LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Legal Proceedings and Contingencies [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings and Contingencies [Text Block]	Note 14. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES The Company 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. The Company recognizes accruals for such contingencies when it is probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. These matters involve patent infringement, antitrust, securities, pricing, sales and marketing practices, environmental, commercial, health and safety matters, consumer fraud, employment matters, product liability and insurance coverage. Legal proceedings that are material or that the Company believes could become material are described below. Although the Company believes it has substantial defenses in these matters, there can be no assurance that there will not be an increase in the scope of pending matters or that any future lawsuits, claims, government investigations or other legal proceedings will not be material. Unless otherwise noted, the Company is unable to assess the outcome of the respective litigation nor is it able to provide an estimated range of potential loss. Furthermore, failure to enforce our patent rights would likely result in substantial decreases in the respective product sales from generic competition. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PLAVIX* Litigation PLAVIX* is currently the Company's largest product ranked by net sales. The PLAVIX* patents are subject to a number of challenges in the U.S., including the litigation with Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (Apotex) described below, and in other less significant markets for the product. The Company and its product partner, Sanofi, (the Companies) intend to vigorously pursue enforcement of their patent rights in PLAVIX. PLAVIX Litigation – U.S. Patent Infringement Litigation against Apotex and Related Matters As previously disclosed, the Company's U.S. territory partnership under its alliance with Sanofi is a plaintiff in a pending patent infringement lawsuit instituted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (District Court) entitled Sanofi-Synthelabo, Sanofi-Synthelabo, Inc. and Bristol-Myers Squibb Sanofi Pharmaceuticals Holding Partnership v. Apotex. The suit is based on U.S. Patent No. 4,847,265 (the '265 Patent), a composition of matter patent, which discloses and claims, among other things, the hydrogen sulfate salt of clopidogrel, a medicine made available in the U.S. by the Companies as PLAVIX. Also, as previously reported, the District Court upheld the validity and enforceability of the '265 Patent, maintaining the main patent protection for PLAVIX in the U.S. through the life of the patent term which now expires on May 17, 2012. The District Court also ruled that Apotex's generic clopidogrel bisulfate product infringed the '265 Patent and permanently enjoined Apotex from engaging in any activity that infringes the '265 Patent, including marketing its generic product in the U.S. until after the patent expires. Apotex appealed the District Court's decision and on December 12, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Circuit Court) affirmed the District Court's ruling sustaining the validity of the '265 Patent. Apotex filed a petition with the Circuit Court for a rehearing en banc, and in March 2009, the Circuit Court denied Apotex's petition. The case was remanded to the District Court for further proceedings relating to damages. In July 2009, Apotex filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court requesting the Supreme Court to review the Circuit Court's decision. In November 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition, declining to review the Circuit Court's decision. In December 2009, the Companies filed a motion in the District Court for summary judgment on damages, and in January 2010, Apotex filed a motion seeking a stay of the ongoing damages proceedings pending the outcome of the reexamination of the PLAVIX* patent by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) described below. In April 2010, the District Court denied Apotex's motion to stay the proceedings. In October 2010, the District Court granted the Companies' summary judgment motion and awarded $442 million in damages plus costs and interest. Apotex is appealing the amount of the damages award; however, the validity of the patent claiming clopidogrel bisulfate has been finally judicially determined in favor of the Companies maintaining patent protection for PLAVIX* in the U.S. until May 17, 2012 (including additional six-month pediatric exclusivity period). It is not possible at this time to determine whether the amount or the damages award will be upheld on appeal. The Circuit Court hearing on Apotex's appeal of the damages award occurred in July 2011 and the Companies are awaiting a decision. As previously disclosed, the Company's U.S. territory partnership under its alliance with Sanofi is also a plaintiff in five additional patent infringement lawsuits against Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc. and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, LTD (Dr. Reddy's), Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Teva), Cobalt Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Cobalt), Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Watson Laboratories, Inc. (Watson) and Sun Pharmaceuticals (Sun). The lawsuits against Dr. Reddy's, Teva and Cobalt relate to the '265 Patent. In May 2009, Dr. Reddy's signed a consent judgment in favor of Sanofi and BMS conceding the validity and infringement of the '265 Patent. As previously reported, the patent infringement actions against Teva and Cobalt were stayed pending resolution of the Apotex litigation, and the parties to those actions agreed to be bound by the outcome of the litigation against Apotex. Consequently, on July 12, 2007, the District Court entered judgments against Cobalt and Teva and permanently enjoined Cobalt and Teva from engaging in any activity that infringes the '265 Patent until after the Patent expires. Cobalt and Teva each filed an appeal. In July 2009, the Circuit Court issued a mandate in the Teva appeal binding Teva to the decision in the Apotex litigation. In August 2009, Cobalt consented to entry of judgment in its appeal agreeing to be bound by Circuit Court's decision in the Apotex litigation. The lawsuit against Watson, filed in October 2004, was based on U.S. Patent No. 6,429,210 (the '210 Patent), which discloses and claims a particular crystalline or polymorph form of the hydrogen sulfate salt of clopidogrel, which is marketed as PLAVIX. In December 2005, the Court permitted Watson to pursue its declaratory judgment counterclaim with respect to U.S. Patent No. 6,504,030. In January 2006, the Court approved the parties' stipulation to stay this case pending the outcome of the trial in the Apotex matter. On May 1, 2009, BMS and Watson entered into a stipulation to dismiss the case. In April 2007, Pharmastar filed a request for inter partes reexamination of the '210 Patent at the PTO. The PTO granted this request in July of 2007 and in July 2009, the PTO vacated the reexamination proceeding. The lawsuit against Sun, filed on July 11, 2008, is based on infringement of the '265 Patent and the '210 Patent. With respect to the '265 Patent, Sun has agreed to be bound by the outcome of the Apotex litigation. Each of Dr. Reddy's, Teva, Cobalt, Watson and Sun have filed an aNDA with the FDA, and, with respect to Dr. Reddy's, Teva, Cobalt and Watson all exclusivity periods and statutory stay periods under the Hatch-Waxman Act have expired. Accordingly, final approval by the FDA would provide each company authorization to distribute a generic clopidogrel bisulfate product in the U.S., subject to various legal remedies for which the Companies may apply including injunctive relief and damages. On June 1, 2009, Apotex filed a request for ex parte reexamination of the '265 Patent at the PTO and in August 2009, the PTO agreed to reexamine the patent. In December 2009, the PTO issued a non-final office action rejecting several claims covering PLAVIX including the claim that was previously upheld in the litigation against