Legal proceedings	6 Months Ended
Jun. 28, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal proceedings	Legal proceedings Johnson & Johnson and certain of its subsidiaries are involved in various lawsuits and claims regarding product liability; intellectual property; commercial; indemnification and other matters; governmental investigations; and other legal proceedings that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of their business. The Company records accruals for loss contingencies associated with these legal matters when it is probable that a liability will be incurred, and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. As of June 28, 2026, the Company has determined that the liabilities associated with certain litigation matters are probable and can be reasonably estimated. The Company has accrued for these matters and will continue to monitor each related legal issue and adjust accruals as might be warranted based on new information and further developments in accordance with ASC 450-20-25. For these and other litigation and regulatory matters discussed below for which a loss is probable or reasonably possible, the Company is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss beyond the amounts accrued. Amounts accrued for legal contingencies often result from a complex series of judgments about future events and uncertainties that rely heavily on estimates and assumptions including timing of related payments. The ability to make such estimates and judgments can be affected by various factors including, among other things, whether damages sought in the proceedings are unsubstantiated or indeterminate; scientific and legal discovery has not commenced or is not complete; proceedings are in early stages; matters present legal uncertainties; there are significant facts in dispute; procedural or jurisdictional issues; the uncertainty and unpredictability of the number of potential claims; ability to achieve comprehensive multi-party settlements; complexity of related cross-claims and counterclaims; and/or there are numerous parties involved. To the extent adverse awards, judgments or verdicts have been rendered against the Company, the Company does not record an accrual until a loss is determined to be probable and can be reasonably estimated. In the Company’s opinion, based on its examination of these matters, its experience to date and discussions with counsel, the ultimate outcome of legal proceedings, net of liabilities accrued in the Company’s balance sheet, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position. However, the resolution of, or increase in accruals for, one or more of these matters in any reporting period may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations and cash flows for that period. Matters concerning talc As of June 28, 2026, there are approximately 76,000 plaintiffs in the United States with direct claims against the Company and its affiliates in pending lawsuits regarding injuries allegedly due to the use of body powders containing talc, primarily JOHNSON’S Baby Powder. In talc cases that have gone to trial, the Company has obtained a number of defense verdicts, but there also have been verdicts against the Company, many of which have been reversed on appeal. The Company continues to believe that it has strong legal grounds to contest all the talc verdicts that it has appealed. Notwithstanding the Company’s confidence in the safety of its talc products, in certain circumstances the Company has settled cases. In an effort to expeditiously resolve the litigation for the overwhelming majority of claimants, beginning in October 2021, the Company underwent a series of corporate restructurings which ultimately resulted in two entities, Red River Talc, LLC (Red River) and Pecos River Talc LLC (Pecos River), being assigned all liabilities related in any way to injury or damage, or alleged injury or damage, sustained or incurred in the purchase or use of, or exposure to, talc, including talc contained in any product, or to the risk of, or responsibility for, any such damage or injury, except for any liabilities for which the exclusive remedy is provided under a workers’ compensation statute or act. As a result of the restructurings, all claims in North America related to ovarian and other gynecological cancers were separated and allocated to Red River, and mesothelioma, governmental unit and certain other claims in North America were allocated to Pecos River. In connection with these restructurings, the Company filed a series of three Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. Ultimately, each of the bankruptcy proceedings was dismissed and, as a result, the Company reversed substantially all, or approximately $7.0 billion, from amounts previously reserved for the bankruptcy resolution in the fiscal first quarter of 2025. Litigation in the tort system recommenced. As of the second quarter of 2026, the total present value of the reserve for talc related matters is approximately $3.7 billion, comprising executed settlement agreements, litigation defense and other costs. Approximately 40% of the reserve is recorded as a current liability. As in years prior, both ovarian cancer and mesothelioma trials are being scheduled in various state courts throughout 2026 and beyond. In the ovarian cancer multi-district litigation (MDL) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, the court is addressing the Company's Daubert motions related to general causation, specific causation, and certain asbestos testing methods. In January 2026, the Special Master issued her Report and Recommendation related to general causation, excluding certain opinions by plaintiff experts, but also allowing other opinions to proceed. The Company has filed an appeal of the Report and Recommendation to the district court. In May 2026, the Special Master held evidentiary hearings on the Company's specific causation motion. Thereafter, the plaintiffs withdrew two of their specific causation experts. In June 2026, the Company filed a Motion to Show Cause requiring the plaintiffs to explain why the MDL should not be dismissed after they withdrew those experts. In July 2026, the court granted the Motion to Show Cause and a case management conference related to the motion is scheduled for August 2026. In July 2026, the Special Master issued her Report and Recommendation related to certain asbestos testing methods, granting in part the Company's motion. The Company also faces litigation in Canada. In February 2018, a securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain named officers in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that the Company violated the federal securities laws by failing to disclose alleged asbestos contamination in body powders containing talc, primarily JOHNSON’S Baby Powder, and that purchasers of the Company’s shares suffered losses as a result. In April 2019, the Company moved to dismiss the complaint. In December 2019, the court denied, in part, the motion to dismiss. In December 2023, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. In July 2025, the Third Circuit affirmed the court's order granting class certification. In September 2025, the Company petitioned the Third Circuit for rehearing or rehearing en banc, which was denied in October 2025. In February 2026, the Company filed a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court regarding the Third Circuit’s decision, which the Supreme Court denied in April 2026. Expert discovery is proceeding. In February 2019, the Company’s talc supplier, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two of its affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc. and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc. (collectively, Imerys), filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. In February 2021, Cyprus Mines Corporation (Cyprus), which sold certain talc mines and assets to Imerys, filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court. In July 2024, the Company, Imerys, and Cyprus and certain of their affiliates (including their parent entities), and the tort claimants' committees and future claimants' representatives appointed in the Imerys debtors' and Cyprus debtors' respective Chapter 11 cases, entered into a global settlement agreement (the Imerys Settlement Agreement) to resolve the parties' ongoing disputes, including disputes raised in the Imerys and Cyprus bankruptcies regarding (i) the Company's alleged obligations to indemnify Imerys and Cyprus for personal injury claims allegedly caused by exposure to talc contained in the Company's products and (ii) entitlements to proceeds of certain of the Company's insurance policies. In October 2024, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court entered an order approving the Imerys Settlement Agreement (the Settlement Order). Certain insurers have appealed the Settlement Order and sought a stay of the Settlement Order pending appeal, which the Delaware Bankruptcy Court denied in January 2025. In August 2025, the district court denied the insurers' appeal of the Settlement Order. The insurers have appealed that decision to the Third Circuit. Briefing in the Third Circuit appeal is complete and a ruling is pending. Intellectual property Certain subsidiaries of the Company are subject, from time to time, to legal proceedings and claims related to patent, trademark and other intellectual property matters arising out of their businesses. Many of these matters involve challenges to the scope and/or validity of patents that relate to various products and allegations that certain of the Company’s products infringe the intellectual property rights of third parties. Although these subsidiaries believe that they have substantial defenses to these challenges and allegations with respect to all significant patents, there can be no assurance as to the outcome of these matters. A loss in any of these cases could adversely affect the ability of these subsidiaries to sell their products, result in loss of sales due to loss of market exclusivity, require the payment of past damages and future royalties, and may result in a non-cash impairment charge for any associated intangible asset. The Company’s Innovative Medicine subsidiaries have brought lawsuits against generic companies that have filed ANDAs with the U.S. FDA (or similar lawsuits outside of the United States) seeking to market generic versions of products sold by various subsidiaries of the Company prior to expiration of the applicable patents covering those products. These lawsuits typically include allegations of non-infringement and/or invalidity of patents listed in FDA’s publication “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations” (commonly known as the Orange Book). In each of these lawsuits, the Company’s subsidiaries are seeking an order enjoining