LEGAL PROCEEDINGS |
6 Months Ended |
|---|---|
Jun. 30, 2026 | |
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | |
| LEGAL PROCEEDINGS | LEGAL PROCEEDINGS From time to time, the Company becomes involved in various legal and administrative proceedings, which include product liability, intellectual property, commercial, tax, antitrust, governmental and regulatory investigations, related private litigation and ordinary course employment-related issues. From time to time, the Company also initiates actions or files counterclaims. The Company could be subject to counterclaims or other suits in response to actions it may initiate. The Company believes that the prosecution of these actions and counterclaims is important to preserve and protect the Company, its reputation and its assets. Certain of these proceedings and actions are described in Note 21, “LEGAL PROCEEDINGS,” to the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2025. On a quarterly basis, the Company evaluates developments in legal proceedings, potential settlements and other matters that could increase or decrease the amount of the liability accrued. As of June 30, 2026, the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets includes accrued current loss contingencies of $18 million related to matters which are both probable and reasonably estimable. For all other matters, unless otherwise indicated, the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these legal proceedings, nor can it estimate the amount of loss, or range of loss, if any, that may result from these proceedings. An adverse outcome in certain of these proceedings could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations, and could cause the market value of its common shares and/or debt securities to decline. Securities Litigation and Related Matters U.S. Securities Litigation – Kelk Complaint On July 26, 2023, a purported class action complaint captioned Kelk v. Bausch Health Companies Inc., et al. (No. 23-cv-03996), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain of its current or former officers. The action alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Plaintiffs allege that defendants made various misrepresentations and omissions regarding the Company’s proposed spin-off of Bausch + Lomb, and allege that those purported misrepresentations and omissions concealed that the spin-off was executed as part of a strategy to subvert the pending opt-out lawsuits and leave plaintiffs in those actions without viable means to a potential recovery. An amended complaint was filed on January 19, 2024. The amended complaint also alleges that defendants made various misrepresentations and omissions regarding the strength of the Company’s patents protecting its product, Xifaxan®, from generic competitors. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on March 20, 2024. On February 12, 2025, the District Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint in full without prejudice. On March 14, 2025, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. Defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on April 28, 2025. On November 20, 2025, the District Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal in December 2025 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Appeal briefing concluded in April 2026 and the Third Circuit set a tentative oral argument date of September 18, 2026. The Company disputes the claims against it and intends to defend itself vigorously. Derivative Lawsuit – Powers Complaint On October 2, 2023, a derivative lawsuit captioned Powers v. Papa, et al. (Index No. 159699/2023) was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York by an alleged stockholder of the Company. The action purports to assert derivative claims on behalf of the Company against the Company’s Board of Directors and certain of its current or former officers and directors. The action asserts claims for, inter alia, breach of fiduciary duty and waste of corporate assets and alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and good faith by causing the Company to issue false and/or misleading statements regarding the Company’s proposed spin-off of Bausch + Lomb. On January 23, 2024, the Court entered a stipulation and order staying this action. Canadian Securities Litigation – Opt-Out Litigation In 2015, several putative class actions were filed against the Company and certain current or former officers and directors in Canada in the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. The actions generally alleged violations of Canadian provincial securities legislation on behalf of putative classes of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the Company for periods commencing as early as January 1, 2013 and ending as late as November 16, 2015. The alleged violations related to the same matters described in the U.S. Securities Litigation description below. Each of these putative class actions, other than the action captioned Catucci v. Valeant, et al. (Court File No. 540-17-011743159, then Court File No. 500-06-000783-163) and filed in the Quebec Superior Court, was discontinued. The Catucci action was settled in 2020, and the proceeding has been discontinued against the Company, its current and former directors and officers, its underwriters and its insurers. As part of the settlement, the Company and the other defendants admitted no liability as to the claims against it and denied all allegations of wrongdoing. The Company is aware that certain other members of the Catucci class exercised their opt-out rights prior to a June 19, 2018 deadline. On February 15, 2019, one of the entities which exercised its opt-out rights, the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (“CalSTRS”), served the Company with an application in the Quebec Superior Court of Justice for leave to pursue an action under the Quebec Securities Act against the Company, certain current or former officers and directors of the Company and its auditor. That proceeding is captioned California State Teachers’ Retirement System v. Bausch Health Companies Inc. et al. (Court File No. 500-11-055722-181). The allegations in the proceeding are similar to those made by the plaintiffs in the Catucci class action. On that same date, CalSTRS also served the Company with proceedings (Court File No. 500-17-106044-186) against the same defendants asserting claims under the Quebec Civil Code in respect of the same alleged misrepresentations. On February 3, 2020, the Quebec Superior Court granted the application of CalSTRS for leave to pursue its respective action asserting claims under the Quebec Securities Act. On June 16, 2020, the Quebec Court of Appeal granted the defendants leave to appeal that decision. By judgment dated October 29, 2021, the appeals were dismissed. On October 8 and 9, 2020, respectively, CalSTRS amended its proceedings to, among other things, include a new alleged misrepresentation concerning the accounting treatment of “price appreciation credits” in respect of Glumetza® during the period covered by the claims. On June 9, 2021, the Quebec Superior Court granted the Company’s application to strike the new allegations from CalSTRS Quebec Securities Act claim, but permitted the amendments to its claim under the Quebec Civil Code. On December 8, 2021, CalSTRS delivered its amended pleadings. The matter remains pending in Quebec. On March 17, 2021, four additional opt-outs from the Catucci class issued a Statement of Claim in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. That proceeding is captioned The Bank of Korea et al. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. et al. (Court File No. 21-006589666-0000). In addition, these plaintiffs also served and filed a motion for leave to pursue claims under the Ontario Securities Act. In June 2026, three plaintiffs filed a motion record for leave to pursue their claims, and one plaintiff, MEAG Munich, is withdrawing its claim. The allegations in this proceeding are similar to those made by the plaintiffs in the Catucci class action and the plaintiffs in the opt-out actions described above. The matter remains pending in Ontario. The Company disputes the claims against it and intends to defend itself vigorously. Canadian Securities Litigation – Ren Statement of Claim On December 23, 2024, a putative class action Statement of Claim captioned Ren v. Bausch Health Companies, Inc., Joseph Papa (“Papa”) and Thomas Appio (“Appio”) (CV-24-00098326-CP) was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the Company, Papa and Appio. The claim generally alleges violations of Ontario securities legislation and common law on behalf of putative classes of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the Company between April 2, 2020 and May 2, 2024. The alleged violations relate to the Company’s disclosures regarding the U.S. and Canadian Securities opt-out litigation described above and below. On January 17, 2025, the Company was served with a Notice of Motion seeking leave to pursue the proposed action under the relevant provisions of the Ontario Securities Act. On January 15, 2026, the parties filed a consent with the Court for an Order discontinuing the action without prejudice. Antitrust Litigation Generic Pricing Antitrust Litigation The Company and its subsidiaries, Oceanside Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Bausch Health US, LLC (formerly Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC) (“BHUS”) and Bausch Health Americas, Inc. (formerly Valeant Pharmaceuticals International) (“BHA”) (for the purposes of this paragraph, collectively, the “Company”), are defendants in multidistrict antitrust litigation (“MDL”) entitled In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (MDL 2724, 16- MD-2724). Bausch + Lomb Corporation had been named as a defendant in the MDL in one complaint, but this complaint has been amended to remove Bausch + Lomb Corporation and, as a result, Bausch + Lomb Corporation is no longer a party to the MDL. The lawsuits seek damages under federal and state antitrust laws, state consumer protection and unjust enrichment laws and allege that the Company’s subsidiaries entered into a conspiracy to fix, stabilize, and raise prices, rig bids and engage in market and customer allocation for generic pharmaceuticals. The lawsuits, which are brought as putative class actions by direct purchasers, end payers, and indirect resellers, and as direct actions by direct purchasers, end payers, insurers, hospitals, pharmacies, and various Counties, Cities, and Towns, are consolidated into the MDL. There are also additional, separate complaints which are consolidated in the same MDL that do not name the Company or any of its subsidiaries as a defendant. State of Connecticut, et al. v. Sandoz, Inc., et al., (D. CT, C.A. No. 3:20-00802), in which BHUS and BHA are defendants, was remanded to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. BHUS and BHA reached an agreement to settle the Connecticut case, which received final court approval, and have been dismissed from the case with prejudice. There are cases pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County and New York State Supreme Court against the Company and other defendants related to the multidistrict litigation. The Company disputes the claims against it and continues to defend itself vigorously. Additionally, Bausch Health Companies Inc. and certain U.S. and Canadian subsidiaries (for the purposes of this paragraph, collectively the “Company”) were named as defendants in a proposed class proceeding entitled Kathryn Eaton v. Teva Canada Limited, et al. in the Federal Court in Toronto, Ontario, Canada (Court File No. T-607-20). The plaintiff sought to certify a proposed class action on behalf of persons in Canada who purchased generic drugs in the private sector, alleging that the Company and other defendants violated the Competition Act (Canada) by conspiring to allocate the market, fix prices, and maintain the supply of generic drugs, and seeking damages under federal law. The proposed class action contained similar allegations to the In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation pending in the U.S. Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On February 20, 2026, the Canadian court declined to certify the action and dismissed the action against the Company. The deadline for the filing of an appeal has passed with no appeal filed. These lawsuits cover products of both Bausch + Lomb and the Company’s businesses. Bausch + Lomb and the Company will split the fees and expenses associated with defending these claims, as well as any potential damages or other liabilities awarded in or otherwise arising from these claims, in the manner set forth in the master separation agreement dated as of March 30, 2022, governing the separation between Bausch Health and Bausch + Lomb. Xifaxan Antitrust Litigation Between September 2025 and December 2025, five antitrust complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island against the Company among other defendants. Among other claims, the plaintiffs allege generally that (1) a 2018 patent settlement with Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. regarding Xifaxan® 550 mg is unlawful and anticompetitive; and/or (2) the Company unlawfully listed patents in the FDA’s Orange Book for Xifaxan® 550 mg. Four of the five matters remain pending in the Rhode Island District Court: •On September 22, 2025, Rhode Island Laborers Health & Welfare Fund filed an indirect purchaser class-action antitrust