Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies The Company is involved in various claims and legal proceedings of a nature considered normal to its business, including product liability, intellectual property, and commercial litigation, as well as certain additional matters including governmental and environmental matters. In the opinion of the Company, it is unlikely that the resolution of these matters will be material to the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Given the nature of the litigation discussed below and the complexities involved in these matters, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss for such matters until the Company knows, among other factors, (i) what claims, if any, will survive dispositive motion practice, (ii) the extent of the claims, including the size of any potential class, particularly when damages are not specified or are indeterminate, (iii) how the discovery process will affect the litigation, (iv) the settlement posture of the other parties to the litigation and (v) any other factors that may have a material effect on the litigation. The Company records accruals for contingencies when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. These accruals are adjusted periodically as assessments change or additional information becomes available. For product liability claims, a portion of the overall accrual is actuarially determined and considers such factors as past experience, number of claims reported and estimates of claims incurred but not yet reported. Individually significant contingent losses are accrued when probable and reasonably estimable. Legal defense costs expected to be incurred in connection with a loss contingency are accrued when probable and reasonably estimable. The Company’s decision to obtain insurance coverage is dependent on market conditions, including cost and availability, existing at the time such decisions are made. The Company has evaluated its risks and has determined that the cost of obtaining product liability insurance outweighs the likely benefits of the coverage that is available and, as such, has no insurance for most product liabilities. Product Liability Litigation Fosamax As previously disclosed, Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the U.S. involving Fosamax (alendronate sodium) (Fosamax Litigation). As of June 30, 2022, approximately 3,450 cases are pending against Merck in either a federal multidistrict litigation (Femur Fracture MDL) or state court. Plaintiffs in the vast majority of these cases generally allege that they sustained femur fractures and/or other bone injuries (Femur Fractures) in association with the use of Fosamax. In March 2014, the Femur Fracture MDL court dismissed with prejudice approximately 650 cases on preemption grounds. Plaintiffs in approximately 515 of those cases appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Third Circuit). In March 2017, the Third Circuit issued a decision reversing the Femur Fracture MDL court’s preemption ruling and remanding the appealed cases back to the Femur Fracture MDL court. In May 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the Third Circuit had incorrectly concluded that the issue of preemption should be resolved by a jury, and accordingly vacated the judgment of the Third Circuit and remanded the proceedings back to the Third Circuit to address the issue in a manner consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. In November 2019, the Third Circuit remanded the cases back to the District Court in order to allow that court to determine in the first instance whether the plaintiffs’ state law claims are preempted by federal law under the standards described by the Supreme Court in its opinion. On March 23, 2022, the District Court granted Merck’s motion and ruled that plaintiffs’ failure to warn claims are preempted as a matter of law to the extent they assert that Merck should have added a warning or precaution regarding atypical femur fractures prior to September 2010. Plaintiffs have indicated that they do not intend to move forward with any other claims at this point and intend to appeal the District Court’s preemption ruling to the Third Circuit. Discovery is presently stayed in the Femur Fracture MDL. As part of the spin-off of Organon, Organon is required to indemnify Merck for all liabilities relating to, arising from, or resulting from the Fosamax Litigation. Januvia/Janumet As previously disclosed, Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the U.S. involving Januvia (sitagliptin) and/or Janumet (sitagliptin and metformin HCl). Most claims were filed in multidistrict litigation before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (MDL). On March 9, 2021, the MDL Court issued an omnibus order granting defendants’ summary judgment motions based on preemption and failure to establish general causation, as well as granting defendants’ motions to exclude plaintiffs’ expert witnesses. The plaintiffs appealed that order. Since that time, more than half of these claims have been dismissed with prejudice as to Merck, and on October 5, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal as to Merck and two of its codefendants. The MDL Court’s judgment is now final and no longer appealable with respect to remaining claims. Outside of the MDL, the majority of claims were filed in coordinated proceedings before the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (California State Court). On April 6, 2021, the court in California issued an omnibus order granting defendants’ summary judgment motions and also granting defendants’ motions to exclude plaintiffs’ expert witnesses. On May 31, 2022, the court entered judgment in favor of Merck as to all of the claims pending against Merck in that jurisdiction. As of June 30, 2022, six product users have claims pending against Merck in state courts other than California, including Illinois. In June 2017, the Illinois trial court denied Merck’s motion for summary judgment based on federal preemption. Merck appealed, and the Illinois appellate court affirmed in December 2018. Merck filed a petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court in February 2019. In April 2019, the Illinois Supreme Court stayed consideration of the pending petition to appeal until the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht (relating to the Fosamax matter discussed above). Merck filed the opinion in Albrecht with the Illinois Supreme Court in June 2019. The petition for leave to appeal was decided in September 2019, in which the Illinois Supreme Court directed the intermediate appellate court to reconsider its earlier ruling. The Illinois Appellate Court issued a favorable decision concluding, consistent with Albrecht, that preemption presents a legal question to be resolved by the court. In May 2020, the Illinois Appellate Court issued a mandate to the state trial court, which, as of June 30, 2022, had not scheduled a case management conference or otherwise taken action. In addition to the claims noted above, the Company has agreed to toll the statute of limitations for approximately 50 additional claims. The Company intends to continue defending against any remaining lawsuits. Governmental Proceedings As previously disclosed, from time to time, the Company’s subsidiaries in China receive inquiries regarding their operations from various Chinese governmental agencies. Some of these inquiries may be related to matters involving other multinational pharmaceutical companies, as well as Chinese entities doing business with such companies. The Company’s policy is to cooperate with these authorities and to provide responses as appropriate. As previously disclosed, from time to time, the Company receives inquiries and is the subject of preliminary investigation activities from competition and other governmental authorities in markets outside the U.S. These authorities may include regulators, administrative authorities, and law enforcement and other similar officials, and these preliminary investigation activities may include site visits, formal or informal requests or demands for documents or materials, inquiries or interviews and similar matters. Certain of these preliminary inquiries or activities may lead to the commencement of formal proceedings. Should those proceedings be determined adversely to the Company, monetary fines and/or remedial undertakings may