Contingencies and Certain Commitments	9 Months Ended
Oct. 02, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies and Certain Commitments	Contingencies and Certain Commitments We and certain of our subsidiaries are subject to numerous contingencies arising in the ordinary course of business, including tax and legal contingencies. The following outlines our legal contingencies. For a discussion of our tax contingencies, see Note 5B. A. Legal Proceedings Our legal contingencies include, but are not limited to, the following: •Patent litigation, which typically involves challenges to the coverage and/or validity of patents on various products, processes or dosage forms. An adverse outcome could result in loss of patent protection for a product, a significant loss of revenues from a product or impairment of the value of associated assets. We are the plaintiff in the majority of these actions. •Product liability and other product-related litigation related to current or former products, which can include personal injury, consumer, off-label promotion, securities, antitrust and breach of contract claims, among others, and often involves highly complex issues relating to medical causation, label warnings and reliance on those warnings, scientific evidence and findings, actual, provable injury and other matters. •Commercial and other asserted or unasserted matters, which can include acquisition-, licensing-, intellectual property-, collaboration- or co-promotion-related and product-pricing claims and environmental claims and proceedings, and can involve complexities that will vary from matter to matter. •Government investigations, which often are related to the extensive regulation of pharmaceutical companies by national, state and local government agencies in the U.S. and in other jurisdictions. Certain of these contingencies could result in increased expenses and/or losses, including damages, royalty payments, fines and/or civil penalties, which could be substantial, and/or criminal charges. We believe that our claims and defenses in matters in which we are a defendant are substantial, but litigation is inherently unpredictable and excessive verdicts do occur. We do not believe that any of these matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial position. However, we could incur judgments, enter into settlements or revise our expectations regarding the outcome of matters, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and/or our cash flows in the period in which the amounts are accrued or paid. We have accrued for losses that are both probable and reasonably estimable. Substantially all of our contingencies are subject to significant uncertainties and, therefore, determining the likelihood of a loss and/or the measurement of any loss can be complex. Consequently, we are unable to estimate the range of reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts accrued. Our assessments, which result from a complex series of judgments about future events and uncertainties, are based on estimates and assumptions that have been deemed reasonable by management, but that may prove to be incomplete or inaccurate, and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur that might cause us to change those estimates and assumptions. Amounts recorded for legal and environmental contingencies can result from a complex series of judgments about future events and uncertainties and can rely heavily on estimates and assumptions. For proceedings under environmental laws to which a governmental authority is a party, we have adopted a disclosure threshold of $1 million in potential or actual governmental monetary sanctions. The principal pending matters to which we are a party are discussed below. In determining whether a pending matter is a principal matter, we consider both quantitative and qualitative factors to assess materiality, such as, among others, the amount of damages and the nature of other relief sought, if specified; our view of the merits of the claims and of the strength of our defenses; whether the action purports to be, or is, a class action and, if not certified, our view of the likelihood that a class will be certified by the court; the jurisdiction in which the proceeding is pending; whether related actions have been transferred to multidistrict litigation; any experience that we or, to our knowledge, other companies have had in similar proceedings; whether disclosure of the action would be important to a reader of our financial statements, including whether disclosure might change a reader’s judgment about our financial statements in light of all of the information that is available to the reader; the potential impact of the proceeding on our reputation; and the extent of public interest in the matter. In addition, with respect to patent matters in which we are the plaintiff, we consider, among other things, the financial significance of the product protected by the patent(s) at issue. Some of the matters discussed below include those which management believes that the likelihood of possible loss in excess of amounts accrued is remote. A1. Legal Proceedings––Patent Litigation We are involved in suits relating to our patents, including but not limited to, those discussed below. Most involve claims by generic drug manufacturers that patents covering our products (or those of our collaboration/licensing partners to which we have licenses or co-promotion rights and to which we may or may not be a party), processes or dosage forms are invalid and/or do not cover the product of the generic drug manufacturer. Also, counterclaims, as well as various independent actions, have been filed alleging that our assertions of, or attempts to enforce, patent rights with respect to certain products constitute unfair competition and/or violations of antitrust laws. In addition to the challenges to the U.S. patents that are discussed below, patent rights to certain of our products or those of our collaboration/licensing partners are being challenged in various other jurisdictions. Some of our collaboration or licensing partners face challenges to the validity of their patent rights in non-U.S. jurisdictions. For example, in April 2022, the U.K. High Court issued a judgment finding invalid a BMS patent related to Eliquis due to expire in 2026. In November 2022, BMS received permission to appeal the High Court’s decision. Additional challenges remain pending in other jurisdictions. Also, for example, in July 2022, CureVac AG (CureVac) brought a patent infringement action against BioNTech and certain of its subsidiaries in the German Regional Court alleging that Comirnaty infringes certain German utility model patents and certain expired and unexpired European patents. Additional challenges involving Comirnaty patents may be filed against us and/or BioNTech in other jurisdictions in the future. In addition, in October 2022, Accord Healthcare Ltd. brought suit in the U.K. against the Regents of the University of California challenging the validity of the U.K. patent covering the active ingredient in Xtandi, which expires in 2028. Adverse decisions in these matters could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations. We are also party to patent damages suits in various jurisdictions pursuant to which generic drug manufacturers, payers, governments or other parties are seeking damages from us for allegedly causing delay of generic entry. We also are often involved in other proceedings, such as inter partes review, post-grant review, re-examination or opposition proceedings, before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the European Patent Office, or other foreign counterparts relating to our intellectual property or the intellectual property rights of others. Also, if one of our patents is found to be invalid by such proceedings, generic or competitive products could be introduced into the market resulting in the erosion of sales of our existing products. For example, several of the patents in our pneumococcal vaccine portfolio have been challenged in inter partes review and post-grant review proceedings in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In addition, another patent was challenged in federal court in Delaware; and that case was settled in September 2021 on terms not material to the company. Other challenges to pneumococcal vaccine patents remain pending at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and outside the U.S. The invalidation of any of the patents in our pneumococcal portfolio could potentially allow additional competitor vaccines, if approved, to enter the marketplace earlier than anticipated. In the event that any of the patents are found valid and infringed, a competitor’s vaccine, if approved, might be prohibited from entering the market or a competitor might be required to pay us a royalty. We are also subject to patent litigation pursuant to which one or more third parties seek damages and/or injunctive relief to compensate for alleged infringement of its patents by our commercial or other activities. For example, our Hospira subsidiaries are involved in patent and patent-related disputes over their attempts to bring generic pharmaceutical products to market. If one of our marketed products is found to infringe valid patent rights of a third party, such third party may be awarded significant damages or royalty payments, or we may be prevented from further sales of that product. Such damages may be enhanced as much as three-fold if we or one of our subsidiaries is found to have willfully infringed valid patent rights of a third party. Actions In Which We Are The Plaintiff Xeljanz (tofacitinib) Beginning in 2017, we brought patent-infringement actions against several generic manufacturers that filed separate ANDAs with the FDA seeking approval to market their generic versions of tofacitinib tablets in one or both of 5 mg and 10 mg dosage strengths, and in both immediate and extended release forms. To date, we have settled actions with several manufacturers on terms not material to us. The remaining actions continue in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware as described below. In October 2021, we brought a separate patent-infringement action against Sinotherapeutics Inc. (Sinotherapeutics) asserting the infringement and validity of our patent covering extended release formulations of tofacitinib that was challenged by Sinotherapeutics in its ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of tofacitinib 11 mg extended release tablets. In June 2022, we brought a separate patent infringement action against MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. (MSN) asserting the infringement and validity of our compound patent covering the active agreement that was challenged by MSN in its ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of tofacitinib immediate release tablets (5 mg, 10 mg) and oral solution 1 mg/mL. In August 2022, we settled our action against MSN on terms not material to us. Inlyta (axitinib) In 2019, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Glenmark) notified us that it had filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking approval to market a generic version of Inlyta. Glenmark asserts the invalidity and non-infringement