Contingencies and Certain Commitments	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2020
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. We are the plaintiff in the majority of these actions. An adverse outcome in actions in which we are the plaintiff could result in loss of patent protection for a drug, a significant loss of revenues from that drug or impairment of the value of associated assets. •Product liability and other product-related litigation, which can include personal injury, consumer, off-label promotion, securities, antitrust and breach of contract claims, among others, 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 matters, which can include acquisition-, licensing-, collaboration- or co-promotion-related and product-pricing claims and environmental claims and proceedings, 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 losses, including damages, 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. In August 2020, the SEC amended its disclosure rules regarding the threshold for disclosure of proceedings under environmental laws to which a governmental authority is a party. In accordance with the amended rule, we have adopted a disclosure threshold for such proceedings 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, 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 are being challenged in various other jurisdictions. 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. Additionally, our licensing and collaboration partners face challenges by generic drug manufacturers to patents covering products for which we have licenses or co-promotion rights. 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 were challenged in inter partes review and post-grant review proceedings in the U.S. In 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) initiated proceedings, which remain pending, with respect to two of our pneumococcal vaccine patents. However, the PTAB declined to initiate proceedings as to two other pneumococcal vaccine patents. Various legal challenges to other pneumococcal vaccine patents remain pending in jurisdictions outside the U.S. The invalidation of all of the patents in our pneumococcal portfolio could potentially allow a competitor’s pneumococcal vaccine into the marketplace. In the event that any of the patents are found valid and infringed, a competitor’s pneumococcal vaccine 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 disputes over their attempts to bring generic pharmaceutical and biosimilar 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 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 EpiPen In 2010, King, which we acquired in 2011 and is a wholly-owned subsidiary, brought a patent-infringement action against Sandoz in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in connection with Sandoz’s abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) filed with the FDA seeking approval to market an epinephrine injectable product. Sandoz is challenging patents, which expire in 2025, covering the next-generation autoinjector for use with epinephrine that is sold under the EpiPen brand name. 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 generic manufacturers on terms not material to Pfizer. The remaining actions continue in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware as described below. In 2017, we brought a patent-infringement action against Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. and Cadila Healthcare Ltd. (collectively, Zydus) asserting the infringement and validity of three patents: the patent covering the active ingredient expiring in December 2025 (the 2025 Patent), the patent covering an enantiomer of tofacitinib expiring in 2022, and the patent covering a polymorphic form of tofacitinib expiring in 2023 (the 2023 Patent), which Zydus challenged in its ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of tofacitinib 5 mg tablets. In November 2020, we settled the case against Zydus on terms not material to Pfizer. In February 2021, we brought a separate patent-infringement action against Zydus asserting the infringement and validity of our composition of matter and crystalline form patents challenged by Zydus in its ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of tofacitinib 22 mg extended release tablets. In 2018, we brought a separate patent infringement action against Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Teva) asserting the infringement and validity of our patent covering extended release formulations of tofacitinib that was challenged by Teva in its ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of tofacitinib 11 mg extended release tablets. In January 2021, we brought a separate patent-infringement action against Aurobindo Pharma Limited (Aurobindo) asserting the infringement and validity of the 2025 Patent and the 2023 Patent, which Aurobindo challenged in its ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of tofacitinib 5 mg and 10 mg tablets. Inlyta (axitinib) In 2019, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited (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 June 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) In March 2019, several generic companies notified us that they had filed ANDAs with the FDA seeking approval to market generic versions of Ibrance. The generic companies assert the invalidity and non-infringement of two composition of matter patents, one of which expires in 2023 and one of which expires in 2027, as a result of a U.S. Patent Term Extension certificate issued in January 2021, and a method of use patent covering palbociclib, which expires in 2023. In April 2019, we brought patent infringement actions against each of the generic filers in various federal courts, asserting the validity and infringement of the patents challenged by the generic companies. Beginning in September 2020, we received correspondence from several generic companies notifying us that they would seek approval to market generic versions of Ibrance. The generic companies assert the invalidity and non-infringement of our crystalline form patent which expires in 2034. Beginning in October 2020, we brought patent infringement actions against each of these generic companies in various federal courts, asserting the validity and infringement of the crystalline form patent. Lyrica (pregabalin) •U.K. In June 2014, Generics (U.K.) Ltd (trading as Mylan) filed an invalidity action against the Lyrica pain use patent in the High Court of Justice in London. Subsequently, Actavis Group PTC ehf filed an invalidity action in the same court, and Pfizer sued Actavis Group PTC ehf, Actavis U.K. Ltd and Caduceus Pharma Ltd (together, Actavis) for infringement and requested preliminary relief. Our request for preliminary relief was denied in a January 2015 hearing, and the denial subsequently was confirmed on appeal. In February 2015, the National Health Service (NHS) England was ordered by the High Court, as an intermediary, to issue guidance for prescribers and pharmacists directing the prescription and dispensing of Lyrica by brand when pregabalin was prescribed for the treatment of neuropathic pain. NHS Wales and NHS Northern Ireland also issued prescribing guidance. The