be required. Commercial and Other Litigation Zetia Antitrust Litigation As previously disclosed, Merck, MSD, Schering Corporation, Schering-Plough Corporation, and MSP Singapore Company LLC (collectively, the Merck Defendants) are defendants in putative class action and opt-out lawsuits filed in 2018 on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of Zetia (ezetimibe) alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws, as well as other state statutory and common law causes of action. The cases have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in a federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) before Judge Rebecca Beach Smith in the Eastern District of Virginia. In November 2019, the direct purchaser plaintiffs and the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed motions for class certification. In August 2020, the district court granted in part the direct purchasers’ motion for class certification and certified a class of 35 direct purchasers. In August 2021, the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s class certification order and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the court’s ruling. In September 2021, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification. On January 25, 2022, the magistrate judge recommended that the district court deny the motion for class certification. On February 8, 2022, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed objections to the recommendation. On April 13, 2022, the district court denied the direct purchaser plaintiffs’ renewed motion for class certification. In August 2021, the district court granted certification of a class of indirect purchasers. In 2020 and 2021, United Healthcare Services, Inc., Humana Inc., Centene Corporation and others, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (collectively, the insurer plaintiffs), each filed a lawsuit in a jurisdiction outside of the Eastern District of Virginia against the Merck Defendants and others, making similar allegations as those made in the Zetia MDL, as well as additional allegations about Vytorin. These cases have been transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia to proceed with the Zetia MDL. On February 9, 2022, the insurer plaintiffs filed amended complaints. On March 2, 2022, the Merck Defendants, jointly with other defendants, moved to dismiss certain aspects of the insurer plaintiffs’ complaints, including any claims for Vytorin damages. In April 2022, the direct purchaser plaintiffs moved for an order setting a deadline for direct purchasers of Zetia not currently parties to the case to file cases against defendants in order for those cases to be coordinated for trial with the existing direct purchaser plaintiffs and other MDL plaintiff groups. The court granted that motion, setting a deadline of June 30, 2022 for unnamed direct purchasers to file claims. On June 30, 2022, 23 new entities, many related, brought new complaints against defendants or otherwise sought to intervene. Defendants’ summary judgment motions, filed in August 2020, are still pending. The court has scheduled trial for all plaintiffs other than the insurer plaintiffs for April 2023. Rotavirus Vaccines Antitrust Litigation As previously disclosed, MSD is a defendant in putative class action lawsuits filed in 2018 on behalf of direct purchasers of RotaTeq (Rotavirus Vaccine, Live, Oral, Pentavalent), alleging violations of federal antitrust laws. The cases were consolidated in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In January 2019, the court denied MSD’s motions to compel arbitration and to dismiss the consolidated complaint. In February 2019, MSD appealed the court’s order on arbitration to the Third Circuit. In October 2019, the Third Circuit vacated the district court’s order and remanded for limited discovery on the issue of arbitrability. On July 6, 2020, MSD filed a renewed motion to compel arbitration, and plaintiffs filed a cross motion for summary judgment as to arbitrability. On November 20, 2020, the district court denied MSD’s motion and granted plaintiffs’ motion. On December 4, 2020, MSD filed a notice of appeal to the Third Circuit. On March 21, 2022, the Third Circuit reversed the order of the district court and remanded with the instruction that the court grant MSD’s motion to compel arbitration. On April 4, 2022, plaintiffs filed a petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc, and on May 25, 2022, the Third Circuit denied the petition. On July 1, 2022, the district court stayed the case in favor of arbitration of plaintiffs’ claims. Bravecto Litigation As previously disclosed, in January 2020, the Company was served with a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Following motion practice, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on July 1, 2021, seeking to certify a nationwide class action of purchasers or users of Bravecto (fluralaner) products in the U.S. or its territories between May 1, 2014 and July 1, 2021. Plaintiffs contend Bravecto causes neurological events in dogs and cats and alleges violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, breach of warranty, product liability, and related theories. The Company moved to dismiss or, alternatively, to strike the class allegations from the second amended complaint, and that motion is pending. A similar case was filed in Quebec, Canada in May 2019. The Superior Court certified a class of dog owners in Quebec who gave Bravecto Chew to their dogs between February 16, 2017 and November 2, 2018 whose dogs experienced one of the conditions in the post-marketing adverse reactions section of the labeling approved on November 2, 2018. The Company and plaintiffs each appealed the class certification decision. The Court of Appeal of Quebec heard the appeal on February 7, 2022 and issued a decision on April 25, 2022 allowing both parties’ appeals in part. The Company sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. 340B Program Litigation Merck has filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to challenge the letter Merck received from the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) in May 2022 regarding Merck’s 340B Program integrity initiative. HRSA’s letter to Merck asserts that Merck is in violation of the 340B statute. HRSA further claims that continued failure to provide the 340B price to covered entities using contract pharmacies may result in civil monetary penalties for each instance of alleged overcharging, in addition to repayment for any instance of overcharging. The letter is very similar to letters HRSA has sent to other manufacturers, which letters have been held to be unlawful by multiple federal courts. Merck disagrees with HRSA’s assertion. Merck remains committed to the 340B Program and to providing 340B discounts to eligible covered entities. Merck’s 340B Program integrity initiative is consistent with the requirements of the 340B statute and is intended to ensure the integrity and sustainability of the 340B statute by reducing prohibited duplicate discounts and diversion and putting patients back at the center of the program. Merck continues to offer all of the Company’s covered outpatient drugs to all 340B covered entities for purchase at or below the 340B ceiling price. Patent Litigation From time to time, generic manufacturers of pharmaceutical products file abbreviated New Drug Applications (NDAs) with the FDA seeking to market generic forms of the Company’s products prior to the expiration of relevant patents owned by the Company. To protect its patent rights, the Company may file patent infringement lawsuits against such generic companies. Similar lawsuits defending the Company’s patent rights may exist in other countries. The Company intends to vigorously defend its patents, which it believes are valid, against infringement by companies attempting to market products prior to the expiration of such patents. As with any litigation, there can be no assurance of the outcomes, which, if adverse, could result in significantly shortened periods of exclusivity for these products and, with respect to products acquired through acquisitions accounted for as business combinations, potentially significant intangible asset impairment charges. Bridion — As previously disclosed, between January and November 2020, the Company received multiple Paragraph IV Certification Letters under the Hatch-Waxman