Contingencies and commitments

Contingencies

In the ordinary course of business, we are involved in various legal proceedings and other matters, including those discussed in this Note, that are complex in nature and have outcomes that are difficult to predict.

We record accruals for loss contingencies to the extent that we conclude that it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the related loss can be reasonably estimated. We evaluate, on a quarterly basis, developments in legal proceedings and other matters that could cause an increase or decrease in the amount of the liability that has been accrued previously.

Our legal proceedings range from cases brought by a single plaintiff to a class action with thousands of putative class members. These legal proceedings, as well as other matters, involve various aspects of our business and a variety of claims (including but not limited to patent infringement, marketing, pricing and trade practices and securities law), some of which present novel factual allegations and/or unique legal theories. In each of the matters described in this filing, plaintiffs seek an award of a not-yet-quantified amount of damages or an amount that is not material. In addition, a number of the matters pending against us are at very early stages of the legal process (which in complex proceedings of the sort faced by us often extend for several years). As a result, none of the matters described in these filings have progressed sufficiently through discovery and/or development of important factual information and legal issues to enable us to estimate a range of possible loss, if any, or such amounts are not material. While it is not possible to accurately predict or determine the eventual outcomes of these items, an adverse determination in one or more of these items currently pending could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

Certain of our legal proceedings and other matters are discussed below:

Federal Securities Litigation - In re Amgen Inc. Securities Litigation

The six federal class action stockholder complaints filed against Amgen Inc., Kevin W. Sharer, Richard D. Nanula, Dennis M. Fenton, Roger M. Perlmutter, Brian M. McNamee, George J. Morrow, Edward V. Fritzky, Gilbert S. Omenn and Franklin P. Johnson, Jr., (the Federal Defendants) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the California Central District Court) on April 17, 2007 (Kairalla v. Amgen Inc., et al.), May 1, 2007 (Mendall v. Amgen Inc., et al., & Jaffe v. Amgen Inc., et al.), May 11, 2007 (Eldon v. Amgen Inc., et al.), May 21, 2007 (Rosenfield v. Amgen Inc., et al.) and June 18, 2007 (Public Employees' Retirement Association of Colorado v. Amgen Inc., et al.) were consolidated by the California Central District Court into one action captioned In re Amgen Inc. Securities Litigation. The consolidated complaint was filed with the California Central District Court on October 2, 2007. The consolidated complaint alleges that Amgen and these officers and directors made false statements that resulted in: (i) deceiving the investing public regarding Amgen's prospects and business; (ii) artificially inflating the prices of Amgen's publicly traded securities and (iii) causing plaintiff and other members of the class to purchase Amgen publicly traded securities at inflated prices. The complaint also makes off-label marketing allegations that, throughout the class period, the Federal Defendants improperly marketed Aranesp^® and EPOGEN^® for off-label uses while aware that there were alleged safety signals with these products. The plaintiffs seek class certification, compensatory damages, legal fees and other relief deemed proper. The Federal Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on November 8, 2007. On February 4, 2008, the California Central District Court granted in part, and denied in part, the Federal Defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. Specifically, the California Central District Court granted the Federal Defendants' motion to dismiss as to individual defendants Fritzky, Omenn, Johnson, Fenton and McNamee, but denied the Federal Defendants' motion to dismiss as to individual defendants Sharer, Nanula, Perlmutter and Morrow.

A class certification hearing before the California Central District Court, was held on July 17, 2009 and on August 12, 2009, the California Central District Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On August 28, 2009, Amgen filed a petition for permission to appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the Ninth Circuit Court) under Rule 23(f), regarding the Order on Class Certification and the Ninth Circuit Court granted Amgen's permission to appeal on December 11, 2009. On February 2, 2010, the California Central District Court granted Amgen's motion to stay the underlying action pending the outcome of the Ninth Circuit Court 23(f) appeal. On October 14, 2011, the appeal under Rule 23(f) was argued before the Ninth Circuit Court and on December 28, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court denied the appeal. Amgen filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on March 3, 2012, and on June 11, 2012, the Court granted Amgen's petition. Oral argument occurred on November 5, 2012. On February 27, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court and remanded the case back to the California Central District Court for further proceedings.

