurisdictions. For example, in April 2022, the U.K. High Court issued a judgment finding invalid a BMS patent related to Eliquis due to expire in 2026. In May 2023, the Court of Appeal dismissed BMS’s appeal and in October 2023, the Supreme Court refused BMS permission to appeal. Additional challenges are pending in other jurisdictions. Also, in July 2022, CureVac AG (CureVac) brought a patent infringement action against BioNTech and certain of its subsidiaries in the German Regional Court alleging that Comirnaty infringes certain German utility model patents and certain expired and unexpired European patents. Additional challenges involving Comirnaty patents may be filed against us and/or BioNTech in other jurisdictions in the future. Adverse decisions in these matters could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations. We are also party to patent damages suits in various jurisdictions pursuant to which generic drug manufacturers, payors, governments or other parties are seeking damages from us for allegedly causing delay of generic entry.

We also are often involved in other proceedings, such as inter partes review, post-grant review, re-examination or opposition proceedings, before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the European Patent Office, or other foreign counterparts, as well as court proceedings relating to our intellectual property or the intellectual property rights of others, including challenges to such rights initiated by us. Also, if one of our patents (or one of our collaboration/licensing partner’s patents) is found to be invalid by such proceedings, generic or competitive products could be introduced into the market resulting in the erosion of sales of our existing products. For example, several of the patents in our pneumococcal vaccine portfolio have been challenged in inter partes review and post-grant review proceedings in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, as well as outside the U.S. The invalidation of any of the patents in our pneumococcal portfolio could potentially allow additional competitor vaccines, if approved, to enter the marketplace earlier than anticipated. In the event that any of the patents are found valid and infringed, a competitor’s vaccine, if approved, might be prohibited from entering the market or a competitor might be required to pay us a royalty.

We are also subject to patent litigation pursuant to which one or more third parties seek damages and/or injunctive relief to compensate for alleged infringement of its patents by our commercial or other activities. If one of our marketed products (or a product of our collaboration/licensing partners to which we have licenses or co-promotion rights) is found to infringe valid patent rights of a third party, such third party may be awarded significant damages or royalty payments, or we may be prevented from further sales of that product. Such damages may be enhanced as much as three-fold if we or one of our subsidiaries is found to have willfully infringed valid patent rights of a third party.

Beginning in 2017, we brought patent-infringement actions against several generic manufacturers that filed separate abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) with the FDA seeking approval to market their generic versions of tofacitinib tablets in one or both of 5 mg and 10 mg dosage strengths, and in both immediate and extended release forms. To date, we have settled actions with several manufacturers on terms not material to us. The remaining actions continue in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware as described below.

In April 2025, we brought a patent infringement action against Annora Pharma Private Limited (Annora) asserting the infringement and validity of our composition of matter patent, covering immediate release formulations of tofacitinib that was challenged by Annora in its ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of tofacitinib 5 mg and 10 mg immediate release tablets. In May 2025, we settled the action against Annora on terms not material to us.

Beginning in August 2022, two generic companies notified us that they had filed ANDAs with the FDA seeking approval to market generic versions of Mektovi. The companies assert the invalidity and non-infringement of two method of use patents expiring in 2030, a method of use patent expiring in 2031, two method of use patents expiring in 2033, and a product by process patent expiring in 2033. Beginning in September 2022, we brought patent infringement actions against both of the generic filers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, asserting the validity and infringement of all six patents. In January 2025, we settled with one of the generic companies on terms not material to us. In June 2025, we settled with the second generic company on terms not material to us, and the case was dismissed.

In August 2022, we received notice from Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Teva) that it had filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of Mektovi. Teva asserts the invalidity and non-infringement of two method of use patents expiring in 2033 and a product by process patent expiring in 2033. In June 2023, we brought a patent infringement action against Teva in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, asserting the validity and infringement of the three patents. In August 2025, the case against Teva was dismissed.

Beginning in June 2023, several generic companies notified us that they had filed ANDAs with the FDA seeking approval to market generic versions of tafamidis capsules (61 mg) or tafamidis meglumine capsules (20 mg), challenging some or all of the patents listed in the FDA’s Orange Book for Vyndamax (tafamidis) and Vyndaqel (tafamidis meglumine). Scripps Research Institute (Scripps) owns the composition of matter patent and the method of treatment patents covering the products, and Pfizer is the exclusive licensee. Pfizer separately owns the crystalline form patent. Beginning in August 2023, we and Scripps brought patent infringement actions against the generic filers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, asserting the validity and infringement of the patents in suit. Pfizer is the sole plaintiff in actions that assert only the infringement and validity of the crystalline form patent.

