Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal Proceedings We are a party to various legal actions. The most significant of these are described below. We recognize accruals for such actions to the extent that we conclude that a loss is both probable and reasonably estimable. We accrue for the best estimate of a loss within a range; however, if no estimate in the range is better than any other, then we accrue the minimum amount in the range. If we determine that a loss is reasonably possible and the loss or range of loss can be estimated, we disclose the possible loss. Unless otherwise noted, it is not possible to determine the outcome of these matters, and we cannot reasonably estimate the maximum potential exposure or the range of possible loss. We did not have any material accruals for the matters described below in our Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2019 and 2018. Litigation Related to Sofosbuvir In 2012, we acquired Pharmasset, Inc. (Pharmasset). Through the acquisition, we acquired sofosbuvir, a nucleotide analog that acts to inhibit the replication of the HCV. In 2013, we received approval from FDA for sofosbuvir, now known commercially as Sovaldi. Sofosbuvir is also included in all of our marketed HCV products. We have received a number of litigation claims regarding sofosbuvir. While we have carefully considered these claims both prior to and following the acquisition and believe they are without merit, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of such claims or range of loss. We are aware of patents and patent applications owned by third parties that have been or may in the future be alleged by such parties to cover the use of our HCV products. If third parties obtain valid and enforceable patents, and successfully prove infringement of those patents by our HCV products, we could be required to pay significant monetary damages. We cannot predict the ultimate outcome of intellectual property claims related to our HCV products. We have spent, and will continue to spend, significant resources defending against these claims. Litigation with Idenix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Idenix), Universita Degli Studi di Cagliari (UDSG), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique and L’Université Montpellier II In 2013, Idenix, UDSG, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique and L’Université Montpellier II sued us in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that the commercialization of sofosbuvir infringes U.S. Patent No. 7,608,600 (the ‘600 patent). We prevailed at all phases of litigation concerning the ‘600 patent, and in 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Idenix’s petition for certiorari. Also in 2013, Idenix and UDSG sued us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging that the commercialization of sofosbuvir infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 6,914,054 (the ‘054 patent) and 7,608,597 (the ‘597 patent). In 2014, the court transferred the Massachusetts litigation to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Prior to trial in 2016, Idenix committed to give us a covenant not to sue with respect to any claims arising out of the ‘054 patent related to sofosbuvir and withdrew that patent from the trial. A jury trial was held in 2016 on the ‘597 patent, and the jury found that we willfully infringed the asserted claims of the ‘597 patent and awarded Idenix $2.54 billion in past damages. In 2018, the judge invalidated Idenix’s ‘597 patent and vacated the jury’s award of $2.54 billion in past damages. Idenix appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), and in October 2019, the CAFC issued an opinion affirming the trial court’s decision that the ‘597 patent is invalid. Idenix has petitioned for rehearing by the CAFC en banc and may seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Litigation with the University of Minnesota The University of Minnesota (the University) has obtained U.S. Patent No. 8,815,830 (the ‘830 patent), which purports to broadly cover nucleosides with antiviral and anticancer activity. In 2016, the University filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging that the commercialization of sofosbuvir-containing products infringes the ‘830 patent. We believe the ‘830 patent is invalid and will not be infringed by the continued commercialization of sofosbuvir. In 2017, the court granted our motion to transfer the case to California. We have also filed four petitions for inter partes review with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) alleging that all asserted claims are invalid for anticipation and obviousness. In 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California stayed the litigation until after the PTAB rules on our petitions for inter partes review. Litigation Related to Axicabtagene Ciloleucel We own patents and patent applications that protect our axicabtagene ciloleucel chimeric DNA segments. Third parties may have, or may obtain rights to, patents that allegedly could be used to prevent or attempt to prevent us from commercializing axicabtagene ciloleucel or to require us to obtain a license in order to commercialize axicabtagene ciloleucel. In October 2017, Juno Therapeutics, Inc. and Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (collectively, Juno) filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that the commercialization of axicabtagene ciloleucel, sold commercially as Yescarta, infringes on U.S. Patent No. 7,446,190 (the ‘190 patent). A jury trial was held on the ‘190 patent, and in December 2019, the jury found that the asserted claims of the ‘190 patent were valid, and that we willfully infringed the asserted claims of the ‘190 patent. The jury also awarded Juno damages in amounts of $585 million in an up-front payment and a 27.6% running royalty from October 2017 through the date of the jury’s verdict. The parties filed post-trial motions in January 2020 and will file further briefing during the first quarter of 2020, and we expect the judge to rule on these matters later in 2020. Once the district court has issued these rulings and has entered judgment, the case may be appealed to the CAFC. Although we cannot predict with certainty the ultimate outcome of this litigation, we believe the jury’s verdict to be in error, and we also believe that errors were made by the court with respect to certain rulings before and during trial. In assessing whether we should accrue a liability for this litigation in our consolidated financial statements, we considered various factors, including the legal and factual circumstances of the case, the jury’s verdict, the district court’s pre- and post-trial orders, the current status of the proceedings, applicable law, the views of legal counsel and the likelihood that the jury’s verdict will be upheld on appeal. As a result of this review, we have determined, in accordance with applicable accounting standards, that it is not probable that we will incur a material loss as a result of this litigation. If the jury’s verdict is not upheld on appeal, the loss will be zero, If the jury’s verdict is upheld in its entirety on appeal, we estimate the upper end of the range of possible loss through December 31, 2019 to be approximately $1.6 billion, which consists of (i) the $585 million up-front payment determined by the jury, (ii) approximately $200 million, which represents estimated royalties on our adjusted revenues from Yescarta from October 18, 2017 through December 31, 2019, and (iii) enhanced damages requested by Juno of up to two times the sum of (i) and (ii) above as a result of the jury’s finding of willfulness. This sum excludes costs and pre-judgment