| Legal Proceedings and Contingencies | LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES BMS and certain of its subsidiaries are involved in various lawsuits, claims, government investigations and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. These claims or proceedings can involve various types of parties, including governments, competitors, customers, partners, suppliers, service providers, licensees, licensors, employees, or shareholders, among others. These matters may involve patent infringement, antitrust, securities, pricing, sales and marketing practices, environmental, commercial, contractual rights, licensing obligations, health and safety matters, consumer fraud, employment matters, product liability and insurance coverage, among others. The resolution of these matters often develops over a long period of time and expectations can change as a result of new findings, rulings, appeals or settlement arrangements. Legal proceedings that are significant or that BMS believes could become significant or material are described below. While BMS does not believe that any of these matters, except as otherwise specifically noted below, will have a material adverse effect on its financial position or liquidity as BMS believes it has substantial claims and/or defenses in the matters, the outcomes of BMS's legal proceedings and other contingencies are inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties. There can be no assurance that there will not be an increase in the scope of one or more of these pending matters or any other or future lawsuits, claims, government investigations or other legal proceedings will not be material to BMS's financial position, results of operations or cash flows for a particular period. Furthermore, failure to successfully enforce BMS's patent rights would likely result in substantial decreases in the respective product revenues from generic competition. Unless otherwise noted, BMS is unable to assess the outcome of the respective matters nor is it able to estimate the possible loss or range of losses that could potentially result for such matters. Contingency accruals are recognized when it is probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount of the related loss can be reasonably estimated. Developments in legal proceedings and other matters that could cause changes in the amounts previously accrued are evaluated each reporting period. For a discussion of BMS’s tax contingencies, see " —Note 7. Income Taxes." INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Anti-PD-1, Anti-PD-L1 and CTLA-4 — U.S. In September 2015, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute ("Dana-Farber") filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking to correct the inventorship on up to six related U.S. patents directed to methods of treating cancer using PD-1 and PD-L1 antibodies. Specifically, Dana-Farber sought to add two scientists as inventors to these patents. In October 2017, Pfizer was allowed to intervene in the case alleging that one of the scientists identified by Dana-Farber was employed by a company eventually acquired by Pfizer during the relevant period. In May 2019, the District Court issued a decision ruling that the two scientists should be added as inventors to the patents, which decision was affirmed on appeal. In June 2019, Dana-Farber filed a new lawsuit in the District of Massachusetts against BMS seeking damages as a result of the decision adding the scientists as inventors. In February 2021, BMS filed a motion to dismiss that complaint. In August 2021, the Court denied the motion to dismiss, but ruled that Dana-Farber's claims for damages before May 17, 2019—the date of the District Court's ruling that Dana-Farber was a co-inventor of the patents—are preempted by federal patent law. On January 25, 2023, the Court held a hearing on a motion filed by BMS requesting that the Court enter summary judgment in BMS's favor. In April 2023, BMS and Dana-Farber entered into a settlement agreement and these litigations were dismissed. On March 17, 2022, BMS filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP and AstraZeneca UK Ltd (collectively, "AZ") alleging that AZ's marketing of the PD-L1 antibody Imfinzi infringes certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,580,505, 9,580,507, 10,138,299, 10,308,714, 10,266,594, 10,266,595, 10,266,596 and 10,323,092. On April 25, 2023, BMS filed an additional lawsuit against AZ in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that AZ's marketing of the PD-L1 antibody Imfinzi infringes U.S. Patent No. 9,402,899. On January 23, 2023, BMS filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP and AstraZeneca AB (collectively, "AZ AB") alleging that AZ AB's marketing of the CTLA-4 antibody Imjudo infringes certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,320,811 and 9,273,135. On July 24, 2023, BMS entered into an agreement with AZ and AZ AB (the "AZ Parties") to settle all outstanding claims between them in the CTLA-4 litigation and the two PD-L1 antibody litigations described above. Under the agreement, the AZ Parties are to pay an aggregate of $560 million to BMS in four payments through September 2026, which will be subject to sharing arrangements with Ono and Dana-Farber. BMS's share is approximately $418 million, of which the net present value will be reflected in income during the third quarter