guidance to prescribe and dispense Lyrica for neuropathic pain was withdrawn upon patent expiration in July 2017. We also filed infringement actions against (i) Teva UK Ltd, and (ii) Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (UK) Ltd and Caduceus Pharma Ltd (together, Dr. Reddy’s) in February 2015, seeking the same relief as in the action against Actavis. Dr. Reddy’s filed an invalidity counterclaim. These actions were stayed pending the outcome of the Mylan and Actavis cases. The Mylan and Actavis invalidity actions were heard in the High Court at the same time as the Actavis infringement action. The High Court ruled against us, holding that the asserted claims were either not infringed or invalid, and appeals followed. In November 2018, the U.K. Supreme Court ruled that all the relevant claims directed to neuropathic pain were invalid. In October 2015, after Sandoz GmbH and Sandoz Ltd (together, Sandoz) launched a full label generic pregabalin product, we obtained from the High Court a preliminary injunction enjoining Sandoz from further sales of the product and ordering Sandoz to identify the parties holding its product. Sandoz identified wholesaler AAH Pharmaceuticals Ltd and pharmacy chain Lloyds Pharmacy Ltd (supplied by AAH), and we requested that these parties cease further sales and withdraw the Sandoz full label product. In October 2015, Lloyds was added to the Sandoz action, and we obtained a preliminary order from the High Court requiring Lloyds to advise its pharmacists that the Sandoz full label product should not be dispensed. In November 2015, the High Court confirmed the preliminary injunction against Sandoz and Lloyds. Sandoz filed an invalidity counterclaim. Upon agreement of the parties, in December 2015, the proceedings against Lloyds were discontinued, and the proceedings against Sandoz were stayed pending outcome of the Mylan and Actavis cases. The preliminary injunction against Sandoz remained in place until patent expiration in July 2017. In May 2020, Dr. Reddy’s filed a claim for damages in connection with the above-referenced legal actions. In July 2020, the Scottish Ministers and fourteen Scottish Health Boards (together, NHS Scotland) filed a claim for damages in connection with the above-referenced legal action concerning Sandoz. In September 2020, Teva, Sandoz, Ranbaxy, Inc. (Ranbaxy), Actavis, and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, together with 32 other National Health Service entities (together, NHS England, Wales, and Northern Ireland) filed claims for damages in the above-referenced legal actions. 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, Viatris has agreed to assume, and to indemnify Pfizer for, liabilities arising out of this matter. ◦Japan In January 2017, Sawai Pharmaceutical Company Limited (a Japanese generic company) (Sawai) filed an invalidation action against the Lyrica pain use patent in the Japanese Patent Office (JPO). Hexal AG has filed a separate invalidation action that was stayed pending the result of the Sawai action. Multiple parties were allowed to intervene in the Sawai case. In July 2020, the JPO recognized the validity of certain amended claims of the patent covering Lyrica. We are appealing the decision. In August 2020, the Japanese regulatory authority granted regulatory approval to multiple generic companies and we filed legal actions against the generic companies seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions to prevent infringement of our patent. 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, Viatris has agreed to assume, and to indemnify Pfizer for, liabilities arising out of this matter. Matter Involving Our Collaboration/Licensing Partners Eliquis In February, March, and April 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. In April 2017, 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 generic companies on terms not material to Pfizer, and we and BMS may settle with other generic companies in the future. 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 May 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 October 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 January 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 August 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 •Antitrust Actions Beginning in November 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 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 re Lipitor Antitrust Litigation MDL-2332) 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 have 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 August 2017, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s decisions and remanded the claims to the District Court. Also, in January 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. •Personal Injury Actions A number of individual and multi-plaintiff lawsuits have been filed against Pfizer in various federal and state courts alleging that the plaintiffs developed type 2 diabetes purportedly as a result of the ingestion of Lipitor. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages. In February 2014, the federal actions were transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re Lipitor (Atorvastatin Calcium) Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation (No. II) MDL-2502) in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. Since 2016, certain cases in the Multi-District Litigation were remanded to certain state courts. In January 2017, the District Court granted our motion for summary judgment, dismissing substantially all of the remaining cases pending in the Multi-District Litigation. In January 2017, the plaintiffs appealed the District Court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In June 2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s decision. 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, Viatris has agreed to assume, and to indemnify Pfizer for, liabilities arising out of this matter. Viagra Since April 2016, a Multi-District Litigation has been pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (In Re: Viagra (Sildenafil Citrate) Products Liability Litigation, MDL-2691), in which plaintiffs allege that they developed melanoma and/or the exacerbation of melanoma purportedly as a result of the ingestion of Viagra. Additional cases filed against Lilly with respect to Cialis have also been consolidated in the Multi-District Litigation (In re: Viagra (Sildenafil Citrate) and Cialis (Tadalafil) Products Liability Litigation, MDL-2691). In January 2020, the District Court granted our and Lilly’s motion to exclude all of plaintiffs’ general causation opinions. As a result, in April 2020, the District Court entered summary judgment in favor of defendants and dismissed all of plaintiffs’ claims. In April 2020, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 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, Viatris has agreed to assume, and to indemnify Pfizer for, liabilities arising out of this matter. EpiPen Beginning in February 2017, purported class actions were filed in various federal courts by indirect purchasers of EpiPen against Pfizer, and/or its affiliates King and Meridian, and/or various entities affiliated with Mylan, and Mylan Chief