interest. Supplemental damages consisting of royalties on sales of Yescarta after December 13, 2019 through the date of judgment could be subject to the 27.6% royalty in the jury’s verdict, the 33.1% prospective royalty proposed by Juno, or to enhancement. Any post-judgment sales of Yescarta would be subject to prospective royalties, which we have estimated could be up to 33.1%, and which would be payable on adjusted Yescarta revenues after the judgment in 2020 until the expiry of the ‘190 patent in August 2024. We expect the judge to rule on the amount of prospective royalties and any enhanced damages in the course of deciding the post-trial motions. The court’s determination of prospective royalties and enhanced damages, if any, can also be appealed. Litigation Related to Bictegravir In 2018, ViiV Healthcare Company (ViiV) filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court of Delaware, alleging that the commercialization of bictegravir, sold commercially in combination with tenofovir alafenamide and emtricitabine as Biktarvy, infringes ViiV’s U.S. Patent No. 8,129,385 (the ‘385 patent) covering ViiV’s dolutegravir. Bictegravir is structurally different from dolutegravir, and we believe that bictegravir does not infringe the claims of the ‘385 patent. To the extent that ViiV’s patent claims are interpreted to cover bictegravir, we believe those claims are invalid. The court has set a trial date of September 2020 for this lawsuit. In 2018, ViiV also filed a lawsuit against us in the Federal Court of Canada, alleging that our activities relating to our bictegravir compound have infringed ViiV’s Canadian Patent No. 2,606,282 (the ‘282 patent), which was issued to Shionogi & Co. Ltd. and ViiV. The ‘282 patent is the compound patent covering ViiV’s dolutegravir. We believe that bictegravir does not infringe the claims of the ‘282 patent. In January 2020, the court held a summary trial to assess ViiV’s infringement allegations. The court’s decision is expected in March 2020. In November and December 2019, ViiV filed lawsuits in France, Germany, Ireland and the UK asserting the relevant national designations of European Patent No. 3 045 206; in Australia asserting Australian Patent No. 2006239177; in Japan asserting Japanese Patent No. 4295353; and in Korea asserting Korean Patent Nos. 1848819 and 1363875. These patents all relate to molecules which ViiV claim would act as integrase inhibitors. We believe that bictegravir does not infringe the claims of any of ViiV’s patents. In all jurisdictions, to the extent that the claims of ViiV’s patents are interpreted to cover bictegravir, we believe that those claims are invalid. We cannot predict the ultimate outcome of intellectual property claims related to bictegravir. Litigation Relating to Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis In August 2019, we filed petitions requesting inter partes review of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,044,509, 9,579,333, 9,937,191 (‘191 patent) and 10,335,423 (‘423 patent) (collectively, HHS Patents) by PTAB. The HHS Patents are assigned to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and purport to claim a process of protecting a primate host from infection by an immunodeficiency retrovirus by administering a combination of emtricitabine and tenofovir or TDF prior to exposure of the host to the immunodeficiency retrovirus, a process commonly known as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). In November 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court of Delaware, alleging that the sale of Truvada and Descovy for use as PrEP infringes the HHS Patents. In February 2020, PTAB declined to institute our petitions for inter partes review of the HHS Patents. Although we cannot predict with certainty the ultimate outcome of this litigation, we believe that Truvada and Descovy do not infringe the HHS Patents and that the HHS Patents are invalid over prior art descriptions of Truvada’s use for PrEP and post-exposure prophylaxis, and because physicians and patients were using the claimed methods years before the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention filed the applications for the patents. Litigation with Generic Manufacturers As part of the approval process for some of our products, FDA granted us a New Chemical Entity (NCE) exclusivity period during which other manufacturers’ applications for approval of generic versions of our product will not be approved. Generic manufacturers may challenge the patents protecting products that have been granted NCE exclusivity one year prior to the end of the NCE exclusivity period. Generic manufacturers have sought and may continue to seek FDA approval for a similar or identical drug through an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA), the application form typically used by manufacturers seeking approval of a generic drug. The sale of generic versions of our products earlier than their patent expiration would have a significant negative effect on our revenues and results of operations. To seek approval for a generic version of a product having NCE status, a generic company may submit its ANDA to FDA four years after the branded product’s approval. Starting in December 2019, we received letters from Lupin Ltd., Apotex Inc., Shilpa Medicare Ltd., Sunshine Lake Pharma Co. Ltd., Laurus Labs, Natco Pharma Ltd. and Cipla Ltd. (collectively, generic manufacturers) indicating that they have submitted ANDAs to FDA requesting permission to market and manufacture generic versions of certain of our tenofovir alafenamide (TAF)-containing products. Between them, these generic manufacturers seek to market generic versions of Odefsey, Descovy and Vemlidy. Some generic manufacturers have challenged the validity of four patents listed on the Orange Book and associated with TAF, while others have challenged the validity of two of our Orange Book-listed patents associated with TAF. We are evaluating the letters and intend to enforce and defend our intellectual property. European Patent Claims In 2015, several parties filed oppositions in the European Patent Office (EPO) requesting revocation of one of our granted European patents covering sofosbuvir that expires in 2028. In 2016, the EPO upheld the validity of certain claims of our sofosbuvir patent. We have appealed this decision, seeking to restore all of the original claims, and several of the original opposing parties have also appealed, requesting full revocation. The appeal hearing is scheduled for July 2020. In 2017, several parties filed oppositions in the EPO requesting revocation of our granted European patent relating to sofosbuvir that expires in 2024. The EPO conducted an oral hearing for this opposition in 2018 and upheld the claims. Two of the original opposing parties have appealed, requesting full revocation. In 2016, several parties filed oppositions in the EPO requesting revocation of our granted European patent covering TAF that expires in 2026. In 2017, the EPO upheld the validity of the claims of our TAF patent. Three parties have appealed this decision. In 2017, several parties filed oppositions in the EPO requesting revocation of our granted European patent relating to TAF hemifumarate that expires in 2032. In 2019, the EPO upheld the validity of the claims of our TAF hemifumarate patent. Three parties have appealed this decision. In 2016, three parties filed oppositions in the EPO requesting revocation of our granted European patent covering cobicistat that expires in 2027. In 2017, the EPO upheld the validity of the claims of our cobicistat patent. Two parties have appealed this decision. The appeal process may take several years for all EPO opposition proceedings. While we are confident