State Derivative Litigation

Larson v. Sharer, et al.

The three state stockholder derivative complaints filed against Amgen Inc., Kevin W. Sharer, George J. Morrow, Dennis M. Fenton, Brian M. McNamee, Roger M. Perlmutter, David Baltimore, Gilbert S. Omenn, Judith C. Pelham, Frederick W. Gluck, Jerry D. Choate, J. Paul Reason, Frank J. Biondi, Jr., Leonard D. Schaeffer, Frank C. Herringer, Richard D. Nanula, Willard H. Dere, Edward V. Fritzky, Franklin P. Johnson, Jr. and Donald B. Rice as defendants (the State Defendants) on May 1, 2007 (Larson v. Sharer, et al., & Anderson v. Sharer, et al.), and August 13, 2007 (Weil v. Sharer, et al.) in the Superior Court of the State of California, Ventura County (the Superior Court) were consolidated by the Superior Court under one action captioned Larson v. Sharer, et al. The consolidated complaint was filed on July 5, 2007. The complaint alleges that the State Defendants breached their fiduciary duties, wasted corporate assets, were unjustly enriched and violated the California Corporations Code. Plaintiffs allege that the State Defendants failed to disclose and/or misrepresented results of Aranesp^® clinical studies, marketed both Aranesp^® and EPOGEN^® for off-label uses and that these actions or inactions caused stockholders to suffer damages. The complaints also allege insider trading by the State Defendants. The plaintiffs seek treble damages based on various causes of action, reformed corporate governance, equitable and/or injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement of profits, benefits and other compensation, and legal costs.

An amended consolidated complaint was filed on March 13, 2008, adding Anthony Gringeri as a State Defendant and removing the causes of action for insider selling and misappropriation of information, violation of California Corporations Code Section 25402 and violation of California Corporations Code Section 25403. On July 14, 2008, the Superior Court dismissed without prejudice the consolidated state derivative class action. The judge also ordered a stay of any re-filing of an amended complaint until the federal court has determined in the In re Amgen Inc. Securities Litigation action whether any securities fraud occurred.

Birch v. Sharer, et al.

On January 23, 2009, a stockholder derivative lawsuit titled Birch v. Sharer, et al. was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles County (the Los Angeles Superior Court) naming Amgen Inc., Kevin W. Sharer, David Baltimore, Frank J. Biondi, Jr., Jerry D. Choate, Vance D. Coffman, Frederick W. Gluck, Frank C. Herringer, Gilbert S. Omenn, Judith C. Pelham, J. Paul Reason, Leonard D. Schaeffer and Tom Zindrick as defendants. The complaint alleges derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty based on a purported failure to implement adequate internal controls and to oversee the Company's operations, which plaintiff claims resulted in numerous lawsuits and investigations over a number of years. Plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of Amgen, including costs and expenses, allegedly incurred, among other things, in connection with wrongful termination lawsuits and potential violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. On February 25, 2009, the case was reassigned to a judge in the Complex Department of the Los Angeles Superior Court. Amgen and the individual defendants filed motions to dismiss on June 23, 2009.

Oral argument on Amgen and the individual defendants' motions to dismiss were heard on September 25, 2009 before the Los Angeles Superior Court and the court granted the motions to dismiss but allowed the plaintiff an opportunity to amend her complaint by October 21, 2009. Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal without prejudice with the court on October 23, 2009. On October 29, 2009, Amgen received from plaintiff a stockholder demand on the Board of Directors to take action to remedy breaches of fiduciary duties by the directors and certain executive officers of the Company. Ms. Birch alleged that the directors and certain executive officers violated their core fiduciary principles, causing Amgen to suffer damages. She demanded that the Board of Directors take action against each of the officers and directors to recover damages and to correct deficiencies in the Company's internal controls that allowed the misconduct to occur. The Board of Directors completed its investigation and determined in its business judgment that it was not in the best interests of the Company to pursue the claims made in the demand against any of the individuals mentioned in the demand. Therefore, the Board voted to reject the demand and communicated this to Ms. Birch on May 19, 2010.