Act notifying the Company that generic drug companies have filed applications to the FDA seeking pre-patent expiry approval to sell generic versions of Bridion (sugammadex) Injection. In March, April and December 2020, the Company filed patent infringement lawsuits in the U.S. District Courts for the District of New Jersey and the Northern District of West Virginia against those generic companies. All actions in the District of New Jersey have been consolidated. These lawsuits, which assert one or more patents covering sugammadex and methods of using sugammadex, automatically stay FDA approval of the generic applications until June 2023 or until adverse court decisions, if any, whichever may occur earlier. The West Virginia action remains stayed. The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has set a bench trial in this matter beginning on October 12, 2022. The Company has settled with four generic companies providing that these generic companies can bring their generic versions of Bridion to the market in January 2026 (which may be delayed by any applicable pediatric exclusivity) or earlier under certain circumstances. The Company has agreed to stay the lawsuit filed against two generic companies, which in exchange agreed to be bound by a judgment on the merits of the consolidated action in the District of New Jersey. One of the generic companies in the consolidated action requested dismissal of the action against it and the Company did not oppose this request, which was subsequently granted by the court. The Company does not expect this company to bring its generic version of Bridion to the market before January 2026 or later, depending on any applicable pediatric exclusivity, unless the Company receives an adverse court decision. Januvia, Janumet, Janumet XR — As previously disclosed, the FDA has granted pediatric exclusivity with respect to Januvia, Janumet, and Janumet XR (sitagliptin and metformin HCl extended-release), which provides a further six months of exclusivity in the U.S. beyond the expiration of all patents listed in the FDA’s Orange Book. Adding this exclusivity to the term of the key patent protection extends exclusivity on these products to January 2023. The Company currently anticipates that sales of Januvia and Janumet in the U.S. will decline significantly after this date. However, Januvia, Janumet, and Janumet XR contain sitagliptin phosphate monohydrate and the Company has another patent covering certain phosphate salt and polymorphic forms of sitagliptin (2027 salt/polymorph patent), which, if determined to be valid, would preclude generic manufacturers from making sitagliptin phosphate salt and polymorphic forms until 2027 with the expiration of that patent, plus pediatric exclusivity. In 2019, Par Pharmaceutical filed suit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, seeking a declaratory judgment of invalidity of the 2027 salt/polymorph patent. In response, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Par Pharmaceutical and additional companies that also indicated an intent to market generic versions of Januvia, Janumet, and Janumet XR following expiration of key patent protection, but prior to the expiration of the 2027 salt/polymorph patent, and a later granted patent owned by the Company covering the Janumet formulation where its term plus the pediatric exclusivity ends in 2029. The Company also filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Mylan in the Northern District of West Virginia. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation entered an order transferring the Company’s lawsuit against Mylan to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings with the other cases pending in that district. Prior to the beginning of the scheduled October 2021 trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on invalidity issues, the Company settled with all defendants scheduled to participate in that trial. In the Company’s case against Mylan, a bench trial was held in December 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, and the closing arguments were held on April 13, 2022. In total, the Company has settled with 22 generic companies providing that these generic companies can bring their generic versions of Januvia and Janumet to the market in May 2026 or earlier under certain circumstances, and their generic versions of Janumet XR to the market in July 2026 or earlier under certain circumstances. Additionally, in 2019, Mylan filed a petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) seeking invalidity of some, but not all, of the claims of the 2027 salt/polymorph patent. The USPTO instituted IPR proceedings in May 2020, finding a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims are not valid. A trial was held in February 2021 and a final decision was rendered in May 2021, holding that all of the challenged claims were not invalid. Mylan has appealed the USPTO’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and a hearing was held on August 2, 2022. In March 2021, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Zydus Worldwide DMCC, Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc., and Cadila Healthcare Ltd. (collectively, Zydus). In that lawsuit, the Company alleged infringement of the 2027 salt/polymorph patent based on the filing of Zydus’s application seeking approval of its sitagliptin tablets. The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware has set a three-day bench trial in this matter beginning on October 31, 2022. Generic companies have sought revocation of the Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) for Janumet in the following European countries: Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Hungary, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Sweden. If the generic companies are successful, Janumet could lose market exclusivity in these countries at the same time as the expiry of Januvia pediatric market exclusivity in September 2022. In February 2022, a Finnish court referred certain questions to the European Court of Justice that could determine the validity of the Janumet SPCs in Europe. In June 2021, a German court decided that the SPC for Janumet is invalid, which decision the Company has appealed. The validity of the Janumet SPC was upheld in the Czech Republic in March 2022 in a first instance decision, which has been appealed. In June 2022, a Romanian court decided that the SPC for Janumet was invalid in a first instance decision. Other Litigation There are various other pending legal proceedings involving the Company, principally product liability and intellectual property lawsuits. While it is not feasible to predict the outcome of such proceedings, in the opinion of the Company, either the likelihood of loss is remote or any reasonably possible loss associated with the resolution of such proceedings is not expected to be material to the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows either individually or in the aggregate. Legal Defense Reserves Legal defense costs expected to be incurred in connection with a loss contingency are accrued when probable and reasonably estimable. Some of the significant factors considered in the review of these legal defense reserves are as follows: the actual costs incurred by the Company; the development of the Company’s legal defense strategy and structure in light of the scope of its litigation; the number of cases being brought against the Company; the costs and outcomes of completed trials and the most current information regarding anticipated timing, progression, and related costs of pre-trial activities and trials in the associated litigation. The amount of legal defense reserves as of June 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021 of approximately $235 million and $230 million, respectively, represents the Company’s best estimate of the minimum amount of defense costs to be incurred in connection with its outstanding litigation; however, events such as additional trials and other events that could arise in the course of its litigation could affect the ultimate amount of legal defense costs to be incurred by the Company. The Company will continue to monitor its legal defense costs and review the adequacy of the associated reserves and may determine to increase the reserves at any time in the future if, based upon the factors set forth, it believes it would be appropriate to do so.