in the strength of our patents, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of these oppositions. If we are unsuccessful in defending these oppositions, some or all of our patent claims may be narrowed or revoked and the patent protection for sofosbuvir, TAF, TAF hemifumarate and cobicistat in the European Union could be substantially shortened or eliminated entirely. If our patents are revoked, and no other European patents are granted covering these compounds, our exclusivity may be based entirely on regulatory exclusivity granted by the European Medicines Agency. If we lose patent protection for any of these compounds, our revenues and results of operations could be negatively impacted for the years including and succeeding the year in which such exclusivity is lost. Government Investigations and Related Litigation In 2011, we received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California requesting documents related to the manufacture, and related quality and distribution practices, of Complera, Atripla, Truvada, Viread, Emtriva, Hepsera and Letairis. We cooperated with the government’s inquiry. In 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice informed us that, following an investigation, it declined to intervene in a False Claims Act lawsuit filed by two former employees. Also in 2014, the former employees served a First Amended Complaint, and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order granting in its entirety, without prejudice, our motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. In 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, and the District Court issued an order granting our motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The plaintiffs then filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit). In 2017, the Ninth Circuit granted our motion to stay the case pending an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, and we filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2018, the Solicitor General submitted a brief for the United States to the U.S. Supreme Court stating its intention to file a motion to dismiss under the federal False Claims Act. In January 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition and the case has been remanded to the District Court. In March 2019, the Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The District Court granted the Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss in November 2019, dismissing relators’ federal False Claims Act claims. In 2016, we received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts requesting documents related to our support of 501(c)(3) organizations that provide financial assistance to patients and documents concerning our provision of financial assistance to patients for our HCV products. We are cooperating with this inquiry. In 2017, we received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts requesting documents related to our copay coupon program and Medicaid price reporting methodology. We are cooperating with this inquiry. In 2017, we received a voluntary request for information from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania requesting information related to our reimbursement support offerings, clinical education programs and interactions with specialty pharmacies for Sovaldi and Harvoni. In 2018, we received another voluntary request for information related to our speaker programs and advisory boards for our HCV and hepatitis B virus products. We are cooperating with these voluntary requests. In October 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice informed us that, following an investigation, it declined to intervene in a False Claims Act lawsuit against us relating to hepatitis B speaker programs and advisory boards brought by two plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Notwithstanding the government’s declination, plaintiffs have continued to pursue the lawsuit and served us with the Seconded Amended Complaint in November 2019. Although we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit, we believe the action is without merit and we intend to vigorously defend against it. In 2017, we received a subpoena from the California Department of Insurance and the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office requesting documents related to our marketing activities, reimbursement support offerings, clinical education programs and interactions with specialty pharmacies for Harvoni and Sovaldi. We are cooperating with this inquiry. In 2017, we also received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York requesting documents related to our promotional speaker programs for HIV. We are cooperating with this inquiry. Product Liability We have been named as a defendant in one class action lawsuit and various product liability lawsuits related to Viread, Truvada, Atripla, Complera and Stribild. Plaintiffs allege that Viread, Truvada, Atripla, Complera and/or Stribild caused them to suffer kidney and/or bone injuries. The lawsuits, which are pending in state or federal court in California, Delaware or Florida, involve thousands of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs in these cases seek damages and other relief on various grounds for alleged personal injury and economic loss. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in these actions. While we believe these cases are without merit, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome. If plaintiffs are successful in their claims, we could be required to pay significant monetary damages. Antitrust and Consumer Protection We (along with Japan Tobacco, BMS and Johnson & Johnson, Inc.) have been named as defendants in a class action lawsuit filed in 2019 related to various drugs used to treat HIV, including drugs used in combination antiretroviral therapy. Plaintiffs allege that we (and the other defendants) engaged in various conduct to restrain competition in violation of federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws. The lawsuit, a consolidated action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, seeks to bring claims on behalf of a nationwide class of end-payor purchasers. A similar lawsuit was also recently filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, which may also be consolidated. Plaintiffs seek damages, permanent injunctive relief, and other relief. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this action. While we believe this action is without merit, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome. If plaintiffs are successful in their claims, we could be required to pay significant monetary damages or could be subject to permanent injunctive relief. Other Matters We are a party to various legal actions that arose in the ordinary course of our business. We do not believe that these other legal actions will have a material adverse impact on our consolidated business, financial position or results of operations. Other Commitments In the normal course of business, we enter into various firm purchase commitments primarily related to active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) and certain inventory related items. As of December 31, 2019, these commitments for the next five years were approximately $271 million in 2020, $45 million in 2021, $22 million in 2022, $22 million in 2023 and $14 million in 2024. The amounts related to API represent minimum purchase commitments. Actual payments for the purchases of API and certain inventory related items were $529 million in 2019, $1.0 billion in 2018 and $1.7 billion in 2017. In January 2020, we amended an API contract, which increased our firm purchase commitments by approximately $220 million.

