| Commitments and contingencies | NOTE 10 – Commitments and contingencies: General From time to time, Teva and/or its subsidiaries are subject to claims for damages and/or equitable relief arising in the ordinary course of business. In addition, as described below, in large part as a result of the nature of its business, Teva is frequently subject to litigation. Teva generally believes that it has meritorious defenses to the actions brought against it and vigorously pursues the defense or settlement of each such action. Teva records a provision in its consolidated financial statements to the extent that it concludes that a contingent liability is probable and the amount thereof is reasonably estimable. Based upon the status of the cases described below, management’s assessments of the likelihood of damages, and the advice of legal counsel, no material provisions have been made regarding the matters disclosed in this note, except as noted below. Litigation outcomes and contingencies are unpredictable, and substantial damages or other relief may be awarded. Accordingly, management’s assessments involve complex judgments about future events and often rely heavily on estimates and assumptions. Teva continuously reviews the matters described below and may, from time to time, remove previously disclosed matters where the exposures were fully resolved in the prior year, or determined to no longer meet the materiality threshold for disclosure, or were substantially resolved. If one or more of such proceedings described below were to result in final judgments against Teva, such judgments could be material to its results of operations and cash flows in a given period. In addition, Teva incurs significant legal fees and related expenses in the course of defending its positions even if the facts and circumstances of a particular litigation do not give rise to a provision in the consolidated financial statements. In connection with third-party agreements, Teva may under certain circumstances be required to indemnify, and may be indemnified by, in unspecified amounts, the parties to such agreements against third-party claims. Among other things, Teva’s agreements with third parties may require Teva to indemnify them, or require them to indemnify Teva, for the costs and damages incurred in connection with product liability claims, in specified or unspecified amounts. Except as otherwise noted, all of the litigation matters disclosed below involve claims arising in the United States. Except as otherwise noted, all third-party sales figures given below are based on IQVIA data. Intellectual Property Litigation From time to time, Teva seeks to develop generic and biosimilar versions of patent-protected pharmaceuticals and biopharmaceuticals for sale prior to patent expiration in various markets. In the United States, to obtain approval for most generics prior to the expiration of the originator’s patents, Teva must challenge the patents under the procedures set forth in the Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984, as amended. For many biosimilar products that are covered by patents, Teva participates in the “patent dance” procedures of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”), which allow for the challenge to originator patents prior to obtaining biosimilar product approval. To the extent that Teva seeks to utilize such patent challenge procedures, Teva is and expects to be involved in patent litigation regarding the validity, enforceability or infringement of the originator’s patents. Teva may also be involved in patent litigation involving the extent to which its product or manufacturing process techniques may infringe other originator or third-party patents. Additionally, depending upon a complex analysis of a variety of legal and commercial factors, Teva may, in certain circumstances, elect to market a generic or biosimilar version of the product even though litigation is still pending. To the extent Teva elects to proceed in this manner, it could face substantial liability for patent infringement if the final court decision is adverse to Teva, which could be material to its results of operations and cash flows in a given period. Teva could also be sued for patent infringement outside of the context of the Hatch-Waxman Act or BPCIA. For example, Teva could be sued for patent infringement after commencing sales of a product. This type of litigation can involve any of Teva’s pharmaceutical products, not just its generic and biosimilar products. The general rule for damages in patent infringement cases in the United States is that the patentee should be compensated by no less than a reasonable royalty and it may also be able, in certain circumstances, to be compensated for its lost profits. The amount of a reasonable royalty award would generally be calculated based on the sales of Teva’s product. The amount of lost profits would generally be based on the lost sales of the patentee’s product. In addition, the patentee may seek consequential damages as well as enhanced damages of up to three times the profits lost by the patent holder for willful infringement, although courts have typically awarded much lower multiples. Teva is also involved in litigation regarding patents in other countries where it does business, particularly in Europe. The laws concerning generic pharmaceuticals and patents differ from country to country. Damages for patent infringement in Europe may include