the defendant from marketing a generic version of a product before the expiration of the relevant patents (Orange Book Listed Patents). In the event the Company’s subsidiaries are not successful in an action, or any automatic statutory stay expires before the court rulings are obtained, the generic companies involved would have the ability, upon regulatory approval, to introduce generic versions of their products to the market resulting in the potential for substantial market share and revenue losses for the applicable products, and which may result in a non-cash impairment charge in any associated intangible asset. In addition, from time to time, the Company’s subsidiaries may settle these types of actions and such settlements can involve the introduction of generic versions of the products at issue to the market prior to the expiration of the relevant patents. The Inter Partes Review (IPR) process with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), created under the 2011 America Invents Act, is also being used at times by generic companies in conjunction with ANDAs and lawsuits to challenge the applicable patents. Innovative Medicine INVEGA SUSTENNA Beginning in January 2018, Janssen Pharmaceutica NV and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, Janssen) filed patent infringement lawsuits in United States district courts against generic manufacturers who have filed ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of INVEGA SUSTENNA before expiration of the Orange Book Listed Patent. The following entities are named defendants: Pharmascience Inc.; Mallinckrodt PLC; SpecGx LLC; Eugia Pharma Specialities Ltd.; Eugia US, LLC; and Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. The following U.S. patent is included in one or more cases: 9,439,906. In May 2026, Janssen and Pharmascience Inc., Mallinckrodt PLC (now Keenova Therapeutics plc), and SpecGx LLC entered into a confidential settlement agreement. In June 2026, Janssen entered into a stipulated dismissal with Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. and a confidential settlement with Eugia Pharma Specialities Ltd. and Eugia US, LLC. Beginning in February 2018, Janssen Inc. and Janssen Pharmaceutica NV initiated a Statement of Claim under Section 6 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations against generic manufacturers who have filed ANDSs seeking approval to market generic versions of INVEGA SUSTENNA before expiration of the listed patent. Pharmascience Inc. is a named defendant. The following Canadian patent is included in one or more cases: 2,655,335. In September 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada granted Pharmascience's motion to appeal the Federal Court's decision that the 2,655,335 Patent is not invalid. In July 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Pharmascience's appeal. ERLEADA Beginning in January 2025, Aragon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen Inc. (collectively, Janssen Inc.), and Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research (SKI) initiated Statements of Claims under Section 6 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations against Sandoz Canada Inc. (Sandoz) in response to Sandoz’s filing of ANDSs seeking approval to market 60 mg and 240 mg generic versions of ERLEADA before the expiration of CA Patent Nos. 3,008,345; 2,875,767; 2,885,415; and 3,128,331. Janssen Inc. and SKI are seeking orders enjoining Sandoz from marketing 60 mg and 240 mg generic versions of ERLEADA before the expiration of the relevant patents. Trial is scheduled to begin in August 2026. Beginning in June 2025, Aragon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen Biotech, Inc., The Regents of the University of California, and Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research initiated a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Hetero Labs Limited Unit V and Hetero USA, Inc. who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a 240 mg generic version of ERLEADA before the expiration of certain Orange Book Listed Patents. The following U.S. patents are included in the case: 8,445,507; 8,802,689; 9,338,159; 9,987,261; 9,481,663; 9,884,054; RE49,353; 10,849,888; 10,702,508; 11,963,952; 12,303,493; and 12,303,497. In May 2026, the parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement, and the case was dismissed. Beginning in June 2026, Aragon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen Biotech, Inc., and Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research initiated a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against MSN Pharmaceuticals Inc., MSN Laboratories Private Limited, and Novadoz Pharmaceuticals, LLC who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market 60 mg and 240 mg generic versions of ERLEADA before the expiration of certain Orange Book Listed Patents. The following U.S. patents are included in the case: 9,481,663; 11,963,952; 12,303,493; and 12,303,497. SPRAVATO Beginning in May 2023, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Janssen Pharmaceutica NV filed patent infringement lawsuits in United States district courts against generic manufacturers who have filed ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of SPRAVATO before expiration of certain Orange Book Listed Patents. The following entities are named defendants: Sandoz Inc. and Alkem Laboratories Ltd. The following U.S. patents are included in one or more cases: 10,869,844; 11,173,134; 11,311,500; and 11,446,260. A trial against Sandoz Inc. took place in February 2026. Post-trial briefing is complete, and the parties await a decision from the court. CAPLYTA Beginning in March 2024, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc. (Intra-Cellular) filed patent infringement lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against generic manufacturers who have filed ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of CAPLYTA before expiration of certain Orange Book Listed Patents. The following entities are named defendants: Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc., and Zydus Lifesciences Ltd. The following U.S. patents are included in one or more cases: RE 48,825; RE 48,839; 8,648,077; 9,168,258; 9,199,995; 9,616,061; 9,956,227; 10,117,867; 10,464,938; 10,960,009; 11,026,951; 11,753,419; 11,980,617; 12,070,459; 12,090,155; 12,122,792; 12,128,043; 12,409,176; and 12,410,195. In June 2026, Intra-Cellular, Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., and Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. entered into a confidential settlement agreement and the case was dismissed. Trial is scheduled to begin in March 2027 against Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. and Zydus Lifesciences Ltd. CARVYKTI In January 2026, 2seventy bio, Inc. filed suit in the Unified Patent Court, Local Division of Brussels, against the Company, Janssen Biotech, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., Janssen-Cilag International NV, Janssen Pharmaceutica NV, Janssen-Cilag NV, Janssen Biologics B.V., Janssen-Cilag B.V., Janssen-Cilag GmbH, Janssen-Cilag, Janssen-Cilag SpA, Janssen-Cilag A/S, Janssen-Cilag Aktiebolag, Janssen-Cilag Farmaceutica Lda., Legend Biotech Corporation, Legend Biotech USA Inc., Legend Biotech Ireland Limited, and Legend Biotech Belgium BV alleging that the manufacture and sale of CARVYKTI infringes EU Patent No. 3 689 383. In the suit, the exclusive licensee, 2seventy bio, Inc., seeks damages and an injunction. In May 2026, The United States of America, including the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Technology Transfer, as the patent owner, intervened in the action. An oral hearing is scheduled for March 2027. DARZALEX In February 2026, BIOCAD filed an unfair competition action against Genmab and Johnson & Johnson LLC in the Arbitrazh Court of Moscow Region seeking: (1) a declaration of entitlement to use the inventions claimed in Genmab’s EA Patent No. 015584 in the manufacture/marketing of their drug “Daratumia” (INN daratumumab) starting from March 24, 2026, on the basis that patent EA 015584 expires March 23, 2026; (2) a declaration that Genmab’s and Johnson & Johnson LLC’s actions in obtaining PTE extending Genmab’s EA Patent No. 037929 and sending warning letters to BIOCAD asserting infringement risks after March 24, 2026 constitute unfair competition under Article 14.8 of Law on Protection of Competition (EA 037929 has PTE until March 23, 2031); and (3) an order restraining Genmab and Johnson & Johnson LLC from creating obstacles to BIOCAD’s introduction of “Daratumia” into civil circulation starting from March 24, 2026. SIMPONI In March 2026, Janssen Biotech, Inc. and Janssen Sciences Ireland Unlimited Company (collectively, Janssen) filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Accord BioPharma, Inc. (Accord) and Bio-Thera Solutions, Ltd. in response to Accord’s filing of an aBLA seeking approval to market biosimilar versions of SIMPONI and SIMPONI ARIA and providing notice of commercial marketing pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 262(l)(8)(A) for those biosimilar products. The following U.S. patents are currently included in that case: 8,017,325; 8,586,356; 8,852,889; 8,956,830; 9,170,249; 9,217,168; 9,475,858; 9,487,810; 9,663,810; 9,890,410; 12,129,292; 12,139,735; and 12,180,271. The following U.S. patents were dismissed without prejudice: 11,014,982; 11,041,020; 12,122,824; and 12,291,566. Janssen is seeking an order enjoining defendants from marketing their biosimilar versions of SIMPONI and SIMPONI ARIA before the expiration of the asserted patents. In May 2026, Janssen filed a motion for preliminary injunction. The court scheduled a hearing on the motion for September 2026. In March 2026, Accord BioPharma, Inc., Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., and Bio-Thera Solutions, Ltd. submitted four petitions requesting inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. patent nos. 11,014,982; 11,041,020; 12,122,824; and 12,291,566. Janssen Biotech, Inc., as the Patent Owner, has requested that the USPTO deny institution of the IPRs. In June 2026, Janssen Biotech, Inc. and Janssen Sciences Ireland Unlimited Company (collectively, Janssen) filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against Alvotech hf. and Alvotech USA Inc. (Alvotech USA) in response to Alvotech USA’s filing of aBLAs seeking approval to market biosimilar versions of SIMPONI and SIMPONI ARIA and providing notice of commercial marketing pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 262(l)(8)(A) for those biosimilar products. The following U.S. patents are included in the case: 8,017,325; 8,852,889; 8,956,830; 9,170,249; 9,217,168; 9,475,858; 9,487,810; 9,663,810; 9,890,410; 10,421,986; 11,225,516; 12,139,735; 12,534,524; and 12,595,454. Janssen is seeking an order