Apotex referred to above. The PTO has issued an ex parte Reexamination Certificate withdrawing the rejections in the non-final office action and confirming patentability of all the claims of the '265 Patent. Apotex filed a second request for ex-parte reexamination of the '265 Patent and in June 2010, the PTO denied Apotex's request to reexamine the patent again. Additionally, on November 13, 2008, Apotex filed a lawsuit in New Jersey Superior Court entitled, Apotex Inc., et al. v. sanofi-aventis, et al., seeking payment of $60 million, plus interest, related to the break-up of the March 2006 proposed settlement agreement. In April 2011, the New Jersey Superior Court granted the Companies' cross-motion for summary judgment motion and denied Apotex's motion for summary judgment. Apotex has appealed these decisions. It is not possible at this time to determine the outcome of any appeal from the New Jersey Superior Court's decisions. In January 2011, Apotex filed a lawsuit in Florida State Court, Broward County, alleging breach of contract relating to the parties' May 2006 proposed settlement agreement. PLAVIX* Litigation – International PLAVIX* – Australia As previously disclosed, 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, has since changed its name to Apotex. In August 2007, 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 Australian court granted Sanofi's injunction. A subsidiary of the Company 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 Apotex case and a trial occurred in April 2008. 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. The Company 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 which have stayed the Federal Court's ruling. Apotex filed a notice of appeal appealing the holding of validity of the clopidogrel bisulfate, hydrochloride, hydrobromide, and taurocholate claims. A hearing on the appeals occurred in February 2009. On September 29, 2009, the Full Federal Court of Australia held all of the claims of Patent No. 597784 invalid. In November 2009, the Company and Sanofi applied to the High Court of Australia (High Court) for special leave to appeal the judgment of the Full Court. In March 2010, the High Court denied the Company and Sanofi's request to hear the appeal of the Full Court decision. The case has been remanded to the Federal Court for further proceedings related to damages. It is expected the amount of damages will not be material to the Company. PLAVIX* – EU As previously disclosed, in 2007, YES Pharmaceutical Development Services GmbH (YES Pharmaceutical) filed an application for marketing authorization in Germany for an alternate salt form of clopidogrel. This application relied on data from studies that were originally conducted by Sanofi and BMS for PLAVIX* and were still the subject of data protection in the EU. Sanofi and BMS have filed an action against YES Pharmaceutical and its partners in the administrative court in Cologne objecting to the marketing authorization. This matter is currently pending, although these specific marketing authorizations now have been withdrawn from the market. PLAVIX* – Canada (Apotex, Inc.) On April 22, 2009, Apotex filed an impeachment action against Sanofi in the Federal Court of Canada alleging that Sanofi's Canadian Patent No. 1,336,777 (the '777 Patent) is invalid. The '777 Patent covers clopidogrel bisulfate and was the patent at issue in the prohibition action in Canada previously disclosed in which the Canadian Federal Court of Ottawa rejected Apotex's challenge to the '777 Patent, held that the asserted claims are novel, not obvious and infringed, and granted Sanofi's application for an order of prohibition against the Minister of Health and Apotex, precluding approval of Apotex's Abbreviated New Drug Submission until the patent expires in 2012, which decision was affirmed on appeal by both the Federal Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada. On June 8, 2009, Sanofi filed its defense to the impeachment action and filed a suit against Apotex for infringement of the '777 Patent. The trial was completed in June 2011 and Sanofi is awaiting a decision. OTHER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LITIGATION ABILIFY* As previously disclosed, Otsuka has filed patent infringement actions against Teva, Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Barr), Sandoz Inc. (Sandoz), Synthon Laboratories, Inc (Synthon), Sun Pharmaceuticals (Sun), Zydus Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Zydus), and Apotex relating to U.S. Patent No. 5,006,528, ('528 Patent) which covers aripiprazole and expires in April 2015 (including the additional six-month pediatric exclusivity period). Aripiprazole is comarketed by the Company and Otsuka in the U.S. as ABILIFY. A non-jury trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (NJ District Court) against Teva/Barr and Apotex was completed in August 2010. In November 2010, the NJ District Court upheld the validity and enforceability of the '528 Patent, maintaining the main patent protection for ABILIFY in the U.S. until April 2015. The NJ District Court also ruled that the defendants' generic aripiprazole product infringed the '528 Patent and permanently enjoined them from engaging in any activity that infringes the '528 Patent, including marketing their generic product in the U.S. until after the patent (including the six-month pediatric extension) expires. Sandoz, Synthon, Sun and Zydus are also bound by the NJ District Court's decision. In December 2010, Teva/Barr and Apotex appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. It is not possible at this time to determine the outcome of any appeal of the NJ District Court's decision. If Otsuka were not to prevail in an appeal, generic competition would likely result in substantial decreases in the sales of ABILIFY* in the U.S., which would have a material adverse effect on the results of operations and cash flows and could be material to financial condition. ATRIPLA* In April 2009, Teva filed an aNDA to manufacture and market a generic version of ATRIPLA. ATRIPLA is a single tablet three-drug regimen combining the Company's SUSTIVA and Gilead's TRUVADA. As of this time, the Company's U.S. patent rights covering SUSTIVA's composition of matter and method of use have not been challenged. Teva sent Gilead a Paragraph IV certification letter challenging two of the fifteen Orange Book listed patents for ATRIPLA. ATRIPLA* is the product of a joint venture between the Company and Gilead. In May 2009, Gilead filed a patent infringement action against Teva in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY). In January 2010, the Company received a notice that Teva has amended its aNDA and is challenging eight additional Orange Book listed patents for ATRIPLA. In March 2010, the Company and Merck, Sharp & Dohme Corp. filed a patent infringement action against Teva also in the SDNY relating to two U.S. Patents which claim crystalline or polymorph forms of efavirenz. In March 2010, Gilead filed two patent infringement actions against Teva in the SDNY relating to six Orange Book listed patents for ATRIPLA. Discovery in these matters is ongoing. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of these lawsuits or their impact on the Company. REYATAZ In December 2009, the Company and Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation (Novartis) filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Teva (Bristol-Myers Squibb Company et al v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Civ. No. 09-919-SLR-MPT) for infringement of the two Orange Book listed patents for REYATAZ (U.S. Patent No. 5,849,911 and 6,087,383). Plaintiffs' filed the infringement action after receiving defendants' Paragraph IV notice letter challenging both listed patents. The patent infringement lawsuit triggered an automatic 30-month stay of approval of Teva's aNDA. Discovery in these matters is ongoing. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of these lawsuits or their impact on the Company. A trial is scheduled for December 2011. BARACLUDE In August 2010, Teva filed an aNDA to manufacture and market generic versions of BARACLUDE. The Company received a Paragraph IV certification letter from Teva challenging the one Orange Book listed patent for BARACLUDE, U.S. Patent No. 5,206,244. In September 2010, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Delaware District Court against Teva for infringement of the listed patent covering BARACLUDE, which triggered an automatic 30-month stay of approval of Teva's aNDA. Discovery in this matter is ongoing. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of this lawsuit or its impact on the Company. SPRYCEL In September 2010, Apotex filed an aNDA to manufacture and market generic versions of SPRYCEL. The Company received a Paragraph IV certification letter from Apotex challenging the four Orange Book listed patents for SPRYCEL, including the composition of matter patent. In November 2010, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Apotex for infringement of the four Orange Book listed patents covering SPRYCEL which triggered an automatic 30-month stay of approval of Apotex's aNDA. Discovery in this matter is ongoing. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of this lawsuit or its impact on the Company. GENERAL COMMERCIAL LITIGATION Clayworth Litigation As previously disclosed, the Company, together with a number of other pharmaceutical manufacturers, was named as a defendant in an action filed in California State Superior Court in Oakland, James Clayworth et al. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, et al., alleging that the defendants conspired to fix the prices of pharmaceuticals by agreeing to charge more for their drugs in the U.S. than they charge outside the U.S., particularly Canada, and asserting claims under California's Cartwright Act and unfair competition law. The plaintiffs sought trebled monetary damages, injunctive relief and other relief. In December 2006, the Court granted the Company and the other manufacturers' motion for summary judgment based on the pass-on defense, and judgment was then entered in favor of defendants. In July 2008, judgment in favor of defendants was affirmed by the California Court of Appeals. In July 2010, the California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal's judgment and the matter was remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings. In March 2011, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted and judgment was entered in favor of the defendants. Plaintiffs have appealed this decision. PRICING, SALES AND PROMOTIONAL PRACTICES LITIGATION AND INVESTIGATIONS ABILIFY* State Attorneys General Investigation In March 2009, the Company received a letter from the Delaware Attorney General's Office advising of a multi-state coalition investigating whether certain ABILIFY* marketing practices violated those respective states' consumer protection statutes. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of this investigation or its potential impact on the Company. AWP Litigation As previously disclosed, the Company, together with a number of other pharmaceutical manufacturers, has been a defendant in a number of private class actions as well as suits brought by the attorneys general of various states. In these actions, plaintiffs allege that defendants caused the Average Wholesale Prices (AWPs) of their products to be inflated, thereby injuring government programs, entities and persons who reimbursed prescription drugs based on AWPs. The Company is a defendant in five state attorneys general suits pending in state courts around the country. Beginning in August 2010, the Company was the defendant in a trial in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Commonwealth Court), brought by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In September 2010, the jury issued a verdict for the Company, finding that the Company was not liable for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation; however, the Commonwealth Court Judge issued a decision on a Pennsylvania consumer protection claim that did not go to the jury, finding the Company liable for $28 million and enjoining the Company from contributing to the provision of inflated AWPs. The Company has moved to vacate the decision and the Commonwealth has moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial. These motions are currently pending before the Commonwealth Court. In June 2011, the Company reached an agreement in principle with the State of Alaska to resolve its AWP lawsuit for an amount that is not material to the Company. As previously reported, one set of class actions were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (AWP MDL). In August 2009, the District Court granted preliminary approval of a proposed settlement of the AWP MDL plaintiffs' claims against the Company for $19 million and in July 2011, the District Court issued a formal, final order and judgment approving the settlement of the AWP MDL. California 340B Litigation As previously disclosed, in August 2005, the County of Santa Clara filed a purported class action against the Company and numerous other pharmaceutical manufacturers on behalf of itself and a putative class of other cities and counties in California, as well as the covered entities that purchased drugs pursuant to the 340B drug discount program (340B Entities), alleging that manufacturers did not provide proper discounts to 340B Entities. In May 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (District Court) denied plaintiff's motion, without prejudice, to certify the class. In September 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on the issue of whether 340B Entities have standing to sue. The District Court had previously dismissed the case after finding that 340B Entities did not have standing, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court. In March 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision holding that 340B entities do not have standing to sue the defendant manufacturers, effectively ending the litigation. Qui Tam Litigation In March 2011, the Company was served with an unsealed qui tam complaint filed by three former sales representatives in California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles. The California Department of Insurance has elected to intervene in the lawsuit. The complaint alleges the Company paid kickbacks to California providers and pharmacies in violation of California Insurance Frauds Prevention Act, Cal. Ins. Code § 1871.7. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of this lawsuit or its impact on the Company. PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION The Company is a party to various product liability lawsuits. As previously disclosed, in addition to lawsuits, the Company also faces unfiled claims involving its products. PLAVIX* As previously disclosed, the Company and certain affiliates of Sanofi are defendants in a number of individual lawsuits claiming personal injury allegedly sustained after using PLAVIX, most of which appear before the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (NJ District Court). The companies are currently defendants in approximately 20 actions before the NJ District Court and have executed tolling agreements with respect to unfiled claims by potential additional plaintiffs. A number of individual lawsuits have been filed in other jurisdictions. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of these lawsuits or the potential impact on the Company. Reglan The Company is one of a number of defendants in approximately 200 individual lawsuits claiming personal injury allegedly sustained after using Reglan or another brand of the generic drug metoclopramide, a product indicated for gastroesophageal reflux and certain other gastrointestinal disorders. The Company, through its generic subsidiary, Apothecon, Inc., distributed metoclopramide tablets manufactured by another party between 1996 and 2000. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of these lawsuits or the potential impact on the Company. Hormone Replacement Therapy The Company is one of a number of defendants in a mass-tort litigation in which plaintiffs allege, among other things, that various hormone therapy products, including hormone therapy products formerly manufactured by the Company (ESTRACE, Estradiol, DELESTROGEN* and OVCON*) cause breast cancer, stroke, blood clots, cardiac and other injuries in women, that the defendants were aware of these risks and failed to warn consumers. The Company has agreed to resolve the claims with approximately 225 plaintiffs. As of June 30, 2011, the Company remains a defendant in over 200 actively pending lawsuits in federal and state courts throughout the U.S. All of the Company's hormone therapy products were sold to other companies between January 2000 and August 2001. ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEEDINGS As previously reported, the Company is a party to several environmental proceedings and other matters, and is responsible under various state, federal and foreign laws, including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), for certain costs of investigating and/or remediating contamination resulting from past industrial activity at the Company's current or former sites or at waste disposal or reprocessing facilities operated by third-parties. CERCLA Matters With respect to CERCLA matters for which the Company is responsible under various state, federal and foreign laws, the Company typically estimates potential costs based on information obtained from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or counterpart state or foreign agency and/or studies prepared by independent consultants, including the total estimated costs for the site and the expected cost-sharing, if any, with other “potentially responsible parties,” and the Company accrues liabilities when they are probable and reasonably estimable. The Company estimated its share of future costs for these sites to be $68 million at June 30, 2011, which represents the sum of best estimates or, where no best estimate can reasonably be made, estimates of the minimal probable amount among a range of such costs (without taking into account any potential recoveries from other parties). New Brunswick Facility – Environmental & Personal Injury Lawsuits Since May 2008, over 250 lawsuits have been filed against the Company in Superior Court, Middlesex County, NJ, by or on behalf of current and former residents of New Brunswick, NJ who live or have lived adjacent to the Company's New Brunswick facility. The complaints either allege various personal injuries damage resulting from alleged soil and groundwater contamination on their property stemming from historical operations at the New Brunswick facility, or are claims for medical monitoring. A portion of these complaints also assert claims for alleged property damage. In October 2008, the New Jersey Supreme Court granted Mass Tort status to these cases and transferred them to the New Jersey Superior Court in Atlantic County for centralized case management purposes. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this litigation. Discovery is ongoing. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of these lawsuits or the potential impact on the Company. North Brunswick Township Board of Education As previously disclosed, in October 2003, the Company was contacted by counsel representing the North Brunswick, NJ Board of Education (BOE) regarding a site where waste materials from E.R. Squibb and Sons may have been disposed from the 1940's through the 1960's. Fill material containing industrial waste and heavy metals in excess of residential standards was discovered during an expansion project at the North Brunswick Township High School, as well as at a number of neighboring residential properties and adjacent public park areas. In January 2004, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) sent the Company and others an information request letter about possible waste disposal at the site, to which the Company responded in March 2004. The BOE and the Township, as the current owners of the school property and the park, are conducting and jointly financing soil remediation work and ground water investigation work under a work plan approved by NJDEP, and have asked the Company to contribute to the cost. The Company is actively monitoring the clean-up project, including its costs. To date, neither the school board nor the Township has asserted any claim against the Company. Instead, the Company and the local entities have negotiated an agreement to attempt to resolve the matter by informal means, and avoid litigation. A central component of the agreement is the provision by the Company of interim funding to help defray cleanup costs and assure the work is not interrupted. The Company transmitted interim funding payments in December 2007 and November 2009. The parties commenced mediation in late 2008; however, those efforts were not successful and the parties moved to a binding allocation process. The parties are expected to conduct fact and expert discovery, followed by formal evidentiary hearings and written argument. Hearings likely will be scheduled for mid-to-late 2012. In addition, in September 2009, the Township and BOE filed suits against several other parties alleged to have contributed waste materials to the site. The Company does not currently believe that it is responsible for any additional amounts beyond the two interim payments totaling $4 million already transmitted. Any additional possible loss is not expected to be material. OTHER PROCEEDINGS SEC Germany Investigation As previously disclosed, in October 2004, the SEC notified the Company that it was conducting an informal inquiry into the activities of certain of the Company's German pharmaceutical subsidiaries and its employees and/or agents. In October 2006, the SEC informed the Company that its inquiry had become formal. The SEC's inquiry encompasses matters formerly under investigation by the German prosecutor in Munich, Germany, which have since been resolved. The Company understands the inquiry concerns potential violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The Company is cooperating with the SEC. Medarex Shareholder Litigation On July 22, 2009, the Company and Medarex announced the signing of a merger agreement providing for the acquisition of Medarex by the Company, through a tender offer, for $16.00 per share in cash. Following that announcement, certain Medarex shareholders filed similar lawsuits in state and federal court relating to this transaction against Medarex, the members of Medarex's board of directors, and the Company. Following the consolidation of the state court actions, on August 20, 2009, the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU), pursuant to which the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle all of the state and federal actions. Pursuant to the agreements in the MOU, among other things, Medarex made certain supplemental disclosures during the tender offer period. The parties also agreed to present to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County (NJ Superior Court) a Stipulation of Settlement and any other documentation as may be required in order to obtain approval by the court of the settlement and the dismissal of the actions upon the terms set forth in the MOU. In July 2010, the proposed settlement was approved by the NJ Superior Court. The amount of the settlement awarded is not material to the Company. Several objectors to the settlement filed motions for reconsideration asking the Court to reconsider its approval of the settlement which were denied in December 2010. An appeal is pending. King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. In November 2009, King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (King) and affiliated entities filed suit against ZymoGenetics, Inc. (ZymoGenetics), now a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. King alleges that ZymoGenetics engaged in unfair competition, false advertising, trademark infringement, and related claims under federal law and Tennessee state law. King seeks various forms of relief, including damages and injunctive relief precluding the Company from making certain representations regarding King's products and the Company's RECOTHROM product. King also filed motions with the District Court seeking temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctive relief. In December 2009, the judge denied King's motions for preliminary injunction. The parties have reached a settlement in principle to resolve this matter for no monetary consideration.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2011

