Litigation	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2011
Litigation [Abstract]
Litigation	21. Litigation *Massachusetts Department of Revenue* On June 8, 2010, we received Notices of Assessment from the DOR against BIMA for $103.5 million of corporate excise tax, including associated interest and penalties, related to our 2004, 2005 and 2006 tax filings. We filed an abatement application with the DOR seeking abatements for 2004, 2005, and 2006. Our abatement application was denied on December 15, 2010 and we filed a petition appealing the denial with the Massachusetts ATB on February 3, 2011. For all periods under dispute, we believe that positions taken in our tax filings are valid and believe that we have meritorious defenses in these disputes. We are contesting these matters vigorously. *Hoechst— Genentech Arbitration* On October 24, 2008, Hoechst GmbH (Hoechst), predecessor to Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH (Sanofi), filed with the ICC International Court of Arbitration (Paris) a request for arbitration against Genentech, claiming a breach of a license agreement (the Hoechst License) between Hoechst’s predecessor and Genentech that was entered as of January 1, 1991 and terminated by Genentech effective October 27, 2008. The Hoechst License granted Genentech certain rights with respect to later-issued U.S. Patents 5,849,522 (’522 patent) and 6,218,140 (’140 patent) and related patents outside the U.S. The Hoechst License provided for potential royalty payments of 0.5% on net sales of certain products defined by the agreement. Although we are not a party to the arbitration, we expect that any damages that may be awarded to Hoechst may be a cost charged to our collaboration with Genentech. In June 2011, the arbitrator issued an intermediate decision suggesting that RITUXAN is covered by the Hoechst License and ordering Genentech to provide certain RITUXAN sales information for the period from December 15, 1998 to October 27, 2008. Based on our understanding of the arbitrator’s intermediate decision, in the second quarter of 2011 our share of RITUXAN revenues from unconsolidated joint business was reduced by approximately $50.0 million to reflect our share of the approximately $125.0 million compensatory damages and interest that Genentech estimated might be awarded to Hoechst. Hoechst has since claimed it is due damages of approximately EUR153.0 million for the period from December 15, 1998 to September 30, 2008 as well as additional royalties for later periods in an amount to be determined at a future hearing. In July 2011, Genentech filed a Declaration of Appeal with the Court of Appeal in Paris to vacate the arbitrator’s intermediate decision. The arbitrator declined to stay further proceedings until the Declaration of Appeal was decided and informed the parties that the underlying issue of liability with respect to RITUXAN under the Hoechst License has not yet been decided. In October 2011, the arbitrator scheduled a hearing on liability and damages for spring 2012, and a decision could follow in late summer 2012. In view of these developments, Genentech did not pursue the Declaration of Appeal. In light of the arbitrator’s ruling scheduling a hearing on liability and damages, the $50.0 million reduction of our share of RITUXAN revenues from unconsolidated joint business made in the second quarter of 2011 reflects the estimate of the loss that we may incur as a result of a final arbitration award unfavorable to Genentech. The actual amount of our share of any damages may vary from this estimate depending on the nature or amount of any damages awarded to Hoechst, or if any final decision awarding damages is successfully challenged by Genentech. *Sanofi ’522 and ’140 Patent Litigation* On October 27, 2008, Sanofi, successor to Hoechst, filed suit against Genentech and Biogen Idec in federal court in Texas (E.D. Tex.) (Texas Action) claiming that RITUXAN and certain other Genentech products infringe the ’522 patent and the ’140 patent. The patents are due to expire in December 2015. Sanofi seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions, compensatory and exemplary damages, and other relief. The same day Genentech and Biogen Idec filed a complaint against Sanofi in federal court in California (N.D. Cal.) (California Action) seeking a declaratory judgment that RITUXAN and other Genentech products do not infringe the ’522 patent or the ’140 patent and a declaratory judgment that those patents are invalid. The Texas Action was ordered transferred to the federal court in the Northern District of California and consolidated with the California Action and we refer to the two actions together as the “Consolidated Sanofi Patent Actions”. Certain damages that may be awarded to Sanofi in the Consolidated Sanofi Patent Actions may be a cost charged to our collaboration with Genentech. On April 21, 2011, the court entered a separate and final judgment that the manufacture and sale of RITUXAN do not infringe the ’522 patent or the ’140 patent and stayed the trial of the remaining claims, including Biogen Idec’s and Genentech’s invalidity claims. Sanofi has appealed from the court’s non-infringement ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the appeal is scheduled for oral argument in February, 2012. We have not formed an opinion that a decision in favor of Sanofi in its appeal of the non-infringement ruling, or an unfavorable outcome on the now stayed invalidity claims in the Consolidated Sanofi Patent Actions, is either “probable” or “remote.” We believe that we have good