enjoining defendants from marketing their biosimilar versions of SIMPONI and SIMPONI ARIA before the expiration of the asserted patents. MedTech In March 2016, Abiomed, Inc. filed a declaratory judgment action against Maquet Cardiovascular LLC (Maquet) in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking a declaration that certain Impella products do not infringe Maquet patents. Maquet counterclaimed for infringement against Abiomed, Inc., Abiomed Europe GmbH, and Abiomed R&D, Inc. The following U.S. patents are at issue: 8,888,728; 9,327,068; 9,545,468; 9,561,314; and 9,597,437. In February 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded the case after considering the district court's claim constructions. Discovery will begin based on the altered constructions. In November 2017, Maquet Cardiovascular LLC filed suit against Abiomed, Inc., Abiomed R&D, Inc., and Abiomed Europe GmbH in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging that certain Impella products infringe Maquet patents. U.S. Patent No. 10,238,783 remains in the suit, and trial was held in May 2026. The jury returned a verdict in Abiomed's favor. Post-trial briefing is ongoing. Government proceedings Like other companies in the pharmaceutical and medical technologies industries, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries are subject to extensive regulation by national, state, and local government agencies in the United States and other countries in which they operate. Such regulation has been the basis of government investigations and litigations. The most significant litigation brought by, and investigations conducted by, government agencies are listed below. It is possible that criminal charges and substantial fines and/or civil penalties or damages could result from government investigations or litigation. MedTech In June 2026, three Relators filed an Amended False Claims Act Complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging the Company and DePuy Synthes, along with Tenet Healthcare Corporation, Delray Medical Center, and West Boca Medical Center caused the submission of false claims to federal and Florida healthcare programs. The Relators are sales representatives for competitor companies, and the complaint was served following a decision by the Department of Justice to decline intervening in the case. The Company and DePuy Synthes disagree with and are defending themselves against these claims. Innovative Medicine In July 2016, the Company and Janssen Products, LP were served with a qui tam complaint pursuant to the False Claims Act filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging the off-label promotion of two HIV products, PREZISTA and INTELENCE, and anti-kickback violations in connection with the promotion of these products. The complaint was filed under seal in December 2012. The federal and state governments have declined to intervene, and the lawsuit is being prosecuted by the relators. The court denied summary judgment on all claims in December 2021. Daubert motions were granted in part and denied in part in January 2022, and trial commenced in May 2024. In June 2024, a jury found no liability regarding the anti-kickback violations but found liability for a portion of the off-label promotion claims. The Company challenged the verdict on the off-label claims in post-trial briefing. In March 2025, the court dismissed the state law portion of the claims but entered judgment on the federal claims. The Company appealed the remainder of the verdict to the Third Circuit. The federal government has intervened for the limited purpose of defending the qui tam provision of the False Claims Act. Briefing is complete and oral argument was held in March 2026. A decision is pending. In April 2026, the Third Circuit ordered the parties to engage in mediation. In March 2017, Janssen Biotech, Inc. (JBI) received a Civil Investigative Demand from the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding a False Claims Act investigation concerning management and advisory services provided to rheumatology and gastroenterology practices that purchased REMICADE or SIMPONI ARIA. In August 2019, the DOJ notified JBI that it was closing the investigation. Subsequently, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts unsealed a qui tam False Claims Act complaint, which was served on the Company. The DOJ had declined to intervene in the qui tam lawsuit in August 2019. The Company filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted in part and denied in part. The court heard argument on the parties’ summary judgment motions in May 2026, but has not yet issued a decision. The court has scheduled a trial date in November 2026. General litigation The Company or its subsidiaries regularly face claims in legal proceedings related to contracts, trade secrets, antitrust, unfair competition, consumer protection, and environmental issues, the most significant of which are listed below. Although the Company and its subsidiaries believe that they have substantial defenses to these cases, there can be no assurance as to the outcome of these matters. A loss in any of these cases could require the payment of damages, injunctions, and/or other relief. In October 2017, certain United States service members and their families brought a complaint against a number of pharmaceutical and medical devices companies, including the Company and certain of its subsidiaries in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that the defendants violated the United States 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. In July 2020, the district court dismissed the complaint. In January 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the district court’s decision. In June 2024, the Supreme Court vacated the D.C. Circuit's decision and remanded the case to the D.C. Circuit for reconsideration. In January 2026, the D.C. Circuit affirmed its reversal of the district court's dismissal of the complaint. In April 2026, the D.C. Circuit denied the defendants' rehearing petition. In February 2024, a putative class action was filed against the Company and the Pension & Benefits Committee of Johnson & Johnson in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges that defendants breached fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by allegedly mismanaging the Company’s prescription-drug benefits program. The complaint seeks damages and other relief. In March 2025, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. In November 2025, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' fiduciary duty claims. Plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew their remaining claim, and the court entered final judgment in defendants' favor in January 2026. Plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. MedTech In October 2020, Fortis Advisors LLC, as representative of the former stockholders of Auris Health Inc. (Auris), filed a complaint against the Company alleging breach of contract, fraud, and other causes of action in connection with Ethicon’s acquisition of Auris in 2019. In January 2026, the Company paid a $0.8 billion judgment, inclusive of interest. In October 2019, Innovative Health, LLC filed a complaint against Biosense Webster, Inc. (BWI) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges that certain of BWI's business practices and contractual terms violate the antitrust laws of the United States and the State of California by restricting competition in the sale of High Density Mapping Catheters and Ultrasound Catheters. In May 2025, a jury returned its verdict in favor of Innovative Health. In August 2025, the court issued a permanent injunction concerning BWI's business practices. BWI appealed both the jury verdict and the permanent injunction. In June 2026, briefing of the appeal was completed. Innovative Medicine In October 2018, two separate putative class actions were filed against Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Actelion Pharmaceuticals US, Inc. and Actelion Clinical Research, Inc. (collectively, Actelion) in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland and the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The complaints allege that Actelion violated state and federal antitrust and unfair competition laws by allegedly refusing to supply generic pharmaceutical manufacturers with samples of TRACLEER. TRACLEER is subject to a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which imposes restrictions on distribution of the product. In January 2019, the plaintiffs dismissed the District of Columbia case and filed a consolidated complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. In September 2024, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In February 2026, the parties agreed to settle the matter. In July 2026, the court granted final approval of the settlement. In December 2023, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and Janssen Biotech Inc. (collectively, Janssen) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The complaint alleges that Janssen violated federal and state antitrust laws and other state laws by delaying biosimilar competition with STELARA through Janssen's enforcement of patent rights covering STELARA. The complaint seeks damages and other relief. In August 2024, the court granted in part and denied in part Janssen's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint. In December 2025, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In January 2026, the court granted summary judgment for Janssen on plaintiffs' claim regarding patents obtained through the acquisition of Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in 2020. In March 2026, plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In December 2018, Janssen Biotech, Inc., Janssen Oncology, Inc., Janssen Research & Development, LLC, and the Company (collectively, Janssen) were served with a qui tam complaint on behalf of the United States, certain states, and the District of Columbia. The complaint alleges that Janssen violated the federal False Claims Act and state law when providing pricing information for ZYTIGA to the government in connection with direct sales and reimbursement programs. At this time, the federal and state governments have declined to intervene. In December 2021, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied Janssen's motion to dismiss. Daubert proceedings are ongoing. In August 2025, Xoma Corporation (Xoma) filed a complaint against Janssen Biotech, Inc. (Janssen) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The complaint alleges breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief claims against Janssen regarding the alleged failure to obtain a license from Xoma in connection with Janssen's commercialization of TREMFYA. In December 2025, the court denied Janssen's motion to dismiss.