Legal Proceedings and Contingencies [Abstract]

Legal Proceedings and Contingencies [Text Block]

Note 14. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company 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. The Company recognizes accruals for such contingencies when it is probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. These matters involve patent infringement, antitrust, securities, pricing, sales and marketing practices, environmental, commercial, health and safety matters, consumer fraud, employment matters, product liability and insurance coverage. Legal proceedings that are material or that the Company believes could become material are described below.

Although the Company believes it has substantial defenses in these matters, there can be no assurance that there will not be an increase in the scope of pending matters or that any future lawsuits, claims, government investigations or other legal proceedings will not be material. Unless otherwise noted, the Company is unable to assess the outcome of the respective litigation nor is it able to provide an estimated range of potential loss. Furthermore, failure to enforce our patent rights would likely result in substantial decreases in the respective product sales from generic competition.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

PLAVIX* Litigation

PLAVIX* is currently the Company's largest product ranked by net sales. The PLAVIX* patents are subject to a number of challenges in the U.S., including the litigation with Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (Apotex) described below, and in other less significant markets for the product. The Company and its product partner, Sanofi, (the Companies) intend to vigorously pursue enforcement of their patent rights in PLAVIX*.

PLAVIX* Litigation – U.S.

Patent Infringement Litigation against Apotex and Related Matters

As previously disclosed, the Company's U.S. territory partnership under its alliance with Sanofi is a plaintiff in a pending patent infringement lawsuit instituted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (District Court) entitled Sanofi-Synthelabo, Sanofi-Synthelabo, Inc. and Bristol-Myers Squibb Sanofi Pharmaceuticals Holding Partnership v. Apotex. The suit is based on U.S. Patent No. 4,847,265 (the '265 Patent), a composition of matter patent, which discloses and claims, among other things, the hydrogen sulfate salt of clopidogrel, a medicine made available in the U.S. by the Companies as PLAVIX*. Also, as previously reported, the District Court upheld the validity and enforceability of the '265 Patent, maintaining the main patent protection for PLAVIX* in the U.S. through the life of the patent term which now expires on May 17, 2012. The District Court also ruled that Apotex's generic clopidogrel bisulfate product infringed the '265 Patent and permanently enjoined Apotex from engaging in any activity that infringes the '265 Patent, including marketing its generic product in the U.S. until after the patent expires.

Apotex appealed the District Court's decision and on December 12, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Circuit Court) affirmed the District Court's ruling sustaining the validity of the '265 Patent. Apotex filed a petition with the Circuit Court for a rehearing en banc, and in March 2009, the Circuit Court denied Apotex's petition. The case was remanded to the District Court for further proceedings relating to damages. In July 2009, Apotex filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court requesting the Supreme Court to review the Circuit Court's decision. In November 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition, declining to review the Circuit Court's decision. In December 2009, the Companies filed a motion in the District Court for summary judgment on damages, and in January 2010, Apotex filed a motion seeking a stay of the ongoing damages proceedings pending the outcome of the reexamination of the PLAVIX* patent by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) described below. In April 2010, the District Court denied Apotex's motion to stay the proceedings. In October 2010, the District Court granted the Companies' summary judgment motion and awarded $442 million in damages plus costs and interest. Apotex is appealing the amount of the damages award; however, the validity of the patent claiming clopidogrel bisulfate has been finally judicially determined in favor of the Companies maintaining patent protection for PLAVIX* in the U.S. until May 17, 2012 (including additional six-month pediatric exclusivity period). It is not possible at this time to determine whether the amount or the damages award will be upheld on appeal. The Circuit Court hearing on Apotex's appeal of the damages award occurred in July 2011 and the Companies are awaiting a decision.

As previously disclosed, the Company's U.S. territory partnership under its alliance with Sanofi is also a plaintiff in five additional patent infringement lawsuits against Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc. and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, LTD (Dr. Reddy's), Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Teva), Cobalt Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Cobalt), Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Watson Laboratories, Inc. (Watson) and Sun Pharmaceuticals (Sun). The lawsuits against Dr. Reddy's, Teva and Cobalt relate to the '265 Patent. In May 2009, Dr. Reddy's signed a consent judgment in favor of Sanofi and BMS conceding the validity and infringement of the '265 Patent. As previously reported, the patent infringement actions against Teva and Cobalt were stayed pending resolution of the Apotex litigation, and the parties to those actions agreed to be bound by the outcome of the litigation against Apotex. Consequently, on July 12, 2007, the District Court entered judgments against Cobalt and Teva and permanently enjoined Cobalt and Teva from engaging in any activity that infringes the '265 Patent until after the Patent expires. Cobalt and Teva each filed an appeal. In July 2009, the Circuit Court issued a mandate in the Teva appeal binding Teva to the decision in the Apotex litigation. In August 2009, Cobalt consented to entry of judgment in its appeal agreeing to be bound by Circuit Court's decision in the Apotex litigation. The lawsuit against Watson, filed in October 2004, was based on U.S. Patent No. 6,429,210 (the '210 Patent), which discloses and claims a particular crystalline or polymorph form of the hydrogen sulfate salt of clopidogrel, which is marketed as PLAVIX*. In December 2005, the Court permitted Watson to pursue its declaratory judgment counterclaim with respect to U.S. Patent No. 6,504,030. In January 2006, the Court approved the parties' stipulation to stay this case pending the outcome of the trial in the Apotex matter. On May 1, 2009, BMS and Watson entered into a stipulation to dismiss the case. In April 2007, Pharmastar filed a request for inter partes reexamination of the '210 Patent at the PTO. The PTO granted this request in July of 2007 and in July 2009, the PTO vacated the reexamination proceeding. The lawsuit against Sun, filed on July 11, 2008, is based on infringement of the '265 Patent and the '210 Patent. With respect to the '265 Patent, Sun has agreed to be bound by the outcome of the Apotex litigation. Each of Dr. Reddy's, Teva, Cobalt, Watson and Sun have filed an aNDA with the FDA, and, with respect to Dr. Reddy's, Teva, Cobalt and Watson all exclusivity periods and statutory stay periods under the Hatch-Waxman Act have expired. Accordingly, final approval by the FDA would provide each company authorization to distribute a generic clopidogrel bisulfate product in the U.S., subject to various legal remedies for which the Companies may apply including injunctive relief and damages.