Executive Officer, Heather Bresch. The plaintiffs in these actions seek to represent U.S. nationwide classes comprising persons or entities who paid for any portion of the end-user purchase price of an EpiPen between 2009 until the cessation of the defendants’ allegedly unlawful conduct. In February 2020, a similar lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas against Pfizer, King, Meridian and the Mylan entities on behalf of a purported U.S. nationwide class of direct purchaser plaintiffs who purchased EpiPen devices directly from the defendants (the 2020 Lawsuit). Against Pfizer and/or its affiliates, plaintiffs in these actions generally allege that Pfizer’s and/or its affiliates’ settlement of patent litigation regarding EpiPen delayed market entry of generic EpiPen in violation of federal antitrust laws and various state antitrust laws. At least one lawsuit also alleges that Pfizer and/or Mylan violated the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Plaintiffs also filed various federal antitrust, state consumer protection and unjust enrichment claims against, and relating to conduct attributable solely to, Mylan and/or its affiliates regarding EpiPen. Plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged overcharges for EpiPen since 2011. In August 2017, all of these actions, except for the 2020 Lawsuit, were consolidated for coordinated pre-trial proceedings in a Multi-District Litigation (In re: EpiPen (Epinephrine Injection, USP) Marketing, Sales Practices and Antitrust Litigation, MDL-2785) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas with other EpiPen-related actions against Mylan and/or its affiliates to which Pfizer, King and Meridian are not parties. In July 2020, a new lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of indirect purchasers. Plaintiff represents a putative U.S. nationwide class of persons or entities who paid for any portion of the end-user purchase price of certain refill or replacement EpiPens since 2010. Plaintiff alleges that Pfizer and Meridian misrepresented the shelf-life and expiration date of EpiPen, in violation of the federal RICO statute. Plaintiff seeks treble damages for alleged unnecessary replacement or refill purchases of EpiPens by members of the putative class. 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 August 2017, the federal actions were ordered transferred for coordinated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re: Proton-Pump Inhibitor Products Liability Litigation (No. II)) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In 2019, we and GSK combined our respective consumer healthcare businesses into a new Consumer Healthcare JV that operates globally under the GSK Consumer Healthcare name. As part of the JV transaction, 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. In October 2016, the federal cases were transferred for coordinated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re Taxotere (Docetaxel) Products Liability Litigation, MDL-2740) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. •Mississippi Attorney General Government Action In October 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. Array Securities Litigation In November 2017, two purported class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado alleging that Array, which we acquired in July 2019 and is our wholly owned subsidiary, and certain of its former officers violated federal securities laws in connection with certain disclosures made, or omitted, by Array regarding the NRAS-mutant melanoma program. In March 2018, the actions were consolidated into a single proceeding. 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. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages and, in some cases, treble damages, restitution or disgorgement. In February 2020, the federal actions were transferred for coordinated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re Zantac/Ranitidine NDMA Litigation, MDL-2924) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. From June to December 2020: (i) plaintiffs in the Multi-District Litigation filed against Pfizer and many other defendants a consolidated consumer class action complaint alleging, among other things, violations of the RICO statute and consumer protection statutes of all 50 states, and a consolidated third-party payor class action complaint alleging violation of the RICO statute and seeking reimbursement for payments made for the prescription version of Zantac; (ii) Pfizer received service of two 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; (iii) the State of New Mexico filed a civil action against Pfizer and many other defendants, alleging various state statutory and common law claims in connection with the defendants’ alleged sale of Zantac in New Mexico; and (iv) Pfizer received service of a suit filed by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore naming Pfizer and other defendants alleging various claims under Maryland law. 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, we submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a corrective measures study report with regard to Pharmacia’s discontinued industrial chemical facility in North Haven, Connecticut. In September 2010, our corrective measures study report was approved by the EPA, and we commenced construction of the site remedy in late 2011 under an Updated Administrative Order on Consent with the EPA. In September 2019, the EPA acknowledged that construction of the site remedy has been completed. Also in 2009, we submitted a revised site-wide feasibility study with regard to Wyeth Holdings Corporation’s (formerly, American Cyanamid Company) discontinued industrial chemical facility in Bound Brook, New Jersey. In July 2011, Wyeth Holdings Corporation executed an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent for Removal Action (the 2011 Administrative Settlement Agreement) with the EPA with regard to the Bound Brook facility. In accordance with the 2011 Administrative Settlement Agreement, we completed construction of an interim remedy to address the discharge of impacted groundwater from the facility to the Raritan River. In September 2012, the EPA issued a final remediation plan for the Bound Brook facility’s main plant area, which is generally in accordance with one of the remedies evaluated in our revised site-wide feasibility study. In March 2013, Wyeth Holdings Corporation (now Wyeth Holdings LLC) entered into an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent with the EPA to allow us to undertake detailed engineering design of the remedy for the main plant area and to perform a focused feasibility study for two adjacent lagoons. In September 2015, the U.S., on behalf of the EPA, filed a complaint and consent decree with the federal District Court for the District of New Jersey that allows Wyeth Holdings LLC to complete the design and to implement the remedy for the main plant area. The consent decree (which supersedes the 2011 Administrative Settlement Agreement) was entered by the District Court in December 2015. In September 2018, the EPA issued a final remediation plan for the two adjacent lagoons, which is generally in accordance with one of the remedies evaluated in our focused feasibility study, and, in September 2019, Wyeth Holdings LLC entered into an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent with the EPA to allow us to undertake detailed engineering design of the remedy for the lagoons. We have accrued for the estimated costs of the site remedies for the North Haven and Bound Brook facilities. 