The Company records accruals for loss contingencies associated with these legal matters when it is probable that a liability will be incurred, and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. As of June 28, 2026, the Company has determined that the liabilities associated with certain litigation matters are probable and can be reasonably estimated. The Company has accrued for these matters and will continue to monitor each related legal issue and adjust accruals as might be warranted based on new information and further developments in accordance with ASC 450-20-25. For these and other litigation and regulatory matters discussed below for which a loss is probable or reasonably possible, the Company is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss beyond the amounts accrued. Amounts accrued for legal contingencies often result from a complex series of judgments about future events and uncertainties that rely heavily on estimates and assumptions including timing of related payments. The ability to make such estimates and judgments can be affected by various factors including, among other things, whether damages sought in the proceedings are unsubstantiated or indeterminate; scientific and legal discovery has not commenced or is not complete; proceedings are in early stages; matters present legal uncertainties; there are significant facts in dispute; procedural or jurisdictional issues; the uncertainty and unpredictability of the number of potential claims; ability to achieve comprehensive multi-party settlements; complexity of related cross-claims and counterclaims; and/or there are numerous parties involved. To the extent adverse awards, judgments or verdicts have been rendered against the Company, the Company does not record an accrual until a loss is determined to be probable and can be reasonably estimated.

In the Company’s opinion, based on its examination of these matters, its experience to date and discussions with counsel, the ultimate outcome of legal proceedings, net of liabilities accrued in the Company’s balance sheet, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position. However, the resolution of, or increase in accruals for, one or more of these matters in any reporting period may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations and cash flows for that period.