lost profits or a reasonable royalty, but enhanced damages for willful infringement are generally not available. In July 2014, GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) filed claims against Teva in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware for infringement of a patent directed to using carvedilol in a specified manner to decrease the risk of mortality in patients with congestive heart failure. Teva began selling its carvedilol tablets (the generic version of GSK’s Coreg ® pre- In January 2021, Teva initiated a patent invalidity action against the compound patent and Supplementary Protection Certificate (“SPC”) asserted to cover Bristol-Myers Squibb Company’s (“BMS”) Eliquis ® ® Product Liability Litigation Teva’s business inherently exposes it to potential product liability claims. Teva maintains a program of insurance, which may include commercial insurance, self-insurance (including direct risk retention), or a combination of both types of insurance, in amounts and on terms that it believes are reasonable and prudent in light of its business and related risks. However, Teva sells, and will continue to sell, pharmaceuticals that are not covered by its product liability insurance; in addition, it may be subject to claims for which insurance coverage is denied, as well as claims that exceed its policy limits. Product liability coverage for pharmaceutical companies is becoming more expensive and increasingly difficult to obtain. As a result, Teva may not be able to obtain the type and amount of insurance it desires, or any insurance on reasonable terms, in certain or all of its markets. Teva and its subsidiaries are parties to litigation relating to previously unknown nitrosamine impurities discovered in certain products. The discovery led to a global recall of single and combination valsartan medicines around the world starting in July 2018 and to subsequent recalls on other products. The nitrosamine impurities in valsartan were allegedly found in the active pharmaceutical ingredient (“API”) supplied to Teva by multiple API manufacturers, including by Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceuticals Co. Ltd. Since July 2018, Teva has been actively engaged with global regulatory authorities in reviewing its sartan and other products to determine whether NDMA and/or other related nitrosamine impurities are present in specific products. Where necessary, Teva has initiated additional voluntary recalls. Multiple lawsuits have been filed in connection with this matter. Teva’s products allegedly at issue in the various nitrosamine-related litigations pending in the United States include valsartan, losartan, metformin and ranitidine. There are currently two Multi-District Litigations (“MDL”) pending against Teva and other manufacturers, including one MDL in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey related to, with respect to Teva, valsartan and losartan, and another MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida related to ranitidine. The claims against Teva in these MDLs include individual personal injury and/or product liability claims, economic damages claims brought by consumers and end payors as putative class actions, and medical monitoring class claims. The district court in the valsartan MDL certified a series of subclasses on plaintiffs’ economic loss claims as well as a medical monitoring class and originally scheduled the first trial to commence in the fourth quarter of 2024, but that trial has been postponed indefinitely by the court. Discovery is ongoing in the MDL with respect to the losartan claims against Teva. The claims against Teva and other generic manufacturers in the ranitidine MDL have been dismissed on preemption grounds but are subject to appeal. The district court in the ranitidine MDL also excluded all of plaintiffs’ general causation experts and granted summary judgment to the brand defendants on preemption grounds and later applied that general causation ruling to all defendants. This ruling is on appeal in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Certain generic manufacturers, including Teva, have also been named in state court actions asserting allegations similar to those in the aforementioned MDLs. In particular, state court valsartan and losartan actions are pending but currently stayed in New Jersey and Delaware, with the exception of a single-plaintiff case that was later refiled in a New Jersey state court in October 2022 and is in the very initial stages of discovery. State court ranitidine cases naming Teva are also pending in coordinated proceedings in California and Pennsylvania. Teva was dismissed from all ranitidine claims pending in Illinois based on preemption grounds, which plaintiffs have appealed for final judgments as to all remaining defendants. Teva was also dismissed on preliminary objections in Pennsylvania for plaintiffs whose cases are governed by Pennsylvania law, but further motion practice may continue. The litigation in Pennsylvania has effectively been stayed pending a decision on a motion filed by plaintiffs to recuse the presiding judge which was denied but certified for interlocutory appeal. In addition to the valsartan and ranitidine MDLs and coordinated state court proceedings, Teva has been named in a consolidated proceeding pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey brought by individuals and end payors seeking economic damages on behalf of purported