On February 8, 2010, plaintiff filed another stockholder demand lawsuit in the Los Angeles Superior Court against the same defendants in the original lawsuit but also added Board of Director members François de Carbonnel and Rebecca Henderson. The allegations in the new complaint are nearly identical to those in the previously filed complaint. The case filed on February 8, 2010 by plaintiff Birch was assigned to the Complex Division of the Los Angeles Superior Court. On June 30, 2010, Amgen filed its demurrer to plaintiff's complaint with the Complex Division of the Los Angeles Superior Court. On September 29, 2010, the Complex Division of the Los Angeles Superior Court denied Amgen's and the individual defendants' demurrers finding that the plaintiff had adequately pled wrongful refusal. Amgen and the individual defendants filed answers on October 29, 2010. On December 9, 2010, the Complex Division of the Los Angeles Superior Court stayed the underlying action and Amgen and the individual defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings/motion for summary judgment. The motion for the judgment on the pleadings was heard on January 31, 2011 and the Complex Division of the Los Angeles Superior Court dismissed the entire lawsuit with prejudice against both Amgen and the individual defendants without leave to amend. Following an appeal by plaintiff, on June 21, 2012, the California State Appellate Court reversed the decision of the Complex Division of the Los Angeles Superior Court. The case has been re-assigned to Judge Kenneth Freeman and Amgen and the individual defendants filed motions for summary judgment on November 19, 2012. The motions for summary judgment will be heard on April 16, 2013.

Purnell v. Sharer, et al.

On January 24, 2013, a stockholder derivative lawsuit titled Purnell v. Sharer, et al. was filed in the Superior Court against Amgen Inc., Kevin W. Sharer, Robert A. Bradway, David Baltimore, Frank J. Biondi, Jr., Vance D. Coffman, François de Carbonnel, Rebecca M. Henderson, Frank C. Herringer, Leroy M. Hood, Tyler Jacks, Gilbert S. Omenn, Judith C. Pelham, J. Paul Reason, Leonard D. Schaeffer and Ronald D. Sugar as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to implement adequate internal controls which resulted on December 19, 2012 in the civil settlement, corporate integrity agreement and criminal misdemeanor plea in connection with the Federal Investigations (see Government Investigations and Qui Tam Actions below).

Federal Derivative Litigation

On May 7, 2007, the stockholder derivative lawsuit of Durgin v. Sharer, et al., was filed in the California Central District Court and named Amgen Inc., Kevin W. Sharer, George J. Morrow, Dennis M. Fenton, Brian M. McNamee, Roger M. Perlmutter, David Baltimore, Gilbert S. Omenn, Judith C. Pelham, Frederick W. Gluck, Jerry D. Choate, J. Paul Reason, Frank J. Biondi, Jr., Leonard D. Schaeffer, Frank C. Herringer, Richard D. Nanula, Edward V. Fritzky and Franklin P. Johnson, Jr. as defendants. The complaint alleges the same claims and requests the same relief as in the three state stockholder derivative complaints now consolidated as Larson v. Sharer, et al. The case has been stayed for all purposes until thirty days after a final ruling on the motion to dismiss by the California Central District Court in the In re Amgen Inc. Securities Litigation action.

On September 21, 2007, the stockholder derivative lawsuit of Rosenblum v. Sharer, et al., was filed in the California Central District Court. This lawsuit was brought by a stockholder who previously made a demand on the Amgen Board on May 14, 2007. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties, wasted corporate assets and were unjustly enriched. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to disclose and/or misrepresented results of Aranesp^® clinical studies, marketed both Aranesp^® and EPOGEN^® for off-label uses and that these actions or inactions as well as the Amgen market strategy caused damage to the Company resulting in several inquiries, investigations and lawsuits that are costly to defend. The complaint also alleges insider trading by the defendants. The plaintiffs seek treble damages based on various causes of action, reformed corporate governance, equitable and/or injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement of profits, benefits and other compensation, and legal costs. The case was stayed for all purposes until thirty days after a final ruling on the motion to dismiss by the California Central District Court in the In re Amgen Inc. Securities Litigation action.