of 2023. Eliquis - Europe Lawsuits have been filed by generic companies in various countries in Europe seeking revocation of our composition of matter patents and SPCs relating to Eliquis , and trials or preliminary proceedings have been held in certain of those cases. In Denmark, BMS filed a request for a preliminary injunction against Teva, but the request was denied in December 2022, based on the finding that there is no imminent threat of a launch by Teva in Denmark. In Finland, the court granted our request that a preliminary injunction be entered prohibiting Teva from offering, storing or selling generic Eliquis products in Finland that have obtained price and reimbursement. In France, a trial was held regarding Teva's challenge to the validity of the French composition of matter patent and related SPC, and a decision was issued on June 8, 2023, confirming their validity and rejecting Teva's claims. In Ireland, the court granted our request that a preliminary injunction be entered restraining Teva from making, offering, putting on the market and/or using and/or importing or stocking for the aforesaid purposes, generic Eliquis products. A trial regarding Teva's challenge to the validity of the Irish composition of matter patent and related SPC began on July 4, 2023, and is expected to conclude on July 28, 2023, with a decision expected sometime in the fourth quarter of 2023. In the Netherlands, our requests that preliminary injunctions be entered to prevent at-risk generic launches by Sandoz, Stada and Teva prior to full trials on the validity of the Dutch composition of matter patent and SPC were denied by the lower courts. We appealed those denials, and a combined appellate hearing was held on June 29, 2023. In Norway, a trial was held regarding Teva's challenge to the validity of the Norwegian composition of matter patent and related SPC, and a decision was issued on May 23, 2023, confirming their validity and rejecting Teva's claims. In Sweden, a trial was held regarding Teva's challenge to the validity of the Swedish apixaban composition of matter patent and related SPC, and a decision was issued on November 2, 2022, confirming their validity and rejecting Teva's claims. In the UK, Sandoz and Teva filed lawsuits in the United Kingdom seeking revocation of the UK apixaban composition of matter patent and related Supplementary Protection Certificate ("SPC"). BMS subsequently filed counterclaims for infringement in both actions. A combined trial took place in February 2022 and in a judgment issued on April 7, 2022, the judge found the UK apixaban composition of matter patent and related SPC invalid. BMS appealed the judgment and on May 4, 2023, the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision finding the patent and SPC invalid. On June 1, 2023, BMS filed an application to appeal to the UK Supreme Court. Following the above decisions in the UK and the Netherlands, generic manufacturers have begun marketing generic versions of Eliquis in the UK and the Netherlands, and may seek to market generic versions of Eliquis in additional countries in Europe, prior to the expiration of our patents, which may lead to additional infringement and invalidity actions involving Eliquis patents being filed in various countries in Europe. Eliquis - U.S. On February 24, 2023 and March 4, 2023, BMS received Notice Letters from Biocon and ScieGen, respectively, notifying BMS that they had filed ANDAs containing paragraph IV certifications seeking approval of generic versions of Eliquis in the U.S. In response, in April 2023, BMS filed patent infringement actions against Biocon and ScieGen in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. On April 25, 2023, BMS entered into a confidential settlement agreement with ScieGen, settling all outstanding claims in the litigation with ScieGen. On June 16, 2023, BMS entered into a settlement agreement with Biocon settling all outstanding claims in the litigation with Biocon. The settlements with ScieGen and Biocon do not affect BMS's projected exclusivity period for Eliquis . Onureg – U.S. In November 2021, BMS received a Notice Letter from Accord notifying BMS that Accord had filed an ANDA containing a paragraph IV certification seeking approval of a generic version of Onureg in the U.S. and challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,846,628 (the "'628 Patent"), an FDA Orange Book-listed formulation patent covering Onureg , which expires in 2030. In response, BMS filed a patent infringement action against Accord in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. In March 2023, BMS received an additional Notice Letter from Accord notifying BMS that Accord had filed an ANDA containing a paragraph IV certification challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,571,436 (the "'436 Patent"), a newly-listed FDA Orange-Book formulation patent covering Onureg , which expires in 2029. In response, BMS filed an additional patent infringement action against Accord in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. A trial for the consolidated actions has been scheduled to begin on May 20, 2024. In February 2023, Apotex Inc. filed a request for inter partes review ("IPR") of the '628 Patent. BMS's preliminary response to Apotex's IPR request was filed on May 15, 2023. On July 20, 2023, the USPTO granted Apotex's request to institute an IPR of the '628 Patent. In May 2023, BMS