In talc cases that have gone to trial, the Company has obtained a number of defense verdicts, but there also have been verdicts against the Company, many of which have been reversed on appeal. The Company continues to believe that it has strong legal grounds to contest all the talc verdicts that it has appealed. Notwithstanding the Company’s confidence in the safety of its talc products, in certain circumstances the Company has settled cases.

In an effort to expeditiously resolve the litigation for the overwhelming majority of claimants, beginning in October 2021, the Company underwent a series of corporate restructurings which ultimately resulted in two entities, Red River Talc, LLC (Red River) and Pecos River Talc LLC (Pecos River), being assigned all liabilities related in any way to injury or damage, or alleged injury or damage, sustained or incurred in the purchase or use of, or exposure to, talc, including talc contained in any product, or to the risk of, or responsibility for, any such damage or injury, except for any liabilities for which the exclusive remedy is provided under a workers’ compensation statute or act. As a result of the restructurings, all claims in North America related to ovarian and other gynecological cancers were separated and allocated to Red River, and mesothelioma, governmental unit and certain other claims in North America were allocated to Pecos River. In connection with these restructurings, the Company filed a series of three Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. Ultimately, each of the bankruptcy proceedings was dismissed and, as a result, the Company reversed substantially all, or approximately $7.0 billion, from amounts previously reserved for the bankruptcy resolution in the fiscal first quarter of 2025. Litigation in the tort system recommenced.

As in years prior, both ovarian cancer and mesothelioma trials are being scheduled in various state courts throughout 2026 and beyond. In the ovarian cancer multi-district litigation (MDL) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, the court is addressing the Company's Daubert motions related to general causation, specific causation, and certain asbestos testing

methods. In January 2026, the Special Master issued her Report and Recommendation related to general causation, excluding certain opinions by plaintiff experts, but also allowing other opinions to proceed. The Company has filed an appeal of the Report and Recommendation to the district court. In May 2026, the Special Master held evidentiary hearings on the Company's specific causation motion. Thereafter, the plaintiffs withdrew two of their specific causation experts. In June 2026, the Company filed a Motion to Show Cause requiring the plaintiffs to explain why the MDL should not be dismissed after they withdrew those experts. In July 2026, the court granted the Motion to Show Cause and a case management conference related to the motion is scheduled for August 2026. In July 2026, the Special Master issued her Report and Recommendation related to certain asbestos testing methods, granting in part the Company's motion. The Company also faces litigation in Canada.

In February 2018, a securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain named officers in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that the Company violated the federal securities laws by failing to disclose alleged asbestos contamination in body powders containing talc, primarily JOHNSON’S Baby Powder, and that purchasers of the Company’s shares suffered losses as a result. In April 2019, the Company moved to dismiss the complaint. In December 2019, the court denied, in part, the motion to dismiss. In December 2023, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. In July 2025, the Third Circuit affirmed the court's order granting class certification. In September 2025, the Company petitioned the Third Circuit for rehearing or rehearing en banc, which was denied in October 2025. In February 2026, the Company filed a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court regarding the Third Circuit’s decision, which the Supreme Court denied in April 2026. Expert discovery is proceeding.