and valid defenses and are vigorously defending against Sanofi’s allegations. In the event that we and Genentech are found liable we estimate that the range of any potential loss could extend to a royalty of up to 0.5% of net sales of RITUXAN, based on, among other things, the royalty rate set forth in the terminated Hoechst License and an analysis of royalty rates charged for comparable technologies. We believe that Sanofi would seek a substantially higher royalty rate, and we will continue to vigorously oppose its claims and position. We expect any damage award in the Consolidated Sanofi Patent Actions for damages incurred prior to the filing of litigation to be limited to the period running from October 27, 2002 to October 27, 2008 (six years before Sanofi filed the Texas Action). In addition, in the event that Genentech is ordered to pay royalties on RITUXAN sales under the Hoechst License described above, we do not anticipate that we or Genentech would be subject to any damages award in the Consolidated Sanofi Patent Actions for any period as to which Genentech is ordered to pay royalties in the arbitration. *’755 Patent Litigation* On September 15, 2009, we were issued U.S. Patent No. 7,588,755 (’755 Patent), which claims the use of interferon beta for immunomodulation or treating a viral condition, viral disease, cancers or tumors. This patent, which expires in September 2026, covers, among other things, the treatment of MS with our product AVONEX. On May 27, 2010, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Bayer) filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey seeking a declaratory judgment of patent invalidity and non-infringement and seeking monetary relief in the form of attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses. On May 28, 2010, BIMA filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging infringement of the ’755 Patent by EMD Serono, Inc. (manufacturer, marketer and seller of REBIF), Pfizer, Inc. (co-marketer of REBIF), Bayer (manufacturer, marketer and seller of BETASERON and manufacturer of EXTAVIA), and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. (marketer and seller of EXTAVIA) and seeking monetary damages, including lost profits and royalties. The court has consolidated the two lawsuits, and we refer to the two actions as the “Consolidated ’755 Patent Actions”. Bayer, Pfizer, Novartis and EMD Serono have all filed counterclaims in the Consolidated ’755 Patent Actions seeking declaratory judgments of patent invalidity and noninfringement, and seeking monetary relief in the form of costs and attorneys’ fees, and EMD Serono and Bayer have each filed a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment that the ’755 Patent is unenforceable based on alleged inequitable conduct. Bayer has also amended its complaint to seek such a declaration. No trial date has yet been ordered, but we expect that the trial of the Consolidated ’755 Patent Actions will take place in 2013. On August 16, 2010, BIMA amended its complaint to add Ares Trading S.A. (Ares), an affiliate of EMD Serono, as a defendant, and to seek a declaratory judgment that a purported “nonsuit and option agreement” between Ares and BIMA dated October 12, 2000, that provides Ares an option to obtain a license to the ’755 Patent, is not valid and enforceable. Ares moved to compel arbitration of the claims against it and on February 2, 2012 an arbitration panel ruled that the nonsuit and option agreement and Ares’ option to license the ’755 patent remain in force. *GSK ’612 Patent Litigation* On March 23, 2010, we and Genentech were issued U.S. Patent No. 7,682,612 (’612 Patent) relating to a method of treating CLL using an anti-CD20 antibody. The patent which expires in November 2019 covers, among other things, the treatment of CLL with RITUXAN. On March 23, 2010, we and Genentech filed a lawsuit in federal court in the Southern District of California against Glaxo Group Limited and GlaxoSmithKline LLC (collectively, GSK) alleging infringement of that patent based upon GSK’s manufacture, marketing and sale, offer to sell, and importation of ARZERRA. We seek damages, including a royalty and lost profits, and injunctive relief. GSK has filed a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment of patent invalidity, noninfringement, unenforceability, and inequitable conduct, and seeking monetary relief in the form of costs and attorneys’ fees. In October, 2011, the court entered a claim construction order adverse to certain of Biogen Idec’s and Genentech’s arguments. In order to conserve judicial and party resources, and to allow Biogen Idec and Genentech to file an appeal prior to the full disposition of the case, the parties jointly moved for the entry of separate and final judgment in favor of GSK on Biogen Idec’s and Genentech’s claims, and in favor of GSK on GSK’s counterclaim for non-infringement. The court entered separate and final judgment on November 15, 2011, and stayed all further proceedings pending the outcome on appeal. Biogen Idec and Genentech filed a notice of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on December 5, 2011, and the appeal is pending. *Novartis V&D ’688 Patent Litigation* On January 26, 2011, Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc. (Novartis V&D) filed suit against us in federal district court in Delaware, alleging that TYSABRI infringes U.S. Patent No. 5,688,688 “Vector for Expression of a Polypeptide in a Mammalian Cell” (’688 Patent), which was granted in November 1997 and expires in November 2014. Novartis V&D seeks a declaration of