| Legal Proceedings | LEGAL PROCEEDINGS Johnson & Johnson and certain of its subsidiaries are involved in various lawsuits and claims regarding product liability, intellectual property, commercial and other matters; governmental investigations; and other legal proceedings that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of their business. The Company records accruals for loss contingencies associated with these legal matters when it is probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. As of April 2, 2017 , the Company has determined that the liabilities associated with certain litigation matters are probable and can be reasonably estimated. The Company has accrued for these matters and will continue to monitor each related legal issue and adjust accruals as might be warranted based on new information and further developments in accordance with ASC 450-20-25. For these and other litigation and regulatory matters discussed below for which a loss is probable or reasonably possible, the Company is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss beyond the amounts already accrued. Amounts accrued for legal contingencies often result from a complex series of judgments about future events and uncertainties that rely heavily on estimates and assumptions. The ability to make such estimates and judgments can be affected by various factors, including whether damages sought in the proceedings are unsubstantiated or indeterminate; scientific and legal discovery has not commenced or is not complete; proceedings are in early stages; matters present legal uncertainties; there are significant facts in dispute; or there are numerous parties involved. In the Company's opinion, based on its examination of these matters, its experience to date and discussions with counsel, the ultimate outcome of legal proceedings, net of liabilities accrued in the Company's balance sheet, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position. However, the resolution of, or increase in accruals for, one or more of these matters in any reporting period may have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations and cash flows for that period. PRODUCT LIABILITY Johnson & Johnson and certain of its subsidiaries are involved in numerous product liability claims and lawsuits involving multiple products. Claimants in these cases seek substantial compensatory and, where available, punitive damages. While the Company believes it has substantial defenses, it is not feasible to predict the ultimate outcome of litigation. The Company has established accruals for product liability claims and lawsuits in compliance with ASC 450-20 based on currently available information, which in some cases may be limited. The Company accrues an estimate of the legal defense costs needed to defend each matter when those costs are probable and can be reasonably estimated. For certain of these matters, the Company has accrued additional amounts such as estimated costs associated with settlements, damages and other losses. To the extent adverse verdicts have been rendered against the Company, the Company does not record an accrual until a loss is determined to be probable and can be reasonably estimated. Product liability accruals can represent projected product liability for thousands of claims around the world, each in different litigation environments and with different fact patterns. Changes to the accruals may be required in the future as additional information becomes available. The most significant of these cases include the DePuy ASR™ XL Acetabular System and DePuy ASR™ Hip Resurfacing System, the PINNACLE ® Acetabular Cup System, pelvic meshes, RISPERDAL ® , XARELTO ® and JOHNSON'S ® Baby Powder. As of April 2, 2017 , in the U.S. there were approximately 2,000 plaintiffs with direct claims in pending lawsuits regarding injuries allegedly due to the DePuy ASR™ XL Acetabular System and DePuy ASR™ Hip Resurfacing System, 9,600 with respect to the PINNACLE ® Acetabular Cup System, 55,800 with respect to pelvic meshes, 16,900 with respect to RISPERDAL ® , 18,400 with respect to XARELTO ® and 3,900 with respect to JOHNSON'S ® Baby Powder. In August 2010, DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. (DePuy) announced a worldwide voluntary recall of its ASR ™ XL Acetabular System and DePuy ASR ™ Hip Resurfacing System used in hip replacement surgery. Claims for personal injury have been made against DePuy and Johnson & Johnson. The number of pending lawsuits is expected to fluctuate as certain lawsuits are settled or dismissed and additional lawsuits are filed. Cases filed in federal courts in the United States have been organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Litigation has also been filed in countries outside of the United States, primarily in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Ireland, Germany and Italy. In November 2013, DePuy reached an agreement with a Court-appointed committee of lawyers representing ASR Hip System plaintiffs to establish a program to settle claims with eligible ASR Hip patients in the United States who had surgery to replace their ASR Hips, known as revision surgery, as of August 31, 2013. DePuy reached additional agreements in February 2015 and March 2017, which further extended the settlement program to include ASR Hip patients who had revision surgeries