of the crystalline form patent for Inlyta that expires in 2030. In 2019, we filed suit against Glenmark in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, asserting the validity and infringement of the crystalline form patent for Inlyta. Ibrance (palbociclib) Beginning in January 2021, several generic companies notified us that they had filed ANDAs with the FDA seeking approval to market generic versions of Ibrance tablets. The generic companies are challenging some or all of the following patents: (i) the composition of matter patent expiring in 2027; (ii) the composition of matter patent expiring in 2023; (iii) the method of use patent expiring in 2023; (iv) the crystalline form patent expiring in 2034; and (v) a tablet formulation patent expiring in 2036. We brought patent infringement actions against each of the generic filers in various U.S. federal courts, asserting the validity and infringement of the patents challenged by the generic companies. We have settled with one of these generic companies on terms not material to us, and we dismissed the patent infringement actions relating to the crystalline form of patent, the composition of matter patent expiring in 2023, the method of use patent, and the tablet formulation patent against the generic companies that had challenged these patents. The composition of matter patent expiring in 2027 remains in suit. Eucrisa Beginning in September 2021, several generic companies notified us that they had filed ANDAs with the FDA seeking approval to market generic versions of Eucrisa. The companies assert the invalidity and non-infringement of a composition of matter patent expiring in 2026, two method of use patents expiring in 2027, and one other method of use patent expiring in 2030. In September 2021, we brought patent infringement actions against the generic filers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, asserting the validity and infringement of the patents challenged by the generic companies. Braftovi (encorafenib) In August 2022, a generic company notified us that it had filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking approval to market a generic version of Braftovi. The company asserts the invalidity and non-infringement of, among others, a method of use patent expiring in 2033. In September 2022, we brought a patent infringement action against the generic company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, asserting the validity and infringement of the method of use patent expiring in 2033. Mektovi (binimetinib) Beginning in August 2022, several generic companies notified us that they had filed ANDAs with the FDA seeking approval to market generic versions of Mektovi. The companies assert the invalidity and non-infringement of two method of use patents expiring in 2030, a method of use patent expiring in 2031, two method of use patents expiring in 2033, and a product by process patent expiring in 2033. Beginning in September 2022, we brought patent infringement actions against the generic filers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, asserting the validity and infringement of all six patents. Actions in Which We are the Defendant Comirnaty In March 2022, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Alnylam) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Pfizer and Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. LLC, our wholly owned subsidiary, alleging that Comirnaty infringes U.S. Patent No. 11,246,933, which was issued in February 2022, and seeking unspecified monetary damages. In July 2022, Alnylam filed a second complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Pfizer, Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. LLC, BioNTech and BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, alleging that Comirnaty infringes U.S. Patent No. 11,382,979, which was issued in July 2022, and seeking unspecified monetary damages. In August 2022, ModernaTX, Inc. (ModernaTX) and Moderna US, Inc. (Moderna) sued Pfizer, BioNTech, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH and BioNTech US Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging that Comirnaty infringes three U.S. patents. In its complaint, Moderna stated that it is seeking damages for alleged infringement occurring only after March 7, 2022. In August 2022, ModernaTX filed a patent infringement action in Germany against Pfizer and certain subsidiary companies, as well as BioNTech and certain subsidiary companies, alleging that Comirnaty infringes two European patents. In September 2022, ModernaTX filed patent infringement actions in the U.K and in the Netherlands against Pfizer Inc. and certain subsidiary companies, as well as BioNTech and certain subsidiary companies, on the same two patents. In its complaints, Moderna stated that it is seeking damages for alleged infringement occurring only after March 7, 2022. In the U.K., Pfizer and BioNTech have brought an action against ModernaTX seeking to revoke these European patents. Paxlovid In June 2022, Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Pfizer alleging that the active ingredient in Paxlovid, nirmatrelvir, infringes U.S. Patent No. 11,358,953, which was issued in June 2022, and seeking unspecified monetary damages. Matters Involving Pfizer and its Collaboration/Licensing Partners Eliquis In 2017, twenty-five generic companies sent BMS Paragraph-IV certification letters informing BMS that they had filed ANDAs seeking approval of generic versions of Eliquis, challenging the validity and infringement of one or more of the three patents listed in the Orange Book for Eliquis. One of the patents expired in December 2019 and the remaining patents currently are set to expire in 2026 and 2031. Eliquis has been jointly developed and is being commercialized by BMS and Pfizer. BMS and Pfizer filed patent-infringement actions against all generic filers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and the U.S. District Court for the District of West Virginia, asserting that each of the generic companies’ proposed products would infringe each of the patent(s) that each generic filer challenged. Some generic filers challenged only the 2031 patent, some challenged both the 2031 and 2026 patent, and one generic company challenged all three patents. In August 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware ruled that both the 2026 patent and the 2031 patent are valid and infringed by the proposed generic products. In August and September 2020, the generic filers appealed the District Court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Prior to the August 2020 ruling, we and BMS settled with certain of the companies on terms not material to us, and we and BMS may settle with other generic companies in the future. In September 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision. Comirnaty In July 2022, Pfizer, BioNTech and BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH filed a declaratory judgment complaint against CureVac in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking a judgment of non-infringement for the following three patents relating to Comirnaty: U.S. Patent Nos. 11,135,312, 11,149,278, and 11,241,493. Outside of the U.S., in the U.K., Pfizer and BioNTech have sued CureVac seeking a judgment of invalidity of several patents and CureVac has made certain infringement counterclaims. A2. Legal Proceedings––Product Litigation We are defendants in numerous cases, including but not limited to those discussed below, related to our pharmaceutical and other products. Plaintiffs in these cases seek damages and other relief on various grounds for alleged personal injury and economic loss. Asbestos Between 1967 and 1982, Warner-Lambert owned American Optical Corporation (American Optical), which manufactured and sold respiratory protective devices and asbestos safety clothing. In connection with the sale of American Optical in 1982, Warner-Lambert agreed to indemnify the purchaser for certain liabilities, including certain asbestos-related and other claims. Warner-Lambert was acquired by Pfizer in 2000 and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer. Warner-Lambert is actively engaged in the defense of, and will continue to explore various means of resolving, these claims. Numerous lawsuits against American Optical, Pfizer and certain of its previously owned subsidiaries are pending in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged personal injury from exposure to products allegedly containing asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials sold by Pfizer and certain of its previously owned subsidiaries. There also are a small number of lawsuits pending in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged exposure to asbestos in facilities owned or formerly owned by Pfizer or its subsidiaries. Effexor Beginning in 2011, actions, including purported class actions, were filed in various federal courts against Wyeth and, in certain of the actions, affiliates of Wyeth and certain other defendants relating to Effexor XR, which is the extended-release formulation of Effexor. The plaintiffs in each of the class actions seek to represent a class consisting of all persons in the U.S. and its territories who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR from any of the defendants from June 14, 2008 until the time the defendants’ allegedly unlawful conduct ceased. The plaintiffs in all of the actions allege delay in the launch of generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories, in violation of federal antitrust laws and, in certain of the actions, the antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws of certain states, as the result of Wyeth fraudulently obtaining and improperly listing certain patents for Effexor XR in the Orange Book, enforcing certain patents for Effexor XR and entering into a litigation settlement agreement with a generic drug manufacturer with respect to Effexor XR. Each of the plaintiffs seeks treble damages (for itself in the individual actions or on behalf of the putative class in the purported class actions) for alleged price overcharges for Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories since June 14, 2008. All of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In 2014, the District Court dismissed the direct purchaser plaintiffs’ claims based on the litigation settlement agreement, but declined to dismiss the other direct purchaser plaintiff claims. In 2015, the District Court entered partial final judgments as to all settlement agreement claims, including those asserted by direct purchasers and end-payer plaintiffs, which plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the District Court’s decisions and remanded the claims to the District Court. Lipitor Beginning in 2011, purported class actions relating to Lipitor were filed in various federal courts against, among others, Pfizer, certain Pfizer affiliates, and, in most of the actions, Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (Ranbaxy) and certain Ranbaxy affiliates. The plaintiffs in these various actions seek to represent nationwide, multi-state or statewide classes consisting of persons or entities who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Lipitor (or, in certain