lawsuit against Bausch Health Companies Inc., Bausch Health Ireland Ltd., Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. On January 28, 2026, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice. •On October 7, 2025, Walgreen Co., The Kroger Co., Albertsons Companies, Inc., H-E-B, L.P. and Supervalu, Inc. filed a direct purchaser antitrust lawsuit against Bausch Health Companies Inc., Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. •Two, now consolidated, direct purchaser class-action antitrust lawsuits were filed by KPH Healthcare Services, Inc. a/k/a Kinney Drugs, Inc. and Value Drug Company on October 21, 2025 and October 23, 2025, respectively, against Bausch Health Companies Inc., Bausch Health Ireland Ltd., Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., and Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. On March 25, 2026, the plaintiffs dismissed the Teva defendants without prejudice. •On December 23, 2025, CVS Pharmacy, Inc. filed a direct purchaser antitrust lawsuit against Bausch Health Companies Inc., Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. The Company and its affiliates named in these cases dispute the asserted claims and intend to vigorously defend these matters. Intellectual Property Litigation From time to time, the Company (and/or certain of its affiliates) is also party to certain intellectual property litigation proceedings in the United States and Canada, including as arising from claims filed against the Company or by the Company (or that the Company anticipates filing within the required time periods) related to certain products sold by or on behalf of the Company, which may be in connection with Notices of Paragraph IV Certification (in the United States) and Notices of Allegation (in Canada) received from third-party generic manufacturers, where such products include Xifaxan® 200 mg and 550 mg, Cabtreo® and Relistor® Oral tablets in the United States and Zaxine® in Canada. Xifaxan® Paragraph IV Proceedings The Company filed lawsuits against Norwich Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Norwich”), Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York LLC, Hetero USA, Inc. (“Hetero”) and ScieGen Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“ScieGen”) concerning the Company’s Xifaxan® (rifaximin) 550 mg tablets. The foregoing lawsuits and related litigation are referred to collectively as the “Xifaxan® Generics Litigation”. The lawsuits against Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. (“Zydus”), Carnegie Pharmaceuticals LLC (“Carnegie”), SABA Ilac Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (“SABA”), Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Mylan”), Alkem Laboratories Ltd. (“Alkem”), Cipla USA, Inc., Ajanta Pharma Limited (“Ajanta”), Hetero and ScieGen are now settled. The Norwich I Xifaxan® Litigation On February 17, 2020, the Company and Alfasigma S.p.A. (“Alfasigma”) received a Notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Norwich, in which Norwich asserted that the U.S. patents listed in the FDA’s Orange Book for the Company’s Xifaxan® tablets, 550 mg, are invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use or sale of Norwich’s generic rifaximin tablets, 550 mg, for which Norwich filed an abbreviated new drug application (an “ANDA”, and such ANDA, the “Norwich First ANDA”). The Company, through its subsidiaries Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Bausch Health Ireland Limited, holds the New Drug Application for Xifaxan® and owns or exclusively licenses (from Alfasigma) these patents. On March 26, 2020, certain of the Company’s subsidiaries and Alfasigma filed suit against Norwich in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 20-cv-00430) pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, alleging infringement by Norwich of one or more claims of the Xifaxan® patents, thereby triggering a 30-month stay of the approval of the Norwich First ANDA for rifaximin tablets, 550 mg. Trial in this matter was held in March 2022. The court issued a final judgment on August 10, 2022 (the “Norwich Legal Decision”), finding that the U.S. Patents protecting the use of Xifaxan® (rifaximin) 550 mg tablets for the reduction in risk of HE recurrence valid and infringed and the U.S. patents protecting the composition, and use of Xifaxan® for treating IBS-D invalid. The Norwich Legal Decision prevents FDA approval of the Norwich First ANDA until October 2029. The Company appealed the Norwich Legal Decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Federal Circuit”) on August 16, 2022. Following the Company’s appeal, Norwich claimed to have removed the HE indication from the Norwich First ANDA and then filed a motion in the District Court requesting modification of the Norwich Legal Decision to permit the FDA to approve the Norwich First ANDA before October 2029. The Company opposed the motion. On May 17, 2023, the District Court denied Norwich’s motion and confirmed that the FDA remained enjoined from granting final approval to the Norwich First ANDA until October 2029. Norwich filed its appeal to the Federal Circuit on May 19, 2023. The Company’s and Norwich’s appeals were consolidated (the “Norwich Appeal”). The Federal Circuit heard oral arguments on January 8, 2024 in the Norwich Appeal. On April 11, 2024, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion affirming the Norwich Legal Decision and the District Court’s denial of Norwich’s motion requesting modification of the Norwich Legal Decision (the “Norwich Appeal Decision”). In May 2024, both the Company and Norwich petitioned for panel and en banc rehearing of the Norwich Appeal Decision. The Federal Circuit denied the Company’s and Norwich’s rehearing petitions on June 13, 2024 and issued its mandate to the District Court on June 20, 2024. Under the Norwich Appeal Decision, the FDA remains enjoined from approving the Norwich First ANDA until October 2029. On September 11, 2024, the Company and Norwich filed petitions for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court appealing certain aspects of the Norwich Appeal Decision. The Supreme Court denied Norwich’s and the Company’s petitions for writ of certiorari on November 18, 2024 and December 16, 2024, respectively. In a letter to Norwich on June 2, 2023, the FDA granted tentative approval to the Norwich First ANDA, but confirmed that it is enjoined from granting final approval until October 2029. On June 5, 2023, Norwich brought a lawsuit against the FDA in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (the “DC District Court”), alleging that the FDA acted improperly by only granting tentative approval to the Norwich First ANDA rather than final approval (the “First Norwich DC Lawsuit”). In June 2023, the Company