On June 1, 2009, Apotex filed a request for ex parte reexamination of the '265 Patent at the PTO and in August 2009, the PTO agreed to reexamine the patent. In December 2009, the PTO issued a non-final office action rejecting several claims covering PLAVIX* including the claim that was previously upheld in the litigation against Apotex referred to above. The PTO has issued an ex parte Reexamination Certificate withdrawing the rejections in the non-final office action and confirming patentability of all the claims of the '265 Patent. Apotex filed a second request for ex-parte reexamination of the '265 Patent and in June 2010, the PTO denied Apotex's request to reexamine the patent again.

Additionally, on November 13, 2008, Apotex filed a lawsuit in New Jersey Superior Court entitled, Apotex Inc., et al. v. sanofi-aventis, et al., seeking payment of $60 million, plus interest, related to the break-up of the March 2006 proposed settlement agreement. In April 2011, the New Jersey Superior Court granted the Companies' cross-motion for summary judgment motion and denied Apotex's motion for summary judgment. Apotex has appealed these decisions. It is not possible at this time to determine the outcome of any appeal from the New Jersey Superior Court's decisions.

In January 2011, Apotex filed a lawsuit in Florida State Court, Broward County, alleging breach of contract relating to the parties' May 2006 proposed settlement agreement.

PLAVIX* Litigation – International

PLAVIX* – Australia

As previously disclosed, 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, has since changed its name to Apotex. In August 2007, 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 Australian court granted Sanofi's injunction. A subsidiary of the Company 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 Apotex case and a trial occurred in April 2008. 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. The Company 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 which have stayed the Federal Court's ruling. Apotex filed a notice of appeal appealing the holding of validity of the clopidogrel bisulfate, hydrochloride, hydrobromide, and taurocholate claims. A hearing on the appeals occurred in February 2009. On September 29, 2009, the Full Federal Court of Australia held all of the claims of Patent No. 597784 invalid. In November 2009, the Company and Sanofi applied to the High Court of Australia (High Court) for special leave to appeal the judgment of the Full Court. In March 2010, the High Court denied the Company and Sanofi's request to hear the appeal of the Full Court decision. The case has been remanded to the Federal Court for further proceedings related to damages. It is expected the amount of damages will not be material to the Company.

PLAVIX* – EU

As previously disclosed, in 2007, YES Pharmaceutical Development Services GmbH (YES Pharmaceutical) filed an application for marketing authorization in Germany for an alternate salt form of clopidogrel. This application relied on data from studies that were originally conducted by Sanofi and BMS for PLAVIX* and were still the subject of data protection in the EU. Sanofi and BMS have filed an action against YES Pharmaceutical and its partners in the administrative court in Cologne objecting to the marketing authorization. This matter is currently pending, although these specific marketing authorizations now have been withdrawn from the market.

PLAVIX* – Canada (Apotex, Inc.)

On April 22, 2009, Apotex filed an impeachment action against Sanofi in the Federal Court of Canada alleging that Sanofi's Canadian Patent No. 1,336,777 (the '777 Patent) is invalid. The '777 Patent covers clopidogrel bisulfate and was the patent at issue in the prohibition action in Canada previously disclosed in which the Canadian Federal Court of Ottawa rejected Apotex's challenge to the '777 Patent, held that the asserted claims are novel, not obvious and infringed, and granted Sanofi's application for an order of prohibition against the Minister of Health and Apotex, precluding approval of Apotex's Abbreviated New Drug Submission until the patent expires in 2012, which decision was affirmed on appeal by both the Federal Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada. On June 8, 2009, Sanofi filed its defense to the impeachment action and filed a suit against Apotex for infringement of the '777 Patent. The trial was completed in June 2011 and Sanofi is awaiting a decision.

OTHER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LITIGATION

ABILIFY*

As previously disclosed, Otsuka has filed patent infringement actions against Teva, Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Barr), Sandoz Inc. (Sandoz), Synthon Laboratories, Inc (Synthon), Sun Pharmaceuticals (Sun), Zydus Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Zydus), and Apotex relating to U.S. Patent No. 5,006,528, ('528 Patent) which covers aripiprazole and expires in April 2015 (including the additional six-month pediatric exclusivity period). Aripiprazole is comarketed by the Company and Otsuka in the U.S. as ABILIFY*. A non-jury trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (NJ District Court) against Teva/Barr and Apotex was completed in August 2010. In November 2010, the NJ District Court upheld the validity and enforceability of the '528 Patent, maintaining the main patent protection for ABILIFY* in the U.S. until April 2015. The NJ District Court also ruled that the defendants' generic aripiprazole product infringed the '528 Patent and permanently enjoined them from engaging in any activity that infringes the '528 Patent, including marketing their generic product in the U.S. until after the patent (including the six-month pediatric extension) expires. Sandoz, Synthon, Sun and Zydus are also bound by the NJ District Court's decision. In December 2010, Teva/Barr and Apotex appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

It is not possible at this time to determine the outcome of any appeal of the NJ District Court's decision. If Otsuka were not to prevail in an appeal, generic competition would likely result in substantial decreases in the sales of ABILIFY* in the U.S., which would have a material adverse effect on the results of operations and cash flows and could be material to financial condition.

ATRIPLA*

In April 2009, Teva filed an aNDA to manufacture and market a generic version of ATRIPLA*. ATRIPLA* is a single tablet three-drug regimen combining the Company's SUSTIVA and Gilead's TRUVADA*. As of this time, the Company's U.S. patent rights covering SUSTIVA's composition of matter and method of use have not been challenged. Teva sent Gilead a Paragraph IV certification letter challenging two of the fifteen Orange Book listed patents for ATRIPLA*. ATRIPLA* is the product of a joint venture between the Company and Gilead. In May 2009, Gilead filed a patent infringement action against Teva in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY). In January 2010, the Company received a notice that Teva has amended its aNDA and is challenging eight additional Orange Book listed patents for ATRIPLA*. In March 2010, the Company and Merck, Sharp & Dohme Corp. filed a patent infringement action against Teva also in the SDNY relating to two U.S. Patents which claim crystalline or polymorph forms of efavirenz. In March 2010, Gilead filed two patent infringement actions against Teva in the SDNY relating to six Orange Book listed patents for ATRIPLA*. Discovery in these matters is ongoing. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of these lawsuits or their impact on the Company.