We are a party to various legal actions. The most significant of these are described below. We recognize accruals for such actions to the extent that we conclude that a loss is both probable and reasonably estimable. We accrue for the best estimate of a loss within a range; however, if no estimate in the range is better than any other, then we accrue the minimum amount in the range. If we determine that a loss is reasonably possible and the loss or range of loss can be estimated, we disclose the possible loss. Unless otherwise noted, it is not possible to determine the outcome of these matters, and we cannot reasonably estimate the maximum potential exposure or the range of possible loss.

In 2012, we acquired Pharmasset, Inc. (Pharmasset). Through the acquisition, we acquired sofosbuvir, a nucleotide analog that acts to inhibit the replication of the HCV. In 2013, we received approval from FDA for sofosbuvir, now known commercially as Sovaldi. Sofosbuvir is also included in all of our marketed HCV products. We have received a number of litigation claims regarding sofosbuvir. While we have carefully considered these claims both prior to and following the acquisition and believe they are without merit, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of such claims or range of loss.

In 2013, Idenix, UDSG, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique and L’Université Montpellier II sued us in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that the commercialization of sofosbuvir infringes U.S. Patent No. 7,608,600 (the ‘600 patent). We prevailed at all phases of litigation concerning the ‘600 patent, and in 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Idenix’s petition for certiorari. Also in 2013, Idenix and UDSG sued us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging that the commercialization of sofosbuvir infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 6,914,054 (the ‘054 patent) and 7,608,597 (the ‘597 patent). In 2014, the court transferred the Massachusetts litigation to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