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 October 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. The plaintiffs are appealing the District Court’s decision. Allergan Complaint for Indemnity In August 2018, Pfizer was named as a defendant in a third-party complaint for indemnity, along with King, filed by Allergan Finance LLC (Allergan) in a Multi-District Litigation (In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation MDL 2804) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The lawsuit asserted 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. In December 2018, the District Court dismissed the lawsuit. In February 2019, Allergan filed a similar complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, asserting claims for indemnity related to Kadian. That suit was voluntarily discontinued without prejudice in January 2021. Breach of Contract––Xalkori/Lorbrena We are a defendant in a breach of contract action brought by New York University (NYU) in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (Supreme Court). NYU alleges that it is entitled to royalties on Pfizer’s sales of Xalkori under the terms of a Research and License Agreement between NYU and Sugen, Inc. Sugen, Inc. was acquired by Pharmacia in August 1999, and Pharmacia was acquired by Pfizer in 2003 and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer. The action was originally filed in 2013. In December 2015, the Supreme Court dismissed the action and, in May 2017, the New York State Appellate Division reversed the decision and remanded the proceedings to the Supreme Court. In January 2020, the Supreme Court denied both parties’ summary judgment motions. In October 2020, NYU filed a separate breach of contract action against Pfizer alleging that it is entitled to royalties on sales of Lorbrena under the terms of the same NYU-Sugen, Inc. Research and Licensing Agreement. 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. 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. The government has been obtaining information from Greenstone relating to this investigation. •State Attorneys General 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 re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation MDL No. 2724) 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. Subpoena relating to Manufacturing of 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 have produced records pursuant to the subpoena. Government Inquiries relating to Meridian Medical Technologies In February 2019, we received a civil investigative demand from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the SDNY. The civil investigative demand seeks records and information related to alleged quality issues involving the manufacture of auto-injectors at our 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 Note 16A2. Contingencies and Certain Commitments: 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 are producing records pursuant to these requests. Zantac––State of New Mexico Civil Action See Note 16A2. Contingencies and Certain Commitments: Legal Proceedings––Product Litigation––Zantac above for information regarding a civil action filed by the State of New Mexico alleging various state statutory and common law claims in connection with the defendants’ alleged sale of Zantac in New Mexico. A5. Legal Proceedings––Matters Resolved During 2020 During the full-year 2020, certain matters, including the matter discussed below, were resolved or became the subject of definitive settlement agreements or settlement agreements-in-principle. Hormone Therapy Consumer Class Action A certified consumer class action was pending against Wyeth in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California based on the alleged off-label marketing of its hormone therapy products. The case was originally filed in December 2003. The class consisted of California consumers who purchased Wyeth’s hormone-replacement products between January 1995 and January 2003 and who did not seek personal injury damages therefrom. The class sought compensatory and punitive damages, including a full refund of the purchase price. In March 2020, the parties reached an agreement, and obtained preliminary court approval, to resolve this matter for $200 million, which was paid in full in the second quarter of 2020. 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 December 31, 2020, the estimated fair value of these indemnification obligations was not significant. In addition, in connection with our entry into certain agreements and other transactions, our counterparties may agree to indemnify us. For example, our collaboration agreement with EMD Serono, Inc. to co-promote Rebif in the U.S. expired at the end of 2015 and included certain indemnity provisions. Patent litigation brought by Biogen Idec MA Inc. against EMD Serono Inc. and Pfizer is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. EMD Serono Inc. has acknowledged that it is obligated to satisfy any award of damages. 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. Certain Commitments •As of December 31, 2020, we had agreements totaling $3.8 billion to purchase goods and services that are enforceable and legally binding and include amounts relating to advertising, information technology services, employee benefit administration services, and potential milestone payments deemed reasonably likely to occur. •See Note 5A for information on the TCJA repatriation tax liability. D. 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. See Note 1D. The estimated fair value of contingent consideration as of December 31, 2020 is $689 million, of which $123 million is recorded in Other current liabilities and $566 million in Other noncurrent liabilities and $711 million, of which $160 million is recorded in Other current liabilities and $551 million in Other noncurrent liabilities as of December 31, 2019. The decrease in the contingent consideration balance from December 31, 2019 is primarily due to payments made upon the achievement of certain sales-based milestones, partially offset by fair value adjustments. E. Insurance Our insurance coverage reflects market conditions (including cost and availability) existing at the time it is written, and our decision to obtain insurance coverage or to self-insure varies accordingly. Depending upon the cost and availability of insurance and the nature of the risk involved, the amount of self-insurance may be significant. The cost and availability of coverage have resulted in self-insuring certain exposures, including product liability. If we incur substantial liabilities that are not covered by insurance or substantially exceed insurance coverage and that are in excess of existing accruals, there could be a material adverse effect on our cash flows or results of operations in the period in which the amounts are paid and/or accrued.