classes of consumers and end payors who purchased Teva’s and other generic manufacturers’ metformin products. The parties are now engaged in discovery related to the surviving metformin claims. Teva was recently named in a related proceeding pending in the same district brought by end payors also seeking economic damages on behalf of a purported class of end payors who purchased Teva’s and other generic manufacturers’ metformin products. This action was consolidated with the original proceeding for discovery and pretrial purposes only. Teva, along with the other defendants, have moved to dismiss the claims in this newly consolidated proceeding. Similar lawsuits are pending in Canada and Germany. Competition Matters As part of its generic pharmaceuticals business, Teva has challenged a number of patents covering branded pharmaceuticals, some of which are among the most widely-prescribed and well-known drugs on the market. Many of Teva’s patent challenges have resulted in litigation relating to Teva’s attempts to market generic versions of such pharmaceuticals under the federal Hatch-Waxman Act. Some of this litigation has been resolved through settlement agreements in which Teva obtained a license to market a generic version of the drug, often years before the patents expire. Teva and its subsidiaries have been named as defendants in cases that allege antitrust violations arising from such settlement agreements. The plaintiffs in these cases are usually direct and indirect purchasers of pharmaceutical products, some of whom assert claims on behalf of classes of all direct and indirect purchasers, and they typically allege that (i) Teva received something of value from the innovator in exchange for an agreement to delay generic entry, and (ii) significant savings could have been realized if there had been no settlement agreement and generic competition had commenced earlier. These plaintiffs seek various forms of injunctive and monetary relief, including damages based on the difference between the brand price and what the generic price allegedly would have been and disgorgement of profits, which are often automatically tripled under the relevant statutes, plus attorneys’ fees and costs. The alleged damages generally depend on the size of the branded market and the length of the alleged delay, and can be substantial, potentially measured in multiples of the annual brand sales, particularly where the alleged delays are lengthy or branded drugs with annual sales in the billions of dollars are involved. Teva believes that its settlement agreements are lawful and serve to increase competition, and has defended them vigorously. In Teva’s experience to date, these cases have typically settled for a fraction of the high end of the damages sought, although there can be no assurance that such outcomes will continue. In June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) v. Actavis, Inc., that a rule of reason test should be applied in analyzing whether such settlements potentially violate the federal antitrust laws. The Supreme Court held that a trial court must analyze each agreement in its entirety in order to determine whether it violates the antitrust laws. This test has resulted in increased scrutiny of Teva’s patent settlements, additional action by the FTC and state and local authorities, and an increased risk of liability in Teva’s currently pending antitrust litigations. In December 2011, three groups of plaintiffs filed claims against Wyeth and Teva for alleged violations of the antitrust laws in connection with their November 2005 settlement of patent litigation involving extended-release venlafaxine (generic Effexor XR ® ® ® In February 2012, two purported classes of direct-purchaser plaintiffs filed claims against GSK and Teva in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey for alleged violations of the antitrust laws in connection with their February 2005 settlement of patent litigation involving lamotrigine (generic Lamictal ® ® ® In April 2013, purported classes of direct purchasers of, and end payers for, Niaspan ® opt-out re-hearing. ® ® In August 2019, certain direct-purchaser plaintiffs filed claims in federal court in Philadelphia against Teva and its affiliates alleging that the September 2006 patent litigation settlement relating to AndroGel ® ® ® Between September 1, 2020 and December 20, 2020, plaintiffs purporting to represent putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers and opt-out ® ® ® In November 2020, the European Commission issued a final decision in its proceedings against both Cephalon and Teva, finding that the 2005 settlement agreement between the parties had the object and effect of hindering the entry of generic modafinil, and imposed fines totaling euro 60.5 million on Teva and Cephalon. Teva and Cephalon filed an appeal against the decision in February 2021, and a judgment was issued on October 18, 2023 rejecting Teva’s grounds of appeal. A provision for this matter was included in the financial statements. Teva has provided the European Commission with a bank guarantee in the amount of the imposed fines. On January 4, 2024, Teva appealed the October 2023 judgment to the European Court of Justice. In February 2021, the State of New Mexico filed a lawsuit against Teva and certain other defendants related to various medicines used to treat HIV (the “New Mexico litigation”). Between September 2021 and April 2022, several private