XML 36 R23.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.24.0.1
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
 12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
Legal Proceedings
We are a party to various legal actions. Certain significant matters are described below. We recognize accruals for such actions to the extent that we conclude that a loss is both probable and reasonably estimable. We accrue for the best estimate of a loss within a range; however, if no estimate in the range is better than any other, then we accrue the minimum amount in the range. If we determine that a material loss is reasonably possible and the loss or range of loss can be estimated, we disclose the possible loss. Unless otherwise noted, the outcome of these matters either is not expected to be material or is not possible to determine such that we cannot reasonably estimate the maximum potential exposure or the range of possible loss. We recorded an expense of $525 million in 2023 in Selling, general and administrative expenses on our Consolidated Statements of Income for settlements with certain plaintiffs in the HIV antitrust litigation, which we paid in the second half of 2023. We did not have any material accruals for the matters described below as of December 31, 2023 and December 31, 2022.
Litigation Relating to Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis
In August 2019, we filed petitions requesting inter partes review of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,044,509, 9,579,333, 9,937,191 and 10,335,423 (collectively, “HHS Patents”) by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). The HHS Patents are assigned to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) and purport to claim a process of protecting a primate host from infection by an immunodeficiency retrovirus by administering a combination of FTC and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (“TDF”) or TAF prior to exposure of the host to the immunodeficiency retrovirus, a process commonly known as pre-exposure prophylaxis (“PrEP”). In November 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court of Delaware, alleging that the sale of Truvada and Descovy for use as PrEP infringes the HHS Patents. In February 2020, PTAB declined to institute our petitions for inter partes review of the HHS Patents. In April 2020, we filed a lawsuit against the U.S. federal government in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (“CFC”), alleging breach of three material transfer agreements (“MTAs”) related to the research underlying the HHS Patents and two clinical trial agreements (“CTAs”) by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention related to PrEP research. A trial for the bifurcated portion of the lawsuit in the CFC was held in June 2022, and in November 2022, the CFC determined that the government breached the MTAs. In January 2024, the CFC found the government liable for breach of both CTAs. In May 2023, the District Court held a trial regarding the government’s patent infringement claims, and the jury rendered a full defense verdict in favor of Gilead, finding that the asserted claims of the HHS Patents are invalid and the HHS patents are not infringed. The government has filed post-trial motions, and we expect the District Court to issue a decision on those motions during the first quarter of 2024. Although we cannot predict with certainty the ultimate outcome of each of these litigation matters, we believe that the U.S. federal government breached its contracts with Gilead, that Truvada and Descovy do not infringe the HHS Patents and that the HHS Patents are invalid over prior art descriptions of Truvada’s use for PrEP and post-exposure prophylaxis because physicians and patients were using the claimed methods years before HHS filed the applications for the patents. A separate trial at the CFC to determine the damages Gilead is owed based on the government’s breach has yet to be scheduled.
Litigation with Generic Manufacturers
As part of the approval process for some of our products, FDA granted us a New Chemical Entity (“NCE”) exclusivity period during which other manufacturers’ applications for approval of generic versions of our products will not be approved. Generic manufacturers may challenge the patents protecting products that have been granted NCE exclusivity one year prior to the end of the NCE exclusivity period. Generic manufacturers have sought and may continue to seek FDA approval for a similar or identical drug through an abbreviated new drug application (“ANDA”), the application form typically used by manufacturers seeking approval of a generic drug. The sale of generic versions of our products prior to their patent expiration would have a significant negative effect on our revenues and results of operations. To seek approval for a generic version of a product having NCE status, a generic company may submit its ANDA to FDA four years after the branded product’s approval.
In October 2021, we received a letter from Lupin Ltd. (“Lupin”) indicating that it has submitted an ANDA to FDA requesting permission to market and manufacture a generic version of Symtuza, a product commercialized by Janssen and for which Gilead shares in revenues. In November 2021, we, along with Janssen and Janssen Products, L.P., filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Lupin as co-plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court of Delaware. In September 2022, we received a letter from Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (“Apotex”) stating that they have submitted an ANDA for a generic version of Symtuza. In October 2022, we, along with Janssen and Janssen Products, L.P., filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Apotex as co-plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court of Delaware. The cases against Lupin and Apotex have been consolidated into a single trial scheduled for May 2024.