infringement, a finding of willful infringement, compensatory damages, treble damages, interest, costs and attorneys’ fees. We have not formed an opinion that an unfavorable outcome is either “probable” or “remote”, and are unable to estimate the magnitude or range of any potential loss. We believe that we have good and valid defenses to the complaint and will vigorously defend against it. A trial has been set for January 2014. *Italian National Medicines Agency* In the fourth quarter of 2011, Biogen Idec SRL received a notice from the Italian National Medicines Agency (Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco or AIFA) stating that sales of TYSABRI for the period from February 2009 through February 2011 exceeded by Euro 30.7 million a reimbursement limit established pursuant to a Price Determination Resolution (Price Resolution) granted by AIFA in February 2007. The Price Resolution set the initial price for the sale of TYSABRI in Italy and limited the amount of government reimbursement “for the first 24 months” of TYSABRI sales. As the basis for the claim, the AIFA notice referred to a 2001 Decree that provides for an automatic 24-month renewal of the terms of all such resolutions that are not renegotiated prior to the expiration of their term. On November 17, 2011, Biogen Idec SRL responded to AIFA that the reimbursement limit in the Price Resolution by its terms relates only to the first 24 months of TYSABRI sales, which began in February 2007. On December 23, 2011, we filed an appeal in the Regional Administrative Tribunal of Lazio (Ecc.mo Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio) in Rome against AIFA, seeking a ruling that our interpretation of the Price Resolution is valid and that the position of the AIFA is unenforceable. We have not formed an opinion that an unfavorable outcome is either “probable” or “remote”. While we believe that we have good and valid grounds for our appeal, an unfavorable outcome could negatively impact our results of operations. *Average Manufacturer Price Litigation* On September 6, 2011, we and several other pharmaceutical companies were served with a complaint originally filed under seal on October 28, 2008 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by Ronald Streck (the relator) on behalf of himself and the United States, and the states of New Jersey, California, Rhode Island, Michigan, Montana, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Texas, Indiana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Florida, Georgia, New Mexico, Illinois, New York, Virginia, Delaware, Hawaii, Louisiana, Connecticut, and Nevada, (collectively “the States”), and the District of Columbia, alleging violations of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq. and state and District of Columbia statutory counterparts. In May 2011, the United States notified the court that it was not intervening at that time as to one defendant, and was declining to intervene as to all other defendants, including Biogen Idec; the District of Columbia notified the court that it was not intervening at that time; and the states notified the court that they were declining to intervene as to all defendants. The complaint was subsequently unsealed and served, and then amended. The amended complaint alleges that Biogen Idec and other defendants underreport Average Manufacturer Price information to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, thereby causing Biogen Idec and other defendants to underpay rebates under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. The relator alleges that the underreporting has occurred because Biogen Idec and other defendants improperly consider various payments or price concessions that they made to drug wholesalers to be discounts under applicable federal law. We and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on December 9, 2011, and the motion is pending. We have not formed an opinion that an unfavorable outcome is either “probable” or “remote,” or as to the magnitude or range of any potential loss. We believe that we have good and valid defenses and intend vigorously to defend against the allegations. *Government Review of Sales and Promotional Practices* Biogen Idec has learned that state and federal governmental authorities are investigating its sales and promotional practices. Biogen Idec has not received any requests for information in connection with this inquiry. We expect to cooperate fully with the government. *Canada Lease Dispute* On April 18, 2008, First Real Properties Limited filed suit against Biogen Idec Canada Inc. (BI Canada) in the Superior Court of Justice in London, Ontario alleging breach of an offer for lease of property signed by BI Canada in 2007 and an unsigned proposed lease for the same property. The plaintiff’s complaint seeks $7.0 million in damages, but the plaintiff recently submitted an expert report estimating the plaintiff’s damages to be $2.5 million after mitigation. The plaintiff also seeks costs of approximately $0.4 million and interest. A trial has been scheduled for March 2012. We have not formed an opinion that an unfavorable outcome is either “probable” or “remote.” *Product Liability and Other Legal Proceedings* We are also involved in product liability claims and other legal proceedings generally incidental to our normal business activities. While the outcome of any of these proceedings cannot be accurately predicted, we do not believe the ultimate resolution of any of these existing matters would have a material adverse effect on our business or financial condition.