The Company is involved in various claims and legal proceedings of a nature considered normal to its business, including product liability, intellectual property, and commercial litigation, as well as certain additional matters including governmental and environmental matters. In the opinion of the Company, it is unlikely that the resolution of these matters will be material to the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Given the nature of the litigation discussed below and the complexities involved in these matters, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss for such matters until the Company knows, among other factors, (i) what claims, if any, will survive dispositive motion practice, (ii) the extent of the claims, including the size of any potential class, particularly when damages are not specified or are indeterminate, (iii) how the discovery process will affect the litigation, (iv) the settlement posture of the other parties to the litigation and (v) any other factors that may have a material effect on the litigation.

The Company records accruals for contingencies when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. These accruals are adjusted periodically as assessments change or additional information becomes available. For product liability claims, a portion of the overall accrual is actuarially determined and considers such factors as past experience, number of claims reported and estimates of claims incurred but not yet reported. Individually significant contingent losses are accrued when probable and reasonably estimable. Legal defense costs expected to be incurred in connection with a loss contingency are accrued when probable and reasonably estimable.

As previously disclosed, Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the U.S. involving Fosamax (alendronate sodium) (Fosamax Litigation). As of June 30, 2022, approximately 3,450 cases are pending against Merck in either a federal multidistrict litigation (Femur Fracture MDL) or state court. Plaintiffs in the vast majority of these cases generally allege that they sustained femur fractures and/or other bone injuries (Femur Fractures) in association with the use of Fosamax.