Thereafter, on May 1, 2008, plaintiff in Rosenblum v. Sharer, et al., filed an amended complaint which removed Dennis Fenton as a defendant and also eliminated the claims for insider selling by defendants. On July 28, 2008, the California Central District Court heard Amgen and the defendants' motion to dismiss and motion to stay. On July 30, 2008, the California Central District Court granted Amgen and the defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice and also granted a stay of the case pending resolution of the In re Amgen Inc. Securities Litigation action.

ERISA Litigation

On August 20, 2007, the ERISA class action lawsuit of Harris v. Amgen Inc., et al., was filed in the California Central District Court and named Amgen Inc., Kevin W. Sharer, Frank J. Biondi, Jr., Jerry Choate, Frank C. Herringer, Gilbert S. Omenn, David Baltimore, Judith C. Pelham, Frederick W. Gluck, Leonard D. Schaeffer, Jacqueline Allred, Raul Cermeno, Jackie Crouse, Lori Johnston, Michael Kelly and Charles Bell as defendants. Plaintiffs claim that Amgen and the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to inform current and former employees who participated in the Amgen Retirement and Savings Plan and the Retirement and Savings Plan for Amgen Manufacturing Limited of the alleged off-label promotion of both Aranesp^® and EPOGEN^® while a number of studies allegedly demonstrated safety concerns in patients using ESAs. On February 4, 2008, the California Central District Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice as to plaintiff Harris, who had filed claims against Amgen Inc. The claims alleged by the second plaintiff, Ramos, were also dismissed but the court granted the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint. On February 1, 2008, the plaintiffs appealed the decision by the California Central District Court to dismiss the claims of both plaintiffs Harris and Ramos to the Ninth Circuit Court. On May 19, 2008, plaintiff Ramos in the Harris v. Amgen Inc., et al., action filed another lawsuit captioned Ramos v. Amgen Inc., et al., in the California Central District Court. The lawsuit is another ERISA class action. The Ramos v. Amgen Inc., et al., matter names the same defendants in the Harris v. Amgen Inc., et al., matter plus four new defendants: Amgen Manufacturing Limited, Richard Nanula, Dennis Fenton and the Fiduciary Committee. On July 14, 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court reversed the California Central District Court's decision in the Harris matter and remanded the case back to the California Central District Court. In the meantime, a third ERISA class action was filed by Don Hanks on June 2, 2009 in the California Central District Court alleging the same ERISA violations as in the Harris and Ramos lawsuits.

On August 10, 2009, the Harris, Ramos and Hanks matters were consolidated by the California Central District Court into one action captioned Harris, et. al. v. Amgen Inc. On October 13, 2009, the California Central District Court granted plaintiffs Harris' and Ramos' motion to be appointed interim co-lead counsel. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 11, 2009 and added two additional plaintiffs, Jorge Torres and Albert Cappa. Amgen filed a motion to dismiss the amended/consolidated complaint, and on March 2, 2010, the California Central District Court dismissed the entire lawsuit without prejudice. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 23, 2010. Amgen then filed another motion to dismiss on April 20, 2010. On June 16, 2010, the California Central District Court entered an order dismissing the entire lawsuit with prejudice. On June 24, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court. Petitioner's opening brief was served on December 20, 2010 and Amgen's answering brief was filed on February 2, 2011. Oral argument occurred on February 17, 2012.

Government Investigations and Qui Tam Actions

On May 10, 2007, Amgen received a subpoena from the Attorney General of the State of New York seeking documents related to Amgen's promotional activities, sales and marketing activities, medical education, clinical studies, pricing and contracting, license and distribution agreements and corporate communications. Amgen fully cooperated in responding to the subpoena.