plaintiffs including retailers and health insurance providers filed similar claims in various courts, which were all removed and/or consolidated into the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “California litigation”). As they relate to Teva, the lawsuits challenged settlement agreements Teva entered into with Gilead in 2013 and/or 2014 to resolve patent litigation relating to Teva’s generic versions of Viread ® ® ® ® 2023, Teva and Gilead reached a settlement agreement with the retailer plaintiffs in the California litigation and Teva recognized a provision for this matter based on such settlement. On June 30, 2023, the jury in the trial against the remaining plaintiffs in the California litigation issued a verdict in favor of Teva and Gilead, rejecting all of the remaining plaintiffs’ claims. On February 12, 2024, the court entered a judgment as to all claims against Teva in the California litigation and the plaintiffs have filed notices of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the appeal is currently being briefed. In the New Mexico litigation, on June 27, 2024, Teva and the State of New Mexico finalized their settlement agreement, and the New Mexico court entered a consent judgment resolving the New Mexico litigation. Teva recognized a provision for the settlement with New Mexico. Annual sales in the United States at the time of the settlement of Viread ® ® ® ® ® ® In March 2021, the European Commission opened a formal antitrust investigation to assess whether Teva may have abused a dominant position by delaying the market entry and uptake of medicines that compete with COPAXONE. On October 10, 2022, the European Commission issued a Statement of Objections, which sets forth its preliminary allegations that Teva had engaged in anti-competitive practices. On October 31, 2024, the European Commission announced its final decision, alleging that Teva had abused a dominant position in certain European member states by (i) filing and withdrawing certain divisional patents, and (ii) raising concerns about competitors’ follow-on versions of COPAXONE. The decision, which Teva intends to appeal, also includes a fine of approximately $500 million (462.6 million euros). In accordance with Accounting Standards Codification 450 “Accounting for Contingencies,” Teva recognized a provision in its financial statements in the third quarter of 2024, based on management’s current best estimate of the outcome within a range of outcomes for the final resolution of this case. Teva intends to provide the European Commission a bank guarantee to cover at least a portion of the fine. On June 29, 2021, Mylan Pharmaceuticals (“Mylan”) filed claims against Teva in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On March 11, 2022 and March 15, 2022, purported purchasers of COPAXONE filed claims against Teva in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of themselves and similarly situated direct and indirect purchasers of COPAXONE. On August 22, 2022, additional purported purchasers of COPAXONE sued Teva in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont on behalf of themselves and similarly situated indirect purchasers of COPAXONE. The complaints variously assert claims for alleged violations of the Lanham Act, state and federal unfair competition and monopolization laws, tortious interference, trade libel, and a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO Act”). Additionally, plaintiffs claim Teva was involved in an unlawful scheme to delay and hinder generic competition concerning COPAXONE sales. Plaintiffs seek damages for lost profits and expenses, disgorgement, restitution, treble damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and injunctive relief. Teva moved to dismiss all of the complaints, and on January 22, 2024, Teva’s motion to dismiss the complaint in the District of Vermont was granted as to certain state law claims but was otherwise denied. Decisions on Teva’s remaining motions to dismiss are pending. On July 15, 2021, the U.K. Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”) issued a decision imposing fines for breaches of U.K. competition law by Allergan, Actavis UK, Auden Mckenzie and a number of other companies in connection with the supply of 10mg and 20mg hydrocortisone tablets in the U.K. The decision combines the CMA’s three prior investigations into the supply of hydrocortisone tablets in the U.K., as well as the CMA’s subsequent investigation relating to an alleged anticompetitive agreement with Waymade. On January 9, 2017, Teva completed the sale of Actavis UK to Accord Healthcare Limited, in connection with which Teva agreed to indemnify Accord Healthcare for potential fines imposed by the CMA and/or damages awarded by a court against Actavis UK in relation to two of the three statements of objection from the CMA (dated December 16, 2016 and March 3, 2017), and resulting from conduct prior to the closing date of the sale. In addition, Teva agreed to indemnify Allergan against losses arising from this matter in the event of any such fines or damages. On October 6, 2021, Accord UK (previously Actavis UK) and Auden Mckenzie appealed to the U.K. Competition Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) the CMA’s decisions that the prices of hydrocortisone were unfair and excessive and that the agreements amounted to infringements of the U.K.’s Competition Act as so-called pay-for-delay In November 2022, two complaints