•Patent litigation, which typically involves challenges to the coverage and/or validity of patents on various products, processes or dosage forms. We are the plaintiff in the majority of these actions. An adverse outcome in actions in which we are the plaintiff could result in loss of patent protection for a drug, a significant loss of revenues from that drug or impairment of the value of associated assets.

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. In August 2020, the SEC amended its disclosure rules regarding the threshold for disclosure of proceedings under environmental laws to which a governmental authority is a party. In accordance with the amended rule, we have adopted a disclosure threshold for such proceedings 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.

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, 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 are being challenged in various other jurisdictions. 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. Additionally, our licensing and collaboration partners face challenges by generic drug manufacturers to patents covering products for which we have licenses or co-promotion rights.

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 were challenged in inter partes review and post-grant review proceedings in the U.S. In 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) initiated proceedings, which remain pending, with respect to two of our pneumococcal vaccine patents. However, the PTAB declined to initiate proceedings as to two other pneumococcal vaccine patents. Various legal challenges to other pneumococcal vaccine patents remain pending in jurisdictions outside the U.S. The invalidation of all of the patents in our pneumococcal portfolio could potentially allow a competitor’s pneumococcal vaccine into the marketplace. In the event that any of the patents are found valid and infringed, a competitor’s pneumococcal vaccine 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 disputes over their attempts to bring generic pharmaceutical and biosimilar 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 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.

In 2010, King, which we acquired in 2011 and is a wholly-owned subsidiary, brought a patent-infringement action against Sandoz in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in connection with Sandoz’s abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) filed with the FDA seeking approval to market an epinephrine injectable product. Sandoz is challenging patents, which expire in 2025, covering the next-generation autoinjector for use with epinephrine that is sold under the EpiPen brand name.

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 generic manufacturers on terms not material to Pfizer. The remaining actions continue in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware as described below.

In 2017, we brought a patent-infringement action against Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. and Cadila Healthcare Ltd. (collectively, Zydus) asserting the infringement and validity of three patents: the patent covering the active ingredient expiring in December 2025 (the 2025 Patent), the patent covering an enantiomer of tofacitinib expiring in 2022, and the patent covering a polymorphic form of tofacitinib expiring in 2023 (the 2023 Patent), which Zydus challenged in its ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of tofacitinib 5 mg tablets. In November 2020, we settled the case against Zydus on terms not material to Pfizer. In February 2021, we brought a separate patent-infringement action against Zydus asserting the infringement and validity of our composition of matter and crystalline form patents challenged by Zydus in its ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of tofacitinib 22 mg extended release tablets.

In 2019, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited (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 June 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.

In March 2019, several generic companies notified us that they had filed ANDAs with the FDA seeking approval to market generic versions of Ibrance. The generic companies assert the invalidity and non-infringement of two composition of matter patents, one of which expires in 2023 and one of which expires in 2027, as a result of a U.S. Patent Term Extension certificate issued in January 2021, and a method of use patent covering palbociclib, which expires in 2023. In April 2019, we brought patent infringement actions against each of the generic filers in various federal courts, asserting the validity and infringement of the patents challenged by the generic companies. Beginning in September 2020, we received correspondence from several generic companies notifying us that they would seek approval to market generic versions of Ibrance. The generic companies assert the invalidity and non-infringement of our crystalline form patent which expires in 2034. Beginning in October 2020, we brought patent infringement actions against each of these generic companies in various federal courts, asserting the validity and infringement of the crystalline form patent.