Beginning in late 2007, Amgen received a number of subpoenas from the U.S. Attorney's Offices for the Eastern District of New York and the Western District of Washington, pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (18 U.S.C. 3486), for broad production of documents relating to its products and clinical trials. Amgen fully cooperated with the government's document requests. Over the next several years, numerous current and former Amgen employees received civil and grand jury subpoenas to provide testimony on a wide variety of subjects. We refer herein to these investigations conducted by the U.S. Attorney's Offices for the Eastern District of New York and the Western District of Washington as the Federal Investigations.

On January 14, 2008, Amgen received a subpoena from the New Jersey Attorney General's Office for production of documents relating to one of its products. Amgen completed its response per the terms of the subpoena.

A U.S. government filing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the Massachusetts District Court) concerning the partially unsealed complaint filed pursuant to the Qui Tam provisions of the Federal Civil False Claims Act and on behalf of 17 named states and the District of Columbia under their respective State False Claims Acts (the Massachusetts Qui Tam Action) became public on or about May 7, 2009. The filing represented that, in addition to the Massachusetts Qui Tam Action, there were nine other actions under the False Claim Act pending under seal against Amgen, including eight pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (the New York Eastern District Court) and one pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Together, with the Massachusetts Qui Tam Action, we refer to these actions as the Original Qui Tam Actions. In the filing made public on May 7, 2009, the U.S. government represented that these ten Original Qui Tam Actions alleged that Amgen engaged in a wide variety of illegal marketing practices with respect to various Amgen products and that these were joint civil and criminal investigations being conducted by a wide variety and large number of federal and state agencies.

On September 1, 2009, the U.S. government filed a notice of non-intervention and 14 states and the District of Columbia filed notices of intervention in the Massachusetts Qui Tam Action. On October 30, 2009, 14 states and the District of Columbia filed an amended complaint in the Massachusetts District Court entitled The United States of America, States of California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Tennessee and Texas and the Commonwealths of Massachusetts and Virginia and the District of Columbia, ex rel Kassie Westmoreland v. Amgen Inc., Integrated Nephrology Network, AmerisourceBergen Specialty Group, ASD Healthcare and AmerisourceBergen Corporation. The relator, Kassie Westmoreland, also filed a second amended complaint with the Massachusetts District Court on the same day. The complaints alleged violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and violations of state false claims act statutes with regard to Amgen's marketing of overfill in vials of Aranesp^® and with regard to Amgen's relationship with the Integrated Nephrology Network (INN), a group purchasing organization. The relator's seconded amended complaint also alleged that Amgen retaliated against and wrongfully terminated Ms. Westmoreland.

On January 20, 2010, the states of Florida and Texas voluntarily dismissed their complaints against Amgen. On February 12, 2010, February 16, 2010 and February 18, 2010, respectively, the states of New Hampshire, Louisiana and Nevada voluntarily dismissed their complaints against Amgen. On February 23, 2010, the state of Delaware voluntarily dismissed its complaint against Amgen. Also, on February 23, 2010, the Massachusetts District Court granted Amgen's motion to stay and sever the relator's employment claims.

On April 23, 2010, the Massachusetts District Court dismissed all of the claims of the relator, on behalf of the federal government and the states of New Mexico and Georgia, and all of the claims of the remaining states, for failure to state valid legal grounds upon which relief could be granted. On May 26, 2010, the Massachusetts District Court granted leave for the relator to file a fourth amended complaint. On May 24, 2010, the states of New York, Massachusetts, Michigan, California, Illinois, and Indiana filed notices of intent to appeal the Massachusetts District Court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (the First Circuit Court).

On September 20, 2010, the Massachusetts District Court entered a written ruling denying Amgen's motions to dismiss the relator's fourth amended complaint. On April 11, 2011, the Massachusetts District Court heard summary judgment arguments on the fourth amended complaint from Amgen, INN and the relator. On July 22, 2011, the First Circuit Court issued a written decision reversing the Massachusetts District Court's dismissal of the claims of the states of California, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Mexico, and New York and affirming the dismissal of the claims of Georgia.