In March 2014, the Femur Fracture MDL court dismissed with prejudice approximately 650 cases on preemption grounds. Plaintiffs in approximately 515 of those cases appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Third Circuit). In March 2017, the Third Circuit issued a decision reversing the Femur Fracture MDL court’s preemption ruling and remanding the appealed cases back to the Femur Fracture MDL court. In May 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the Third Circuit had incorrectly concluded that the issue of preemption should be resolved by a jury, and accordingly vacated the judgment of the Third Circuit and remanded the proceedings back to the Third Circuit to address the issue in a manner consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. In November 2019, the Third Circuit remanded the cases back to the District Court in order to allow that court to determine in the first instance whether the plaintiffs’ state law claims are preempted by federal law under the standards described by the Supreme Court in its opinion. On March 23, 2022, the District Court granted Merck’s motion and ruled that plaintiffs’ failure to warn claims are preempted as a matter of law to the extent they assert that Merck should have added a warning or precaution regarding atypical femur fractures prior to September 2010. Plaintiffs have indicated that they do not intend to move forward with any other claims at this point and intend to appeal the District Court’s preemption ruling to the Third Circuit.

Outside of the MDL, the majority of claims were filed in coordinated proceedings before the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (California State Court). On April 6, 2021, the court in California issued an omnibus order granting defendants’ summary judgment motions and also granting defendants’ motions to exclude plaintiffs’ expert witnesses. On May 31, 2022, the court entered judgment in favor of Merck as to all of the claims pending against Merck in that jurisdiction.

