LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2012
Legal Proceedings and Contingencies [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings and Contingencies [Text Block]	Note 21. 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* – 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 Inc. (Apotex), has since changed its name to Apotex. In August 2007, Apotex filed an application in the Federal Court of Australia (the Federal Court) seeking revocation of Sanofi's Australian Patent No. 597784 (Case No. NSD 1639 of 2007). Sanofi filed counterclaims of infringement and sought an injunction. On September 21, 2007, the Federal Court 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 Court 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. The resolution of this lawsuit is not expected to have a material impact on the Company. 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. 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 in December 2011, the Federal Court of Canada issued a decision that the '777 Patent is invalid. Sanofi has appealed this decision though generic companies have since entered the market and a decision is expected later this year. 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 (Federal Circuit). In May 2012, the Federal Circuit affirmed the NJ District Court's decision. In June 2012, Apotex filed a petition for rehearing en banc which was denied. In December 2012, the United States Supreme Court denied Apotex's Petition for a Writ of Certiorari requesting an appeal of the Federal Circuit decision, which concluded the matter. Atripla* In April 2009, Teva filed an abbreviated New Drug Application (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. (Merck) 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. Trial is expected in 2013. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of these lawsuits or their impact on the Company. 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 (the '244 Patent). In September 2010, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Delaware District Court) against Teva for infringement. In February 2013, the Delaware District Court ruled against the Company and invalidated the '244 Patent. The Company will appeal the Delaware District Court's decision and is evaluating all other legal options. Upon final FDA approval of its aNDA, Teva could launch its generic product. There could be a rapid and significant negative impact on U.S. sales of Baraclude beginning in 2013. U.S. net sales of Baraclude were $241 million in 2012. In June 2012, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Sandoz following the receipt of a Paragraph IV certification letter challenging the same Orange-Book listed patent. In February 2013, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal and the case has been dismissed. 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 NJ District Court 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. In October 2011, the Company received a Paragraph IV notice letter from Apotex informing the Company that it is seeking approval of generic versions of the 80 mg and 140 mg dosage strengths of Sprycel and challenging the same four Orange Book listed patents. In November 2011, BMS filed a patent infringement suit against Apotex on the 80 mg and 140 mg dosage strengths in the NJ District Court. This case has been consolidated with the suit filed in November 2010. Trial is currently scheduled for September 2013. 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. Sustiva – EU In January 2012, Teva obtained a European marketing authorization for Efavirenz Teva 600 mg tablets. In February 2012, the Company and Merck filed lawsuits and requests for injunctions against Teva in the Netherlands, Germany and the U.K. for infringement of Merck's European Patent No. 0582455 and Supplementary Protection Certificates expiring in November 2013. As of December 2012, requests for injunctions have been granted in the U.K. and denied in the Netherlands and Germany. The Company and Merck are appealing the denial of the request for injunction in the Netherlands. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of these lawsuits or their 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 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 California Court of Appeal's judgment and the matter was remanded to the California 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. The plaintiffs appealed that decision and the California Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the defendants. In October 2012, the plaintiffs filed a petition seeking review by the California Supreme Court which was denied in November 2012. Remaining Apotex Matters Related to Plavix* As previously disclosed, in November 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 calculated at the rate of 1% per month from the date of the filing of the lawsuit, until paid, related to the break-up of a March 2006 proposed settlement agreement relating to the-then pending Plavix* patent litigation against Apotex. In April 2011, the New Jersey Superior Court granted the Company's cross-motion for summary judgment motion and denied Apotex's motion for summary judgment. Apotex appealed these decisions and the New Jersey Appellate Division reversed the grant of summary judgments. The case has been remanded back to the Superior Court for additional proceedings. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of this lawsuit or its impact on the Company. In January 2011, Apotex filed a lawsuit in Florida State Court, Broward County, alleging breach of contract relating to the May 2006 proposed settlement agreement with Apotex relating to the then pending Plavix* patent litigation. Apotex is seeking damages for the amount of profits it alleges it would have received from selling its generic clopidogrel bisulfate for somewhere between 8 and 11.5 months had the May 2006 agreement been approved by regulators. Discovery has concluded. The Company moved for summary judgment which was denied in November 2012. The case is now scheduled for a trial beginning in March 2013. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of this lawsuit or its impact on the Company. PRICING, SALES AND PROMOTIONAL PRACTICES LITIGATION AND INVESTIGATIONS Abilify* Federal Subpoena In January 2012, the Company received a subpoena from the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York requesting information related to, among other things, the sales and marketing of Abilify. It is not possible at this time to assess the outcome of this matter or its potential impact on the Company. 