REYATAZ

In December 2009, the Company and Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation (Novartis) filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Teva (Bristol-Myers Squibb Company et al v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Civ. No. 09-919-SLR-MPT) for infringement of the two Orange Book listed patents for REYATAZ (U.S. Patent No. 5,849,911 and 6,087,383). Plaintiffs' filed the infringement action after receiving defendants' Paragraph IV notice letter challenging both listed patents. The patent infringement lawsuit triggered an automatic 30-month stay of approval of Teva's aNDA. Discovery in these matters is ongoing. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of these lawsuits or their impact on the Company. A trial is scheduled for December 2011.

BARACLUDE

In August 2010, Teva filed an aNDA to manufacture and market generic versions of BARACLUDE. The Company received a Paragraph IV certification letter from Teva challenging the one Orange Book listed patent for BARACLUDE, U.S. Patent No. 5,206,244. In September 2010, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Delaware District Court against Teva for infringement of the listed patent covering BARACLUDE, which triggered an automatic 30-month stay of approval of Teva's aNDA. Discovery in this matter is ongoing. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of this lawsuit or its impact on the Company.

SPRYCEL

In September 2010, Apotex filed an aNDA to manufacture and market generic versions of SPRYCEL. The Company received a Paragraph IV certification letter from Apotex challenging the four Orange Book listed patents for SPRYCEL, including the composition of matter patent. In November 2010, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Apotex for infringement of the four Orange Book listed patents covering SPRYCEL which triggered an automatic 30-month stay of approval of Apotex's aNDA. Discovery in this matter is ongoing. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of this lawsuit or its impact on the Company.

GENERAL COMMERCIAL LITIGATION

Clayworth Litigation

As previously disclosed, the Company, together with a number of other pharmaceutical manufacturers, was named as a defendant in an action filed in California State Superior Court in Oakland, James Clayworth et al. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, et al., alleging that the defendants conspired to fix the prices of pharmaceuticals by agreeing to charge more for their drugs in the U.S. than they charge outside the U.S., particularly Canada, and asserting claims under California's Cartwright Act and unfair competition law. The plaintiffs sought trebled monetary damages, injunctive relief and other relief. In December 2006, the Court granted the Company and the other manufacturers' motion for summary judgment based on the pass-on defense, and judgment was then entered in favor of defendants. In July 2008, judgment in favor of defendants was affirmed by the California Court of Appeals. In July 2010, the California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal's judgment and the matter was remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings. In March 2011, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted and judgment was entered in favor of the defendants. Plaintiffs have appealed this decision.

PRICING, SALES AND PROMOTIONAL PRACTICES LITIGATION AND INVESTIGATIONS

ABILIFY* State Attorneys General Investigation

In March 2009, the Company received a letter from the Delaware Attorney General's Office advising of a multi-state coalition investigating whether certain ABILIFY* marketing practices violated those respective states' consumer protection statutes. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of this investigation or its potential impact on the Company.

AWP Litigation

As previously disclosed, the Company, together with a number of other pharmaceutical manufacturers, has been a defendant in a number of private class actions as well as suits brought by the attorneys general of various states. In these actions, plaintiffs allege that defendants caused the Average Wholesale Prices (AWPs) of their products to be inflated, thereby injuring government programs, entities and persons who reimbursed prescription drugs based on AWPs. The Company is a defendant in five state attorneys general suits pending in state courts around the country. Beginning in August 2010, the Company was the defendant in a trial in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Commonwealth Court), brought by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In September 2010, the jury issued a verdict for the Company, finding that the Company was not liable for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation; however, the Commonwealth Court Judge issued a decision on a Pennsylvania consumer protection claim that did not go to the jury, finding the Company liable for $28 million and enjoining the Company from contributing to the provision of inflated AWPs. The Company has moved to vacate the decision and the Commonwealth has moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial. These motions are currently pending before the Commonwealth Court. In June 2011, the Company reached an agreement in principle with the State of Alaska to resolve its AWP lawsuit for an amount that is not material to the Company.

As previously reported, one set of class actions were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (AWP MDL). In August 2009, the District Court granted preliminary approval of a proposed settlement of the AWP MDL plaintiffs' claims against the Company for $19 million and in July 2011, the District Court issued a formal, final order and judgment approving the settlement of the AWP MDL.

California 340B Litigation

As previously disclosed, in August 2005, the County of Santa Clara filed a purported class action against the Company and numerous other pharmaceutical manufacturers on behalf of itself and a putative class of other cities and counties in California, as well as the covered entities that purchased drugs pursuant to the 340B drug discount program (340B Entities), alleging that manufacturers did not provide proper discounts to 340B Entities. In May 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (District Court) denied plaintiff's motion, without prejudice, to certify the class. In September 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on the issue of whether 340B Entities have standing to sue. The District Court had previously dismissed the case after finding that 340B Entities did not have standing, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court. In March 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision holding that 340B entities do not have standing to sue the defendant manufacturers, effectively ending the litigation.

Qui Tam Litigation

In March 2011, the Company was served with an unsealed qui tam complaint filed by three former sales representatives in California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles. The California Department of Insurance has elected to intervene in the lawsuit. The complaint alleges the Company paid kickbacks to California providers and pharmacies in violation of California Insurance Frauds Prevention Act, Cal. Ins. Code § 1871.7. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of this lawsuit or its impact on the Company.

PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION

The Company is a party to various product liability lawsuits. As previously disclosed, in addition to lawsuits, the Company also faces unfiled claims involving its products.

PLAVIX*

As previously disclosed, the Company and certain affiliates of Sanofi are defendants in a number of individual lawsuits claiming personal injury allegedly sustained after using PLAVIX*, most of which appear before the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (NJ District Court). The companies are currently defendants in approximately 20 actions before the NJ District Court and have executed tolling agreements with respect to unfiled claims by potential additional plaintiffs. A number of individual lawsuits have been filed in other jurisdictions. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of these lawsuits or the potential impact on the Company.

Reglan

The Company is one of a number of defendants in approximately 200 individual lawsuits claiming personal injury allegedly sustained after using Reglan or another brand of the generic drug metoclopramide, a product indicated for gastroesophageal reflux and certain other gastrointestinal disorders. The Company, through its generic subsidiary, Apothecon, Inc., distributed metoclopramide tablets manufactured by another party between 1996 and 2000. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of these lawsuits or the potential impact on the Company.