In January 2024, Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc., Zydus Lifesciences Limited, and Zydus Worldwide DMCC (collectively, Zydus) and MSN Pharmaceuticals Inc. and MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. (collectively, MSN) separately notified us that they had filed ANDAs with the FDA seeking approval to market generic versions of voxelotor tablets, challenging some of the patents listed in the FDA’s Orange Book for Oxbryta (voxelotor tablets in 300 mg and 500 mg strengths and/or for oral suspension) on non-infringement grounds. In March 2024, we filed patent infringement actions against both generic filers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, asserting the validity and infringement of the challenged patents. Zydus and MSN have not challenged our composition of matter patents or method of treatment patents for Oxbryta.

In April 2024, Rubicon Research Private Limited, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Changzhou Pharmaceutical Factory, Natco Pharma Limited and Natco Pharma, Inc., MSN, Aurobindo Pharma Limited, Apitoria Pharma Private Limited and Aurobindo Pharma U.S.A. Inc. (collectively, Aurobindo) and Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (collectively, Apotex) notified us that they had filed ANDAs with the FDA seeking approval to market generic versions of rimegepant orally disintegrating tablets, claiming noninfringement and/or challenging the validity of some or all of the patents listed in the FDA’s Orange Book for Nurtec (rimegepant orally disintegrating tablets Eq 75 mg base). In May 2024, we filed patent infringement actions against all the generic filers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

Beginning in August 2024, several generic companies notified us and Astellas that they had filed ANDAs with the FDA seeking approval to market generic versions of Xtandi, challenging some or all of the patents listed in the FDA’s Orange Book for Xtandi. Beginning in August 2024, we brought patent infringement actions against the generic filers in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, asserting the validity and infringement of the patents in suit.

In October 2024, Sandoz Inc. (Sandoz) notified us that it had filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking approval to market a generic version of Inlyta. Sandoz asserts the invalidity and non-infringement of the crystalline form patent for Inlyta that expires in 2030. In November 2024, we filed suit against Sandoz in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, asserting the validity and infringement of the crystalline form patent for Inlyta. In June 2025, we settled with Sandoz on terms not material to us.

In March 2022, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Alnylam) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Pfizer and Pharmacia & Upjohn Company LLC, our wholly owned subsidiary, alleging that Comirnaty infringes a U.S. patent issued in February 2022, and seeking unspecified monetary damages. In July 2022, Alnylam filed a second complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Pfizer, Pharmacia & Upjohn Company LLC, BioNTech and BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, alleging that Comirnaty infringes a U.S. patent issued in July 2022, and seeking unspecified monetary damages. In May 2023, Alnylam filed a separate complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Pfizer and Pharmacia & Upjohn Company LLC alleging that Comirnaty infringes four additional U.S. patents issued on various dates in 2023 and seeking unspecified monetary damages. In February 2025, one of the patents asserted in the May 2023 complaint was dismissed from the litigation by stipulation of the parties. In July 2025, the District Court issued a judgment that Comirnaty does not infringe any of the patents asserted by Alnylam.

In August 2022, ModernaTX, Inc. (ModernaTX) and Moderna US, Inc. (Moderna) sued Pfizer, BioNTech, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH and BioNTech US Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging that Comirnaty infringes three U.S. patents. In its complaint, Moderna stated that it is seeking damages for alleged infringement occurring after March 7, 2022. In March 2024, the U.S. Patent Office Patent Trial & Appeal Board instituted a review of two of the three patents in suit. In March 2025, the U.S. Patent Office issued a decision holding that the two Moderna patents were invalid.

In August 2022, ModernaTX filed a patent infringement action in Germany against Pfizer and certain subsidiary companies, as well as BioNTech and certain subsidiary companies, alleging that Comirnaty infringes two European patents. In March 2025, a German court found the asserted patents infringed; no decision on invalidity was rendered. In September 2022, ModernaTX filed patent infringement actions in the U.K. and in the Netherlands against Pfizer and certain subsidiary companies, as well as BioNTech and certain subsidiary companies, on the same two European patents. In its complaints, ModernaTX stated that it is seeking damages for alleged infringement occurring after March 7, 2022. In November 2023, one of the European patents was revoked by the European Patent Office. In December 2023, the other European patent was declared invalid by a court in the Netherlands (the invalidity decision is limited to the Netherlands). In July 2024, the U.K. court revoked one patent, ruling that it was invalid, and held that the other patent was valid and infringed. In July 2025, the U.K. Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court ruling that the other patent is valid and infringed. ModernaTX has also filed additional patent infringement actions against Pfizer and BioNTech in certain other ex-U.S. jurisdictions.