intervened in the First Norwich DC Lawsuit. A hearing was held on October 6, 2023. On November 1, 2023, the DC District Court granted the Company’s and FDA’s motions for summary judgment, thereby ending the lawsuit. In December 2023, Norwich appealed the DC District Court’s November 1st decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the “DC Circuit”). Although the DC Circuit held the appeal in abeyance on February 2, 2024, the DC circuit returned the case to the court’s active docket on December 17, 2024. The Court held oral arguments on December 11, 2025. On June 26, 2026, the DC Circuit Court issued an opinion affirming the decision of the DC District Court and finding that FDA did not act arbitrarily, capriciously, or contrary to law when FDA confirmed that it is enjoined from granting final approval to the Norwich First ANDA until October 2029. The Norwich II Xifaxan® Litigation The Company received a Notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Norwich, dated May 10, 2024, in which Norwich asserted that certain U.S. Patents listed in the FDA’s Orange Book for the Company’s Xifaxan® tablets, 550 mg, are invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use, or sale of Norwich’s generic rifaximin tablets, 550 mg, for which Norwich filed an amended ANDA (the “Norwich Second ANDA”). On June 20, 2024, the Company filed suit against Norwich in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, alleging infringement by Norwich of one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,564,912 and 11,779,571. On March 10, 2026, Amneal and Norwich filed a motion for summary judgment. No trial date has been set. In a letter to Norwich on January 10, 2025, the FDA granted tentative approval to the Norwich Second ANDA. In the January 10 letter, the FDA confirmed that the first ANDA applicant for rifaximin 550 mg tablets is eligible for 180-day exclusivity. The 180-day exclusivity precludes the FDA from granting final approval to the Norwich Second ANDA. On January 13, 2025, Norwich brought a lawsuit against the FDA in the DC District Court, alleging that the FDA acted improperly by only granting tentative approval to the Norwich Second ANDA rather than final approval (the “Second Norwich DC Lawsuit”). In the Second Norwich DC Lawsuit, Norwich asserts (1) that the Norwich Second ANDA is not subject to a 30-month stay of approval and (2) that the first ANDA applicant for rifaximin 550 mg tablets forfeited their 180-day exclusivity. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”) and Salix intervened in the Second Norwich DC Lawsuit as defendants. On April 17, 2025, the DC District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the FDA, Teva, and the Company. The DC District Court confirmed that the FDA’s decision to only tentatively approve the Norwich Second ANDA was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law because Teva had not forfeited its 180-day exclusivity. On April 18, 2025, Norwich appealed the judgment to the DC Circuit. The Court held oral arguments on December 11, 2025. On December 12, 2025, the Court issued an order requesting supplemental briefing from the parties. After supplemental briefing concluded in the DC Circuit, the Company filed a motion for leave and a cross-claim against the FDA on February 6, 2026 in the DC District Court. On March 5, 2026, the DC District Court issued an order denying the Company’s motion for lack of jurisdiction. On March 19, 2026, the FDA filed a letter to the DC Circuit advising that Actavis (Teva) received final approval for its generic rifaximin 550 mg tablets. The Amneal Xifaxan® Litigation On February 28, 2024, the Company received a Notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, U.S. Agent for Amneal EU, Limited (collectively “Amneal”), in which Amneal asserted that certain U.S. Patents listed in the FDA’s Orange Book for the Company’s Xifaxan® tablets, 550 mg, are invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, and/or importation of Amneal’s generic rifaximin tablets, 550 mg, for which Amneal filed an ANDA. On April 5, 2024, the Company and Alfasigma filed suit against Amneal in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, alleging infringement by Amneal of one or more claims of the Xifaxan® patents, thereby triggering a 30-month stay of the approval of Amneal’s ANDA for rifaximin tablets, 550 mg. Although enjoined from granting final approval, the FDA granted tentative approval to Amneal’s ANDA on January 16, 2025. On March 10, 2026, Amneal and Norwich filed a motion for summary judgment. No trial date has been set. The Company remains confident in the strength of the Xifaxan® patents and intends to vigorously defend its intellectual property. The Cabtreo® Paragraph IV Proceedings The Taro Cabtreo® Litigation The Company received a Notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Taro Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Taro”), dated February 5, 2025, in which Taro asserted that U.S. Patents listed in the FDA’s Orange Book for the Company’s Cabtreo® (clindamycin phosphate, adapalene, benzoyl peroxide) gel, 1.2%/0.15%/3.1%, are invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, and/or importation of Taro’s generic clindamycin phosphate/adapalene/benzoyl peroxide gel, 1.2%/0.15%/3.1%, for which Taro filed an ANDA. On March 20, 2025, the Company filed suit against Taro pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, alleging infringement by Taro of one or more claims of the Cabtreo® patents, thereby triggering a 30-month stay of the approval of Taro’s ANDA for clindamycin phosphate/adapalene/benzoyl peroxide gel, 1.2%/0.15%/3.1%. The Zydus Cabtreo® Litigation The Company received a Notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Zydus, dated February 26, 2026, in which Zydus asserted that U.S. Patents listed in the FDA’s Orange Book for the Company’s Cabtreo® (clindamycin phosphate, adapalene, benzoyl peroxide) gel, 1.2%/0.15%/3.1%, are invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, and/or importation of Zydus’s generic clindamycin phosphate/adapalene/benzoyl peroxide gel, 1.2%/0.15%/3.1%, for which Zydus filed an ANDA. On April 10, 2026, the Company filed suit against Zydus pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, alleging infringement by Zydus of one or more claims of the Cabtreo® patents, thereby triggering a 30-month stay of the approval of Zydus’s ANDA for clindamycin phosphate/adapalene/benzoyl peroxide gel, 1.2%/0.15%/3.1%. The Company remains confident in the strength of the Cabtreo® patents and intends to vigorously defend its intellectual property. The Relistor® Oral Paragraph IV Proceedings The Company received a Notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (“Sun”), dated May 26, 2026, in