Hormone Replacement Therapy

The Company is one of a number of defendants in a mass-tort litigation in which plaintiffs allege, among other things, that various hormone therapy products, including hormone therapy products formerly manufactured by the Company (ESTRACE*, Estradiol, DELESTROGEN* and OVCON*) cause breast cancer, stroke, blood clots, cardiac and other injuries in women, that the defendants were aware of these risks and failed to warn consumers. The Company has agreed to resolve the claims with approximately 225 plaintiffs. As of June 30, 2011, the Company remains a defendant in over 200 actively pending lawsuits in federal and state courts throughout the U.S. All of the Company's hormone therapy products were sold to other companies between January 2000 and August 2001.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEEDINGS

As previously reported, the Company is a party to several environmental proceedings and other matters, and is responsible under various state, federal and foreign laws, including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), for certain costs of investigating and/or remediating contamination resulting from past industrial activity at the Company's current or former sites or at waste disposal or reprocessing facilities operated by third-parties.

CERCLA Matters

With respect to CERCLA matters for which the Company is responsible under various state, federal and foreign laws, the Company typically estimates potential costs based on information obtained from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or counterpart state or foreign agency and/or studies prepared by independent consultants, including the total estimated costs for the site and the expected cost-sharing, if any, with other “potentially responsible parties,” and the Company accrues liabilities when they are probable and reasonably estimable. The Company estimated its share of future costs for these sites to be $68 million at June 30, 2011, which represents the sum of best estimates or, where no best estimate can reasonably be made, estimates of the minimal probable amount among a range of such costs (without taking into account any potential recoveries from other parties).

New Brunswick Facility – Environmental & Personal Injury Lawsuits

Since May 2008, over 250 lawsuits have been filed against the Company in Superior Court, Middlesex County, NJ, by or on behalf of current and former residents of New Brunswick, NJ who live or have lived adjacent to the Company's New Brunswick facility. The complaints either allege various personal injuries damage resulting from alleged soil and groundwater contamination on their property stemming from historical operations at the New Brunswick facility, or are claims for medical monitoring. A portion of these complaints also assert claims for alleged property damage. In October 2008, the New Jersey Supreme Court granted Mass Tort status to these cases and transferred them to the New Jersey Superior Court in Atlantic County for centralized case management purposes. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this litigation. Discovery is ongoing. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of these lawsuits or the potential impact on the Company.

North Brunswick Township Board of Education

As previously disclosed, in October 2003, the Company was contacted by counsel representing the North Brunswick, NJ Board of Education (BOE) regarding a site where waste materials from E.R. Squibb and Sons may have been disposed from the 1940's through the 1960's. Fill material containing industrial waste and heavy metals in excess of residential standards was discovered during an expansion project at the North Brunswick Township High School, as well as at a number of neighboring residential properties and adjacent public park areas. In January 2004, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) sent the Company and others an information request letter about possible waste disposal at the site, to which the Company responded in March 2004. The BOE and the Township, as the current owners of the school property and the park, are conducting and jointly financing soil remediation work and ground water investigation work under a work plan approved by NJDEP, and have asked the Company to contribute to the cost. The Company is actively monitoring the clean-up project, including its costs. To date, neither the school board nor the Township has asserted any claim against the Company. Instead, the Company and the local entities have negotiated an agreement to attempt to resolve the matter by informal means, and avoid litigation. A central component of the agreement is the provision by the Company of interim funding to help defray cleanup costs and assure the work is not interrupted. The Company transmitted interim funding payments in December 2007 and November 2009. The parties commenced mediation in late 2008; however, those efforts were not successful and the parties moved to a binding allocation process. The parties are expected to conduct fact and expert discovery, followed by formal evidentiary hearings and written argument. Hearings likely will be scheduled for mid-to-late 2012. In addition, in September 2009, the Township and BOE filed suits against several other parties alleged to have contributed waste materials to the site. The Company does not currently believe that it is responsible for any additional amounts beyond the two interim payments totaling $4 million already transmitted. Any additional possible loss is not expected to be material.

OTHER PROCEEDINGS

SEC Germany Investigation

As previously disclosed, in October 2004, the SEC notified the Company that it was conducting an informal inquiry into the activities of certain of the Company's German pharmaceutical subsidiaries and its employees and/or agents. In October 2006, the SEC informed the Company that its inquiry had become formal. The SEC's inquiry encompasses matters formerly under investigation by the German prosecutor in Munich, Germany, which have since been resolved. The Company understands the inquiry concerns potential violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The Company is cooperating with the SEC.

Medarex Shareholder Litigation

On July 22, 2009, the Company and Medarex announced the signing of a merger agreement providing for the acquisition of Medarex by the Company, through a tender offer, for $16.00 per share in cash. Following that announcement, certain Medarex shareholders filed similar lawsuits in state and federal court relating to this transaction against Medarex, the members of Medarex's board of directors, and the Company.

Following the consolidation of the state court actions, on August 20, 2009, the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU), pursuant to which the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle all of the state and federal actions. Pursuant to the agreements in the MOU, among other things, Medarex made certain supplemental disclosures during the tender offer period. The parties also agreed to present to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County (NJ Superior Court) a Stipulation of Settlement and any other documentation as may be required in order to obtain approval by the court of the settlement and the dismissal of the actions upon the terms set forth in the MOU. In July 2010, the proposed settlement was approved by the NJ Superior Court. The amount of the settlement awarded is not material to the Company. Several objectors to the settlement filed motions for reconsideration asking the Court to reconsider its approval of the settlement which were denied in December 2010. An appeal is pending.

King Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

In November 2009, King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (King) and affiliated entities filed suit against ZymoGenetics, Inc. (ZymoGenetics), now a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. King alleges that ZymoGenetics engaged in unfair competition, false advertising, trademark infringement, and related claims under federal law and Tennessee state law. King seeks various forms of relief, including damages and injunctive relief precluding the Company from making certain representations regarding King's products and the Company's RECOTHROM product. King also filed motions with the District Court seeking temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctive relief. In December 2009, the judge denied King's motions for preliminary injunction. The parties have reached a settlement in principle to resolve this matter for no monetary consideration.