In August 2024, GSK Group filed an amended complaint alleging that Comirnaty infringes three additional U.S. patents. In July 2025, GSK Group sued several Pfizer and BioNTech entities in Ireland, alleging that Comirnaty infringes three European patents. Also in July 2025, GSK Group sued several Pfizer and BioNTech entities in the Unified Patent Court, alleging that Comirnaty infringes two European patents, both of which are at issue in the Irish lawsuit.

In July 2022, Pfizer, BioNTech and BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH filed a declaratory judgment complaint against CureVac in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking a judgment of non-infringement for three U.S. patents relating to Comirnaty. In May 2023, the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Also in May 2023, CureVac asserted that Comirnaty infringes the three patents that were the subject of our declaratory judgment complaint, and in May and July 2023, CureVac asserted that Comirnaty infringes a number of additional U.S. patents.

Beginning in January 2025, several generic companies notified us that they had filed ANDAs with the FDA seeking approval to sell a generic form of relugolix (Orgovyx), and challenging one or more patents listed in the FDA’s Orange Book for Orgovyx which are licensed to Pfizer. In March 2025, we, along with Sumitomo Pharma Switzerland GBBH, Sumitomo Pharma America, Inc., Takeda and Takeda Pharmaceuticals International AG jointly filed separate patent infringement actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against the generic companies, asserting the infringement and validity of the patents in suit.

Between 1967 and 1982, Warner-Lambert owned American Optical Corporation (American Optical), which manufactured and sold respiratory protective devices and asbestos safety clothing. In connection with the sale of American Optical in 1982, Warner-Lambert agreed to indemnify the purchaser for certain liabilities, including certain asbestos-related and other claims. Warner-Lambert was acquired by Pfizer in 2000 and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer. Warner-Lambert is actively engaged in the defense of, and will continue to explore various means of resolving, these claims.

A number of lawsuits have been filed against Hospira and Pfizer in various federal and state courts alleging that plaintiffs who were treated with Docetaxel developed permanent hair loss. Hospira is a wholly-owned subsidiary that we acquired in September 2015. The significant majority of the cases also name other defendants, including the manufacturer of the branded product, Taxotere. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages. Additional lawsuits have been filed in which plaintiffs allege they developed blocked tear ducts following their treatment with Docetaxel.

A number of lawsuits have been filed against Pfizer in various federal and state courts alleging that plaintiffs developed various types of cancer, or face an increased risk of developing cancer, purportedly as a result of the ingestion of Zantac. The significant majority of these cases also name other defendants that have historically manufactured and/or sold Zantac. Pfizer has not sold Zantac since 2006, and only sold an OTC version of the product. In 2006, Pfizer sold the consumer business that included its Zantac OTC rights to Johnson & Johnson and transferred the assets and liabilities related to Zantac OTC to Johnson & Johnson in connection with the sale. Plaintiffs in these cases seek compensatory and punitive damages.

In February 2020, the federal actions were transferred for coordinated pre-trial proceedings to an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the Federal MDL Court). Plaintiffs in the MDL filed against Pfizer and many other defendants a master personal injury complaint, a consolidated consumer class action complaint alleging, among other things, claims under consumer protection statutes of all 50 states, and a medical monitoring complaint seeking to certify medical monitoring classes under the laws of 13 states. In December 2022, the Federal MDL Court granted defendants’ Daubert motions to exclude plaintiffs’ expert testimony and motion for summary judgment on general causation, which has resulted in the dismissal of all complaints in the litigation. Plaintiffs have appealed the Federal MDL Court’s rulings.

In addition, (i) Pfizer has received service of Canadian class action complaints naming Pfizer and other defendants, and seeking compensatory and punitive damages for personal injury and economic loss, allegedly arising from the defendants’ sale of Zantac in Canada; and (ii) the State of New Mexico and the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore separately filed civil actions against Pfizer and many other defendants in state courts, alleging various state statutory and common law claims in connection with the defendants’ alleged sale of Zantac in those jurisdictions. In April 2021, a Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding was created in the Superior Court of California in Alameda County to coordinate personal injury actions against Pfizer and other defendants filed in California state court. Coordinated proceedings have also been created in other state courts. The large majority of the state court cases have been filed in the Superior Court of Delaware in New Castle County.