received a Notice Letter from MSN Laboratories Private Limited ("MSN") notifying BMS that MSN had filed an ANDA containing a paragraph IV certification seeking approval of a generic version of Onureg in the U.S. and challenging the '628 Patent and the '436 Patent. In response, BMS filed a patent infringement action against MSN in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. No trial date has been set. Plavix* - Australia Sanofi was notified that, in August 2007, GenRx Proprietary Limited ("GenRx") obtained regulatory approval of an application for clopidogrel bisulfate 75mg tablets in Australia. GenRx, formerly a subsidiary of Apotex Inc., subsequently changed its name to Apotex ("GenRx-Apotex"). In August 2007, GenRx-Apotex filed an application in the Federal Court of Australia seeking revocation of Sanofi's Australian Patent No. 597784 (Case No. NSD 1639 of 2007). Sanofi filed counterclaims of infringement and sought an injunction. On September 21, 2007, the Federal Court of Australia granted Sanofi's injunction. A subsidiary of BMS was subsequently added as a party to the proceedings. In February 2008, a second company, Spirit Pharmaceuticals Pty. Ltd., also filed a revocation suit against the same patent. This case was consolidated with the GenRx-Apotex case. On August 12, 2008, the Federal Court of Australia held that claims of Patent No. 597784 covering clopidogrel bisulfate, hydrochloride, hydrobromide, and taurocholate salts were valid. The Federal Court also held that the process claims, pharmaceutical composition claims, and claim directed to clopidogrel and its pharmaceutically acceptable salts were invalid. BMS and Sanofi filed notices of appeal in the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia ("Full Court") appealing the holding of invalidity of the claim covering clopidogrel and its pharmaceutically acceptable salts, process claims, and pharmaceutical composition claims. GenRx-Apotex appealed. On September 29, 2009, the Full Court held all of the claims of Patent No. 597784 invalid. In March 2010, the High Court of Australia denied a request by BMS and Sanofi to hear an appeal of the Full Court decision. The case was remanded to the Federal Court for further proceedings related to damages sought by GenRx-Apotex. BMS and GenRx-Apotex settled, and the GenRx-Apotex case was dismissed. The Australian government intervened in this matter seeking maximum damages up to 449 million AUD ($297 million), plus interest, which would be split between BMS and Sanofi, for alleged losses experienced for paying a higher price for branded Plavix* during the period when the injunction was in place. BMS and Sanofi dispute that the Australian government is entitled to any damages. A trial was concluded in September 2017. In April 2020, the Federal Court issued a decision dismissing the Australian government's claim for damages. In May 2020, the Australian government appealed the Federal Court's decision and an appeal hearing concluded in February 2021. On June 26, 2023, the appeal court issued a ruling in BMS and Sanofi's favor, upholding the lower court's decision. Revlimid - U.S. In April 2023, Celgene received a Notice Letter from Deva Holdings A.S. ("Deva") notifying Celgene that Deva has filed an ANDA containing paragraph IV certifications seeking approval to market a generic version of Revlimid in the U.S. In response, on May 31, 2023, Celgene initiated a patent infringement action against Deva in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey asserting certain FDA Orange Book listed patents. Deva has not yet responded to the complaint. No schedule has been entered by the Court. Sprycel - U.S. In January 2022, BMS received a Notice Letter from Xspray Pharma AB ("Xspray"), Nanocopoeia, LLC ("Nanocopoeia") and Handa Oncology, LLC ("Handa"), respectively, notifying BMS that each had filed a 505(b)(2) NDA application containing paragraph IV certifications seeking approval of a dasatinib product in the U.S. and challenging two FDA Orange Book-listed monohydrate form patents expiring in 2025 and 2026. In February 2022, BMS filed a patent infringement action against Xspray in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In May 2022, BMS filed a patent infringement action against Nanocopoeia in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. In November 2022, BMS filed a patent infringement action against Handa in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. No trial dates have been scheduled in any of these actions. Both Xspray and Nanocopoeia filed motions for a judgment based on the pleadings. On March 24, 2023, the Minnesota court denied Nanocopoeia's motion. On April 25, 2023, the New Jersey court denied Xspray's motion. On June 16, 2023, BMS entered into a confidential settlement agreement with Handa, settling all outstanding claims in the litigation. Zeposia - U.S. On October 15, 2021, Actelion Pharmaceuticals LTD and Actelion Pharmaceuticals US, INC ("Actelion") filed a complaint for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against BMS and Celgene for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,251,867 (the "'867 Patent"). The Complaint alleges that the sale of Zeposia infringes certain claims of the '867 Patent and Actelion is seeking damages and injunctive relief. No trial date has been scheduled. PRICING, SALES AND PROMOTIONAL PRACTICES LITIGATION Plavix* State Attorneys General