Starting in March 2022, we received letters from Lupin, Laurus Labs (“Laurus”) and Cipla Ltd. (“Cipla”), indicating that they have submitted ANDAs to FDA requesting permission to market and manufacture generic versions of the adult dosage strength of Biktarvy. Lupin, Laurus, and Cipla have challenged the validity of four of the six patents listed in the Orange Book as associated with Biktarvy. We filed a lawsuit against Lupin, Laurus and Cipla in May 2022 in the U.S. District Court of Delaware, and intend to enforce and defend our intellectual property. Trial has been scheduled for October 2025. Additionally, in November 2023, we received a letter from Cipla indicating that it has submitted an ANDA to FDA requesting permission to market and manufacture a generic version of the pediatric dosage strength of Biktarvy. Cipla challenged the validity of two of the patents listed in the Orange Book as associated with Biktarvy. We filed a separate lawsuit against Cipla in December 2023 in the U.S. District Court of Delaware.
In June 2023, we received a letter from Apotex indicating that it has submitted an ANDA to FDA requesting permission to market and manufacture a generic version of Genvoya. In July 2023, we filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Apotex in the U.S. District Court of Delaware, and intend to enforce and defend our intellectual property. This case has been consolidated with the Symtuza matters discussed above, and a trial has been scheduled for June 2024.
Antitrust and Consumer Protection
We, along with Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (“BMS”), Johnson & Johnson, Inc. (“Johnson & Johnson”), and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (“Teva”) have been named as defendants in class action lawsuits filed in 2019 and 2020 related to various drugs used to treat HIV, including drugs used in combination antiretroviral therapy. Plaintiffs allege that we (and the other defendants) engaged in various conduct to restrain competition in violation of federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws. The lawsuits, which have been consolidated, are pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuits seek to bring claims on behalf of direct purchasers consisting largely of wholesalers and indirect or end-payor purchasers, including health insurers and individual patients. Plaintiffs seek damages, permanent injunctive relief and other relief. In the second half of 2021 and first half of 2022, several plaintiffs consisting of retail pharmacies, individual health plans and United Healthcare, filed separate lawsuits effectively opting out of the class action cases, asserting claims that are substantively the same as the classes. These cases have been coordinated with the class actions. In March 2023, the District Court granted our motion to hold separate trials as to (i) the allegations against us and Teva seeking monetary damages relating to Truvada and Atripla (“Phase I”) and (ii) the allegations against us and, in part, Johnson & Johnson, seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief relating to Complera (“Phase II”). In May 2023, we settled claims with the direct purchaser class and the retailer opt-out plaintiffs for $525 million, which we paid in the second half of 2023. The settlement agreements are not an admission of liability or fault by us, and are subject to a number of other conditions including, with respect to the preliminary settlement agreement between us and the direct purchaser class, court approval. In June 2023, the jury returned a complete verdict in Gilead’s favor on the remaining plaintiffs’ Phase I allegations. In November 2023, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the verdict. Plaintiffs have indicated they intend to appeal the jury verdict. Trial on the Phase II claims has not yet been scheduled. Plaintiffs and the Phase I defendants have requested that the court stay Phase II pending any appeal of Phase I. While we intend to vigorously defend against the Phase II claims, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome. If plaintiffs are successful in their Phase II claims, we could be required to pay monetary damages or could be subject to permanent injunctive relief in favor of plaintiffs.
In January 2022, we, along with BMS and Janssen Products, L.P., were named as defendants in a lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, by Aetna, Inc. on behalf of itself and its affiliates and subsidiaries that effectively opts the Aetna plaintiffs out of the above class actions. The allegations are substantively the same as those in the class actions. The Aetna plaintiffs seek damages, permanent injunctive relief and other relief. In September 2023, we filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings to preclude Aetna from re-litigating claims that were dismissed at summary judgment in the above class action cases. The motion remains pending.