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. Abilify* Co-Pay Assistance Litigation In March 2012, the Company and its partner Otsuka were named as co-defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed by union health and welfare funds in the SDNY. Plaintiffs are challenging the legality of the Abilify* co-pay assistance program under the Federal Antitrust and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations laws, and seeking damages. The Company and Otsuka have filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of this litigation 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 remains a defendant in two state attorneys general suits pending in state courts around the country having settled the lawsuits brought by the Mississippi and Louisiana Attorneys General. 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, which the Commonwealth Court denied. The Company has appealed the decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. 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. Discovery is ongoing. 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 in various state and federal courts claiming personal injury damage allegedly sustained after using Plavix. Currently, more than 2,000 claims are filed in state and federal courts in various states including California, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York. The defendants terminated the previously disclosed tolling agreement effective as of September 1, 2012. In February 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted the Company and Sanofi's motion to establish a multidistrict litigation to coordinate federal pretrial proceedings in Plavix product liability and related cases. 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 numerous lawsuits, on behalf of approximately 2,700 plaintiffs, 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. The resolution of these pending lawsuits is not expected to have a material 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 of approximately 400 plaintiffs. As of February 2013, the Company remains a defendant in approximately 35 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. The resolution of these remaining lawsuits is not expected to have a material impact on the Company. Byetta and Bydureon* Amylin, now a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company (see “—Note 4. Acquisitions”), and Lilly are co-defendants in product liability litigation related to Byetta* and Bydureon. As of February 2013, there were approximately 120 separate lawsuits pending on behalf of approximately 575 plaintiffs in various courts in the U.S. The vast majority of these cases have been brought by individuals who allege personal injury sustained after using Byetta, primarily pancreatitis, and, in some cases, claiming alleged wrongful death. Of these, the Company has agreed in principle to resolve the claims of over 300 plaintiffs. The majority of cases are pending in California state court, where the Judicial Council has granted Amylin's petition for a “coordinated proceeding” for all California state court cases alleging harm from the alleged use of Byetta. Amylin and Lilly are currently scheduled for trial in one single-plaintiff case in the second quarter of 2013. We cannot reasonably predict the outcome of any lawsuit, claim or proceeding. However, given that Amylin has product liability insurance coverage for existing claims and future related claims involving Byetta, it is expected the amount of damages, if any, will not be material to the Company. BMS-986094 In August 2012, the Company announced that it had discontinued development of BMS-986094, an investigational compound which was being tested in clinical trials to treat the hepatitis C virus infection due to the emergence of a serious safety issue. To date, five lawsuits have been filed against the Company in Texas State Court by plaintiffs, which have been removed to Federal Court, alleging that they participated in the Phase II study of BMS-986094 and suffered injuries as a result thereof. We have an agreement in principle to resolve four of the five filed claims and the vast majority of claims that have surfaced to date in this matter. In total, slightly fewer than 300 patients were administered the compound at various doses and durations as part of the clinical trials. The resolution of the remaining lawsuit and any other potential future lawsuits is not expected to have a material impact on the Company. 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 $72 million at December 31, 2012, 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 New Jersey Superior Court by or on behalf of current and former residents of New Brunswick, New Jersey who live or have lived adjacent to the Company's New Brunswick facility. The complaints either allege various personal injuries damages 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. Since October 2011, over 100 additional cases have been filed in New Jersey Superior Court and removed by the Company to United States District Court, District of New Jersey. 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 the 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 2013. 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 Italy Investigation In July 2011, the Public Prosecutor in Florence, Italy (Italian Prosecutor) initiated a criminal investigation against the Company's subsidiary in Italy (BMS Italy). The allegations against the Company relate to alleged activities of a former employee who left the Company in the 1990s. The Italian Prosecutor also had requested interim measures that a judicial administrator be appointed to temporarily run the operations of BMS Italy. In October 2012, the parties reached an agreement to resolve the request for interim measures which resulted in the Italian Prosecutor withdrawing the request and this request was accepted by the Florence Court. It is not possible at this time to assess the outcome of the underlying investigation or its potential impact on the Company. SEC Germany Investigation In October 2006, the SEC informed the Company that it had begun a formal inquiry into the activities of certain of the Company's German pharmaceutical subsidiaries and its employees and/or agents. 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 (FCPA). The Company is cooperating with the SEC. FCPA Investigation In March 2012, the Company received a subpoena from the SEC. The subpoena, issued in connection with an investigation under the FCPA, primarily relates to sales and marketing practices in various countries. The Company is cooperating with the government in its investigation of these matters.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2012