In June 2014, Generics (U.K.) Ltd (trading as Mylan) filed an invalidity action against the Lyrica pain use patent in the High Court of Justice in London. Subsequently, Actavis Group PTC ehf filed an invalidity action in the same court, and Pfizer sued Actavis Group PTC ehf, Actavis U.K. Ltd and Caduceus Pharma Ltd (together, Actavis) for infringement and requested preliminary relief. Our request for preliminary relief was denied in a January 2015 hearing, and the denial subsequently was confirmed on appeal.

In February 2015, the National Health Service (NHS) England was ordered by the High Court, as an intermediary, to issue guidance for prescribers and pharmacists directing the prescription and dispensing of Lyrica by brand when pregabalin was prescribed for the treatment of neuropathic pain. NHS Wales and NHS Northern Ireland also issued prescribing guidance. The guidance to prescribe and dispense Lyrica for neuropathic pain was withdrawn upon patent expiration in July 2017.

In October 2015, after Sandoz GmbH and Sandoz Ltd (together, Sandoz) launched a full label generic pregabalin product, we obtained from the High Court a preliminary injunction enjoining Sandoz from further sales of the product and ordering Sandoz to identify the parties holding its product. Sandoz identified wholesaler AAH Pharmaceuticals Ltd and pharmacy chain Lloyds Pharmacy Ltd (supplied by AAH), and we requested that these parties cease further sales and withdraw the Sandoz full label product. In October 2015, Lloyds was added to the Sandoz action, and we obtained a preliminary order from the High Court requiring Lloyds to advise its pharmacists that the Sandoz full label product should not be dispensed. In November 2015, the High Court confirmed the preliminary injunction against Sandoz and Lloyds. Sandoz filed an invalidity counterclaim. Upon agreement of the parties, in December 2015, the proceedings against Lloyds were discontinued, and the proceedings against Sandoz were stayed pending outcome of the Mylan and Actavis cases. The preliminary injunction against Sandoz remained in place until patent expiration in July 2017.

In May 2020, Dr. Reddy’s filed a claim for damages in connection with the above-referenced legal actions. In July 2020, the Scottish Ministers and fourteen Scottish Health Boards (together, NHS Scotland) filed a claim for damages in connection with the above-referenced legal action concerning Sandoz. In September 2020, Teva, Sandoz, Ranbaxy, Inc. (Ranbaxy), Actavis, and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, together with 32 other National Health Service entities (together, NHS England, Wales, and Northern Ireland) filed claims for damages in the above-referenced legal actions. 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, Viatris has agreed to assume, and to indemnify Pfizer for, liabilities arising out of this matter.

In January 2017, Sawai Pharmaceutical Company Limited (a Japanese generic company) (Sawai) filed an invalidation action against the Lyrica pain use patent in the Japanese Patent Office (JPO). Hexal AG has filed a separate invalidation action that was stayed pending the result of the Sawai action. Multiple parties were allowed to intervene in the Sawai case. In July 2020, the JPO recognized the validity of certain amended claims of the patent covering Lyrica. We are appealing the decision. In August 2020, the Japanese regulatory authority granted regulatory approval to multiple generic companies and we filed legal actions against the generic companies seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions to prevent infringement of our patent. 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, Viatris has agreed to assume, and to indemnify Pfizer for, liabilities arising out of this matter.

In February, March, and April 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. In April 2017, 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 generic companies on terms not material to Pfizer, and we and BMS may settle with other generic companies in the future.

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 May 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 October 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 January 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 August 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.

Beginning in November 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 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 re Lipitor Antitrust Litigation MDL-2332) 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 have 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 August 2017, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s decisions and remanded the claims to the District Court.

In February 2014, the federal actions were transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re Lipitor (Atorvastatin Calcium) Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation (No. II) MDL-2502) in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. Since 2016, certain cases in the Multi-District Litigation were remanded to certain state courts. In January 2017, the District Court granted our motion for summary judgment, dismissing substantially all of the remaining cases pending in the Multi-District Litigation. In January 2017, the plaintiffs appealed the District Court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In June 2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s decision. 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, Viatris has agreed to assume, and to indemnify Pfizer for, liabilities arising out of this matter.