of the actions, generic Lipitor) from any of the defendants from March 2010 until the cessation of the defendants’ allegedly unlawful conduct (the Class Period). The plaintiffs allege delay in the launch of generic Lipitor, in violation of federal antitrust laws and/or state antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws, resulting from (i) the 2008 agreement pursuant to which Pfizer and Ranbaxy settled certain patent litigation involving Lipitor and Pfizer granted Ranbaxy a license to sell a generic version of Lipitor in various markets beginning on varying dates, and (ii) in certain of the actions, the procurement and/or enforcement of certain patents for Lipitor. Each of the actions seeks, among other things, treble damages on behalf of the putative class for alleged price overcharges for Lipitor (or, in certain of the actions, generic Lipitor) during the Class Period. In addition, individual actions have been filed against Pfizer, Ranbaxy and certain of their affiliates, among others, that assert claims and seek relief for the plaintiffs that are substantially similar to the claims asserted and the relief sought in the purported class actions described above. These various actions have been consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in a Multi-District Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In September 2013 and 2014, the District Court dismissed with prejudice the claims of the direct purchasers. In October and November 2014, the District Court dismissed with prejudice the claims of all other Multi-District Litigation plaintiffs. All plaintiffs appealed the District Court’s orders dismissing their claims with prejudice to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In addition, the direct purchaser class plaintiffs appealed the order denying their motion to amend the judgment and for leave to amend their complaint to the Court of Appeals. In 2017, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s decisions and remanded the claims to the District Court. Also, in 2013, the State of West Virginia filed an action in West Virginia state court against Pfizer and Ranbaxy, among others, that asserts claims and seeks relief on behalf of the State of West Virginia and residents of that state that are substantially similar to the claims asserted and the relief sought in the purported class actions described above. EpiPen (Direct Purchaser) In February 2020, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas against Pfizer, its current and former affiliates King and Meridian, and various Mylan entities, on behalf of a purported U.S. nationwide class of direct purchaser plaintiffs who purchased EpiPen devices directly from the defendants. Plaintiffs in this action generally allege that Pfizer and Mylan conspired to delay market entry of generic EpiPen through the settlement of patent litigation regarding EpiPen, and thereby delayed market entry of generic EpiPen in violation of federal antitrust law. Plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged overcharges for EpiPen since 2011. In July 2021, the District Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the direct purchaser complaint, without prejudice. In September 2021, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. In August 2022, the District Court granted Pfizer’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Nexium 24HR and Protonix A number of individual and multi-plaintiff lawsuits have been filed against Pfizer, certain of its subsidiaries and/or other pharmaceutical manufacturers in various federal and state courts alleging that the plaintiffs developed kidney-related injuries purportedly as a result of the ingestion of certain proton pump inhibitors. The cases against Pfizer involve Protonix and/or Nexium 24HR and seek compensatory and punitive damages and, in some cases, treble damages, restitution or disgorgement. In 2017, the federal actions were ordered transferred for coordinated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. As part of our Consumer Healthcare JV transaction with GSK, the JV has agreed to assume, and to indemnify Pfizer for, liabilities arising out of such litigation to the extent related to Nexium 24HR. Docetaxel •Personal Injury Actions A number of lawsuits have been filed against Hospira and Pfizer in various federal and state courts alleging that plaintiffs who were treated with Docetaxel developed permanent hair loss. The significant majority of the cases also name other defendants, including the manufacturer of the branded product, Taxotere. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages. Additional lawsuits have been filed in which plaintiffs allege they developed blocked tear ducts following their treatment with Docetaxel. In 2016, the federal cases were transferred for coordinated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. In 2022, the eye injury cases were transferred for coordinated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. •Mississippi Attorney General Government Action In 2018, the Attorney General of Mississippi filed a complaint in Mississippi state court against the manufacturer of the branded product and eight other manufacturers including Pfizer and Hospira, alleging, with respect to Pfizer and Hospira, a failure to warn about a risk of permanent hair loss in violation of the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act. The action seeks civil penalties and injunctive relief. Zantac A number of lawsuits have been filed against Pfizer in various federal and state courts alleging that plaintiffs developed various types of cancer, or face an increased risk of developing cancer, purportedly as a result of the ingestion of Zantac. The significant majority of these cases also name other defendants that have historically manufactured and/or sold Zantac. Pfizer has not sold Zantac since 2006, and only sold an OTC version of the product. In 2006, Pfizer sold the consumer business that included its Zantac OTC rights to Johnson & Johnson and transferred the assets and liabilities related to Zantac OTC to Johnson & Johnson in connection with the sale. Plaintiffs in these cases seek compensatory and punitive damages. In February 2020, the federal actions were transferred for coordinated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Plaintiffs in the Multi-District Litigation have filed against Pfizer and many other defendants a master personal injury complaint, asserting a consolidated consumer class action alleging, among other things, claims under consumer protection statutes of all 50 states, and a medical monitoring complaint seeking to certify medical monitoring classes under the laws of 13 states. In addition, (i) Pfizer has received service of Canadian class action complaints naming Pfizer and other defendants, and seeking compensatory and punitive damages for personal injury and economic loss, allegedly arising from the defendants’ sale of Zantac in Canada; and (ii) the State of New Mexico and the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore separately filed civil actions against Pfizer and many other defendants in state courts, alleging various state statutory and common law claims in connection with the defendants’ alleged sale of Zantac in those jurisdictions. In April 2021, a Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding was created in the Superior Court of California in Alameda County to coordinate personal injury actions against Pfizer and other defendants filed in California state court. Coordinated proceedings have also been created in other state courts. Chantix Beginning in August 2021, a number of putative class actions have been filed against Pfizer in various U.S. federal courts following Pfizer’s voluntary recall of Chantix due to the presence of a nitrosamine, N-nitroso-varenicline. Plaintiffs assert that they suffered economic harm purportedly as a result of purchasing Chantix or generic varenicline medicines sold by Pfizer. Plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide and state-specific classes and seek various remedies, including damages and medical monitoring. Similar putative class actions have been filed in Canada and Israel, where the product brand is Champix. A3. Legal Proceedings––Commercial and Other Matters Monsanto-Related Matters In 1997, Monsanto Company (Former Monsanto) contributed certain chemical manufacturing operations and facilities to a newly formed corporation, Solutia Inc. (Solutia), and spun off the shares of Solutia. In 2000, Former Monsanto merged with Pharmacia & Upjohn Company to form Pharmacia. Pharmacia then transferred its agricultural operations to a newly created subsidiary, named Monsanto Company (New Monsanto), which it spun off in a two-stage process that was completed in 2002. Pharmacia was acquired by Pfizer in 2003 and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer. In connection with its spin-off that was completed in 2002, New Monsanto assumed, and agreed to indemnify Pharmacia for, any liabilities related to Pharmacia’s former agricultural business. New Monsanto has defended and/or is defending Pharmacia in connection with various claims and litigation arising out of, or related to, the agricultural business, and has been indemnifying Pharmacia when liability has been imposed or settlement has been reached regarding such claims and litigation. In connection with its spin-off in 1997, Solutia assumed, and agreed to indemnify Pharmacia for, liabilities related to Former Monsanto’s chemical businesses. As the result of its reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, Solutia’s indemnification obligations relating to Former Monsanto’s chemical businesses are primarily limited to sites that Solutia has owned or operated. In addition, in connection with its spin-off that was completed in 2002, New Monsanto assumed, and agreed to indemnify Pharmacia for, any liabilities primarily related to Former Monsanto’s chemical businesses, including, but not limited to, any such liabilities that Solutia assumed. Solutia’s and New Monsanto’s assumption of, and agreement to indemnify Pharmacia for, these liabilities apply to pending actions and any future actions related to Former Monsanto’s chemical businesses in which Pharmacia is named as a defendant, including, without limitation, actions asserting environmental claims, including alleged exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls. Solutia and/or New Monsanto are defending Pharmacia in connection with various claims and litigation arising out of, or related to, Former Monsanto’s chemical businesses, and have been indemnifying Pharmacia when liability has been imposed or settlement has been reached regarding such claims and litigation. Environmental Matters In 2009, as part of our acquisition of Wyeth, we assumed responsibility for environmental remediation at the Wyeth Holdings LLC (formerly known as, Wyeth Holdings Corporation and American Cyanamid Company) discontinued industrial chemical facility in Bound Brook, New Jersey. Since that time, we have executed or have become a party to a number of administrative settlement agreements, orders on consent, and/or judicial consent decrees, with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and/or