Legal Proceedings and Contingencies [Abstract]

Legal Proceedings and Contingencies [Text Block]

Note 21. 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* – 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 Inc. (Apotex), has since changed its name to Apotex. In August 2007, Apotex filed an application in the Federal Court of Australia (the Federal Court) seeking revocation of Sanofi's Australian Patent No. 597784 (Case No. NSD 1639 of 2007). Sanofi filed counterclaims of infringement and sought an injunction. On September 21, 2007, the Federal Court 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 Court 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. The resolution of this lawsuit is not expected to have a material impact on the Company.

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. 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 in December 2011, the Federal Court of Canada issued a decision that the '777 Patent is invalid. Sanofi has appealed this decision though generic companies have since entered the market and a decision is expected later this year.

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 (Federal Circuit). In May 2012, the Federal Circuit affirmed the NJ District Court's decision. In June 2012, Apotex filed a petition for rehearing en banc which was denied. In December 2012, the United States Supreme Court denied Apotex's Petition for a Writ of Certiorari requesting an appeal of the Federal Circuit decision, which concluded the matter.

Atripla*

In April 2009, Teva filed an abbreviated New Drug Application (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. (Merck) 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*. Trial is expected in 2013. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of these lawsuits or their impact on the Company.

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 (the '244 Patent). In September 2010, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Delaware District Court) against Teva for infringement. In February 2013, the Delaware District Court ruled against the Company and invalidated the '244 Patent. The Company will appeal the Delaware District Court's decision and is evaluating all other legal options. Upon final FDA approval of its aNDA, Teva could launch its generic product. There could be a rapid and significant negative impact on U.S. sales of Baraclude beginning in 2013. U.S. net sales of Baraclude were $241 million in 2012.

In June 2012, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Sandoz following the receipt of a Paragraph IV certification letter challenging the same Orange-Book listed patent. In February 2013, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal and the case has been dismissed.

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 NJ District Court 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. In October 2011, the Company received a Paragraph IV notice letter from Apotex informing the Company that it is seeking approval of generic versions of the 80 mg and 140 mg dosage strengths of Sprycel and challenging the same four Orange Book listed patents. In November 2011, BMS filed a patent infringement suit against Apotex on the 80 mg and 140 mg dosage strengths in the NJ District Court. This case has been consolidated with the suit filed in November 2010. Trial is currently scheduled for September 2013. 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.

Sustiva – EU

In January 2012, Teva obtained a European marketing authorization for Efavirenz Teva 600 mg tablets. In February 2012, the Company and Merck filed lawsuits and requests for injunctions against Teva in the Netherlands, Germany and the U.K. for infringement of Merck's European Patent No. 0582455 and Supplementary Protection Certificates expiring in November 2013. As of December 2012, requests for injunctions have been granted in the U.K. and denied in the Netherlands and Germany. The Company and Merck are appealing the denial of the request for injunction in the Netherlands. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of these lawsuits or their 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 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 California Court of Appeal's judgment and the matter was remanded to the California 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. The plaintiffs appealed that decision and the California Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the defendants. In October 2012, the plaintiffs filed a petition seeking review by the California Supreme Court which was denied in November 2012.

Remaining Apotex Matters Related to Plavix*

As previously disclosed, in November 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 calculated at the rate of 1% per month from the date of the filing of the lawsuit, until paid, related to the break-up of a March 2006 proposed settlement agreement relating to the-then pending Plavix* patent litigation against Apotex. In April 2011, the New Jersey Superior Court granted the Company's cross-motion for summary judgment motion and denied Apotex's motion for summary judgment. Apotex appealed these decisions and the New Jersey Appellate Division reversed the grant of summary judgments. The case has been remanded back to the Superior Court for additional proceedings. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of this lawsuit or its impact on the Company.

In January 2011, Apotex filed a lawsuit in Florida State Court, Broward County, alleging breach of contract relating to the May 2006 proposed settlement agreement with Apotex relating to the then pending Plavix* patent litigation. Apotex is seeking damages for the amount of profits it alleges it would have received from selling its generic clopidogrel bisulfate for somewhere between 8 and 11.5 months had the May 2006 agreement been approved by regulators. Discovery has concluded. The Company moved for summary judgment which was denied in November 2012. The case is now scheduled for a trial beginning in March 2013. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of this lawsuit or its impact on the Company.

PRICING, SALES AND PROMOTIONAL PRACTICES LITIGATION AND INVESTIGATIONS

Abilify* Federal Subpoena

In January 2012, the Company received a subpoena from the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York requesting information related to, among other things, the sales and marketing of Abilify*. It is not possible at this time to assess the outcome of this matter or its potential impact on the Company.