As of June 30, 2022, six product users have claims pending against Merck in state courts other than California, including Illinois. In June 2017, the Illinois trial court denied Merck’s motion for summary judgment based on federal preemption. Merck appealed, and the Illinois appellate court affirmed in December 2018. Merck filed a petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court in February 2019. In April 2019, the Illinois Supreme Court stayed consideration of the pending petition to appeal until the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht (relating to the Fosamax matter discussed above). Merck filed the opinion in Albrecht with the Illinois Supreme Court in June 2019. The petition for leave to appeal was decided in September 2019, in which the Illinois Supreme Court directed the intermediate appellate court to reconsider its earlier ruling. The Illinois Appellate Court issued a favorable decision concluding, consistent with Albrecht, that preemption presents a legal question to be resolved by the court. In May 2020, the Illinois Appellate Court issued a mandate to the state trial court, which, as of June 30, 2022, had not scheduled a case management conference or otherwise taken action.

As previously disclosed, from time to time, the Company’s subsidiaries in China receive inquiries regarding their operations from various Chinese governmental agencies. Some of these inquiries may be related to matters involving other multinational pharmaceutical companies, as well as Chinese entities doing business with such companies. The Company’s policy is to cooperate with these authorities and to provide responses as appropriate.

As previously disclosed, from time to time, the Company receives inquiries and is the subject of preliminary investigation activities from competition and other governmental authorities in markets outside the U.S. These authorities may include regulators, administrative authorities, and law enforcement and other similar officials, and these preliminary investigation activities may include site visits, formal or informal requests or demands for documents or materials, inquiries or interviews and similar matters. Certain of these preliminary inquiries or activities may lead to the commencement of formal proceedings. Should those proceedings be determined adversely to the Company, monetary fines and/or remedial undertakings may be required.

As previously disclosed, Merck, MSD, Schering Corporation, Schering-Plough Corporation, and MSP Singapore Company LLC (collectively, the Merck Defendants) are defendants in putative class action and opt-out lawsuits filed in 2018 on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of Zetia (ezetimibe) alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws, as well as other state statutory and common law causes of action. The cases have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in a federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) before Judge Rebecca Beach Smith in the Eastern District of Virginia.

In November 2019, the direct purchaser plaintiffs and the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed motions for class certification. In August 2020, the district court granted in part the direct purchasers’ motion for class certification and certified a class of 35 direct purchasers. In August 2021, the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s class certification order and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the court’s ruling. In September 2021, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification. On January 25, 2022, the magistrate judge recommended that the district court deny the motion for class certification. On February 8, 2022, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed objections to the recommendation. On April 13, 2022, the district court denied the direct purchaser plaintiffs’ renewed motion for class certification. In August 2021, the district court granted certification of a class of indirect purchasers.

In 2020 and 2021, United Healthcare Services, Inc., Humana Inc., Centene Corporation and others, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (collectively, the insurer plaintiffs), each filed a lawsuit in a jurisdiction outside of the Eastern District of Virginia against the Merck Defendants and others, making similar allegations as those made in the Zetia MDL, as well as additional allegations about Vytorin. These cases have been transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia to proceed with the Zetia MDL.

In April 2022, the direct purchaser plaintiffs moved for an order setting a deadline for direct purchasers of Zetia not currently parties to the case to file cases against defendants in order for those cases to be coordinated for trial with the existing direct purchaser plaintiffs and other MDL plaintiff groups. The court granted that motion, setting a deadline of June 30, 2022 for unnamed direct purchasers to file claims. On June 30, 2022, 23 new entities, many related, brought new complaints against defendants or otherwise sought to intervene. Defendants’ summary judgment motions, filed in August 2020, are still pending. The court has scheduled trial for all plaintiffs other than the insurer plaintiffs for April 2023.

As previously disclosed, MSD is a defendant in putative class action lawsuits filed in 2018 on behalf of direct purchasers of RotaTeq (Rotavirus Vaccine, Live, Oral, Pentavalent), alleging violations of federal antitrust laws. The cases were consolidated in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In January 2019, the court denied MSD’s motions to compel arbitration and to dismiss the consolidated complaint. In February 2019, MSD appealed the court’s order on arbitration to the Third Circuit. In October 2019, the Third Circuit vacated the district court’s order and remanded for limited discovery on the issue of arbitrability. On July 6, 2020, MSD filed a renewed motion to compel arbitration, and plaintiffs filed a cross motion for summary judgment as to arbitrability. On November 20, 2020, the district court denied MSD’s motion and granted plaintiffs’ motion. On December 4, 2020, MSD filed a notice of appeal to the Third Circuit. On March 21, 2022, the Third Circuit reversed the order of the district court and remanded with the instruction that the court grant MSD’s motion to compel arbitration. On April 4, 2022, plaintiffs filed a petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc, and on May 25, 2022, the Third Circuit denied the petition. On July 1, 2022, the district court stayed the case in favor of arbitration of plaintiffs’ claims.