New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection to perform remedial design, removal and remedial actions, and related environmental remediation activities at the Bound Brook facility. We have accrued for the currently estimated costs of these activities. We are a party to a number of other proceedings brought under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, and other state, local or foreign laws in which the primary relief sought is the cost of past and/or future remediation. Contracts with Iraqi Ministry of Health In 2017, a number of U.S. service members, civilians, and their families brought a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against a number of pharmaceutical and medical devices companies, including Pfizer and certain of its subsidiaries, alleging that the defendants violated the U.S. Anti-Terrorism Act. The complaint alleges that the defendants provided funding for terrorist organizations through their sales practices pursuant to pharmaceutical and medical device contracts with the Iraqi Ministry of Health, and seeks monetary relief. In July 2020, the District Court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissed all of plaintiffs’ claims. In January 2022, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s decision. In February 2022, the defendants filed for en banc review of the Court of Appeals’ decision. Allergan Complaint for Indemnity In 2019, Pfizer was named as a defendant in a complaint, along with King, filed by Allergan Finance LLC (Allergan) in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, asserting claims for indemnity related to Kadian, which was owned for a short period by King in 2008, prior to Pfizer's acquisition of King in 2010. This suit was voluntarily discontinued without prejudice in January 2021. Viatris Securities Litigation In October 2021, a putative class action was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania on behalf of former Mylan N.V. shareholders who received Viatris common stock in exchange for Mylan shares in connection with the spin-off of the Upjohn Business and its combination with Mylan (the Transactions). Viatris, Pfizer, and certain of each company’s current and former officers, directors and employees are named as defendants. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated certain provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with certain disclosures made in or omitted from the registration statement and related prospectus issued in connection with the Transactions. Plaintiff seeks damages, costs and expenses and other equitable and injunctive relief. A4. Legal Proceedings––Government Investigations We are subject to extensive regulation by government agencies in the U.S., other developed markets and multiple emerging markets in which we operate. Criminal charges, substantial fines and/or civil penalties, limitations on our ability to conduct business in applicable jurisdictions, corporate integrity or deferred prosecution agreements, as well as reputational harm and increased public interest in the matter could result from government investigations in the U.S. and other jurisdictions in which we do business. These matters often involve government requests for information on a voluntary basis or through subpoenas after which the government may seek additional information through follow-up requests or additional subpoenas. In addition, in a qui tam lawsuit in which the government declines to intervene, the relator may still pursue a suit for the recovery of civil damages and penalties on behalf of the government. Among the investigations by government agencies are the matters discussed below. Greenstone Investigations •U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division Investigation Since July 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice's Antitrust Division has been investigating our former Greenstone generics business. We believe this is related to an ongoing broader antitrust investigation of the generic pharmaceutical industry. We have produced records relating to this investigation. •State Attorneys General and Multi-District Generics Antitrust Litigation In April 2018, Greenstone received requests for information from the Antitrust Department of the Connecticut Office of the Attorney General. In May 2019, Attorneys General of more than 40 states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico filed a complaint against a number of pharmaceutical companies, including Greenstone and Pfizer. The matter has been consolidated with a Multi-District Litigation in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As to Greenstone and Pfizer, the complaint alleges anticompetitive conduct in violation of federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws. In June 2020, the State Attorneys General filed a new complaint against a large number of companies, including Greenstone and Pfizer, making similar allegations, but concerning a new set of drugs. This complaint was transferred to the Multi-District Litigation in July 2020. The Multi-District Litigation also includes civil complaints filed by private plaintiffs and state counties against Pfizer, Greenstone and a significant number of other defendants asserting allegations that generally overlap with those asserted by the State Attorneys General. Subpoena & Civil Investigative Demand relating to Tris Pharma/Quillivant XR In October 2018, we received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) seeking records relating to our relationship with another drug manufacturer and its production and manufacturing of drugs including, but not limited to, Quillivant XR. We responded to that subpoena in full and have had no communication with the SDNY in connection with the subpoena since June 2019. Additionally, in September 2020, we received a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) from the Texas Attorney General’s office seeking records of a similar nature to those requested by the SDNY. We are producing records in response to this request. Government Inquiries relating to Meridian Medical Technologies In February 2019, we received a CID from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the SDNY. The CID seeks records and information related to alleged quality issues involving the manufacture of auto-injectors at the Meridian site. In August 2019, we received a HIPAA subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Missouri seeking similar records and information. We are producing records in response to these requests. U.S. Department of Justice/SEC Inquiry relating to Russian Operations In June 2019, we received an informal request from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) Unit seeking documents relating to our operations in Russia. In September 2019, we received a similar request from the SEC’s FCPA Unit. We have produced records pursuant to these requests. Docetaxel––Mississippi Attorney General Government Investigation See Legal Proceedings––Product Litigation––Docetaxel––Mississippi Attorney General Government Investigation above for information regarding a government investigation related to Docetaxel marketing practices. U.S. Department of Justice Inquiries relating to India Operations In March 2020, we received an informal request from the U.S. Department of Justice's Consumer Protection Branch seeking documents relating to our manufacturing operations in India, including at our former facility located at Irrungattukottai in India. In April 2020, we received a similar request from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the SDNY regarding a civil investigation concerning operations at our facilities in India. We are producing records pursuant to these requests. U.S. Department of Justice/SEC Inquiry relating to China Operations In June 2020, we received an informal request from the U.S. Department of Justice's FCPA Unit seeking documents relating to our operations in China. In August 2020, we received a similar request from the SEC’s FCPA Unit. We have produced records pursuant to these requests. Zantac––State of New Mexico and Mayor and City Council of Baltimore Civil Actions See Legal Proceedings––Product Litigation––Zantac above for information regarding civil actions separately filed by the State of New Mexico and the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore alleging various state statutory and common law claims in connection with the defendants’ alleged sale of Zantac in those jurisdictions. Government Inquiries relating to Biohaven In June 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice's Commercial Litigation Branch and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of New York issued a CID relating to Biohaven. The CID seeks records and information related to, among other things, engagements with health care professionals and co-pay coupons cards. Biohaven is a wholly-owned subsidiary that we acquired in October 2022. We are producing records in response to these requests. B. Guarantees and Indemnifications In the ordinary course of business and in connection with the sale of assets and businesses and other transactions, we often indemnify our counterparties against certain liabilities that may arise in connection with the transaction or that are related to events and activities prior to or following a transaction. If the indemnified party were to make a successful claim pursuant to the terms of the indemnification, we may be required to reimburse the loss. These indemnifications are generally subject to various restrictions and limitations. Historically, we have not paid significant amounts under these provisions and, as of October 2, 2022, the estimated fair value of these indemnification obligations is not material to Pfizer. See Note 2C for a description of the March 2022 indemnity provided by Pfizer to GSK in connection with the issuance of notes by the Consumer Healthcare JV. In conjunction with the completion of GSK’s demerger transactions in July 2022, GSK’s guarantee and our related indemnification of GSK’s guarantee were terminated. In addition, in connection with our entry into certain agreements and other transactions, our counterparties may be obligated to indemnify us. For example, in November 2020, we and Mylan completed the transaction to spin-off our Upjohn Business and combine it with Mylan to form Viatris. As part of the transaction and as previously disclosed, each of Viatris and Pfizer has agreed to assume, and to indemnify the other for, liabilities arising out of certain matters. Also, our global agreement with BioNTech to co-develop a mRNA-based coronavirus vaccine program aimed at preventing COVID-19 infection, includes certain indemnity provisions pursuant to which each of BioNTech and Pfizer has agreed to indemnify the other for certain liabilities that may arise in connection with certain third-party claims relating to Comirnaty. We have also guaranteed the long-term debt of certain companies that we acquired and that now are subsidiaries of Pfizer. See Note 7D. C. Contingent Consideration for Acquisitions We may be required to make payments to sellers for certain prior business combinations that are contingent upon future events or outcomes. For additional information, see Note 1E in our 2021 Form 10-K.