which Sun asserted that U.S. Patents listed in the FDA’s Orange Book for the Company’s Relistor® (methylnaltrexone bromide) oral tablets, 150 mg, are invalid, unenforceable, and/or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, and/or importation of Sun’s generic methylnaltrexone bromide oral tablets, 150 mg, for which Sun filed an ANDA. On July 10, 2026, the Company filed suit against Sun pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, alleging infringement by Sun of one or more claims of the Relistor® tablet patents, thereby triggering a 30-month stay of the approval of Sun’s ANDA for methylnaltrexone bromide tablets, 150 mg. The Company remains confident in the strength of the Relistor® tablet patents and intends to vigorously defend its intellectual property. Xifaxan® Litigation with Curia IP Holdings, LLC Curia IP Holdings, LLC (“Curia”) filed a lawsuit against the Company on October 25, 2021, alleging that Xifaxan® 200 mg and 550 mg tablets infringe certain patents owned by Curia (U.S. Patent Nos. 9,186,355, 10,556,915, 10,745,415 and 10,961,257 (the “Curia Patents”)). Each of the Curia Patents was filed years after the Company’s launches of Xifaxan® 200 mg and 550 mg tablets. On August 17, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed the complaint, without prejudice. Curia then filed an amended complaint on September 16, 2022, realleging infringement of its patents. On August 31, 2023, Curia filed a second lawsuit against the Company alleging that Xifaxan® 200 mg and 550 mg tablets infringe U.S. Patent No. 11,739,099 (the “’099 Patent”). The ’099 Patent is related to the Curia Patents and was also filed years after the Company’s launches of Xifaxan® 200 mg and 550 mg tablets. The first and second lawsuits filed by Curia are now consolidated. On February 14, 2024, the court issued an order administratively terminating the case pending completion of mediation on or before April 14, 2024. Mediation was held on April 11, 2024, but no agreement was reached. On April 22, 2024, the court reopened the case. On May 1, 2024, the Court entered a stipulation and order of non-infringement for U.S. Patent Nos. 10,556,915, 10,745,415 and 10,961,257. On September 20, 2024, the Court entered a stipulation and order of non-infringement for the ’099 Patent. On May 19, 2026, the parties held a mediation, but no agreement was reached. On June 15, 2026, defendants requested leave to file a motion for summary judgment. On June 29, 2026, plaintiff opposed defendants’ request for leave to file a motion for summary judgment and also requested leave to file a motion for summary judgment. The Company disputes Curia’s infringement claims against Xifaxan® 200 mg and 550 mg tablets and will continue to defend this matter. Zaxine® Notices of Allegation in Canada The Company received a Notice of Allegation in Canada, dated January 14, 2025, from Sandoz Canada Inc. (“Sandoz Canada”) concerning Zaxine® (rifaximin) 550 mg tablets. On March 5, 2025, the Company filed a Statement of Claim against Sandoz Canada asserting infringement of one or more claims of Canadian Patent No. 2,739,436. Trial dates have been set for November 23 to December 2, 2026 and December 7 to 8, 2026. The Company received a Notice of Allegation in Canada, dated April 9, 2026, from Apotex Inc. concerning Zaxine® (rifaximin) 550 mg tablets. On May 22, 2026, the Company filed a Statement of Claim against Apotex asserting infringement of one or more claims of Canadian Patent No. 2,739,436. Inter Partes Review Proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patents covering the Company’s branded pharmaceutical products may be challenged in proceedings other than court proceedings, including inter partes review (“IPR”) at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. The proceedings operate under different standards from district court proceedings, and are often completed within 18 months of institution. IPR challenges have been brought against patents covering the Company’s branded pharmaceutical products. Product Liability Litigation Shower to Shower® Products Liability Litigation Since 2016, the Company and its affiliates, including Bausch + Lomb, have been named in a number of product liability lawsuits involving the Shower to Shower® body powder product acquired in September 2012 from Johnson & Johnson; due to dismissals, twenty-one (21) of such product liability suits currently remain pending. In three (3) cases pending in the Atlantic County, New Jersey Multi-County Litigation, agreed stipulations of dismissal have been entered by the Court, thus dismissing the Company from those cases. One (1) case was also recently dismissed with prejudice in its entirety for failure of plaintiff to comply with court orders requiring plaintiff fact sheets. Four (4) cases in the federal multidistrict litigation have been dismissed recently for failure to comply with orders requiring plaintiff profile forms and/or for failure to produce evidence of a diagnosis of gynecologic ovarian cancer. Potential liability (including its attorneys’ fees and costs) arising out of these remaining suits is subject to full indemnification obligations of Johnson & Johnson owed to the Company and its affiliates, including Bausch + Lomb, and legal fees and costs will be paid by Johnson & Johnson. Twenty (20) of these lawsuits filed by individual plaintiffs allege that the use of Shower to Shower® caused the plaintiffs to develop ovarian cancer, mesothelioma or breast cancer. The allegations in these cases include failure to warn, design defect, manufacturing defect, negligence, gross negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, civil conspiracy concert in action, negligent misrepresentation, wrongful death, loss of consortium and/or punitive damages. The damages sought include compensatory damages, including medical expenses, lost wages or earning capacity, loss of consortium and/or compensation for pain and suffering, mental anguish anxiety and discomfort, physical impairment and loss of enjoyment of life. Plaintiffs also seek pre- and post-judgment interest, exemplary and punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. Additionally, two proposed class actions were filed in Canada against the Company and various Johnson & Johnson entities (one in the Supreme Court of British Columbia and one in the Superior Court of Quebec), on behalf of persons who have purchased or used Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder or Shower to Shower®. The class actions allege the use of the product increases certain health risks (British Columbia) or negligence in failing to properly test, failing to warn of health risks, and failing to remove the products from the market in a timely manner (Quebec). The plaintiffs in these actions are