As previously disclosed, in January 2020, the Company was served with a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Following motion practice, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on July 1, 2021, seeking to certify a nationwide class action of purchasers or users of Bravecto (fluralaner) products in the U.S. or its territories between May 1, 2014 and July 1, 2021. Plaintiffs contend Bravecto causes neurological events in dogs and cats and alleges violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, breach of warranty, product liability, and related theories. The Company moved to dismiss or, alternatively, to strike the class allegations from the second amended complaint, and that motion is pending. A similar case was filed in Quebec, Canada in May 2019. The Superior Court certified a class of dog owners in Quebec who gave Bravecto Chew to their dogs between February 16, 2017 and November 2, 2018 whose dogs experienced one of the conditions in the post-marketing adverse reactions section of the labeling approved on November 2, 2018. The Company and plaintiffs each appealed the class certification decision. The Court of Appeal of Quebec heard the appeal on February 7, 2022 and issued a decision on April 25, 2022 allowing both parties’ appeals in part. The Company sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Merck has filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to challenge the letter Merck received from the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) in May 2022 regarding Merck’s 340B Program integrity initiative. HRSA’s letter to Merck asserts that Merck is in violation of the 340B statute. HRSA further claims that continued failure to provide the 340B price to covered entities using contract pharmacies may result in civil monetary penalties for each instance of alleged overcharging, in addition to repayment for any instance of overcharging. The letter is very similar to letters HRSA has sent to other manufacturers, which letters have been held to be unlawful by multiple federal courts. Merck disagrees with HRSA’s assertion. Merck remains committed to the 340B Program and to providing 340B discounts to eligible covered entities. Merck’s 340B Program integrity initiative is consistent with the requirements of the 340B statute and is intended to ensure the integrity and sustainability of the 340B statute by reducing prohibited duplicate discounts and diversion and putting patients back at the center of the program. Merck continues to offer all of the Company’s covered outpatient drugs to all 340B covered entities for purchase at or below the 340B ceiling price.

From time to time, generic manufacturers of pharmaceutical products file abbreviated New Drug Applications (NDAs) with the FDA seeking to market generic forms of the Company’s products prior to the expiration of relevant patents owned by the Company. To protect its patent rights, the Company may file patent infringement lawsuits against such generic companies. Similar lawsuits defending the Company’s patent rights may exist in other countries. The Company intends to vigorously defend its patents, which it believes are valid, against infringement by companies attempting to market products prior to the expiration of such patents. As with any litigation, there can be no assurance of the outcomes, which, if adverse,

Bridion — As previously disclosed, between January and November 2020, the Company received multiple Paragraph IV Certification Letters under the Hatch-Waxman Act notifying the Company that generic drug companies have filed applications to the FDA seeking pre-patent expiry approval to sell generic versions of Bridion (sugammadex) Injection. In March, April and December 2020, the Company filed patent infringement lawsuits in the U.S. District Courts for the District of New Jersey and the Northern District of West Virginia against those generic companies. All actions in the District of New Jersey have been consolidated. These lawsuits, which assert one or more patents covering sugammadex and methods of using sugammadex, automatically stay FDA approval of the generic applications until June 2023 or until adverse court decisions, if any, whichever may occur earlier. The West Virginia action remains stayed. The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has set a bench trial in this matter beginning on October 12, 2022.

The Company has settled with four generic companies providing that these generic companies can bring their generic versions of Bridion to the market in January 2026 (which may be delayed by any applicable pediatric exclusivity) or earlier under certain circumstances. The Company has agreed to stay the lawsuit filed against two generic companies, which in exchange agreed to be bound by a judgment on the merits of the consolidated action in the District of New Jersey. One of the generic companies in the consolidated action requested dismissal of the action against it and the Company did not oppose this request, which was subsequently granted by the court. The Company does not expect this company to bring its generic version of Bridion to the market before January 2026 or later, depending on any applicable pediatric exclusivity, unless the Company receives an adverse court decision.