Prior to trial in 2016, Idenix committed to give us a covenant not to sue with respect to any claims arising out of the ‘054 patent related to sofosbuvir and withdrew that patent from the trial. A jury trial was held in 2016 on the ‘597 patent, and the jury found that we willfully infringed the asserted claims of the ‘597 patent and awarded Idenix $2.54 billion in past damages. In 2018, the judge invalidated Idenix’s ‘597 patent and vacated the jury’s award of $2.54 billion in past damages. Idenix appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), and in October 2019, the CAFC issued an opinion affirming the trial court’s decision that the ‘597 patent is invalid. Idenix has petitioned for rehearing by the CAFC en banc and may seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The University of Minnesota (the University) has obtained U.S. Patent No. 8,815,830 (the ‘830 patent), which purports to broadly cover nucleosides with antiviral and anticancer activity. In 2016, the University filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging that the commercialization of sofosbuvir-containing products infringes the ‘830 patent. We believe the ‘830 patent is invalid and will not be infringed by the continued commercialization of sofosbuvir. In 2017, the court granted our motion to transfer the case to California. We have also filed four petitions for inter partes review with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) alleging that all asserted claims are invalid for anticipation and obviousness. In 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California stayed the litigation until after the PTAB rules on our petitions for inter partes review.

We own patents and patent applications that protect our axicabtagene ciloleucel chimeric DNA segments. Third parties may have, or may obtain rights to, patents that allegedly could be used to prevent or attempt to prevent us from commercializing axicabtagene ciloleucel or to require us to obtain a license in order to commercialize axicabtagene ciloleucel.