•Product liability and other product-related litigation related to current or former products, which can include personal injury, consumer, off-label promotion, securities, antitrust and breach of contract claims, among others, and often involves highly complex issues relating to medical causation, label warnings and reliance on those warnings, scientific evidence and findings, actual, provable injury and other matters.

We believe that our claims and defenses in matters in which we are a defendant are substantial, but litigation is inherently unpredictable and excessive verdicts do occur. We do not believe that any of these matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial position. However, we could incur judgments, enter into settlements or revise our expectations regarding the outcome of matters, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and/or our cash flows in the period in which the amounts are accrued or paid.

We have accrued for losses that are both probable and reasonably estimable. Substantially all of our contingencies are subject to significant uncertainties and, therefore, determining the likelihood of a loss and/or the measurement of any loss can be complex. Consequently, we are unable to estimate the range of reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts accrued. Our assessments, which result from a complex series of judgments about future events and uncertainties, are based on estimates and assumptions that have been deemed reasonable by management, but that may prove to be incomplete or inaccurate, and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur that might cause us to change those estimates and assumptions.

The principal pending matters to which we are a party are discussed below. In determining whether a pending matter is a principal matter, we consider both quantitative and qualitative factors to assess materiality, such as, among others, the amount of damages and the nature of other relief sought, if specified; our view of the merits of the claims and of the strength of our defenses; whether the action purports to be, or is, a class action and, if not certified, our view of the likelihood that a class will be certified by the court; the jurisdiction in which the proceeding is pending; whether related actions have been transferred to multidistrict litigation; any experience that we or, to our knowledge, other companies have had in similar proceedings; whether disclosure of the action would be important to a reader of our financial statements, including whether disclosure might change a reader’s judgment about our financial statements in light of all of the information that is available to the reader; the potential impact of the proceeding on our reputation; and the extent of public interest in the matter. In addition, with respect to patent matters in which we are the plaintiff, we consider, among other things, the financial significance of the product protected by the patent(s) at issue. Some of the matters discussed below include those which management believes that the likelihood of possible loss in excess of amounts accrued is remote.

have licenses or co-promotion rights and to which we may or may not be a party), processes or dosage forms are invalid and/or do not cover the product of the generic drug manufacturer. Also, counterclaims, as well as various independent actions, have been filed alleging that our assertions of, or attempts to enforce, patent rights with respect to certain products constitute unfair competition and/or violations of antitrust laws. In addition to the challenges to the U.S. patents that are discussed below, patent rights to certain of our products or those of our collaboration/licensing partners are being challenged in various other jurisdictions. Some of our collaboration or licensing partners face challenges to the validity of their patent rights in non-U.S. jurisdictions. For example, in April 2022, the U.K. High Court issued a judgment finding invalid a BMS patent related to Eliquis due to expire in 2026. In November 2022, BMS received permission to appeal the High Court’s decision. Additional challenges remain pending in other jurisdictions. Also, for example, in July 2022, CureVac AG (CureVac) brought a patent infringement action against BioNTech and certain of its subsidiaries in the German Regional Court alleging that Comirnaty infringes certain German utility model patents and certain expired and unexpired European patents. Additional challenges involving Comirnaty patents may be filed against us and/or BioNTech in other jurisdictions in the future. In addition, in October 2022, Accord Healthcare Ltd. brought suit in the U.K. against the Regents of the University of California challenging the validity of the U.K. patent covering the active ingredient in Xtandi, which expires in 2028. Adverse decisions in these matters could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations. We are also party to patent damages suits in various jurisdictions pursuant to which generic drug manufacturers, payers, governments or other parties are seeking damages from us for allegedly causing delay of generic entry.