Januvia, Janumet, Janumet XR — As previously disclosed, the FDA has granted pediatric exclusivity with respect to Januvia, Janumet, and Janumet XR (sitagliptin and metformin HCl extended-release), which provides a further six months of exclusivity in the U.S. beyond the expiration of all patents listed in the FDA’s Orange Book. Adding this exclusivity to the term of the key patent protection extends exclusivity on these products to January 2023. The Company currently anticipates that sales of Januvia and Janumet in the U.S. will decline significantly after this date. However, Januvia, Janumet, and Janumet XR contain sitagliptin phosphate monohydrate and the Company has another patent covering certain phosphate salt and polymorphic forms of sitagliptin (2027 salt/polymorph patent), which, if determined to be valid, would preclude generic manufacturers from making sitagliptin phosphate salt and polymorphic forms until 2027 with the expiration of that patent, plus pediatric exclusivity. In 2019, Par Pharmaceutical filed suit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, seeking a declaratory judgment of invalidity of the 2027 salt/polymorph patent. In response, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Par Pharmaceutical and additional companies that also indicated an intent to market generic versions of Januvia, Janumet, and Janumet XR following expiration of key patent protection, but prior to the expiration of the 2027 salt/polymorph patent, and a later granted patent owned by the Company covering the Janumet formulation where its term plus the pediatric exclusivity ends in 2029. The Company also filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Mylan in the Northern District of West Virginia. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation entered an order transferring the Company’s lawsuit against Mylan to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings with the other cases pending in that district.

Prior to the beginning of the scheduled October 2021 trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on invalidity issues, the Company settled with all defendants scheduled to participate in that trial. In the Company’s case against Mylan, a bench trial was held in December 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, and the closing arguments were held on April 13, 2022.

Additionally, in 2019, Mylan filed a petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) seeking invalidity of some, but not all, of the claims of the 2027 salt/polymorph patent. The USPTO instituted IPR proceedings in May 2020, finding a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims are not valid. A trial was held in February 2021 and a final decision was rendered in May 2021, holding that all of the challenged claims were not invalid. Mylan has appealed the USPTO’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and a hearing was held on August 2, 2022.

In March 2021, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Zydus Worldwide DMCC, Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc., and Cadila Healthcare Ltd. (collectively, Zydus). In that lawsuit, the Company alleged infringement of the 2027 salt/polymorph patent based on the filing of Zydus’s application seeking approval of its sitagliptin tablets. The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware has set a three-day bench trial in this matter beginning on October 31, 2022.

Generic companies have sought revocation of the Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) for Janumet in the following European countries: Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Hungary, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Sweden. If the generic companies are successful, Janumet could lose market exclusivity in these countries at the same time as the expiry of Januvia pediatric market exclusivity in September 2022. In February 2022, a Finnish court referred certain questions to the European Court of Justice that could determine the validity of the Janumet SPCs in Europe. In June 2021, a German court decided that the SPC for Janumet is invalid, which decision the Company has appealed. The validity of the Janumet SPC was upheld in the Czech Republic in March 2022 in a first instance decision, which has been appealed. In June 2022, a Romanian court decided that the SPC for Janumet was invalid in a first instance decision.

There are various other pending legal proceedings involving the Company, principally product liability and intellectual property lawsuits. While it is not feasible to predict the outcome of such proceedings, in the opinion of the Company, either the likelihood of loss is remote or any reasonably possible loss associated with the resolution of such proceedings is not expected to be material to the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows either individually or in the aggregate.

Legal defense costs expected to be incurred in connection with a loss contingency are accrued when probable and reasonably estimable. Some of the significant factors considered in the review of these legal defense reserves are as follows: the actual costs incurred by the Company; the development of the Company’s legal defense strategy and structure in light of the scope of its litigation; the number of cases being brought against the Company; the costs and outcomes of completed trials and the most current information regarding anticipated timing, progression, and related costs of pre-trial activities and trials in the associated litigation. The amount of legal defense reserves as of June 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021 of approximately $235 million and $230 million, respectively, represents the Company’s best estimate of the minimum amount of defense costs to be incurred in connection with its outstanding litigation; however, events such as additional trials and other events that could arise in the course of its litigation could affect the ultimate amount of legal defense costs to be incurred by the Company. The Company will continue to monitor its legal defense costs and review the adequacy of the associated reserves and may determine to increase the reserves at any time in the future if, based upon the factors set forth, it believes it would be appropriate to do so.