In October 2017, Juno Therapeutics, Inc. and Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (collectively, Juno) filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that the commercialization of axicabtagene ciloleucel, sold commercially as Yescarta, infringes on U.S. Patent No. 7,446,190 (the ‘190 patent). A jury trial was held on the ‘190 patent, and in December 2019, the jury found that the asserted claims of the ‘190 patent were valid, and that we willfully infringed the asserted claims of the ‘190 patent. The jury also awarded Juno damages in amounts of $585 million in an up-front payment and a 27.6% running royalty from October 2017 through the date of the jury’s verdict. The parties filed post-trial motions in January 2020 and will file further briefing during the first quarter of 2020, and we expect the judge to rule on these matters later in 2020. Once the district court has issued these rulings and has entered judgment, the case may be appealed to the CAFC. Although we cannot predict with certainty the ultimate outcome of this litigation, we believe the jury’s verdict to be in error, and we also believe that errors were made by the court with respect to certain rulings before and during trial.

In assessing whether we should accrue a liability for this litigation in our consolidated financial statements, we considered various factors, including the legal and factual circumstances of the case, the jury’s verdict, the district court’s pre- and post-trial orders, the current status of the proceedings, applicable law, the views of legal counsel and the likelihood that the jury’s verdict will be upheld on appeal. As a result of this review, we have determined, in accordance with applicable accounting standards, that it is not probable that we will incur a material loss as a result of this litigation.

If the jury’s verdict is not upheld on appeal, the loss will be zero, If the jury’s verdict is upheld in its entirety on appeal, we estimate the upper end of the range of possible loss through December 31, 2019 to be approximately $1.6 billion, which consists of (i) the $585 million up-front payment determined by the jury, (ii) approximately $200 million, which represents estimated royalties on our adjusted revenues from Yescarta from October 18, 2017 through December 31, 2019, and (iii) enhanced damages requested by Juno of up to two times the sum of (i) and (ii) above as a result of the jury’s finding of willfulness. This sum excludes costs and pre-judgment interest. Supplemental damages consisting of royalties on sales of Yescarta after December 13, 2019 through the date of judgment could be subject to the 27.6% royalty in the jury’s verdict, the 33.1% prospective royalty proposed

by Juno, or to enhancement. Any post-judgment sales of Yescarta would be subject to prospective royalties, which we have estimated could be up to 33.1%, and which would be payable on adjusted Yescarta revenues after the judgment in 2020 until the expiry of the ‘190 patent in August 2024. We expect the judge to rule on the amount of prospective royalties and any enhanced damages in the course of deciding the post-trial motions. The court’s determination of prospective royalties and enhanced damages, if any, can also be appealed.

In 2018, ViiV Healthcare Company (ViiV) filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court of Delaware, alleging that the commercialization of bictegravir, sold commercially in combination with tenofovir alafenamide and emtricitabine as Biktarvy, infringes ViiV’s U.S. Patent No. 8,129,385 (the ‘385 patent) covering ViiV’s dolutegravir. Bictegravir is structurally different from dolutegravir, and we believe that bictegravir does not infringe the claims of the ‘385 patent. To the extent that ViiV’s patent claims are interpreted to cover bictegravir, we believe those claims are invalid. The court has set a trial date of September 2020 for this lawsuit.

In 2018, ViiV also filed a lawsuit against us in the Federal Court of Canada, alleging that our activities relating to our bictegravir compound have infringed ViiV’s Canadian Patent No. 2,606,282 (the ‘282 patent), which was issued to Shionogi & Co. Ltd. and ViiV. The ‘282 patent is the compound patent covering ViiV’s dolutegravir. We believe that bictegravir does not infringe the claims of the ‘282 patent. In January 2020, the court held a summary trial to assess ViiV’s infringement allegations. The court’s decision is expected in March 2020.