We also are often involved in other proceedings, such as inter partes review, post-grant review, re-examination or opposition proceedings, before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the European Patent Office, or other foreign counterparts relating to our intellectual property or the intellectual property rights of others. Also, if one of our patents is found to be invalid by such proceedings, generic or competitive products could be introduced into the market resulting in the erosion of sales of our existing products. For example, several of the patents in our pneumococcal vaccine portfolio have been challenged in inter partes review and post-grant review proceedings in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In addition, another patent was challenged in federal court in Delaware; and that case was settled in September 2021 on terms not material to the company. Other challenges to pneumococcal vaccine patents remain pending at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and outside the U.S. The invalidation of any of the patents in our pneumococcal portfolio could potentially allow additional competitor vaccines, if approved, to enter the marketplace earlier than anticipated. In the event that any of the patents are found valid and infringed, a competitor’s vaccine, if approved, might be prohibited from entering the market or a competitor might be required to pay us a royalty.

We are also subject to patent litigation pursuant to which one or more third parties seek damages and/or injunctive relief to compensate for alleged infringement of its patents by our commercial or other activities. For example, our Hospira subsidiaries are involved in patent and patent-related disputes over their attempts to bring generic pharmaceutical products to market. If one of our marketed products is found to infringe valid patent rights of a third party, such third party may be awarded significant damages or royalty payments, or we may be prevented from further sales of that product. Such damages may be enhanced as much as three-fold if we or one of our subsidiaries is found to have willfully infringed valid patent rights of a third party.

Beginning in 2017, we brought patent-infringement actions against several generic manufacturers that filed separate ANDAs with the FDA seeking approval to market their generic versions of tofacitinib tablets in one or both of 5 mg and 10 mg dosage strengths, and in both immediate and extended release forms. To date, we have settled actions with several manufacturers on terms not material to us. The remaining actions continue in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware as described below.

In June 2022, we brought a separate patent infringement action against MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. (MSN) asserting the infringement and validity of our compound patent covering the active agreement that was challenged by MSN in its ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of tofacitinib immediate release tablets (5 mg, 10 mg) and oral solution 1 mg/mL. In August 2022, we settled our action against MSN on terms not material to us.

In 2019, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Glenmark) notified us that it had filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking approval to market a generic version of Inlyta. Glenmark asserts the invalidity and non-infringement of the crystalline form patent for Inlyta that expires in 2030. In 2019, we filed suit against Glenmark in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, asserting the validity and infringement of the crystalline form patent for Inlyta.

Beginning in January 2021, several generic companies notified us that they had filed ANDAs with the FDA seeking approval to market generic versions of Ibrance tablets. The generic companies are challenging some or all of the following patents: (i) the composition of matter patent expiring in 2027; (ii) the composition of matter patent expiring in 2023; (iii) the method of use patent expiring in 2023; (iv) the crystalline form patent expiring in 2034; and (v) a tablet formulation patent expiring in 2036. We brought patent infringement actions against each of the generic filers in various U.S. federal courts, asserting the validity and infringement of the patents challenged by the generic companies. We have settled with one of these generic companies on terms not material to us, and we dismissed the patent infringement actions relating to the crystalline form of patent, the composition of matter patent expiring in 2023, the method of use patent, and the tablet formulation patent against the generic companies that had challenged these patents. The composition of matter patent expiring in 2027 remains in suit.

Beginning in September 2021, several generic companies notified us that they had filed ANDAs with the FDA seeking approval to market generic versions of Eucrisa. The companies assert the invalidity and non-infringement of a composition of matter patent expiring in 2026, two method of use patents expiring in 2027, and one other method of use patent expiring in 2030. In September 2021, we brought patent infringement actions against the generic filers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, asserting the validity and infringement of the patents challenged by the generic companies.

In August 2022, a generic company notified us that it had filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking approval to market a generic version of Braftovi. The company asserts the invalidity and non-infringement of, among others, a method of use patent expiring in 2033. In September 2022, we brought a patent infringement action against the generic company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, asserting the validity and infringement of the method of use patent expiring in 2033.

Beginning in August 2022, several generic companies notified us that they had filed ANDAs with the FDA seeking approval to market generic versions of Mektovi. The companies assert the invalidity and non-infringement of two method of use patents expiring in 2030, a method of use patent expiring in 2031, two method of use patents expiring in 2033, and a product by process patent expiring in 2033. Beginning in September 2022, we brought patent infringement actions against the generic filers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, asserting the validity and infringement of all six patents.

In March 2022, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Alnylam) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Pfizer and Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. LLC, our wholly owned subsidiary, alleging that Comirnaty infringes U.S. Patent No. 11,246,933, which was issued in February 2022, and seeking unspecified monetary damages. In July 2022, Alnylam filed a second complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Pfizer, Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. LLC, BioNTech and BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, alleging that Comirnaty infringes U.S. Patent No. 11,382,979, which was issued in July 2022, and seeking unspecified monetary damages.

In August 2022, ModernaTX filed a patent infringement action in Germany against Pfizer and certain subsidiary companies, as well as BioNTech and certain subsidiary companies, alleging that Comirnaty infringes two European patents. In September 2022, ModernaTX filed patent infringement actions in the U.K and in the Netherlands against Pfizer Inc. and certain subsidiary companies, as well as BioNTech and certain subsidiary companies, on the same two patents. In its complaints, Moderna stated that it is seeking damages for alleged infringement occurring only after March 7, 2022. In the U.K., Pfizer and BioNTech have brought an action against ModernaTX seeking to revoke these European patents.

In 2017, twenty-five generic companies sent BMS Paragraph-IV certification letters informing BMS that they had filed ANDAs seeking approval of generic versions of Eliquis, challenging the validity and infringement of one or more of the three patents listed in the Orange Book for Eliquis. One of the patents expired in December 2019 and the remaining patents currently are set to expire in 2026 and 2031. Eliquis has been jointly developed and is being commercialized by BMS and Pfizer. BMS and Pfizer filed patent-infringement actions against all generic filers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and the U.S. District Court for the District of West Virginia, asserting that each of the generic companies’ proposed products would infringe each of the patent(s) that each generic filer challenged. Some generic filers challenged only the 2031 patent, some challenged both the 2031 and 2026 patent, and one generic company challenged all three patents. In August 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware ruled that both the 2026 patent and the 2031 patent are valid and infringed by the proposed generic products. In August and September 2020, the generic filers appealed the District Court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Prior to the August 2020 ruling, we and BMS settled with certain of the companies on terms not material to us, and we and BMS may settle with other generic companies in the future. In September 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision.

In July 2022, Pfizer, BioNTech and BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH filed a declaratory judgment complaint against CureVac in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking a judgment of non-infringement for the following three patents relating to Comirnaty: U.S. Patent Nos. 11,135,312, 11,149,278, and 11,241,493. Outside of the U.S., in the U.K., Pfizer and BioNTech have sued CureVac seeking a judgment of invalidity of several patents and CureVac has made certain infringement counterclaims.

Between 1967 and 1982, Warner-Lambert owned American Optical Corporation (American Optical), which manufactured and sold respiratory protective devices and asbestos safety clothing. In connection with the sale of American Optical in 1982, Warner-Lambert agreed to indemnify the purchaser for certain liabilities, including certain asbestos-related and other claims. Warner-Lambert was acquired by Pfizer in 2000 and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer. Warner-Lambert is actively engaged in the defense of, and will continue to explore various means of resolving, these claims.