Litigation

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2011

21. Litigation

Massachusetts Department of Revenue

On June 8, 2010, we received Notices of Assessment from the DOR against BIMA for $103.5 million of corporate excise tax, including associated interest and penalties, related to our 2004, 2005 and 2006 tax filings. We filed an abatement application with the DOR seeking abatements for 2004, 2005, and 2006. Our abatement application was denied on December 15, 2010 and we filed a petition appealing the denial with the Massachusetts ATB on February 3, 2011. For all periods under dispute, we believe that positions taken in our tax filings are valid and believe that we have meritorious defenses in these disputes. We are contesting these matters vigorously.

Hoechst— Genentech Arbitration

On October 24, 2008, Hoechst GmbH (Hoechst), predecessor to Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH (Sanofi), filed with the ICC International Court of Arbitration (Paris) a request for arbitration against Genentech, claiming a breach of a license agreement (the Hoechst License) between Hoechst’s predecessor and Genentech that was entered as of January 1, 1991 and terminated by Genentech effective October 27, 2008. The Hoechst License granted Genentech certain rights with respect to later-issued U.S. Patents 5,849,522 (’522 patent) and 6,218,140 (’140 patent) and related patents outside the U.S. The Hoechst License provided for potential royalty payments of 0.5% on net sales of certain products defined by the agreement. Although we are not a party to the arbitration, we expect that any damages that may be awarded to Hoechst may be a cost charged to our collaboration with Genentech.

In June 2011, the arbitrator issued an intermediate decision suggesting that RITUXAN is covered by the Hoechst License and ordering Genentech to provide certain RITUXAN sales information for the period from December 15, 1998 to October 27, 2008. Based on our understanding of the arbitrator’s intermediate decision, in the second quarter of 2011 our share of RITUXAN revenues from unconsolidated joint business was reduced by approximately $50.0 million to reflect our share of the approximately $125.0 million compensatory damages and interest that Genentech estimated might be awarded to Hoechst. Hoechst has since claimed it is due damages of approximately EUR153.0 million for the period from December 15, 1998 to September 30, 2008 as well as additional royalties for later periods in an amount to be determined at a future hearing.