In September 2020, we, along with generic manufacturers Cipla and Cipla USA Inc. (together, “Cipla Defendants”), were named as defendants in a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by Jacksonville Police Officers and Fire Fighters Health Insurance Trust (“Jacksonville Trust”) on behalf of end-payor purchasers. Jacksonville Trust claims that the 2014 settlement agreement between us and the Cipla Defendants, which settled a patent dispute relating to patents covering our Emtriva, Truvada and Atripla products and permitted generic entry prior to patent expiry, violates certain federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs sought damages, permanent injunctive relief and other relief. In January 2024, we settled plaintiffs’ claim for a de minimis fee.
In February 2021, we, along with BMS and Teva, were named as defendants in a lawsuit filed in the First Judicial District Court for the State of New Mexico, County of Santa Fe by the New Mexico Attorney General. The New Mexico Attorney General alleges that we (and the other defendants) restrained competition in violation of New Mexico antitrust and consumer protection laws. The New Mexico Attorney General seeks damages, permanent injunctive relief and other relief. We moved to dismiss the case based on lack of personal jurisdiction and, in July 2023, the New Mexico Supreme Court remanded the case back to the trial court for limited jurisdictional discovery.
We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in these actions, however, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome. If plaintiffs are successful in their claims, we could be required to pay significant monetary damages or could be subject to permanent injunctive relief awarded in favor of plaintiffs, which may result in a material, adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition, including in a particular reporting period in which any such outcome becomes probable and estimable.
Product Liability
We have been named as a defendant in one class action lawsuit and various product liability lawsuits related to Viread, Truvada, Atripla, Complera and Stribild. Plaintiffs allege that Viread, Truvada, Atripla, Complera and/or Stribild caused them to experience kidney, bone and/or tooth injuries. The lawsuits, which are pending in state or federal court in California and Missouri, involve more than 25,000 active plaintiffs. Plaintiffs in these cases seek damages and other relief on various grounds for alleged personal injury and economic loss. The first bellwether trial in California state court was scheduled to begin in October 2022, but is currently stayed pending the conclusion of appellate proceedings in the California First District Court of Appeal and California Supreme Court. The first bellwether trial in California federal court is scheduled to begin in November 2024. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in these actions, however, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome. If plaintiffs are successful in their claims, we could be required to pay significant monetary damages, which may result in a material, adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition, including in a particular reporting period in which any such outcome becomes probable and estimable.
Government Investigation
In 2017, we received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York requesting documents related to our promotional speaker programs for HIV. We are cooperating with this inquiry.
Qui Tam Litigation
A former sales employee filed a qui tam lawsuit against Gilead in March 2017 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Following the government’s decision not to intervene in the suit, the case was unsealed in December 2020. The lawsuit alleges that certain of Gilead’s HCV sales and marketing activities violated the federal False Claims Act and various state false claims acts. The lawsuit seeks all available relief under these statutes.
Health Choice Advocates, LLC (“Health Choice”) filed a qui tam lawsuit against Gilead in April 2020 in New Jersey state court. Following the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office’s decision not to intervene in the suit, Health Choice served us with their original complaint in August 2020. The lawsuit alleges that Gilead violated the New Jersey False Claims Act through our clinical educator programs for Sovaldi and Harvoni and our HCV and HIV patient access programs. The lawsuit seeks all available relief under the New Jersey False Claims Act. In April 2021, the trial court granted our motion to dismiss with prejudice. Health Choice has appealed the trial court’s dismissal.
Health Choice filed another qui tam lawsuit against Gilead in May 2020 making similar allegations in Texas state court. The lawsuit alleged that Gilead violated the Texas Medicare Fraud Prevention Act (“TMFPA”) through our clinical educator programs for Sovaldi and Harvoni and our HCV and HIV patient access programs. The lawsuit sought all available relief under the TMFPA. Health Choice voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice in August 2023, and commenced a new action in October 2023, asserting largely identical allegations and claims. In the newly filed action, the Texas Attorney General has intervened as a plaintiff.
We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in these actions, however, we cannot predict the ultimate outcomes. If any of these plaintiffs are successful in their claims, we could be required to pay significant monetary damages, which may result in a material, adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition, including in a particular reporting period in which any such outcome becomes probable and estimable.
Other Matters
We are a party to various legal actions that arose in the ordinary course of our business. We do not believe that it is probable or reasonably possible that these other legal actions will have a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.