seeking awards of general, special, compensatory and punitive damages. On November 17, 2020, the British Columbia court issued a judgment declining to certify a class as to the Company or Shower to Shower®, and at this time no appeal of that judgment has been filed. On December 16, 2021, the plaintiff in the British Columbia class action filed a Second Amended Notice of Civil Claim and Application for Certification, removing the Company as a defendant; as a result, the British Columbia class action is concluded as to the Company. In October 2021, Johnson & Johnson, through one or more subsidiaries, purported to complete a Texas divisional merger with respect to any talc liabilities at Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. (“JJCI”). LTL Management, LLC (“LTL”), the resulting entity of the divisional merger, assumed JJCI’s talc liabilities and thereafter filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina, which in November 2021 was transferred to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey (the “New Jersey Bankruptcy Court”). The first bankruptcy case was dismissed on April 4, 2023, after a decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and LTL re-filed a new Chapter 11 case on the same day. Several motions to dismiss were again filed, and on August 11, 2023, the second Chapter 11 case was dismissed. LTL and certain supporting creditors and tort claimants appealed, and on July 25, 2024, the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal order, and LTL’s second bankruptcy case was closed. During the pendency of LTL’s bankruptcy cases, the New Jersey Bankruptcy Court extended a preliminary injunction that had stayed substantially all cases subject to the indemnification agreement related to Johnson & Johnson’s talc liability, which injunction was terminated in connection with the bankruptcy case dismissal. In December 2023, LTL changed its name to LLT Management LLC (“LLT”). In June and July 2024, LLT solicited votes for a new “pre-packaged” Chapter 11 plan, and after the reported successful solicitation of votes to commence the planned bankruptcy, LLT and certain affiliates underwent another corporate restructuring that resulted in two entities, Red River Talc LLC (“Red River”) and Pecos River Talc LLC (“Pecos River”), assuming the talc liabilities of LLT. On September 20, 2024, Red River filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (the “Texas Bankruptcy Court”), seeking to resolve all ovarian cancer related talc claims. On October 21, 2024, the Texas Bankruptcy Court agreed to enter a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction staying all ovarian cancer-related talc claims at least through December 2024, which it has since extended through March 15, 2025. On December 9, 2024, Red River filed a Second Amended Chapter 11 plan incorporating the settlement with the Talc Claimants’ Committee. A hearing on confirmation of the plan and any objections thereto began on February 18, 2025. Johnson & Johnson has reported that the entity Pecos River will be responsible for resolving all non-ovarian cancer-related talc claims outside of bankruptcy. After the conclusion of the confirmation hearing, on March 31, 2025, the Texas Bankruptcy Court issued a memorandum decision denying confirmation of the plan, ordering the dismissal of Red River’s bankruptcy case and vacating the preliminary injunction. The debtor’s time to appeal has expired. Certain claimants filed motions to reconsider the dismissal of the bankruptcy case. Those motions were denied and the time to appeal has expired. Red River, Pecos River and Johnson & Johnson continue to have indemnification obligations running to the Company and its affiliates, including Bausch + Lomb, for Shower to Shower® related product liability litigation. It is our expectation that Johnson & Johnson, in accordance with the applicable indemnification agreement, will continue to vigorously defend the Company and Bausch + Lomb, in each of the remaining actions, and that the Company and Bausch + Lomb will not incur any material losses with respect to indemnification claims as a result of the divisional merger or the bankruptcy. General Civil Litigation Doctors Allergy Formula Lawsuit In April 2018, Doctors Allergy Formula, LLC (“Doctors Allergy”), filed a lawsuit against BHA in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, asserting breach of contract and related claims under a 2015 Asset Purchase Agreement, which purports to include milestone payments that Doctors Allergy alleges should have been paid by BHA. Doctors Allergy claims its damages are not less than $23 million. BHA has asserted counterclaims against Doctors Allergy. BHA filed a motion seeking an order granting BHA’s motion for summary judgment on its counterclaims against Doctors Allergy and dismissing Doctors Allergy’s claims against BHA. The motion was fully briefed as of May 2021. The Court held a hearing on the motion on January 25, 2022. On May 12, 2023, the Court issued a Decision and Order denying the motion. On June 14, 2023, BHA filed a Notice of Appeal as to the Decision and Order. On March 13, 2024, BHA filed its appellate brief with the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, First Department, appealing the trial court’s denial of BHA’s motion for summary judgment. Doctors Allergy filed its answering brief on July 26, 2024, and BHA filed its reply brief on September 13, 2024. The Appellate Division heard oral argument on November 7, 2024. On December 5, 2024, the Appellate Division denied BHA’s appeal as to Doctors Allergy’s second cause of action (breach of contract) and BHA’s counterclaims, but it granted the appeal as to Doctors Allergy’s third cause of action (breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing) and dismissed that claim. On December 13, 2024, the Appellate Division remitted this action back to the trial court and on April 20, 2026, jury selection began. On May 8, 2026, the jury returned a split verdict on various causes of action, ultimately awarding a monetary judgment in favor of Doctors Allergy. On June 1, 2026, BHA submitted its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which is now fully briefed and remains pending. BHA continues to dispute the claims against it and this lawsuit will be defended vigorously. Apriso® Qui Tam Litigation In 2018, a qui tam complaint, captioned United States ex rel. Silbersher v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals Int’l, Inc., et al. (No. 4:18-cv-01496), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, certain of its subsidiaries (collectively, the “Company”), and a third party, claiming that their alleged misrepresentations before the U.S. Patent Office ultimately resulted in false claims for payment being made