after August 31, 2013 and prior to February 15, 2017. This settlement program has resolved more than 9,500 claims, with more expected from the recent extension, therefore bringing to resolution significant ASR Hip litigation activity in the United States. However, lawsuits in the United States remain, and the settlement program does not address litigation outside of the United States. In Australia, a class action settlement was reached that resolved the claims of the majority of ASR Hip patients in that country. The Company continues to receive information with respect to potential additional costs associated with this recall on a worldwide basis. The Company has established accruals for the costs associated with the U.S. settlement program and DePuy ASR ™ Hip-related product liability litigation. Claims for personal injury have also been made against DePuy and Johnson & Johnson relating to the PINNACLE ® Acetabular Cup System used in hip replacement surgery. The number of pending product liability lawsuits continues to increase, and the Company continues to receive information with respect to potential costs and the anticipated number of cases. Cases filed in federal courts in the United States have been organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Litigation has also been filed in countries outside of the United States, primarily in the United Kingdom. The Company has established an accrual for defense costs in connection with product liability litigation associated with the PINNACLE ® Acetabular Cup System. Claims for personal injury have been made against Ethicon, Inc. (Ethicon) and Johnson & Johnson arising out of Ethicon's pelvic mesh devices used to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. The number of pending product liability lawsuits continues to increase, and the Company continues to receive information with respect to potential costs and the anticipated number of cases. Cases filed in federal courts in the United States have been organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. In addition, class actions and individual personal injury cases or claims have been commenced in various countries outside of the United States, including claims and cases in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy and Venezuela, and class actions in Israel, Australia and Canada, seeking damages for alleged injury resulting from Ethicon's pelvic mesh devices. The Company has established an accrual with respect to product liability litigation associated with Ethicon's pelvic mesh products. Claims for personal injury have been made against Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson arising out of the use of RISPERDAL ® , indicated for the treatment of schizophrenia, acute manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder and irritability associated with autism, and related compounds. Lawsuits have been primarily filed in state courts in Pennsylvania, California, and Missouri. Other actions are pending in various courts in the United States and Canada. Product liability lawsuits continue to be filed, and the Company continues to receive information with respect to potential costs and the anticipated number of cases. The Company has established an accrual with respect to product liability litigation associated with RISPERDAL ® . Claims for personal injury have been made against Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson arising out of the use of XARELTO ® , an oral anticoagulant. The number of pending product liability lawsuits continues to increase, and the Company continues to receive information with respect to potential costs and the anticipated number of cases. Cases filed in federal courts in the United States have been organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. In addition, cases have been filed in state courts across the United States. Many of these cases have been consolidated into a state mass tort litigation in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and there are coordinated proceedings in Delaware, California and Missouri. Class action lawsuits also have been filed in Canada. The Company has established an accrual for defense costs in connection with product liability litigation associated with XARELTO ® . Claims for personal injury have been made against Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. and Johnson & Johnson arising out of the use of JOHNSON'S ® Baby Powder. The number of pending product liability lawsuits continues to increase, and the Company continues to receive information with respect to potential costs and the anticipated number of cases. Lawsuits have been primarily filed in state courts in Missouri, New Jersey and California. Cases filed in federal courts in the United States have been organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Company has established an accrual for defense costs in connection with product liability litigation associated with JOHNSON'S ® Baby Powder. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Certain subsidiaries of Johnson & Johnson are subject, from time to time, to legal proceedings and claims related to patent, trademark and other intellectual property matters arising out of their businesses. Many of these matters involve challenges to the coverage and/or validity of the patents on various products and allegations that certain of the Company’s products infringe the patents of third parties. Although these subsidiaries believe that they have substantial defenses to these challenges and allegations with respect to all significant patents, there can be no assurance as to the outcome of these matters. A loss in any of these cases could adversely affect the ability of these subsidiaries to sell their products, result in loss of sales due to loss of market exclusivity, require the payment of past damages and future royalties, and may result in a non-cash impairment charge for any associated intangible asset. The most significant of these matters are described below. Medical Devices In June 2009, Rembrandt Vision Technologies, L.P. (Rembrandt) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. (JJVCI) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging that JJVCI's manufacture and sale of its ACUVUE ® ADVANCE and ACUVUE OASYS ® Hydrogel Contact Lenses infringed Rembrandt’s U.S. Patent No. 5,712,327 and seeking monetary relief. The case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, where a trial in May 2012 resulted in a verdict of non-infringement that was subsequently upheld on appeal. In July 2014, Rembrandt sought a new trial based on alleged new evidence, which the District Court denied. In April 2016, the Court of Appeals overturned that ruling and remanded the case to the District Court for a new trial. A new trial is scheduled for August 2017. LifeScan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against UniStrip Technologies, LLC (UniStrip) in the United States District Court for the District of North Carolina in May 2014, alleging that the making and marketing of UniStrip’s strips for use in LifeScan’s blood glucose monitors infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,241,862 and 7,250,105 (the ’105 patent). In August 2014, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) determined that the ’105 patent is invalid. In January 2016, the invalidity decision was upheld on appeal. LifeScan filed a motion for rehearing, which was denied. In July 2014, UniStrip brought a lawsuit against LifeScan in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging antitrust violations relating to marketing practices for LifeScan strips. In March 2017, the parties settled both the antitrust and patent lawsuits. In March 2013, Medinol Ltd. (Medinol) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Cordis Corporation (Cordis) and Johnson & Johnson in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that Cordis’s sales of the CYPHER ™ and CYPHER SELECT ™ Stents made in the United States since 2005 willfully infringed four of Medinol's patents directed to the geometry of articulated stents. Medinol is seeking damages and attorneys’ fees. After trial in January 2014, the District Court dismissed the case, finding Medinol unreasonably delayed bringing its claims. In September 2014, the District Court denied a motion by Medinol to vacate the judgment and grant it a new trial. Medinol has appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Cordis was divested in 2015, and the Company retained any liability that may result from this case. In November 2016, MedIdea, L.L.C. (MedIdea) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging infringement by the ATTUNE ® Knee System. MedIdea alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,558,426; 8,273,132; 8,721,730 and 9,492,280 relating to posterior stabilized knee systems. Specifically, MedIdea alleges that the SOFCAM TM Contact feature of the ATTUNE ® posterior stabilized knee products infringes the patents-in-suit. MedIdea is seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. In December 2016, Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. and Ethicon Endo-Surgery, LLC (now known as Ethicon LLC) sued Covidien, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking a declaration that Covidien’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,585,735 (the ’735 patent); 7,118,587; 7,473,253; 8,070,748 and 8,241,284 (the ’284 patent), are either invalid or not infringed by Ethicon’s ENSEAL ® X1 Large Jaw Tissue Sealer product. In April 2017, Covidien LP, Covidien Sales LLC, and Covidien AG answered and counterclaimed, denying the allegations, asserting willful infringement of the ’735 patent, the ’284 patent and U.S. Patent Nos. 8,323,310; 9,084,608; 9,241,759 and 9,113,882, and seeking damages and an injunction. Pharmaceutical In April 2016, MorphoSys AG, a German biotech company, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Janssen Biotech, Inc. (JBI), Genmab U.S. Inc. and Genmab A/S (collectively, Genmab) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. MorphoSys alleges that JBI’s manufacture and sale of DARZALEX ® (daratumumab) willfully infringes MorphoSys’ U.S. Patent Nos. 8,263,746 and 9,200,061. MorphoSys is seeking money damages. JBI licenses patents and the commercial rights to DARZALEX ® from Genmab. Trial in the case is scheduled to commence in August 2018. In August 2016, Sandoz Ltd and Hexal AG (collectively, Sandoz) filed a lawsuit in the English High Court against G.D. Searle LLC (a Pfizer company) and Janssen Sciences Ireland UC (JSI) alleging that Searle’s supplementary protection certificate SPC/GB07/038 (SPC), which is exclusively licensed to JSI, is invalid and should be