Many of these Zantac-related cases have been outstanding for a number of years. From time to time, Pfizer has explored and will continue to explore opportunistic settlements of these matters. As of August 2025, Pfizer had settled, or entered into definitive agreements or agreements-in-principle to settle, subject to certain conditions, a substantial majority of the cases filed in state courts in which the plaintiff alleges use of a Pfizer product. The remaining unresolved state court cases continue in various state courts.

Beginning in August 2021, a number of putative class actions have been filed against Pfizer in various U.S. federal courts following Pfizer’s voluntary recall of Chantix due to the presence of a nitrosamine, N-nitroso-varenicline. Plaintiffs assert that they suffered economic harm purportedly as a result of purchasing Chantix or generic varenicline medicines sold by Pfizer. Plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide and state-specific classes and seek various remedies, including damages and medical monitoring. In December 2022, the federal actions were transferred for coordinated pre-trial proceedings to an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

A number of lawsuits have been filed against Pfizer and certain subsidiaries in various federal and state courts alleging that plaintiffs who used the injectable version of Depo-Provera (active ingredient medroxyprogesterone acetate, or MPA) for contraception developed meningioma. The cases also name other defendants, including the manufacturers of generic versions of injectable MPA for contraception. Plaintiffs assert claims against Pfizer relating to both Depo-Provera and generic MPA products, and seek compensatory and punitive damages. In February 2025, the federal cases were transferred for coordinated pre-trial proceedings to an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida.

In 1997, Monsanto Company (Former Monsanto) contributed certain chemical manufacturing operations and facilities to a newly formed corporation, Solutia Inc. (Solutia), and spun off the shares of Solutia. In 2000, Former Monsanto merged with Pharmacia & Upjohn Company to form Pharmacia. Pharmacia then transferred its agricultural operations to a newly created subsidiary, named Monsanto Company (New Monsanto), which it spun off in a two-stage process that was completed in 2002. Pharmacia was acquired by Pfizer in 2003 and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer.

In connection with its spin-off that was completed in 2002, New Monsanto assumed, and agreed to indemnify Pharmacia for, any liabilities related to Pharmacia’s former agricultural business. New Monsanto has defended and/or is defending Pharmacia in connection with various claims and litigation arising out of, or related to, the agricultural business, and has been indemnifying Pharmacia when liability has been imposed or settlement has been reached regarding such claims and litigation.

In connection with its spin-off in 1997, Solutia assumed, and agreed to indemnify Pharmacia for, liabilities related to Former Monsanto’s chemical businesses. As the result of its reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, Solutia’s indemnification obligations relating to Former Monsanto’s chemical businesses are primarily limited to sites that Solutia has owned or operated. In addition, in connection with its spin-off that was completed in 2002, New Monsanto assumed, and agreed to indemnify Pharmacia for, any liabilities primarily related to Former Monsanto’s chemical businesses, including, but not limited to, any such liabilities that Solutia assumed. Solutia’s and New Monsanto’s assumption of, and agreement to indemnify Pharmacia for, these liabilities apply to pending actions and any future actions related to Former Monsanto’s chemical businesses in which Pharmacia is named as a defendant, including, without limitation, actions asserting environmental claims, including alleged exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls. Solutia and/or New Monsanto are defending Pharmacia in connection with various claims and litigation arising out of, or related to, Former Monsanto’s chemical businesses, and have been indemnifying Pharmacia when liability has been imposed or settlement has been reached regarding such claims and litigation. In 2018, Bayer AG acquired Monsanto Company (New Monsanto), which is now a subsidiary of Bayer AG. Since the acquisition, New Monsanto has continued to defend and indemnify Pharmacia for these liabilities.

In 2009, as part of our acquisition of Wyeth, we assumed responsibility for environmental remediation at the Wyeth Holdings LLC (formerly known as Wyeth Holdings Corporation and American Cyanamid Company) discontinued industrial chemical facility in Bound Brook, New Jersey. Since that time, we have executed or have become a party to a number of administrative settlement agreements, orders on consent, and/or judicial consent decrees, with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and/or federal and state natural resource trustees to perform remedial design, removal and remedial actions, and related environmental remediation activities, and to resolve alleged damages to natural resources, at the Bound Brook facility. We have accrued for the currently estimated costs of these activities.