Since April 2016, a Multi-District Litigation has been pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (In Re: Viagra (Sildenafil Citrate) Products Liability Litigation, MDL-2691), in which plaintiffs allege that they developed melanoma and/or the exacerbation of melanoma purportedly as a result of the ingestion of Viagra. Additional cases filed against Lilly with respect to Cialis have also been consolidated in the Multi-District Litigation (In re: Viagra (Sildenafil Citrate) and Cialis (Tadalafil) Products Liability Litigation, MDL-2691). In January 2020, the District Court granted our and Lilly’s motion to exclude all of plaintiffs’ general causation opinions. As a result, in April 2020, the District Court entered summary judgment in favor of defendants and dismissed all of plaintiffs’ claims. In April 2020, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 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, Viatris has agreed to assume, and to indemnify Pfizer for, liabilities arising out of this matter.

Beginning in February 2017, purported class actions were filed in various federal courts by indirect purchasers of EpiPen against Pfizer, and/or its affiliates King and Meridian, and/or various entities affiliated with Mylan, and Mylan Chief Executive Officer, Heather Bresch. The plaintiffs in these actions seek to represent U.S. nationwide classes comprising persons or entities who paid for any portion of the end-user purchase price of an EpiPen between 2009 until the cessation of the defendants’ allegedly unlawful conduct. In February 2020, a similar lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas against Pfizer, King, Meridian and the Mylan entities on behalf of a purported U.S. nationwide class of direct purchaser plaintiffs who purchased EpiPen devices directly from the defendants (the 2020 Lawsuit). Against Pfizer and/or its affiliates, plaintiffs in these actions generally allege that Pfizer’s and/or its affiliates’ settlement of patent litigation regarding EpiPen delayed market entry of generic EpiPen in violation of federal antitrust laws and various state antitrust laws. At least one lawsuit also alleges that Pfizer and/or Mylan violated the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Plaintiffs also filed various federal antitrust, state consumer protection and unjust enrichment claims against, and relating to conduct attributable solely to, Mylan and/or its affiliates regarding EpiPen. Plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged overcharges for EpiPen since 2011. In August 2017, all of these actions, except for the 2020 Lawsuit, were consolidated for coordinated pre-trial proceedings in a Multi-District Litigation (In re: EpiPen (Epinephrine Injection, USP) Marketing, Sales Practices and Antitrust Litigation, MDL-2785) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas with other EpiPen-related actions against Mylan and/or its affiliates to which Pfizer, King and Meridian are not parties.

In July 2020, a new lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of indirect purchasers. Plaintiff represents a putative U.S. nationwide class of persons or entities who paid for any portion of the end-user purchase price of certain refill or replacement EpiPens since 2010. Plaintiff alleges that Pfizer and Meridian misrepresented the shelf-life and expiration date of EpiPen, in violation of the federal RICO statute. Plaintiff seeks treble damages for alleged unnecessary replacement or refill purchases of EpiPens by members of the putative class.

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 August 2017, the federal actions were ordered transferred for coordinated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re: Proton-Pump Inhibitor Products Liability Litigation (No. II)) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In 2019, we and GSK combined our respective consumer healthcare businesses into a new Consumer Healthcare JV that operates globally under the GSK Consumer Healthcare name. As part of the JV transaction, the JV has agreed to assume, and to indemnify Pfizer for, liabilities arising out of such litigation to the extent related to Nexium 24HR.

In October 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.

In November 2017, two purported class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado alleging that Array, which we acquired in July 2019 and is our wholly owned subsidiary, and certain of its former officers violated federal securities laws in connection with certain disclosures made, or omitted, by Array regarding the NRAS-mutant melanoma program. In March 2018, the actions were consolidated into a single proceeding.

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. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages and, in some cases, treble damages, restitution or disgorgement.

In February 2020, the federal actions were transferred for coordinated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re Zantac/Ranitidine NDMA Litigation, MDL-2924) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. From June to December 2020: (i) plaintiffs in the Multi-District Litigation filed against Pfizer and many other defendants a consolidated consumer class action complaint alleging, among other things, violations of the RICO statute and consumer protection statutes of all 50 states, and a consolidated third-party payor class action complaint alleging violation of the RICO statute and seeking reimbursement for payments made for the prescription version of Zantac; (ii) Pfizer received service of two 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; (iii) the State of New Mexico filed a civil action against Pfizer and many other defendants, alleging various state statutory and common law claims in connection with the defendants’ alleged sale of Zantac in New Mexico; and (iv) Pfizer received service of a suit filed by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore naming Pfizer and other defendants alleging various claims under Maryland law.

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, we submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a corrective measures study report with regard to Pharmacia’s discontinued industrial chemical facility in North Haven, Connecticut. In September 2010, our corrective measures study report was approved by the EPA, and we commenced construction of the site remedy in late 2011 under an Updated Administrative Order on Consent with the EPA. In September 2019, the EPA acknowledged that construction of the site remedy has been completed.