revoked. Janssen-Cilag Limited sells PREZISTA ® (darunavir) in the UK pursuant to this license. In October 2016, Searle and JSI counterclaimed against Sandoz for threatened infringement of the SPC based on statements of its plans to launch generic darunavir in the UK. Sandoz admitted that its generic darunavir product would infringe the SPC if it is found valid. Searle and JSI are seeking an order enjoining Sandoz from marketing its generic darunavir before the expiration of the SPC. Following a trial in April 2017, the Court entered a decision holding that the SPC is valid, and that a hearing will be scheduled regarding, among other things, Searle’s and JSI’s request for an injunction. REMICADE ® Related Cases U.S. Proceedings In September 2013, Janssen Biotech, Inc. (JBI) and NYU Langone Medical Center (NYU) received an Office Action from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rejecting the claims in U.S. Patent No. 6,284,471 relating to REMICADE ® (infliximab) (the ’471 patent) in a reexamination proceeding instituted by a third party. The ’471 patent expires in September 2018 and is co-owned by JBI and NYU, with NYU having granted JBI an exclusive license to NYU’s rights under the patent. Following several office actions by the patent examiner, including two further rejections, and responses by JBI, the USPTO issued a further action maintaining its rejection of the ’471 patent. JBI filed a notice of appeal to the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which issued a decision in November 2016 upholding the examiner's rejection. JBI has filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In August 2014, Celltrion Healthcare Co. Ltd. and Celltrion Inc. (together, Celltrion) filed an application with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval to make and sell its own infliximab biosimilar. In March 2015, JBI filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Celltrion and Hospira Healthcare Corporation (Hospira), which has exclusive U.S. marketing rights for Celltrion's infliximab biosimilar in the United States, seeking, among other things, a declaratory judgment that their biosimilar product infringes or potentially infringes several JBI patents, including the ’471 patent and U.S. Patent No. 7,598,083 (the ’083 patent). In August 2016, the District Court granted both Celltrion's and Hospira's motions for summary judgment of invalidity of the ’471 patent. JBI appealed those decisions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This case and the appeal of the reexamination of the ’471 patent have been designated companion cases and will be heard by the same panel of judges at the Federal Circuit. In June 2016, JBI filed two additional patent infringement lawsuits asserting the ’083 patent, one against Celltrion in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and the other against HyClone Laboratories, Inc., the manufacturer of the cell culture media that Celltrion uses to make its biosimilar product, in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. Although the ’083 patent is already asserted in the existing lawsuit against Celltrion, the additional lawsuit expands the claims to include any use of the cell culture media made in the United States to manufacture Celltrion's biosimilar. This additional lawsuit against Celltrion has been consolidated with the existing lawsuit discussed above. Hospira has moved to dismiss all counts of the lawsuit related to the ’083 patent as to it. Celltrion has moved to dismiss all counts of the lawsuit related to the ’083 patent without prejudice for failure to join all the co-owners of the ’083 patent as plaintiffs. The trial has been postponed pending resolution of these motions. The FDA approved Celltrion’s infliximab biosimilar for sale in the United States in April 2016. Hospira's parent company, Pfizer Inc., launched Celltrion's infliximab biosimilar in the United States in late 2016. In April 2017, JBI received notice that the FDA approved a marketing application submitted by Samsung Bioepis Co. Ltd. for the sale of its infliximab biosimilar in the United States. Canadian Proceedings In March 2013, Hospira filed an impeachment proceeding in the Federal Court of Canada against The Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology (Kennedy) challenging the validity of a Canadian patent related to REMICADE ® (a Feldman patent), which is exclusively licensed to JBI. In October 2013, Kennedy, along with JBI, Janssen Inc. (Janssen) and Cilag GmbH International (both affiliates of JBI), filed a counterclaim for infringement against Celltrion and Hospira. The counterclaim alleges that the products described in Celltrion’s and Hospira’s marketing applications to Health Canada for their subsequent entry biologics (SEB) to REMICADE ® would infringe the Feldman patents owned by Kennedy. Janssen and Kennedy are seeking damages and an injunction against Hospira. A trial in this patent action concluded in October 2016, and closing arguments took place in January 2017. The parties are awaiting a decision. In January 2014, Health Canada approved Celltrion’s SEB to REMICADE ® , allowing Celltrion to market its infliximab biosimilar in Canada, regardless of the pending patent action. In June 2014, Health Canada approved Hospira’s SEB to REMICADE ® . In July 2014, Janssen filed a lawsuit in the Federal Court