In November and December 2019, ViiV filed lawsuits in France, Germany, Ireland and the UK asserting the relevant national designations of European Patent No. 3 045 206; in Australia asserting Australian Patent No. 2006239177; in Japan asserting Japanese Patent No. 4295353; and in Korea asserting Korean Patent Nos. 1848819 and 1363875. These patents all relate to molecules which ViiV claim would act as integrase inhibitors. We believe that bictegravir does not infringe the claims of any of ViiV’s patents. In all jurisdictions, to the extent that the claims of ViiV’s patents are interpreted to cover bictegravir, we believe that those claims are invalid. We cannot predict the ultimate outcome of intellectual property claims related to bictegravir.

In August 2019, we filed petitions requesting inter partes review of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,044,509, 9,579,333, 9,937,191 (‘191 patent) and 10,335,423 (‘423 patent) (collectively, HHS Patents) by PTAB. The HHS Patents are assigned to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and purport to claim a process of protecting a primate host from infection by an immunodeficiency retrovirus by administering a combination of emtricitabine and tenofovir or TDF prior to exposure of the host to the immunodeficiency retrovirus, a process commonly known as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). In November 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court of Delaware, alleging that the sale of Truvada and Descovy for use as PrEP infringes the HHS Patents. In February 2020, PTAB declined to institute our petitions for inter partes review of the HHS Patents. Although we cannot predict with certainty the ultimate outcome of this litigation, we believe that Truvada and Descovy do not infringe the HHS Patents and that the HHS Patents are invalid over prior art descriptions of Truvada’s use for PrEP and post-exposure prophylaxis, and because physicians and patients were using the claimed methods years before the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention filed the applications for the patents.

As part of the approval process for some of our products, FDA granted us a New Chemical Entity (NCE) exclusivity period during which other manufacturers’ applications for approval of generic versions of our product will not be approved. Generic manufacturers may challenge the patents protecting products that have been granted NCE exclusivity one year prior to the end of the NCE exclusivity period. Generic manufacturers have sought and may continue to seek FDA approval for a similar or identical drug through an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA), the application form typically used by manufacturers seeking approval of a generic drug. The sale of generic versions of our products earlier than their patent expiration would have a significant negative effect on our revenues and results of operations. To seek approval for a generic version of a product having NCE status, a generic company may submit its ANDA to FDA four years after the branded product’s approval.

Starting in December 2019, we received letters from Lupin Ltd., Apotex Inc., Shilpa Medicare Ltd., Sunshine Lake Pharma Co. Ltd., Laurus Labs, Natco Pharma Ltd. and Cipla Ltd. (collectively, generic manufacturers) indicating that they have submitted ANDAs to FDA requesting permission to market and manufacture generic versions of certain of our tenofovir alafenamide (TAF)-containing products. Between them, these generic manufacturers seek to market generic versions of Odefsey, Descovy and Vemlidy. Some generic manufacturers have challenged the validity of four patents listed on the Orange Book and associated with TAF, while others have challenged the validity of two of our Orange Book-listed patents associated with TAF. We are evaluating the letters and intend to enforce and defend our intellectual property.

In 2015, several parties filed oppositions in the European Patent Office (EPO) requesting revocation of one of our granted European patents covering sofosbuvir that expires in 2028. In 2016, the EPO upheld the validity of certain claims of our sofosbuvir patent. We have appealed this decision, seeking to restore all of the original claims, and several of the original opposing parties have also appealed, requesting full revocation. The appeal hearing is scheduled for July 2020.

The appeal process may take several years for all EPO opposition proceedings. While we are confident in the strength of our patents, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of these oppositions. If we are unsuccessful in defending these oppositions, some or all of our patent claims may be narrowed or revoked and the patent protection for sofosbuvir, TAF, TAF hemifumarate and cobicistat in the European Union could be substantially shortened or eliminated entirely. If our patents are revoked, and no other European patents are granted covering these compounds, our exclusivity may be based entirely on regulatory exclusivity granted by the European Medicines Agency. If we lose patent protection for any of these compounds, our revenues and results of operations could be negatively impacted for the years including and succeeding the year in which such exclusivity is lost.