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.

Abilify* Co-Pay Assistance Litigation

In March 2012, the Company and its partner Otsuka were named as co-defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed by union health and welfare funds in the SDNY. Plaintiffs are challenging the legality of the Abilify* co-pay assistance program under the Federal Antitrust and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations laws, and seeking damages. The Company and Otsuka have filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of this litigation 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 remains a defendant in two state attorneys general suits pending in state courts around the country having settled the lawsuits brought by the Mississippi and Louisiana Attorneys General. 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, which the Commonwealth Court denied. The Company has appealed the decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

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. Discovery is ongoing. 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 in various state and federal courts claiming personal injury damage allegedly sustained after using Plavix*. Currently, more than 2,000 claims are filed in state and federal courts in various states including California, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York. The defendants terminated the previously disclosed tolling agreement effective as of September 1, 2012. In February 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted the Company and Sanofi's motion to establish a multidistrict litigation to coordinate federal pretrial proceedings in Plavix* product liability and related cases. 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 numerous lawsuits, on behalf of approximately 2,700 plaintiffs, 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. The resolution of these pending lawsuits is not expected to have a material 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 of approximately 400 plaintiffs. As of February 2013, the Company remains a defendant in approximately 35 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. The resolution of these remaining lawsuits is not expected to have a material impact on the Company.

Byetta* and Bydureon*

Amylin, now a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company (see “—Note 4. Acquisitions”), and Lilly are co-defendants in product liability litigation related to Byetta* and Bydureon*. As of February 2013, there were approximately 120 separate lawsuits pending on behalf of approximately 575 plaintiffs in various courts in the U.S. The vast majority of these cases have been brought by individuals who allege personal injury sustained after using Byetta*, primarily pancreatitis, and, in some cases, claiming alleged wrongful death. Of these, the Company has agreed in principle to resolve the claims of over 300 plaintiffs. The majority of cases are pending in California state court, where the Judicial Council has granted Amylin's petition for a “coordinated proceeding” for all California state court cases alleging harm from the alleged use of Byetta*. Amylin and Lilly are currently scheduled for trial in one single-plaintiff case in the second quarter of 2013. We cannot reasonably predict the outcome of any lawsuit, claim or proceeding. However, given that Amylin has product liability insurance coverage for existing claims and future related claims involving Byetta*, it is expected the amount of damages, if any, will not be material to the Company.

BMS-986094

In August 2012, the Company announced that it had discontinued development of BMS-986094, an investigational compound which was being tested in clinical trials to treat the hepatitis C virus infection due to the emergence of a serious safety issue. To date, five lawsuits have been filed against the Company in Texas State Court by plaintiffs, which have been removed to Federal Court, alleging that they participated in the Phase II study of BMS-986094 and suffered injuries as a result thereof. We have an agreement in principle to resolve four of the five filed claims and the vast majority of claims that have surfaced to date in this matter. In total, slightly fewer than 300 patients were administered the compound at various doses and durations as part of the clinical trials. The resolution of the remaining lawsuit and any other potential future lawsuits is not expected to have a material impact on the Company.

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 $72 million at December 31, 2012, 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 New Jersey Superior Court by or on behalf of current and former residents of New Brunswick, New Jersey who live or have lived adjacent to the Company's New Brunswick facility. The complaints either allege various personal injuries damages 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. Since October 2011, over 100 additional cases have been filed in New Jersey Superior Court and removed by the Company to United States District Court, District of New Jersey. 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 the 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 2013. 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

Italy Investigation

In July 2011, the Public Prosecutor in Florence, Italy (Italian Prosecutor) initiated a criminal investigation against the Company's subsidiary in Italy (BMS Italy). The allegations against the Company relate to alleged activities of a former employee who left the Company in the 1990s. The Italian Prosecutor also had requested interim measures that a judicial administrator be appointed to temporarily run the operations of BMS Italy. In October 2012, the parties reached an agreement to resolve the request for interim measures which resulted in the Italian Prosecutor withdrawing the request and this request was accepted by the Florence Court. It is not possible at this time to assess the outcome of the underlying investigation or its potential impact on the Company.

SEC Germany Investigation

In October 2006, the SEC informed the Company that it had begun a formal inquiry into the activities of certain of the Company's German pharmaceutical subsidiaries and its employees and/or agents. 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 (FCPA). The Company is cooperating with the SEC.

FCPA Investigation

In March 2012, the Company received a subpoena from the SEC. The subpoena, issued in connection with an investigation under the FCPA, primarily relates to sales and marketing practices in various countries. The Company is cooperating with the government in its investigation of these matters.