of Canada challenging the Canadian Minister of Health’s marketing approval (Notice of Compliance) for Hospira’s SEB because Hospira did not serve a Notice of Allegation on Janssen to address the patent listed by Janssen on the Patent Register. In March 2015, the parties entered a settlement agreement whereby Health Canada agreed to a Consent Judgment setting aside Hospira’s Notice of Compliance, subject to Health Canada's appeal, which was filed in June 2015. Nevertheless, Hospira began marketing an infliximab biosimilar as a distributor under Celltrion’s Notice of Compliance. In October 2016, the appeals court reversed the Consent Judgment. Janssen has filed an application for leave to appeal with the Supreme Court of Canada. Hospira continues to market and sell Celltrion's infliximab biosimilar in Canada. In Canada, if the REMICADE ® patent discussed above is found to be invalid following all appeals, it could not be relied upon to prevent the further introduction of infliximab biosimilars prior to the August 1, 2017 expiry date of the patent. Litigation Against Filers of Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) The following summarizes lawsuits pending against generic companies that have filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) with the FDA, or undertaken similar regulatory processes outside of the United States, seeking to market generic forms of products sold by various subsidiaries of Johnson & Johnson prior to expiration of the applicable patents covering those products. These ANDAs typically include allegations of non-infringement, invalidity and unenforceability of the applicable patents. In the event the subsidiaries are not successful in these actions, or the statutory 30-month stays of the ANDAs expire before the United States District Court rulings are obtained, the third-party companies involved will have the ability, upon approval of the FDA, to introduce generic versions of the products at issue to the market, resulting in the potential for substantial market share and revenue losses for those products, and which may result in a non-cash impairment charge in any associated intangible asset. In addition, from time to time, subsidiaries may settle these actions and such settlements can involve the introduction of generic versions of the products at issue to the market prior to the expiration of the relevant patents. The inter partes review (IPR) process with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), created under the 2011 America Invents Act, is also being used by generic companies in conjunction with these ANDAs and lawsuits to challenge patents held by the Company’s subsidiaries. CONCERTA ® In October 2016, ALZA Corporation and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (together, Janssen) initiated a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC and Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC (together, Amneal), who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of CONCERTA ® before the expiration of United States Patent Nos. 8,163,798 and 9,144,549. Janssen is seeking an order enjoining Amneal from marketing its generic version of CONCERTA ® before the expiration of the patents. ZYTIGA ® In July 2015, Janssen Biotech, Inc. (JBI), Janssen Oncology, Inc. (Janssen Oncology) and Janssen Research & Development, LLC (collectively, Janssen) and BTG International Ltd. (BTG) initiated a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against a number of generic companies (and certain of their affiliates and/or suppliers) who filed ANDAs seeking approval to market a generic version of ZYTIGA ® before the expiration of United States Patent No. 8,822,438 (the ’438 patent). The generic companies currently include Actavis Laboratories, FL, Inc. (Actavis); Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC and Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC (collectively, Amneal); Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (collectively, Apotex); Citron Pharma LLC (Citron); Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. (collectively, Dr. Reddy’s); Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Mylan Inc. (collectively, Mylan); Par Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. (collectively, Par); Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries, Inc. (collectively, Sun); Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Teva); Wockhardt Bio A.G.; Wockhardt USA LLC and Wockhardt Ltd. (collectively, Wockhardt); West-Ward Pharmaceutical Corp. (West-Ward) and Hikma Pharmaceuticals, LLC (Hikma). The Court has set a trial date of October 2017. Subsequently, Janssen and BTG initiated patent infringement lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Amerigen Pharmaceuticals Limited (Amerigen) in May 2016, and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in June 2016, each of whom filed an ANDA seeking approval to market its generic version of ZYTIGA ® before the expiration of the ’438 patent. In August 2015, Janssen and BTG filed an additional jurisdictional protective lawsuit against the Mylan defendants in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, which has been stayed. In each of the above lawsuits, Janssen is seeking an order enjoining the defendants from marketing their generic versions of ZYTIGA ® before the expiration of the ’438 patent. Several