Lawsuits BMS and certain Sanofi entities are defendants in a consumer protection action brought by the attorney general of Hawaii relating to the labeling, sales and/or promotion of Plavix *. In February 2021, a Hawaii state court judge issued a decision against Sanofi and BMS, imposing penalties in the total amount of $834 million, with $417 million attributed to BMS. Sanofi and BMS appealed the decision. On March 15, 2023, the Hawaii Supreme Court issued its decision, reversing in part and affirming in part the trial court decision, vacating the penalty award and remanding the case for a new trial and penalty determination. A bench trial is scheduled to begin on September 25, 2023. PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION BMS is a party to various product liability lawsuits. Plaintiffs in these cases seek damages and other relief on various grounds for alleged personal injury and economic loss. As previously disclosed, in addition to lawsuits, BMS also faces unfiled claims involving its products. Abilify* BMS and Otsuka are co-defendants in product liability litigation related to Abilify* . Plaintiffs allege Abilify* caused them to engage in compulsive gambling and other impulse control disorders. Cases have been filed in state and federal courts and additional cases are pending in Canada. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the federal court cases for pretrial purposes in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. In February 2019, BMS and Otsuka entered into a master settlement agreement establishing a proposed settlement program to resolve all Abilify* compulsivity claims filed as of January 28, 2019 in the MDL as well as various state courts, including California and New Jersey. To date, the vast majority of cases have been dismissed based on participation in the settlement program or failure to comply with settlement related court orders and all remaining cases in the U.S. MDL litigation have since been resolved. Eleven inactive cases remain in New Jersey State court. There are also eleven cases pending in Canada (four class actions, seven individual injury claims). Out of the eleven cases in Canada, only two are active (the class actions in Quebec and Ontario), both of which class actions have now been certified. Onglyza* BMS and AstraZeneca are co-defendants in product liability litigation related to Onglyza* . Plaintiffs assert claims, including claims for wrongful death, as a result of heart failure or other cardiovascular injuries they allege were caused by their use of Onglyza* . In February 2018, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered all the federal Onglyza* cases to be transferred to an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. A significant majority of the claims are pending in the MDL, with others pending in a coordinated proceeding in California Superior Court in San Francisco ("JCCP"). On September 24, 2021, the JCCP court granted defendants' motion to exclude plaintiffs' only general causation expert and on January 5, 2022, the MDL court likewise granted defendants' motion to exclude plaintiffs' expert. On March 30, 2022, the JCCP court granted summary judgment to defendants, thus effectively dismissing the 18 claims previously pending in California state court. The decision was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal on April 19, 2023. Plaintiffs filed a petition for review by the California Supreme Court on May 29, 2023, which remains pending. Defendants filed a summary judgment motion in the MDL as well, which the MDL court granted on August 2, 2022. Plaintiffs filed their Notice of Appeal on December 2, 2022. As part of BMS's global diabetes business divestiture, BMS sold Onglyza* to AstraZeneca in February 2014 and any potential liability with respect to Onglyza* is expected to be shared with AstraZeneca. SECURITIES LITIGATION Celgene Securities Litigations Beginning in March 2018, two putative class actions were filed against Celgene and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "Celgene Securities Class Action"). The complaints allege that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making misstatements and/or omissions concerning (1) trials of GED-0301, (2) Celgene's 2020 outlook and projected sales of Otezla* , and (3) the new drug application for Zeposia . The Court consolidated the two actions and appointed a lead plaintiff, lead counsel, and co-liaison counsel for the putative class. In February 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff''s amended complaint in full. In December 2019, the Court denied the motion to dismiss in part and granted the motion to dismiss in part (including all claims arising from alleged misstatements regarding GED-0301). Although the Court gave the plaintiff leave to re-plead the dismissed claims, it elected not to do so, and the dismissed claims are now dismissed with prejudice. In November 2020, the Court granted class certification with respect to the remaining claims. In March 2023, the Court granted the defendants leave to file a motion for summary judgment, the briefing for which was completed in June 2023. In April 2020, certain Schwab management investment companies on behalf of certain Schwab funds filed an individual action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey asserting largely the same allegations as the Celgene Securities Class Action against