In February 2019, the Company’s talc supplier, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two of its affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc. and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc. (collectively, Imerys), filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. In February 2021, Cyprus Mines Corporation (Cyprus), which sold certain talc mines and assets to Imerys, filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court. In July 2024, the Company, Imerys, and Cyprus and certain of their affiliates (including their parent entities), and the tort claimants' committees and future claimants' representatives appointed in the Imerys debtors' and Cyprus debtors' respective Chapter 11 cases, entered into a global settlement agreement (the Imerys Settlement Agreement) to resolve the parties' ongoing disputes, including disputes raised in the Imerys and Cyprus bankruptcies regarding (i) the Company's alleged obligations to indemnify Imerys and Cyprus for personal injury claims allegedly caused by exposure to talc contained in the Company's products and (ii) entitlements to proceeds of certain of the Company's insurance policies. In October 2024, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court entered an order approving the Imerys Settlement Agreement (the Settlement Order). Certain insurers have appealed the Settlement Order and sought a stay of the Settlement Order pending appeal, which the Delaware Bankruptcy Court denied in January 2025. In August 2025, the district court denied the insurers' appeal of the Settlement Order. The insurers have appealed that decision to the Third Circuit. Briefing in the Third Circuit appeal is complete and a ruling is pending.

Certain subsidiaries of the Company are subject, from time to time, to legal proceedings and claims related to patent, trademark and other intellectual property matters arising out of their businesses. Many of these matters involve challenges to the scope and/or validity of patents that relate to various products and allegations that certain of the Company’s products infringe the intellectual property rights of third parties. Although these subsidiaries believe that they have substantial defenses to these challenges and allegations with respect to all significant patents, there can be no assurance as to the outcome of these matters. A loss in any of these cases could adversely affect the ability of these subsidiaries to sell their products, result in loss of sales due to loss of market exclusivity, require the payment of past damages and future royalties, and may result in a non-cash impairment charge for any associated intangible asset.

The Company’s Innovative Medicine subsidiaries have brought lawsuits against generic companies that have filed ANDAs with the U.S. FDA (or similar lawsuits outside of the United States) seeking to market generic versions of products sold by various subsidiaries of the Company prior to expiration of the applicable patents covering those products. These lawsuits typically include allegations of non-infringement and/or invalidity of patents listed in FDA’s publication “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations” (commonly known as the Orange Book). In each of these lawsuits, the Company’s subsidiaries are seeking an order enjoining the defendant from marketing a generic version of a product before the expiration of the relevant patents (Orange Book Listed Patents). In the event the Company’s subsidiaries are not successful in an action, or any automatic statutory stay expires before the court rulings are obtained, the generic companies involved would have the ability, upon regulatory approval, to introduce generic versions of their products to the market resulting in the potential for substantial market share and revenue losses for the applicable products, and which may result in a non-cash impairment charge in any associated intangible asset. In addition, from time to time, the Company’s subsidiaries may settle these types of actions and such settlements can involve the introduction of generic versions of the products at issue to the market prior to the expiration of the relevant patents.

Beginning in January 2018, Janssen Pharmaceutica NV and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, Janssen) filed patent infringement lawsuits in United States district courts against generic manufacturers who have filed ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of INVEGA SUSTENNA before expiration of the Orange Book Listed Patent. The following entities are named defendants: Pharmascience Inc.; Mallinckrodt PLC; SpecGx LLC; Eugia Pharma Specialities Ltd.; Eugia US, LLC; and Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. The following U.S. patent is included in one or more cases: 9,439,906. In May 2026, Janssen and Pharmascience Inc., Mallinckrodt PLC (now Keenova Therapeutics plc), and SpecGx LLC entered into a confidential settlement agreement. In June 2026, Janssen entered into a stipulated dismissal with Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. and a confidential settlement with Eugia Pharma Specialities Ltd. and Eugia US, LLC.

Beginning in February 2018, Janssen Inc. and Janssen Pharmaceutica NV initiated a Statement of Claim under Section 6 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations against generic manufacturers who have filed ANDSs seeking approval to market generic versions of INVEGA SUSTENNA before expiration of the listed patent. Pharmascience Inc. is a named defendant. The following Canadian patent is included in one or more cases: 2,655,335. In September 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada granted Pharmascience's motion to appeal the Federal Court's decision that the 2,655,335 Patent is not invalid. In July 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Pharmascience's appeal.

Beginning in January 2025, Aragon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen Inc. (collectively, Janssen Inc.), and Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research (SKI) initiated Statements of Claims under Section 6 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations against Sandoz Canada Inc. (Sandoz) in response to Sandoz’s filing of ANDSs seeking approval to market 60 mg and 240 mg generic versions of ERLEADA before the expiration of CA Patent Nos. 3,008,345; 2,875,767; 2,885,415; and 3,128,331. Janssen Inc. and SKI are seeking orders enjoining Sandoz from marketing 60 mg and 240 mg generic versions of ERLEADA before the expiration of the relevant patents. Trial is scheduled to begin in August 2026.

Beginning in June 2025, Aragon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen Biotech, Inc., The Regents of the University of California, and Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research initiated a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Hetero Labs Limited Unit V and Hetero USA, Inc. who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a 240 mg generic version of ERLEADA before the expiration of certain Orange Book Listed Patents. The following U.S. patents are included in the case: 8,445,507; 8,802,689; 9,338,159; 9,987,261; 9,481,663; 9,884,054; RE49,353; 10,849,888; 10,702,508; 11,963,952; 12,303,493; and 12,303,497. In May 2026, the parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement, and the case was dismissed.

Beginning in June 2026, Aragon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen Biotech, Inc., and Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research initiated a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against MSN Pharmaceuticals Inc., MSN Laboratories Private Limited, and Novadoz Pharmaceuticals, LLC who filed an ANDA seeking approval to market 60 mg and 240 mg generic versions of ERLEADA before the expiration of certain Orange Book Listed Patents. The following U.S. patents are included in the case: 9,481,663; 11,963,952; 12,303,493; and 12,303,497.

Beginning in May 2023, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Janssen Pharmaceutica NV filed patent infringement lawsuits in United States district courts against generic manufacturers who have filed ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of SPRAVATO before expiration of certain Orange Book Listed Patents. The following entities are named defendants: Sandoz Inc. and Alkem Laboratories Ltd. The following U.S. patents are included in one or more cases: 10,869,844; 11,173,134; 11,311,500; and 11,446,260. A trial against Sandoz Inc. took place in February 2026. Post-trial briefing is complete, and the parties await a decision from the court.