generic companies including Amerigen, Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC (Argentum), Mylan, Wockhardt, Actavis, Amneal, Dr. Reddy’s, Sun, Teva, West-Ward and Hikma have filed Petitions for Inter Partes Review (IPR) with the USPTO, seeking to invalidate the ’438 patent. A final written decision in the IPRs filed by Amerigen and Argentum, which were joined, is expected by May 2017. Final written decisions in the IPRs filed by Mylan, Actavis, Amneal, Dr. Reddy’s, Sun, Teva, West-Ward and Hikma, which were joined, and in the Wockhardt IPR, are expected by January 2018. COMPLERA ® In August and September 2015, Janssen Pharmaceutica NV and Janssen Sciences Ireland UC (collectively, Janssen) and Gilead Sciences, Inc. and Gilead Sciences Ireland UC (collectively, Gilead) initiated patent infringement lawsuits in the United States District Courts for the District of Delaware and the District of West Virginia, respectively, against Mylan, Inc. and Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, Mylan), who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of COMPLERA ® before the expiration of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,841,310, 7,125,879 and 8,101,629. The West Virginia lawsuit has been stayed, with a conditional trial date in February 2018, in accordance with the schedule in the first-filed Delaware lawsuit. In the Delaware lawsuit, Janssen and Gilead amended their complaint to add claims for patent infringement with respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 8,080,551; 7,399,856; 7,563,922; 8,101,752 and 8,618,291. A trial in the Delaware action has been scheduled for February 2018. In each of these lawsuits, Janssen is seeking an order enjoining the defendants from marketing their generic versions of COMPLERA ® before the expiration of the relevant patents. XARELTO ® B eginning in October 2015, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (JPI) and Bayer Pharma AG and Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH (together, Bayer) filed patent infringement lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against a number of generic companies who filed ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of XARELTO ® before expiration of Bayer’s U.S. Patent Nos. 7,157,456 , 7,585,860 and 7,592,339 relating to XARELTO ® . JPI is the exclusive licensee of the asserted patents. The following generic companies are named defendants: Aurobindo Pharma Limited and Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. (together, Aurobindo), Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc., Invagen Pharmaceuticals Inc., Micro Labs USA Inc. and Micro Labs Ltd. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Prinston Pharmaceutical, Inc., Sigmapharm Laboratories, LLC, Torrent Pharmaceuticals, Limited and Torrent Pharma Inc. Trial is scheduled for March 2018. In April 2017, JPI, Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH and Bayer AG filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of XARELTO ® before expiration of Bayer’s U.S. Patent No. 9,539,218 relating to XARELTO ® (the ’218 patent). In April 2017, JPI, Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH and Bayer AG filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Aurobindo, who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of XARELTO ® before expiration of the ’218 patent. In each of these lawsuits, JPI is seeking an order enjoining the defendants from marketing their generic versions of XARELTO ® before the expiration of the relevant patents. RISPERDAL ® CONSTA ® On November 30, 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) instituted an Inter Partes Review filed by Luye Pharma Group Ltd., Luye Pharma (USA) Ltd., Sandong Luye Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and Nanjing Luye Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., seeking to invalidate U.S. Patent No. 6,667,061 relating to RISPERDAL CONSTA ® . Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. markets RISPERDAL CONSTA ® pursuant to a license from Alkermes Pharma Ireland Ltd. A decision by the USPTO is expected in November 2017. GOVERNMENT PROCEEDINGS Like other companies in the pharmaceutical and medical devices industries, Johnson & Johnson and certain of its subsidiaries are subject to extensive regulation by national, state and local government agencies in the United States and other countries in which they operate. As a result, interaction with government agencies is ongoing. The most significant litigation brought by, and investigations conducted by, government agencies are listed below. It is possible that criminal charges and substantial fines and/or civil penalties or damages could result from government investigations or litigation. Average Wholesale Price (AWP) Litigation Johnson & Johnson and several of its pharmaceutical subsidiaries (the J&J AWP Defendants), along with numerous other pharmaceutical companies, were named as defendants in a series of lawsuits in state and federal courts involving allegations that the pricing and marketing of certain pharmaceutical products amounted to fraudulent and otherwise actionable conduct because, among other things, the companies allegedly reported an inflated Average Wholesale Price (AWP) for the drugs at issue. Payors alleged that they used those AWPs in calculating provider r |