the same remaining defendants in that action (the "Schwab Action"). In July 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint in full. In March 2021, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss consistent with its decision in the Celgene Securities Class Action. The California Public Employees' Retirement System in April 2021 (the "CalPERS Action"); DFA Investment Dimensions Group Inc., on behalf of certain of its funds; and American Century Mutual Funds, Inc., on behalf of certain of its funds, in July 2021 (respectively the "DFA Action" and the "American Century Action"), and GIC Private Limited in September 2021 (the "GIC Action"), filed separate individual actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey asserting largely the same allegations as the Celgene Securities Class Action and the Schwab individual action against the same remaining defendants in those actions. In October 2021, these actions were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings with the Schwab Action. The Court also consolidated any future direct actions raising common questions of law and fact with the Schwab Action. No trial dates have been scheduled in any of the above Celgene Securities Litigations. Contingent Value Rights Litigations In June 2021, an action was filed against BMS in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting claims of alleged breaches of a Contingent Value Rights Agreement ("CVR Agreement") entered into in connection with the closing of BMS's acquisition of Celgene Corporation in November 2019. The successor trustee under the CVR Agreement alleges that BMS breached the CVR Agreement by allegedly failing to use "diligent efforts" to obtain FDA approval of liso-cel ( Breyanzi ) before a contractual milestone date, thereby avoiding a $6.4 billion potential obligation to holders of the contingent value rights governed by the CVR Agreement and by allegedly failing to permit inspection of records in response to a request by the successor trustee. The successor trustee seeks damages in an amount to be determined at trial and other relief, including interest and attorneys' fees. BMS disputes the successor trustee's allegations. BMS filed a motion to dismiss the successor trustee's complaint, which was denied on June 24, 2022. In October 2021, alleged former Celgene stockholders filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting claims on behalf of a putative class of Celgene stockholders who received CVRs in the BMS merger with Celgene for violations of sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") relating to the joint proxy statement. That action later was consolidated with another action filed in the same court, and a consolidated complaint thereafter was filed asserting claims on behalf of a class of CVR acquirers, whether in the BMS merger with Celgene or otherwise, for violations of sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(2) of the Exchange Act. The complaint alleges that the February 22, 2019 joint proxy statement was materially false or misleading because it failed to disclose that BMS allegedly had no intention to obtain FDA approval for liso-cel ( Breyanzi ) by the applicable milestone date in the CVR Agreement and that certain statements made by BMS or certain BMS officers in periodic SEC filings, earnings calls, press releases, and investor presentations between December 2019 and November 2020 were materially false or misleading for the same reason. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. On March 1, 2023, the Court entered an opinion and order granting defendants' motion and dismissed the complaint in its entirety. The claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act and Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act were dismissed with prejudice. The claims under Sections 10(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act were dismissed with leave to file a further amended complaint which plaintiffs filed on April 14, 2023. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint and briefing on the motion was completed on June 23, 2023. The motion is currently pending before the Court. In November 2021, an alleged purchaser of CVRs filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for New York County asserting claims on behalf of a putative class of CVR acquirers for violations of sections 11(a) and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint alleges that the registration statement filed in connection with the proposed merger transaction between Celgene and BMS was materially false or misleading because it failed to disclose that allegedly BMS had no intention at the time to obtain FDA approval for liso-cel ( Breyanzi ) by the contractual milestone date. The complaint asserts claims against BMS, the members of its board of directors at the time of the joint proxy statement, and certain BMS officers who signed the registration statement. Defendants have moved to stay the action pending resolution of the federal action or, in the alternative, to dismiss the complaint. In lieu of responding to the motion, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 15, 2023. Defendants again filed a motion to stay or, in the alternative, to dismiss the amended complaint on July 13, 2023. In November 2021, an alleged Celgene stockholder filed a complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Union County