Beginning in March 2024, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc. (Intra-Cellular) filed patent infringement lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against generic manufacturers who have filed ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of CAPLYTA before expiration of certain Orange Book Listed Patents. The following entities are named

defendants: Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc., and Zydus Lifesciences Ltd. The following U.S. patents are included in one or more cases: RE 48,825; RE 48,839; 8,648,077; 9,168,258; 9,199,995; 9,616,061; 9,956,227; 10,117,867; 10,464,938; 10,960,009; 11,026,951; 11,753,419; 11,980,617; 12,070,459; 12,090,155; 12,122,792; 12,128,043; 12,409,176; and 12,410,195. In June 2026, Intra-Cellular, Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., and Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. entered into a confidential settlement agreement and the case was dismissed. Trial is scheduled to begin in March 2027 against Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. and Zydus Lifesciences Ltd.

In January 2026, 2seventy bio, Inc. filed suit in the Unified Patent Court, Local Division of Brussels, against the Company, Janssen Biotech, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., Janssen-Cilag International NV, Janssen Pharmaceutica NV, Janssen-Cilag NV, Janssen Biologics B.V., Janssen-Cilag B.V., Janssen-Cilag GmbH, Janssen-Cilag, Janssen-Cilag SpA, Janssen-Cilag A/S, Janssen-Cilag Aktiebolag, Janssen-Cilag Farmaceutica Lda., Legend Biotech Corporation, Legend Biotech USA Inc., Legend Biotech Ireland Limited, and Legend Biotech Belgium BV alleging that the manufacture and sale of CARVYKTI infringes EU Patent No. 3 689 383. In the suit, the exclusive licensee, 2seventy bio, Inc., seeks damages and an injunction. In May 2026, The United States of America, including the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Technology Transfer, as the patent owner, intervened in the action. An oral hearing is scheduled for March 2027.

In February 2026, BIOCAD filed an unfair competition action against Genmab and Johnson & Johnson LLC in the Arbitrazh Court of Moscow Region seeking: (1) a declaration of entitlement to use the inventions claimed in Genmab’s EA Patent No. 015584 in the manufacture/marketing of their drug “Daratumia” (INN daratumumab) starting from March 24, 2026, on the basis that patent EA 015584 expires March 23, 2026; (2) a declaration that Genmab’s and Johnson & Johnson LLC’s actions in obtaining PTE extending Genmab’s EA Patent No. 037929 and sending warning letters to BIOCAD asserting infringement risks after March 24, 2026 constitute unfair competition under Article 14.8 of Law on Protection of Competition (EA 037929 has PTE until March 23, 2031); and (3) an order restraining Genmab and Johnson & Johnson LLC from creating obstacles to BIOCAD’s introduction of “Daratumia” into civil circulation starting from March 24, 2026.

In March 2026, Janssen Biotech, Inc. and Janssen Sciences Ireland Unlimited Company (collectively, Janssen) filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Accord BioPharma, Inc. (Accord) and Bio-Thera Solutions, Ltd. in response to Accord’s filing of an aBLA seeking approval to market biosimilar versions of SIMPONI and SIMPONI ARIA and providing notice of commercial marketing pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 262(l)(8)(A) for those biosimilar products. The following U.S. patents are currently included in that case: 8,017,325; 8,586,356; 8,852,889; 8,956,830; 9,170,249; 9,217,168; 9,475,858; 9,487,810; 9,663,810; 9,890,410; 12,129,292; 12,139,735; and 12,180,271. The following U.S. patents were dismissed without prejudice: 11,014,982; 11,041,020; 12,122,824; and 12,291,566. Janssen is seeking an order enjoining defendants from marketing their biosimilar versions of SIMPONI and SIMPONI ARIA before the expiration of the asserted patents. In May 2026, Janssen filed a motion for preliminary injunction. The court scheduled a hearing on the motion for September 2026.

In June 2026, Janssen Biotech, Inc. and Janssen Sciences Ireland Unlimited Company (collectively, Janssen) filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against Alvotech hf. and Alvotech USA Inc. (Alvotech USA) in response to Alvotech USA’s filing of aBLAs seeking approval to market biosimilar versions of SIMPONI and SIMPONI ARIA and providing notice of commercial marketing pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 262(l)(8)(A) for those biosimilar products. The following U.S. patents are included in the case: 8,017,325; 8,852,889; 8,956,830; 9,170,249; 9,217,168; 9,475,858; 9,487,810; 9,663,810; 9,890,410; 10,421,986; 11,225,516; 12,139,735; 12,534,524; and 12,595,454. Janssen is seeking an order enjoining defendants from marketing their biosimilar versions of SIMPONI and SIMPONI ARIA before the expiration of the asserted patents.

In March 2016, Abiomed, Inc. filed a declaratory judgment action against Maquet Cardiovascular LLC (Maquet) in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking a declaration that certain Impella products do not infringe Maquet patents. Maquet counterclaimed for infringement against Abiomed, Inc., Abiomed Europe GmbH, and Abiomed R&D, Inc. The following U.S. patents are at issue: 8,888,728; 9,327,068; 9,545,468; 9,561,314; and 9,597,437. In February 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for

In November 2017, Maquet Cardiovascular LLC filed suit against Abiomed, Inc., Abiomed R&D, Inc., and Abiomed Europe GmbH in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging that certain Impella products infringe Maquet patents. U.S. Patent No. 10,238,783 remains in the suit, and trial was held in May 2026. The jury returned a verdict in Abiomed's favor. Post-trial briefing is ongoing.

Like other companies in the pharmaceutical and medical technologies industries, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries are subject to extensive regulation by national, state, and local government agencies in the United States and other countries in which they operate. Such regulation has been the basis of government investigations and litigations. The most significant litigation brought by, and investigations conducted by, government agencies are listed below. It is possible that criminal charges and substantial fines and/or civil penalties or damages could result from government investigations or litigation.