to federal and state healthcare payors for Apriso®. The complaint asserts claims seeking, inter alia, damages, civil penalties and attorneys’ fees under the federal False Claims Act and the false claims acts of several states. In May 2020, the District Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that Plaintiff-relator’s qui tam action was precluded by the False Claims Act’s public disclosure bar. Plaintiff-relator appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In August 2023, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s order and remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. In September 2023, the Company filed a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc with the Court of Appeals. On January 5, 2024, the Court of Appeals panel denied the petition and issued an amended opinion, still reversing the District Court’s order and remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings. On April 4, 2024, the Company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, which was denied on October 7, 2024. Mandate issued and the case returned to the District Court. On November 27, 2024, Plaintiff-relator filed an amended complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on February 5, 2025. On July 22, 2025, the District Court granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend, holding that the amended complaint did not adequately differentiate between the multiple named defendants. Plaintiff-relator filed his amended complaint on August 11, 2025. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint on August 26, 2025. On March 31, 2026, the Court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss and lifted the discovery stay. In April 2026, the Company answered the plaintiff-relator’s third amended complaint and the District Court set a trial date for September 20, 2027. On June 17, 2026, Defendant Dr. Falk filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. On July 17, 2026, the Court set an oral argument date of October 15, 2026 for Dr. Falk’s motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. The Company disputes the claims against it and intends to defend itself vigorously. Norgine Contract Dispute The Company marketed Plenvu® powder for oral solution in the United States under a 2016 Collaboration and Licensing Agreement (the “CLA”) with Norgine B.V. (“Norgine”). Plenvu® is an osmotic laxative indicated for cleansing the colon in preparation for colonoscopy in adults. In December 2025, the Company notified Norgine of its intent to discontinue sales of Plenvu® in 2026. On May 29, 2026, Norgine filed a claim in the High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Commercial Court in London, UK alleging a breach of the CLA. On July 7, 2026, the Company filed its defense to Norgine’s claim. The matter remains pending. The Company disputes Norgine’s claims and intends to defend itself vigorously. Completed or Inactive Matters The following matters have concluded, have settled, are the subject of an agreement to settle or have otherwise been closed during or prior to the three months ended June 30, 2026 or have been inactive from the Company’s perspective for several fiscal quarters or the Company anticipates that no further material activity will take place with respect thereto. Due to the closure, settlement, inactivity or change in status of the matters referenced below, these matters will no longer appear in the Company’s future public reports and disclosures, unless required or as deemed appropriate. With respect to inactive matters, to the extent material activity takes place in subsequent quarters with respect thereto, the Company will provide updates as required or as deemed appropriate. In addition to the completed intellectual property matters described below respecting Lumify® drops, in connection with the Vyzulta® and Lotemax® SM products, Bausch + Lomb previously commenced infringement proceedings against potential generic competitors in the U.S. In connection with Vyzulta®, three matters have been resolved and dismissed. In connection with Lotemax® SM, one matter resulted in a four-day bench trial starting January 13, 2025, and the case was dismissed without prejudice on January 5, 2026; another matter was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and was dismissed without prejudice on March 18, 2026. U.S. Securities Litigation - Opt-Out Litigation Beginning October 2015, four putative securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain current or former officers and directors. The allegations related to, among other things, allegedly false and misleading statements and/or failures to disclose information about the Company’s business and prospects, including relating to drug pricing, the Company’s use of specialty pharmacies, and the Company’s relationship with Philidor Rx Services LLC. The Court consolidated the matters in 2016 and they were later settled with final court approval in 2021 (the “Securities Class Action Settlement”). In addition to the consolidated putative class action, thirty-seven groups of individual investors in the Company’s stock and debt securities chose to opt out of the consolidated putative class action and filed securities actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain current or former officers and directors. These actions are described and defined in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024. These individual shareholder actions assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Certain of these individual actions assert additional claims, including claims under Section 18 of the Exchange Act, Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act. These claims are based on alleged purchases of Company stock, options, and/or debt at various times between January 3, 2013 and August 10, 2016. The allegations in the complaints are similar to those made by plaintiffs in the putative class action. As of March 31, 2026, the Company has settled and paid all opt-out cases in the U.S. As part of the settlements, the Company and the other settling defendants admitted no liability as to the claims against them and denied all allegations of wrongdoing. U.S. Securities Litigation - New Jersey Declaratory Judgment Lawsuit On March 24, 2022, the Company and Bausch + Lomb were named in a declaratory judgment action in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Somerset County, Chancery Division, brought by certain individual investors in the Company’s common shares and debt securities who are also maintaining individual securities fraud claims against the Company and certain current or former officers and directors as part of the U.S. Securities Litigation. This action sought a declaratory judgment that alleged transfers