asserting claims on behalf of two separate putative classes, one of acquirers of CVRs and one of acquirers of BMS common stock, for violations of sections 11(a), 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act. The complaint alleges that the registration statement filed in connection with the proposed merger transaction between Celgene and BMS was materially false or misleading because it failed to disclose that allegedly BMS had no intention at the time to obtain FDA approval for liso-cel ( Breyanzi ) by the contractual milestone date. The complaint asserts claims against BMS, the members of its board of directors at the time of the joint proxy statement, certain BMS officers who signed the registration statement and Celgene's former chairman and chief executive officer. Defendants moved to stay the action pending resolution of the federal action and, in the alternative, to dismiss the complaint. On February 17, 2023, the Court granted defendants' motion to stay and declined to reach the merits of defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court deemed the action stayed pending resolution of the federal action, subject to plaintiff's right to seek to vacate the stay should changed circumstances warrant such relief, and filed a written order staying the case for 200 days. No trial dates have been scheduled in any of the above CVR Litigations. OTHER LITIGATION IRA Litigation On June 16, 2023, BMS filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, et al. , challenging the constitutionality of the IRA. A program in the IRA requires pharmaceutical companies, like BMS, under the threat of significant penalties, to sell their most innovative and effective medicines at government-dictated prices. BMS argues that this program violates the Fifth Amendment, which requires the government to pay just compensation if it takes property for public use, by requiring pharmaceutical manufacturers to provide innovative medicines to third parties at prices set by the government, without any requirement that those prices reflect fair market value. BMS also argues that the IRA violates the First Amendment right to free speech by requiring manufacturers to state publicly that the government's price setting is a true negotiation that resulted in a fair price, even if it was not. Thalomid and Revlimid Litigations Beginning in November 2014, certain putative class action lawsuits were filed against Celgene in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that Celgene violated various antitrust, consumer protection, and unfair competition laws by (a) allegedly securing an exclusive supply contract for the alleged purpose of preventing a generic manufacturer from securing its own supply of thalidomide active pharmaceutical ingredient, (b) allegedly refusing to sell samples of Thalomid and Revlimid brand drugs to various generic manufacturers for the alleged purpose of bioequivalence testing necessary for ANDAs to be submitted to the FDA for approval to market generic versions of these products, (c) allegedly bringing unjustified patent infringement lawsuits in order to allegedly delay approval for proposed generic versions of Thalomid and Revlimid , and/or (d) allegedly entering into settlements of patent infringement lawsuits with certain generic manufacturers that allegedly have had anticompetitive effects. The plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and putative classes of third-party payers, sought injunctive relief and damages. The various lawsuits were consolidated into a master action for all purposes. In March 2020, Celgene reached a settlement with the class plaintiffs. In October 2020, the Court entered a final order approving the settlement and dismissed the matter. That settlement did not resolve the claims of certain entities that opted out of the settlement, and who have since filed new suits advancing related theories. As described below, those suits, together with a suit by certain specialty pharmacies and a new putative class action suit, are pending. In March 2019, Humana Inc. ("Humana"), which opted out of the above settlement, filed a lawsuit against Celgene in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Humana's complaint makes largely the same claims and allegations as were made in the now settled Thalomid and Revlimid antitrust class action litigation. The complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of Humana and its subsidiaries in several capacities, including as a direct purchaser and as an indirect purchaser, and seeks, among other things, treble and punitive damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees and costs. In May 2019, Celgene filed a motion to dismiss Humana's complaint. In April 2022, the Court issued an order denying Celgene's motion to dismiss. That order addressed only Celgene's argument that certain of Humana's claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The Court's order did not address Celgene's other grounds for dismissal and instead directed Celgene to present those arguments in a renewed motion to dismiss following the filing of amended complaints. In May 2022, Humana filed an amended complaint against Celgene and BMS asserting the same claims based on additional factual allegations. Celgene and BMS subsequently filed a motion to dismiss Humana's amended complaint, which was fully briefed in November 2022. No trial date has been |