In July 2011, Genentech filed a Declaration of Appeal with the Court of Appeal in Paris to vacate the arbitrator’s intermediate decision. The arbitrator declined to stay further proceedings until the Declaration of Appeal was decided and informed the parties that the underlying issue of liability with respect to RITUXAN under the Hoechst License has not yet been decided. In October 2011, the arbitrator scheduled a hearing on liability and damages for spring 2012, and a decision could follow in late summer 2012. In view of these developments, Genentech did not pursue the Declaration of Appeal.

In light of the arbitrator’s ruling scheduling a hearing on liability and damages, the $50.0 million reduction of our share of RITUXAN revenues from unconsolidated joint business made in the second quarter of 2011 reflects the estimate of the loss that we may incur as a result of a final arbitration award unfavorable to Genentech. The actual amount of our share of any damages may vary from this estimate depending on the nature or amount of any damages awarded to Hoechst, or if any final decision awarding damages is successfully challenged by Genentech.

Sanofi ’522 and ’140 Patent Litigation

On October 27, 2008, Sanofi, successor to Hoechst, filed suit against Genentech and Biogen Idec in federal court in Texas (E.D. Tex.) (Texas Action) claiming that RITUXAN and certain other Genentech products infringe the ’522 patent and the ’140 patent. The patents are due to expire in December 2015. Sanofi seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions, compensatory and exemplary damages, and other relief. The same day Genentech and Biogen Idec filed a complaint against Sanofi in federal court in California (N.D. Cal.) (California Action) seeking a declaratory judgment that RITUXAN and other Genentech products do not infringe the ’522 patent or the ’140 patent and a declaratory judgment that those patents are invalid. The Texas Action was ordered transferred to the federal court in the Northern District of California and consolidated with the California Action and we refer to the two actions together as the “Consolidated Sanofi Patent Actions”. Certain damages that may be awarded to Sanofi in the Consolidated Sanofi Patent Actions may be a cost charged to our collaboration with Genentech.

On April 21, 2011, the court entered a separate and final judgment that the manufacture and sale of RITUXAN do not infringe the ’522 patent or the ’140 patent and stayed the trial of the remaining claims, including Biogen Idec’s and Genentech’s invalidity claims. Sanofi has appealed from the court’s non-infringement ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the appeal is scheduled for oral argument in February, 2012. We have not formed an opinion that a decision in favor of Sanofi in its appeal of the non-infringement ruling, or an unfavorable outcome on the now stayed invalidity claims in the Consolidated Sanofi Patent Actions, is either “probable” or “remote.” We believe that we have good and valid defenses and are vigorously defending against Sanofi’s allegations.

In the event that we and Genentech are found liable we estimate that the range of any potential loss could extend to a royalty of up to 0.5% of net sales of RITUXAN, based on, among other things, the royalty rate set forth in the terminated Hoechst License and an analysis of royalty rates charged for comparable technologies. We believe that Sanofi would seek a substantially higher royalty rate, and we will continue to vigorously oppose its claims and position.

We expect any damage award in the Consolidated Sanofi Patent Actions for damages incurred prior to the filing of litigation to be limited to the period running from October 27, 2002 to October 27, 2008 (six years before Sanofi filed the Texas Action). In addition, in the event that Genentech is ordered to pay royalties on RITUXAN sales under the Hoechst License described above, we do not anticipate that we or Genentech would be subject to any damages award in the Consolidated Sanofi Patent Actions for any period as to which Genentech is ordered to pay royalties in the arbitration.