In 2017, a number of U.S. service members, civilians, and their families brought a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against a number of pharmaceutical and medical devices companies, including Pfizer and certain of its subsidiaries, alleging that the defendants violated the U.S. Anti-Terrorism Act. The complaint alleges that the defendants provided funding for terrorist organizations through their sales practices pursuant to pharmaceutical and medical device contracts with the Iraqi Ministry of Health and seeks monetary relief. In July 2020, the District Court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissed all of plaintiffs’ claims. In January 2022, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s decision. In June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order granting certiorari, vacating the Court of Appeals’ decision, and remanding the case to the Court of Appeals.

Like other multi-national pharmaceutical companies, we are subject to extensive regulation by government agencies in the U.S., other developed markets and multiple emerging markets in which we operate. Criminal charges, substantial fines and/or civil penalties, limitations on our ability to conduct business in applicable jurisdictions, corporate integrity or deferred prosecution agreements, as well as reputational harm and increased public interest in the matter could result from government investigations in the U.S. and other jurisdictions in which we do business. These matters often involve government requests for information on a voluntary basis or through subpoenas after which the government may seek additional information through follow-up requests or additional subpoenas. In addition, in a qui tam lawsuit in which the government declines to intervene, the relator may still pursue a suit for the recovery of civil damages and penalties on behalf of the government. Among the investigations by government agencies are the matters discussed below.

In 2019 and 2020, Attorneys General of more than 50 states and territories filed two complaints in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against a number of pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer and Greenstone—a former Pfizer subsidiary that sold generic drugs. As to Greenstone and Pfizer, the complaints allege anticompetitive conduct in violation of federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws. The State Attorney General complaints were initially transferred to an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated pre-trial proceedings but were transferred back to the District of Connecticut in April 2024. The Greenstone antitrust litigation also includes civil complaints filed in federal and state court by private and governmental plaintiffs against Pfizer, Greenstone, and a number of other defendants. These related civil lawsuits assert allegations that generally overlap with those asserted by the State Attorneys General. All of the related federal lawsuits are part of the MDL pending in Pennsylvania.

In October 2018, we received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) seeking records relating to our relationship with another drug manufacturer and its production and manufacturing of drugs including, but not limited to, Quillivant XR. We have produced records in response to this request and, in June 2025, the SDNY and numerous related states on whose behalf the SDNY had been investigating, declined to intervene in a qui tam action that had been filed by a relator.

In February 2019, we received a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the SDNY. The CID seeks records and information related to alleged quality issues involving the manufacture of auto-injectors at Pfizer’s former Meridian site. In August 2019, we received a HIPAA subpoena issued by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Missouri, in coordination with the Department of Justice’s Consumer Protection Branch, seeking similar records and information. We have produced records in response to these and subsequent requests.

In March 2020, we received an informal request from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Consumer Protection Branch seeking documents relating to our manufacturing operations in India, including at our former facility located at Irrungattukottai in India. In April 2020, we received a similar request from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the SDNY regarding a civil investigation concerning operations at our facilities in India. We have produced records pursuant to these requests.

In the ordinary course of business and in connection with the sale of assets and businesses and other transactions, we often indemnify our counterparties against certain liabilities that may arise in connection with the transaction or that are related to events and activities prior to or following a transaction. If the indemnified party were to make a successful claim pursuant to the terms of the indemnification, we may be required to reimburse the loss. These indemnifications are generally subject to various restrictions and limitations. Historically, we have not paid significant amounts under these provisions and, as of June 29, 2025, the estimated fair value of these indemnification obligations is not material to Pfizer.

In addition, in connection with our entry into certain agreements and other transactions, our counterparties may be obligated to indemnify us. For example, our global agreement with BioNTech to co-develop a mRNA-based coronavirus vaccine program aimed at preventing COVID-19 infection includes certain indemnity provisions pursuant to which each of BioNTech and Pfizer has agreed to indemnify the other for certain liabilities that may arise in connection with certain third-party claims relating to Comirnaty.

See Note 7D for information on Pfizer Inc.’s guarantee of the debt issued by PNIF in May 2025 and see Note 7D in our 2024 Form 10-K, for information on Pfizer Inc.’s guarantee of the debt issued by Pfizer Investment Enterprises Pte. Ltd. (a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer) in May 2023. We have also guaranteed the long-term debt of certain subsidiaries of Pfizer and certain companies that we acquired and that now are subsidiaries of Pfizer.