filed by plaintiffs purporting to represent retailer purchasers and a putative class of end-payor ® pre-trial Opt-Out Opt-Out end-payor Opt-Out ® On December 2, 2022, plaintiffs purporting to represent putative classes of indirect purchasers of EpiPen ® ® ® In May 2023, certain end-payor ® Government Investigations and Litigation Relating to Pricing and Marketing Teva is involved in government investigations and litigation arising from the marketing and promotion of its pharmaceutical products in the United States. In 2015 and 2016, Actavis and Teva USA each respectively received subpoenas from the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) Antitrust Division seeking documents and other information relating to the marketing and pricing of certain Teva USA generic products and communications with competitors about such products. On August 25, 2020, a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania returned a three-count indictment charging Teva USA with criminal felony Sherman Act violations. The indictment alleged that Teva USA had participated in three separate conspiracies with other generic drug manufacturers to maintain and fix prices, allocate customers, and other alleged antitrust offenses concerning the sale of generic drugs. The indictment identified the following generic drugs: pravastatin, carbamazepine, clotrimazole, etodolac (IR and ER), fluocinonide (cream, e-cream, 3-year In May 2018, Teva received a civil investigative demand from the DOJ Civil Division pursuant to the federal False Claims Act, seeking documents and information produced since January 1, 2009 relevant to the Civil Division’s investigation concerning allegations that generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, including Teva, engaged in market allocation and/or price-fixing agreements, paid illegal remuneration, and caused false claims to be submitted in violation of the False Claims Act. On October 10, 2024, Teva entered into a settlement agreement with the Civil Division to resolve these allegations. Teva will pay $25 million under the terms of the settlement – $10 million in the fourth quarter of 2024, and $15 million in 2025 – which includes no admission of wrongdoing. Teva has recognized a provision for the resolution of this matter. In 2015 and 2016, Actavis and Teva USA each respectively received a subpoena from the Connecticut Attorney General seeking documents and other information relating to potential state antitrust law violations. On December 15, 2016, the civil action that was brought by the attorneys general of twenty states against Teva USA and several other companies asserting claims under federal antitrust law alleging price fixing of generic products in the United States was subsequently amended to include 49 states, as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico as plaintiffs, and to add new allegations and state law claims against both Actavis and Teva. On May 10, 2019, most of these attorneys general filed another antitrust complaint against Actavis, Teva and other companies and individuals, which was subsequently amended on November 1, 2019, alleging that Teva was at the center of a conspiracy in the generic pharmaceutical industry and asserting that Teva and others fixed prices, rigged bids, and allocated customers and market share with respect to certain products. On June 10, 2020, most of the same states, with the addition of the U.S. Virgin Islands, filed a third complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut naming, among other defendants, Actavis, in a similar complaint relating to dermatological generics products, and that complaint was later amended to, among other things, add California as a plaintiff. In the various complaints described above, which also include claims against certain former employees of Actavis and Teva USA, the states seek a finding that the defendants’ actions violated federal antitrust law and state antitrust and consumer protection laws, as well as injunctive relief, disgorgement, damages on behalf of various state and governmental entities and consumers, civil penalties and costs. All such complaints were transferred to the generic drug multidistrict litigation in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (“Pennsylvania MDL”). On May 7, 2021, the Pennsylvania MDL court chose the attorneys general’s third complaint filed on June 10, 2020, as subsequently amended, to serve as a bellwether complaint in the Pennsylvania MDL, along with certain complaints filed by private plaintiffs. On June 7, 2022, the Court dismissed the attorneys general’s claims for monetary relief under federal law, concluding that the federal statute under which the attorneys general brought suit authorizes injunctive relief only. However, the attorneys general have pending claims for monetary relief under state law. On February 27, 2023, the Court largely denied defendants’ motions to dismiss the federal claims asserted by the attorneys general in their bellwether complaint. Another motion to dismiss related to the state law claims asserted by the attorneys general in their bellwether complaint remains pending. Teva has settled with the states of Mississippi (in June 2021), Louisiana (in March 2022), Georgia (in September 2022), Arkansas (in October 2022), Florida (in February 2023), Kentucky (in June 2023), South Dakota (in June 2024), and New Mexico (in June 2024). Teva paid each state an amount proportional to its