’755 Patent Litigation

On September 15, 2009, we were issued U.S. Patent No. 7,588,755 (’755 Patent), which claims the use of interferon beta for immunomodulation or treating a viral condition, viral disease, cancers or tumors. This patent, which expires in September 2026, covers, among other things, the treatment of MS with our product AVONEX. On May 27, 2010, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Bayer) filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey seeking a declaratory judgment of patent invalidity and non-infringement and seeking monetary relief in the form of attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses. On May 28, 2010, BIMA filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging infringement of the ’755 Patent by EMD Serono, Inc. (manufacturer, marketer and seller of REBIF), Pfizer, Inc. (co-marketer of REBIF), Bayer (manufacturer, marketer and seller of BETASERON and manufacturer of EXTAVIA), and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. (marketer and seller of EXTAVIA) and seeking monetary damages, including lost profits and royalties. The court has consolidated the two lawsuits, and we refer to the two actions as the “Consolidated ’755 Patent Actions”.

Bayer, Pfizer, Novartis and EMD Serono have all filed counterclaims in the Consolidated ’755 Patent Actions seeking declaratory judgments of patent invalidity and noninfringement, and seeking monetary relief in the form of costs and attorneys’ fees, and EMD Serono and Bayer have each filed a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment that the ’755 Patent is unenforceable based on alleged inequitable conduct. Bayer has also amended its complaint to seek such a declaration. No trial date has yet been ordered, but we expect that the trial of the Consolidated ’755 Patent Actions will take place in 2013.

On August 16, 2010, BIMA amended its complaint to add Ares Trading S.A. (Ares), an affiliate of EMD Serono, as a defendant, and to seek a declaratory judgment that a purported “nonsuit and option agreement” between Ares and BIMA dated October 12, 2000, that provides Ares an option to obtain a license to the ’755 Patent, is not valid and enforceable. Ares moved to compel arbitration of the claims against it and on February 2, 2012 an arbitration panel ruled that the nonsuit and option agreement and Ares’ option to license the ’755 patent remain in force.

GSK ’612 Patent Litigation

On March 23, 2010, we and Genentech were issued U.S. Patent No. 7,682,612 (’612 Patent) relating to a method of treating CLL using an anti-CD20 antibody. The patent which expires in November 2019 covers, among other things, the treatment of CLL with RITUXAN. On March 23, 2010, we and Genentech filed a lawsuit in federal court in the Southern District of California against Glaxo Group Limited and GlaxoSmithKline LLC (collectively, GSK) alleging infringement of that patent based upon GSK’s manufacture, marketing and sale, offer to sell, and importation of ARZERRA. We seek damages, including a royalty and lost profits, and injunctive relief. GSK has filed a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment of patent invalidity, noninfringement, unenforceability, and inequitable conduct, and seeking monetary relief in the form of costs and attorneys’ fees.

In October, 2011, the court entered a claim construction order adverse to certain of Biogen Idec’s and Genentech’s arguments. In order to conserve judicial and party resources, and to allow Biogen Idec and Genentech to file an appeal prior to the full disposition of the case, the parties jointly moved for the entry of separate and final judgment in favor of GSK on Biogen Idec’s and Genentech’s claims, and in favor of GSK on GSK’s counterclaim for non-infringement. The court entered separate and final judgment on November 15, 2011, and stayed all further proceedings pending the outcome on appeal. Biogen Idec and Genentech filed a notice of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on December 5, 2011, and the appeal is pending.

Novartis V&D ’688 Patent Litigation

On January 26, 2011, Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc. (Novartis V&D) filed suit against us in federal district court in Delaware, alleging that TYSABRI infringes U.S. Patent No. 5,688,688 “Vector for Expression of a Polypeptide in a Mammalian Cell” (’688 Patent), which was granted in November 1997 and expires in November 2014. Novartis V&D seeks a declaration of infringement, a finding of willful infringement, compensatory damages, treble damages, interest, costs and attorneys’ fees. We have not formed an opinion that an unfavorable outcome is either “probable” or “remote”, and are unable to estimate the magnitude or range of any potential loss. We believe that we have good and valid defenses to the complaint and will vigorously defend against it. A trial has been set for January 2014.