Beginning in 2011, actions, including purported class actions, were filed in various federal courts against Wyeth and, in certain of the actions, affiliates of Wyeth and certain other defendants relating to Effexor XR, which is the extended-release formulation of Effexor. The plaintiffs in each of the class actions seek to represent a class consisting of all persons in the U.S. and its territories who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR from any of the defendants from June 14, 2008 until the time the defendants’ allegedly unlawful conduct ceased. The plaintiffs in all of the actions allege delay in the launch of generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories, in violation of federal antitrust laws and, in certain of the actions, the antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws of certain states, as the result of Wyeth fraudulently obtaining and improperly listing certain patents for Effexor XR in the Orange Book, enforcing certain patents for Effexor XR and entering into a litigation settlement agreement with a generic drug manufacturer with respect to Effexor XR. Each of the plaintiffs seeks treble damages (for itself in the individual actions or on behalf of the putative class in the purported class actions) for alleged price overcharges for Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories since June 14, 2008. All of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Beginning in 2011, purported class actions relating to Lipitor were filed in various federal courts against, among others, Pfizer, certain Pfizer affiliates, and, in most of the actions, Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (Ranbaxy) and certain Ranbaxy affiliates. The plaintiffs in these various actions seek to represent nationwide, multi-state or statewide classes consisting of persons or entities who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Lipitor (or, in certain of the actions, generic Lipitor) from any of the defendants from March 2010 until the cessation of the defendants’ allegedly unlawful conduct (the Class Period). The plaintiffs allege delay in the launch of generic Lipitor, in violation of federal antitrust laws and/or state antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws, resulting from (i) the 2008 agreement pursuant to which Pfizer and Ranbaxy settled certain patent litigation involving Lipitor and Pfizer granted Ranbaxy a license to sell a generic version of Lipitor in various markets beginning on varying dates, and (ii) in certain of the actions, the procurement and/or enforcement of certain patents for Lipitor. Each of the actions seeks, among other things, treble damages on behalf of the putative class for alleged price overcharges for Lipitor (or, in certain of the actions, generic Lipitor) during the Class Period. In addition, individual actions have been filed against Pfizer, Ranbaxy and certain of their affiliates, among others, that assert claims and seek relief for the plaintiffs that are substantially similar to the claims asserted and the relief sought in the purported class actions described above. These various actions have been consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in a Multi-District Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

In September 2013 and 2014, the District Court dismissed with prejudice the claims of the direct purchasers. In October and November 2014, the District Court dismissed with prejudice the claims of all other Multi-District Litigation plaintiffs. All plaintiffs appealed the District Court’s orders dismissing their claims with prejudice to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In addition, the direct purchaser class plaintiffs appealed the order denying their motion to amend the judgment and for leave to amend their complaint to the Court of Appeals. In 2017, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s decisions and remanded the claims to the District Court.

In February 2020, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas against Pfizer, its current and former affiliates King and Meridian, and various Mylan entities, on behalf of a purported U.S. nationwide class of direct purchaser plaintiffs who purchased EpiPen devices directly from the defendants. Plaintiffs in this action generally allege that Pfizer and Mylan conspired to delay market entry of generic EpiPen through the settlement of patent litigation regarding EpiPen, and thereby delayed market entry of generic EpiPen in violation of federal antitrust law. Plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged overcharges for EpiPen since 2011. In July 2021, the District Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the direct purchaser complaint, without prejudice. In September 2021, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. In August 2022, the District Court granted Pfizer’s motion to dismiss the complaint.

A number of individual and multi-plaintiff lawsuits have been filed against Pfizer, certain of its subsidiaries and/or other pharmaceutical manufacturers in various federal and state courts alleging that the plaintiffs developed kidney-related injuries purportedly as a result of the ingestion of certain proton pump inhibitors. The cases against Pfizer involve Protonix and/or Nexium 24HR and seek compensatory and punitive damages and, in some cases, treble damages, restitution or disgorgement. In 2017, the federal actions were ordered transferred for coordinated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. As part of our Consumer Healthcare JV transaction with GSK, the JV has agreed to assume, and to indemnify Pfizer for, liabilities arising out of such litigation to the extent related to Nexium 24HR.

A number of lawsuits have been filed against Hospira and Pfizer in various federal and state courts alleging that plaintiffs who were treated with Docetaxel developed permanent hair loss. The significant majority of the cases also name other defendants, including the manufacturer of the branded product, Taxotere. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages. Additional lawsuits have been filed in which plaintiffs allege they developed blocked tear ducts following their treatment with Docetaxel.

In 2018, the Attorney General of Mississippi filed a complaint in Mississippi state court against the manufacturer of the branded product and eight other manufacturers including Pfizer and Hospira, alleging, with respect to Pfizer and Hospira, a failure to warn about a risk of permanent hair loss in violation of the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act. The action seeks civil penalties and injunctive relief.

A number of lawsuits have been filed against Pfizer in various federal and state courts alleging that plaintiffs developed various types of cancer, or face an increased risk of developing cancer, purportedly as a result of the ingestion of Zantac. The significant majority of these cases also name other defendants that have historically manufactured and/or sold Zantac. Pfizer has not sold Zantac since 2006, and only sold an OTC version of the product. In 2006, Pfizer sold the consumer business that included its Zantac OTC rights to Johnson & Johnson and transferred the assets and liabilities related to Zantac OTC to Johnson & Johnson in connection with the sale. Plaintiffs in these cases seek compensatory and punitive damages.

In February 2020, the federal actions were transferred for coordinated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Plaintiffs in the Multi-District Litigation have filed against Pfizer and many other defendants a master personal injury complaint, asserting a consolidated consumer class action alleging, among other things, claims under consumer protection statutes of all 50 states, and a medical monitoring complaint seeking to certify medical monitoring classes under the laws of 13 states. In addition, (i) Pfizer has received service of Canadian class action complaints naming Pfizer and other defendants, and seeking compensatory and punitive damages for personal injury and economic loss, allegedly arising from the defendants’ sale of Zantac in Canada; and (ii) the State of New Mexico and the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore separately filed civil actions against Pfizer and many other defendants in state courts, alleging various state statutory and common law claims in connection with the defendants’ alleged sale of Zantac in those jurisdictions. In April 2021, a Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding was created in the Superior Court of California in Alameda County to coordinate personal injury actions against Pfizer and other defendants filed in California state court. Coordinated proceedings have also been created in other state courts.

Beginning in August 2021, a number of putative class actions have been filed against Pfizer in various U.S. federal courts following Pfizer’s voluntary recall of Chantix due to the presence of a nitrosamine, N-nitroso-varenicline. Plaintiffs assert that they suffered economic harm purportedly as a result of purchasing Chantix or generic varenicline medicines sold by Pfizer. Plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide and state-specific classes and seek various remedies, including damages and medical monitoring. Similar putative class actions have been filed in Canada and Israel, where the product brand is Champix.

In 1997, Monsanto Company (Former Monsanto) contributed certain chemical manufacturing operations and facilities to a newly formed corporation, Solutia Inc. (Solutia), and spun off the shares of Solutia. In 2000, Former Monsanto merged with Pharmacia & Upjohn Company to form Pharmacia. Pharmacia then transferred its agricultural operations to a newly created subsidiary, named Monsanto Company (New Monsanto), which it spun off in a two-stage process that was completed in 2002. Pharmacia was acquired by Pfizer in 2003 and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer.