share of the national population (approximately $1,000,000 for each 1% share of the national population), and the states have dismissed their claims against Actavis and Teva USA, as well as certain former employees of Actavis and Teva USA, pursuant to these settlements. These settlements, in addition to the status of ongoing negotiations with several other U.S. state attorneys general to settle on comparable terms, caused management to consider settlement of the claims filed by the remaining attorneys general to be probable, and management recorded an estimated provision in the third quarter of 2022. The States of Alabama (in March 2022) and Hawaii (in August 2023) and the territories of American Samoa (in July 2020) and Guam (in February 2023) have all voluntarily dismissed all of their claims in the litigation against Actavis and Teva USA. The dismissals by Alabama, Hawaii and Guam were with prejudice and the dismissal by American Samoa was without prejudice. Beginning on March 2, 2016, and through July 2023, numerous complaints have been filed in the United States on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers of several generic drug products, as well as several individual direct and indirect purchaser opt-out opt-out On January 31, 2024, the attorney generals’ motion to remand their three lawsuits to the District of Connecticut, where they were originally filed, was granted, and on March 18, 2024, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied defendants’ petition for writ of mandamus There is also one similar complaint brought in Canada, which is in its early stages and alleges that the defendants engaged in conspiracies to fix prices and/or allocate market share of generic drug products to the detriment of a class of private payors. In March 2017, Teva received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s office in Boston, Massachusetts requesting documents related to Teva’s donations to patient assistance programs. In August 2020, the U.S. Attorney’s office in Boston, Massachusetts brought a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging causes of action under the federal False Claims Act and for unjust enrichment (the “DOJ PAP Complaint”). It was alleged that Teva’s donations to certain 501(c)(3) charities that provided financial assistance to multiple sclerosis patients violated the Anti-Kickback Statute, and the DOJ sought a maximum of over $1 billion in damages, which would automatically be trebled in the event of an adverse verdict, and Teva would also be subject to mandatory statutory penalties for each false claim, the amount of which (potentially billions of U.S. dollars in additional penalties, at the high end) would be determined by the court within a statutory range. On October 10, 2024, Teva entered into a settlement agreement with the DOJ to resolve these claims. Teva will pay $425 million over 6 years under the terms of the settlement – $19 million in the fourth quarter of 2024, $34 million in 2025, $49 million in each of 2026 and 2027, $99 million in 2028, and $175 million in 2029 – which includes no admission of wrongdoing. Teva has recognized a provision for the resolution of this case. Additionally, on January 8, 2021, Humana, Inc. (“Humana”) filed an action against Teva in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida based on the allegations raised in the DOJ PAP Complaint. In June 2023, Teva filed a joint motion to dismiss the amended complaint, together with co-defendant In April 2021, a city and county in Washington filed claims against Teva in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington for alleged violations of the RICO Act, Washington’s Consumer Protection Act, and unjust enrichment concerning Teva’s sale of COPAXONE. Plaintiffs purport to represent a nationwide class of health plans and a subclass of Washington-based health plans that purchased and/or reimbursed health plan members for COPAXONE. Plaintiffs allege that Teva engaged in several fraudulent schemes that resulted in plaintiffs and the putative class members purchasing and/or reimbursing plan members for additional prescriptions of COPAXONE and/or at inflated COPAXONE prices. Plaintiffs seek treble damages for the excess reimbursements and inflated costs, as well as injunctive relief. On November 17, 2021, Teva moved to dismiss the suit, on the grounds that plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations and the direct purchaser rule, suffer from jurisdictional defects, and fail to plausibly allege fraud or other elements of their claims. On March 9, 2023, the court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss, and a decision remains pending. On December 1, 2022, Teva received a civil subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s office in Boston, Massachusetts requesting certain documents related to the sale and marketing of AUSTEDO ® In June 2024, Teva received a civil investigative demand from the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) seeking documents and information regarding an investigation related to patents listed in the Food and Drug Administration’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations publication (“Orange Book”) in connection with certain inhaler products. Teva is cooperating with the request for documents and information. On October 1, 2024, Teva received a civil investigative demand from the U.S. Attorney’s office in Boston, Massachusetts and th |