Italian National Medicines Agency

In the fourth quarter of 2011, Biogen Idec SRL received a notice from the Italian National Medicines Agency (Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco or AIFA) stating that sales of TYSABRI for the period from February 2009 through February 2011 exceeded by Euro 30.7 million a reimbursement limit established pursuant to a Price Determination Resolution (Price Resolution) granted by AIFA in February 2007. The Price Resolution set the initial price for the sale of TYSABRI in Italy and limited the amount of government reimbursement “for the first 24 months” of TYSABRI sales. As the basis for the claim, the AIFA notice referred to a 2001 Decree that provides for an automatic 24-month renewal of the terms of all such resolutions that are not renegotiated prior to the expiration of their term.

On November 17, 2011, Biogen Idec SRL responded to AIFA that the reimbursement limit in the Price Resolution by its terms relates only to the first 24 months of TYSABRI sales, which began in February 2007. On December 23, 2011, we filed an appeal in the Regional Administrative Tribunal of Lazio (Ecc.mo Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio) in Rome against AIFA, seeking a ruling that our interpretation of the Price Resolution is valid and that the position of the AIFA is unenforceable. We have not formed an opinion that an unfavorable outcome is either “probable” or “remote”. While we believe that we have good and valid grounds for our appeal, an unfavorable outcome could negatively impact our results of operations.

Average Manufacturer Price Litigation

On September 6, 2011, we and several other pharmaceutical companies were served with a complaint originally filed under seal on October 28, 2008 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by Ronald Streck (the relator) on behalf of himself and the United States, and the states of New Jersey, California, Rhode Island, Michigan, Montana, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Texas, Indiana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Florida, Georgia, New Mexico, Illinois, New York, Virginia, Delaware, Hawaii, Louisiana, Connecticut, and Nevada, (collectively “the States”), and the District of Columbia, alleging violations of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq. and state and District of Columbia statutory counterparts. In May 2011, the United States notified the court that it was not intervening at that time as to one defendant, and was declining to intervene as to all other defendants, including Biogen Idec; the District of Columbia notified the court that it was not intervening at that time; and the states notified the court that they were declining to intervene as to all defendants. The complaint was subsequently unsealed and served, and then amended. The amended complaint alleges that Biogen Idec and other defendants underreport Average Manufacturer Price information to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, thereby causing Biogen Idec and other defendants to underpay rebates under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. The relator alleges that the underreporting has occurred because Biogen Idec and other defendants improperly consider various payments or price concessions that they made to drug wholesalers to be discounts under applicable federal law. We and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on December 9, 2011, and the motion is pending. We have not formed an opinion that an unfavorable outcome is either “probable” or “remote,” or as to the magnitude or range of any potential loss. We believe that we have good and valid defenses and intend vigorously to defend against the allegations.

Government Review of Sales and Promotional Practices

Biogen Idec has learned that state and federal governmental authorities are investigating its sales and promotional practices. Biogen Idec has not received any requests for information in connection with this inquiry. We expect to cooperate fully with the government.

Canada Lease Dispute

On April 18, 2008, First Real Properties Limited filed suit against Biogen Idec Canada Inc. (BI Canada) in the Superior Court of Justice in London, Ontario alleging breach of an offer for lease of property signed by BI Canada in 2007 and an unsigned proposed lease for the same property. The plaintiff’s complaint seeks $7.0 million in damages, but the plaintiff recently submitted an expert report estimating the plaintiff’s damages to be $2.5 million after mitigation. The plaintiff also seeks costs of approximately $0.4 million and interest. A trial has been scheduled for March 2012. We have not formed an opinion that an unfavorable outcome is either “probable” or “remote.”

Product Liability and Other Legal Proceedings

We are also involved in product liability claims and other legal proceedings generally incidental to our normal business activities. While the outcome of any of these proceedings cannot be accurately predicted, we do not believe the ultimate resolution of any of these existing matters would have a material adverse effect on our business or financial condition.