Also in 2009, we submitted a revised site-wide feasibility study with regard to Wyeth Holdings Corporation’s (formerly, American Cyanamid Company) discontinued industrial chemical facility in Bound Brook, New Jersey. In July 2011, Wyeth Holdings Corporation executed an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent for Removal Action (the 2011 Administrative Settlement Agreement) with the EPA with regard to the Bound Brook facility. In accordance with the 2011 Administrative Settlement Agreement, we completed construction of an interim remedy to address the discharge of impacted groundwater from the facility to the Raritan River. In September 2012, the EPA issued a final remediation plan for the Bound Brook facility’s main plant area, which is generally in accordance with one of the remedies evaluated in our revised site-wide feasibility study. In March 2013, Wyeth Holdings Corporation (now Wyeth Holdings LLC) entered into an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent with the EPA to allow us to undertake detailed engineering design of the remedy for the main plant area and to perform a focused feasibility study for two adjacent lagoons. In September 2015, the U.S., on behalf of the EPA, filed a complaint and consent decree with the federal District Court for the District of New Jersey that allows Wyeth Holdings LLC to complete the design and to implement the remedy for the main plant area. The consent decree (which supersedes the 2011 Administrative Settlement Agreement) was entered by the District Court in December 2015. In September 2018, the EPA issued a final remediation plan for the two adjacent lagoons, which is generally in accordance with one of the remedies evaluated in our focused feasibility study, and, in September 2019, Wyeth Holdings LLC entered into an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent with the EPA to allow us to undertake detailed engineering design of the remedy for the lagoons.

In October 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. The plaintiffs are appealing the District Court’s decision.

In August 2018, Pfizer was named as a defendant in a third-party complaint for indemnity, along with King, filed by Allergan Finance LLC (Allergan) in a Multi-District Litigation (In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation MDL 2804) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The lawsuit asserted 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. In December 2018, the District Court dismissed the lawsuit. In February 2019, Allergan filed a similar complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, asserting claims for indemnity related to Kadian. That suit was voluntarily discontinued without prejudice in January 2021.

We are a defendant in a breach of contract action brought by New York University (NYU) in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (Supreme Court). NYU alleges that it is entitled to royalties on Pfizer’s sales of Xalkori under the terms of a Research and License Agreement between NYU and Sugen, Inc. Sugen, Inc. was acquired by Pharmacia in August 1999, and Pharmacia was acquired by Pfizer in 2003 and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer. The action was originally filed in 2013. In December 2015, the Supreme Court dismissed the action and, in

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. 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 re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation MDL No. 2724) 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.

In February 2019, we received a civil investigative demand from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the SDNY. The civil investigative demand seeks records and information related to alleged quality issues involving the manufacture of auto-injectors at our 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.

A certified consumer class action was pending against Wyeth in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California based on the alleged off-label marketing of its hormone therapy products. The case was originally filed in December 2003. The class consisted of California consumers who purchased Wyeth’s hormone-replacement products between January 1995 and January 2003 and who did not seek personal injury damages therefrom. The class sought compensatory and punitive damages, including a full refund of the purchase price. In March 2020, the parties reached an agreement, and obtained preliminary court approval, to resolve this matter for $200 million, which was paid in full in the second quarter of 2020.

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 December 31, 2020, the estimated fair value of these indemnification obligations was not significant.

In addition, in connection with our entry into certain agreements and other transactions, our counterparties may agree to indemnify us. For example, our collaboration agreement with EMD Serono, Inc. to co-promote Rebif in the U.S. expired at the end of 2015 and included certain indemnity provisions. Patent litigation brought by Biogen Idec MA Inc. against EMD Serono Inc. and Pfizer is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. EMD Serono Inc. has acknowledged that it is obligated to satisfy any award of damages.

We may be required to make payments to sellers for certain prior business combinations that are contingent upon future events or outcomes. See Note 1D. The estimated fair value of contingent consideration as of December 31, 2020 is $689 million, of which $123 million is recorded in Other current liabilities and $566 million in Other noncurrent liabilities and $711 million, of which $160 million is recorded in Other current liabilities and $551 million in Other noncurrent liabilities as of December 31, 2019. The decrease in the contingent consideration balance from December 31, 2019 is primarily due to payments made upon the achievement of certain sales-based milestones, partially offset by fair value adjustments.

Our insurance coverage reflects market conditions (including cost and availability) existing at the time it is written, and our decision to obtain insurance coverage or to self-insure varies accordingly. Depending upon the cost and availability of insurance and the nature of the risk involved, the amount of self-insurance may be significant. The cost and availability of coverage have resulted in self-insuring certain exposures, including product liability. If we incur substantial liabilities that are not covered by insurance or substantially exceed insurance coverage and that are in excess of existing accruals, there could be a material adverse effect on our cash flows or results of operations in the period in which the amounts are paid and/or accrued.