In 2011, we received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California requesting documents related to the manufacture, and related quality and distribution practices, of Complera, Atripla, Truvada, Viread, Emtriva, Hepsera and Letairis. We cooperated with the government’s inquiry. In 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice informed us that, following an investigation, it declined to intervene in a False Claims Act lawsuit filed by two former employees. Also in 2014, the former employees served a First Amended Complaint, and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order granting in its entirety, without prejudice, our motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. In 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, and the District Court issued an order granting our motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The plaintiffs then filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit). In 2017, the Ninth Circuit granted our motion to stay the case pending an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, and we filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2018, the Solicitor General submitted a brief for the United States to the U.S. Supreme Court stating its intention to file a motion to dismiss under the federal False Claims Act. In January 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition and the case has been remanded to the District Court. In March 2019, the Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The District Court granted the Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss in November 2019, dismissing relators’ federal False Claims Act claims.

In 2016, we received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts requesting documents related to our support of 501(c)(3) organizations that provide financial assistance to patients and documents concerning our provision of financial assistance to patients for our HCV products. We are cooperating with this inquiry. In 2017, we received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts requesting documents related to our copay coupon program and Medicaid price reporting methodology. We are cooperating with this inquiry.

In 2017, we received a voluntary request for information from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania requesting information related to our reimbursement support offerings, clinical education programs and interactions with specialty pharmacies for Sovaldi and Harvoni. In 2018, we received another voluntary request for information related to our speaker programs and advisory boards for our HCV and hepatitis B virus products. We are cooperating with these voluntary requests. In October 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice informed us that, following an investigation, it declined to intervene in a False Claims Act lawsuit against us relating to hepatitis B speaker programs and advisory boards brought by two plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Notwithstanding the government’s declination, plaintiffs have continued to pursue the lawsuit and served us with the Seconded Amended Complaint in November 2019. Although we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit, we believe the action is without merit and we intend to vigorously defend against it.

In 2017, we received a subpoena from the California Department of Insurance and the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office requesting documents related to our marketing activities, reimbursement support offerings, clinical education programs and interactions with specialty pharmacies for Harvoni and Sovaldi. We are cooperating with this inquiry.

We have been named as a defendant in one class action lawsuit and various product liability lawsuits related to Viread, Truvada, Atripla, Complera and Stribild. Plaintiffs allege that Viread, Truvada, Atripla, Complera and/or Stribild caused them to suffer kidney and/or bone injuries. The lawsuits, which are pending in state or federal court in California, Delaware or Florida, involve thousands of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs in these cases seek damages and other relief on various grounds for alleged personal injury and economic loss. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in these actions. While we believe these cases are without merit, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome. If plaintiffs are successful in their claims, we could be required to pay significant monetary damages.

We (along with Japan Tobacco, BMS and Johnson & Johnson, Inc.) have been named as defendants in a class action lawsuit filed in 2019 related to various drugs used to treat HIV, including drugs used in combination antiretroviral therapy. Plaintiffs allege that we (and the other defendants) engaged in various conduct to restrain competition in violation of federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws. The lawsuit, a consolidated action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, seeks to bring claims on behalf of a nationwide class of end-payor purchasers. A similar lawsuit was also recently filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, which may also be consolidated. Plaintiffs seek damages, permanent injunctive relief, and other relief. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this action. While we believe this action is without merit, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome. If plaintiffs are successful in their claims, we could be required to pay significant monetary damages or could be subject to permanent injunctive relief.

In the normal course of business, we enter into various firm purchase commitments primarily related to active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) and certain inventory related items. As of December 31, 2019, these commitments for the next five years were approximately $271 million in 2020, $45 million in 2021, $22 million in 2022, $22 million in 2023 and $14 million in 2024. The amounts related to API represent minimum purchase commitments. Actual payments for the purchases of API and certain inventory related items were $529 million in 2019, $1.0 billion in 2018 and $1.7 billion in 2017. In January 2020, we amended an API contract, which increased our firm purchase commitments by approximately $220 million.