In connection with its spin-off that was completed in 2002, New Monsanto assumed, and agreed to indemnify Pharmacia for, any liabilities related to Pharmacia’s former agricultural business. New Monsanto has defended and/or is defending Pharmacia in connection with various claims and litigation arising out of, or related to, the agricultural business, and has been indemnifying Pharmacia when liability has been imposed or settlement has been reached regarding such claims and litigation.

In connection with its spin-off in 1997, Solutia assumed, and agreed to indemnify Pharmacia for, liabilities related to Former Monsanto’s chemical businesses. As the result of its reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, Solutia’s indemnification obligations relating to Former Monsanto’s chemical businesses are primarily limited to sites that Solutia has owned or operated. In addition, in connection with its spin-off that was completed in 2002, New Monsanto assumed, and agreed to indemnify Pharmacia for, any liabilities primarily related to Former Monsanto’s chemical businesses, including, but not limited to, any such liabilities that Solutia assumed. Solutia’s and New Monsanto’s assumption of, and agreement to indemnify Pharmacia for, these liabilities apply to pending actions and any future actions related to Former Monsanto’s chemical businesses in which Pharmacia is named as a defendant, including, without limitation, actions asserting environmental claims, including alleged exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls. Solutia and/or New Monsanto are defending Pharmacia in connection with various claims and litigation arising out of, or related to, Former Monsanto’s chemical businesses, and have been indemnifying Pharmacia when liability has been imposed or settlement has been reached regarding such claims and litigation.

In 2009, as part of our acquisition of Wyeth, we assumed responsibility for environmental remediation at the Wyeth Holdings LLC (formerly known as, Wyeth Holdings Corporation and American Cyanamid Company) discontinued industrial chemical facility in Bound Brook, New Jersey. Since that time, we have executed or have become a party to a number of administrative settlement agreements, orders on consent, and/or judicial consent decrees, with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and/or New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection to perform remedial design, removal and remedial actions, and related environmental remediation activities at the Bound Brook facility. We have accrued for the currently estimated costs of these activities.

In 2017, a number of U.S. service members, civilians, and their families brought a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against a number of pharmaceutical and medical devices companies, including Pfizer and certain of its subsidiaries, alleging that the defendants violated the U.S. Anti-Terrorism Act. The complaint alleges that the defendants provided funding for terrorist organizations through their sales practices pursuant to pharmaceutical and medical device contracts with the Iraqi Ministry of Health, and seeks monetary relief. In July 2020, the District Court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissed all of plaintiffs’ claims. In January 2022, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s decision. In February 2022, the defendants filed for en banc review of the Court of Appeals’ decision.

In October 2021, a putative class action was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania on behalf of former Mylan N.V. shareholders who received Viatris common stock in exchange for Mylan shares in connection with the spin-off of the Upjohn Business and its combination with Mylan (the Transactions). Viatris, Pfizer, and certain of each company’s current and former officers, directors and employees are named as defendants. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated certain provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with certain disclosures made in or omitted from the registration statement and related prospectus issued in connection with the Transactions. Plaintiff seeks damages, costs and expenses and other equitable and injunctive relief.

We are subject to extensive regulation by government agencies in the U.S., other developed markets and multiple emerging markets in which we operate. Criminal charges, substantial fines and/or civil penalties, limitations on our ability to conduct business in applicable jurisdictions, corporate integrity or deferred prosecution agreements, as well as reputational harm and increased public interest in the matter could result from government investigations in the U.S. and other jurisdictions in which we do business. These matters often involve government requests for information on a voluntary basis or through subpoenas after which the government may seek additional information through follow-up requests or additional subpoenas. In addition, in a qui tam lawsuit in which the government declines to intervene, the relator may still pursue a suit for the recovery of civil damages and penalties on behalf of the government. Among the investigations by government agencies are the matters discussed below.

In April 2018, Greenstone received requests for information from the Antitrust Department of the Connecticut Office of the Attorney General. In May 2019, Attorneys General of more than 40 states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico filed a complaint against a number of pharmaceutical companies, including Greenstone and Pfizer. The matter has been consolidated with a Multi-District Litigation in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As to Greenstone and Pfizer, the complaint alleges

anticompetitive conduct in violation of federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws. In June 2020, the State Attorneys General filed a new complaint against a large number of companies, including Greenstone and Pfizer, making similar allegations, but concerning a new set of drugs. This complaint was transferred to the Multi-District Litigation in July 2020. The Multi-District Litigation also includes civil complaints filed by private plaintiffs and state counties against Pfizer, Greenstone and a significant number of other defendants asserting allegations that generally overlap with those asserted by the State Attorneys General.

In October 2018, we received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) seeking records relating to our relationship with another drug manufacturer and its production and manufacturing of drugs including, but not limited to, Quillivant XR. We responded to that subpoena in full and have had no communication with the SDNY in connection with the subpoena since June 2019. Additionally, in September 2020, we received a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) from the Texas Attorney General’s office seeking records of a similar nature to those requested by the SDNY. We are producing records in response to this request.

In February 2019, we received a CID from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the SDNY. The CID seeks records and information related to alleged quality issues involving the manufacture of auto-injectors at the Meridian site. In August 2019, we received a HIPAA subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Missouri seeking similar records and information. We are producing records in response to these requests.

In March 2020, we received an informal request from the U.S. Department of Justice's Consumer Protection Branch seeking documents relating to our manufacturing operations in India, including at our former facility located at Irrungattukottai in India. In April 2020, we received a similar request from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the SDNY regarding a civil investigation concerning operations at our facilities in India. We are producing records pursuant to these requests.

In June 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice's Commercial Litigation Branch and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of New York issued a CID relating to Biohaven. The CID seeks records and information related to, among other things, engagements with health care professionals and co-pay coupons cards. Biohaven is a wholly-owned subsidiary that we acquired in October 2022. We are producing records in response to these requests.

In the ordinary course of business and in connection with the sale of assets and businesses and other transactions, we often indemnify our counterparties against certain liabilities that may arise in connection with the transaction or that are related to events and activities prior to or following a transaction. If the indemnified party were to make a successful claim pursuant to the terms of the indemnification, we may be required to reimburse the loss. These indemnifications are generally subject to various

restrictions and limitations. Historically, we have not paid significant amounts under these provisions and, as of October 2, 2022, the estimated fair value of these indemnification obligations is not material to Pfizer. See Note 2C for a description of the March 2022 indemnity provided by Pfizer to GSK in connection with the issuance of notes by the Consumer Healthcare JV. In conjunction with the completion of GSK’s demerger transactions in July 2022, GSK’s guarantee and our related indemnification of GSK’s guarantee were terminated.

In addition, in connection with our entry into certain agreements and other transactions, our counterparties may be obligated to indemnify us. For example, in November 2020, we and Mylan completed the transaction to spin-off our Upjohn Business and combine it with Mylan to form Viatris. As part of the transaction and as previously disclosed, each of Viatris and Pfizer has agreed to assume, and to indemnify the other for, liabilities arising out of certain matters. Also, our global agreement with BioNTech to co-develop a mRNA-based coronavirus vaccine program aimed at preventing COVID-19 infection, includes certain indemnity provisions pursuant to which each of BioNTech and Pfizer has agreed to indemnify the other for certain liabilities that may arise in connection with certain third-party claims relating to Comirnaty.