In March 2011, the U.S. Attorney's Office of the Western District of Washington informed Amgen that the subject matter of its investigation would be transferred to the U.S. Attorney's Office of the Eastern District of New York.

In October 2011, Amgen announced it had reached an agreement in principle to settle allegations relating to its sales and marketing practices arising out of the Federal Investigations, and on December 19, 2012, Amgen announced that it had finalized a settlement agreement (the Settlement Agreement), with the U.S. government, 49 states and the District of Columbia. The Settlement Agreement resolved the Federal Investigations, the related state Medicaid claims (except for those of the State of South Carolina) and the claims of nine of the ten Original Qui Tam Actions. The Settlement Agreement also resolved the claims of one of the other civil qui tam actions that had not been included in the agreement in principle but of which Amgen was made aware during settlement discussions (see below). This additional qui tam action resolved by the Settlement Agreement (the Additional Qui Tam) included allegations that Amgen's promotional, contracting, sales and marketing activities and arrangements relating to ENBREL caused the submission of various false claims under the Federal Civil False Claims Act and various State False Claims Acts. Under the Settlement Agreement, Amgen paid approximately $612 million to resolve its civil liability related to certain promotional practices related to the drugs Aranesp^®, EPOGEN^®, NEUPOGEN^®, Neulasta^®, ENBREL and Sensipar^® as alleged in the unsealed qui tam complaints and $150 million to resolve its criminal liability relating to the marketing of Aranesp^®, as well as accrued interest.

As part of the Settlement Agreement, Amgen pled guilty to a single misdemeanor count of misbranding Aranesp^® by promoting it in a way that was different from the dosages in the label. The plea was entered on December 18, 2012 in the New York Eastern District Court and was accepted by the court on December 19, 2012. In connection with entering into the Settlement Agreement, Amgen also entered into a corporate integrity agreement with the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that requires Amgen to maintain its corporate compliance program and to undertake a set of defined corporate integrity obligations for a period of five years. In February 2013, Amgen resolved the state Medicaid claims of the State of South Carolina related to the Federal Investigations for an immaterial amount. Amgen has accrued an immaterial amount to resolve the remaining Original Qui Tam Action, which remains pending in the New York Eastern District Court.

As part of the settlement described above, Amgen was made aware that it was a defendant in several other civil qui tam actions (the Other Qui Tams) in addition to those included in the October 2011 agreement in principle. As stated above, the Additional Qui Tam was resolved by the Settlement Agreement. Amgen has been dismissed from two of the Other Qui Tams: U.S. ex rel. May v. Amgen, et al. and another matter that continues under seal against other defendants. Amgen has reached a separate agreement in principle and continues to expect to enter into a written settlement agreement to resolve a fourth Other Qui Tam, for which Amgen has accrued an immaterial amount; that matter will remain under seal in the U.S. federal court where it was filed until the settlement agreement is signed. The fifth and final Other Qui Tam action remains under seal in the U.S. federal court in which it was filed and includes allegations that Amgen's promotional, contracting, sales and marketing activities and arrangements relating to Aranesp^®, NEUPOGEN^®, Neulasta^®, XGEVA^®, Prolia^®, Vectibix^® and Nplate^® caused the submission of various false claims under the Federal Civil False Claims Act and various State False Claims Acts. Amgen continues to cooperate fully with the government in its investigation of these allegations.

Commitments

We lease certain facilities and equipment related primarily to administrative, R&D, sales and marketing activities under non-cancelable operating leases that expire through 2032. The following table summarizes the minimum future rental commitments under non-cancelable operating leases as of December 31, 2012 (in millions):



2013	$	121
2014	97
2015	90
2016	79
2017	67
Thereafter	287
Total minimum operating lease commitments	$	741

Included in the table above are future rental commitments for abandoned leases in the amount of $331 million. Rental expense on operating leases for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, was $117 million, $131 million and $115 million, respectively.

In addition, we have minimum contractual purchase commitments with third-party manufacturers through 2014 that total $39 million as of December 31, 2012. Amounts purchased under these contractual purchase commitments for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, were $123 million, $87 million and $68 million, respectively.