In June 2026, three Relators filed an Amended False Claims Act Complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging the Company and DePuy Synthes, along with Tenet Healthcare Corporation, Delray Medical Center, and West Boca Medical Center caused the submission of false claims to federal and Florida healthcare programs. The Relators are sales representatives for competitor companies, and the complaint was served following a decision by the Department of Justice to decline intervening in the case. The Company and DePuy Synthes disagree with and are defending themselves against these claims.

In July 2016, the Company and Janssen Products, LP were served with a qui tam complaint pursuant to the False Claims Act filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging the off-label promotion of two HIV products, PREZISTA and INTELENCE, and anti-kickback violations in connection with the promotion of these products. The complaint was filed under seal in December 2012. The federal and state governments have declined to intervene, and the lawsuit is being prosecuted by the relators. The court denied summary judgment on all claims in December 2021. Daubert motions were granted in part and denied in part in January 2022, and trial commenced in May 2024. In June 2024, a jury found no liability regarding the anti-kickback violations but found liability for a portion of the off-label promotion claims. The Company challenged the verdict on the off-label claims in post-trial briefing. In March 2025, the court dismissed the state law portion of the claims but entered judgment on the federal claims. The Company appealed the remainder of the verdict to the Third Circuit. The federal government has intervened for the limited purpose of defending the qui tam provision of the False Claims Act. Briefing is complete and oral argument was held in March 2026. A decision is pending. In April 2026, the Third Circuit ordered the parties to engage in mediation.

In March 2017, Janssen Biotech, Inc. (JBI) received a Civil Investigative Demand from the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding a False Claims Act investigation concerning management and advisory services provided to rheumatology and gastroenterology practices that purchased REMICADE or SIMPONI ARIA. In August 2019, the DOJ notified JBI that it was closing the investigation. Subsequently, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts unsealed a qui tam False Claims Act complaint, which was served on the Company. The DOJ had declined to intervene in the qui tam lawsuit in August 2019. The Company filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted in part and denied in part. The court heard argument on the parties’ summary judgment motions in May 2026, but has not yet issued a decision. The court has scheduled a trial date in November 2026.

The Company or its subsidiaries regularly face claims in legal proceedings related to contracts, trade secrets, antitrust, unfair competition, consumer protection, and environmental issues, the most significant of which are listed below. Although the Company and its subsidiaries believe that they have substantial defenses to these cases, there can be no assurance as to the outcome of these matters. A loss in any of these cases could require the payment of damages, injunctions, and/or other relief.

In October 2017, certain United States service members and their families brought a complaint against a number of pharmaceutical and medical devices companies, including the Company and certain of its subsidiaries in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that the defendants violated the United States 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. In July 2020, the district court dismissed the complaint. In January 2022, the

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the district court’s decision. In June 2024, the Supreme Court vacated the D.C. Circuit's decision and remanded the case to the D.C. Circuit for reconsideration. In January 2026, the D.C. Circuit affirmed its reversal of the district court's dismissal of the complaint. In April 2026, the D.C. Circuit denied the defendants' rehearing petition.

In February 2024, a putative class action was filed against the Company and the Pension & Benefits Committee of Johnson & Johnson in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges that defendants breached fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by allegedly mismanaging the Company’s prescription-drug benefits program. The complaint seeks damages and other relief. In March 2025, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. In November 2025, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' fiduciary duty claims. Plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew their remaining claim, and the court entered final judgment in defendants' favor in January 2026. Plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

In October 2019, Innovative Health, LLC filed a complaint against Biosense Webster, Inc. (BWI) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges that certain of BWI's business practices and contractual terms violate the antitrust laws of the United States and the State of California by restricting competition in the sale of High Density Mapping Catheters and Ultrasound Catheters. In May 2025, a jury returned its verdict in favor of Innovative Health. In August 2025, the court issued a permanent injunction concerning BWI's business practices. BWI appealed both the jury verdict and the permanent injunction. In June 2026, briefing of the appeal was completed.

In October 2018, two separate putative class actions were filed against Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Actelion Pharmaceuticals US, Inc. and Actelion Clinical Research, Inc. (collectively, Actelion) in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland and the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The complaints allege that Actelion violated state and federal antitrust and unfair competition laws by allegedly refusing to supply generic pharmaceutical manufacturers with samples of TRACLEER. TRACLEER is subject to a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which imposes restrictions on distribution of the product. In January 2019, the plaintiffs dismissed the District of Columbia case and filed a consolidated complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. In September 2024, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In February 2026, the parties agreed to settle the matter. In July 2026, the court granted final approval of the settlement.

In December 2023, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and Janssen Biotech Inc. (collectively, Janssen) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The complaint alleges that Janssen violated federal and state antitrust laws and other state laws by delaying biosimilar competition with STELARA through Janssen's enforcement of patent rights covering STELARA. The complaint seeks damages and other relief. In August 2024, the court granted in part and denied in part Janssen's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint. In December 2025, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In January 2026, the court granted summary judgment for Janssen on plaintiffs' claim regarding patents obtained through the acquisition of Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in 2020. In March 2026, plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

In December 2018, Janssen Biotech, Inc., Janssen Oncology, Inc., Janssen Research & Development, LLC, and the Company (collectively, Janssen) were served with a qui tam complaint on behalf of the United States, certain states, and the District of Columbia. The complaint alleges that Janssen violated the federal False Claims Act and state law when providing pricing information for ZYTIGA to the government in connection with direct sales and reimbursement programs. At this time, the federal and state governments have declined to intervene. In December 2021, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied Janssen's motion to dismiss. Daubert proceedings are ongoing.

In August 2025, Xoma Corporation (Xoma) filed a complaint against Janssen Biotech, Inc. (Janssen) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The complaint alleges breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief claims against Janssen regarding the alleged failure to obtain a license from Xoma in connection with Janssen's commercialization of TREMFYA. In December 2025, the court denied Janssen's motion to dismiss.