of certain Company assets to Bausch + Lomb would constitute a voidable transfer under the New Jersey Voidable Transactions Act and that Bausch + Lomb would be liable for damages, if any, awarded against the Company in the individual opt-out actions. The declaratory judgment action also alleged that the potential future separation of Bausch + Lomb from the Company by distribution of Bausch + Lomb stock to the Company’s shareholders would leave the Company with inadequate financial resources to satisfy these plaintiffs’ alleged securities fraud damages in the underlying individual opt-out actions. None of the plaintiffs in this declaratory judgment action have obtained a judgment against the Company in the underlying individual opt-out actions and the Company disputes the claims against it in those underlying actions. The underlying individual opt-out actions assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and certain actions assert claims under Section 18 of the Exchange Act. The allegations in those underlying individual opt out actions are made against the Company and several of its former officers and directors only and relate to, among other things, allegedly false and misleading statements made during the 2013-2016 time period by the Company and/or failures to disclose information about the Company’s business and prospects including relating to drug pricing and the use of specialty pharmacies. On March 31, 2022, the Company and Bausch + Lomb removed the declaratory judgment action to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On April 29, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand. On November 29, 2022, the District Court granted Plaintiffs’ remand motion and the case was remanded to the New Jersey Superior Court Chancery Division. On December 8, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a proposed Order to Show Cause and motion for a preliminary injunction, and sought interim relief including expedited discovery. On December 13, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ proposed Order to Show Cause and stayed discovery pending the resolution of the Company and Bausch + Lomb’s forthcoming motions to dismiss, while instructing the Company to provide certain notice to Plaintiffs of the intended completion of a potential future distribution referenced above under certain circumstances. On December 22, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which, among other things, added claims seeking injunctive relief. On January 11, 2023, the Company and Bausch + Lomb moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Briefing was complete on February 24, 2023, and the motion to dismiss was heard on March 3, 2023. On April 3, 2023, the Court issued a decision granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss. In early August 2025, a settlement was reached, and, on August 29, 2025, the Court issued an order staying this action pending satisfaction of certain conditions to that settlement. On January 21, 2026, the Court entered a consent order dismissing the claims with prejudice. The MSN Trulance® Paragraph IV Proceedings and Related IPR Proceedings In April 2021, the Company commenced litigation against MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. (“MSN”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging patent infringement by MSN’s filing of an ANDA for generic Trulance® (plecanatide) 3 mg tablets. The Company filed the lawsuit following receipt of a Notice of Paragraph IV Certification from MSN, in which MSN asserted that the U.S. patents listed in the FDA’s Orange Book for Trulance® tablets, 3 mg, were invalid, unenforceable and/or would not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use or sale of MSN’s generic plecanatide tablets, 3 mg. Beginning November 10, 2025, the Court held a 3-day bench trial. On April 3, 2026, the parties executed a confidential settlement agreement resolving the dispute. The Court signed an order dismissing the lawsuit on April 6, 2026. Mylan and MSN filed IPR petitions for certain U.S. patents listed in the FDA’s Orange Book for Trulance® (plecanatide). On March 21, 2022, Mylan filed a petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,041,786 (the “’786 Patent”), which was then instituted on September 14, 2022. On October 12, 2022, MSN also filed a petition for IPR of the ’786 Patent and the United States Patent & Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) then issued a decision on December 14, 2022, instituting MSN’s IPR and joining it with Mylan’s IPR. On September 8, 2023, the PTAB issued a decision finding that Mylan and MSN had not shown that the ’786 Patent is unpatentable. On September 28, 2023, Mylan appealed the PTAB’s September 8th decision to the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit held oral arguments on April 7, 2025. On June 20, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a decision vacating the PTAB’s September 8, 2023 decision and remanded the matter back to the PTAB for additional fact-finding. On remand, the PTAB issued a decision on January 27, 2026, finding that MSN had not shown that the ’786 Patent is unpatentable. On March 31, 2026, MSN filed a notice of appeal. On April 3, 2026, the parties executed a confidential settlement agreement resolving the dispute. The PTAB entered an order dismissing MSN’s notice of appeal on April 14, 2026. Lumify® Paragraph IV Proceedings On August 16, 2021, Bausch & Lomb Incorporated (“B&L Inc.”) received a Notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Slayback Pharma LLC (“Slayback”), in which Slayback asserted that certain U.S. patents, each of which is listed in the FDA’s Orange Book for Lumify® (brimonidine tartrate solution) drops (the “Lumify Patents”), are either invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use or sale of Slayback’s generic drops, for which an ANDA has been filed by Slayback. B&L Inc., through its affiliate Bausch + Lomb Ireland Limited, exclusively licenses the Lumify Patents from Eye Therapies, LLC (“Eye Therapies”). On September 10, 2021, B&L Inc., Bausch + Lomb Ireland Limited and Eye Therapies filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Slayback pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, alleging infringement by Slayback of one or more claims of the Lumify Patents (the “Slayback Lawsuit”), thereby triggering a 30-month stay of the approval of the Slayback ANDA. Since then, U.S. Patent No. 9,259,425 has been dismissed from the case. On May 15, 2023, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision, finding all claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,293,742 unpatentable (IPR2022-00142). This decision was appealed to the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit issued its opinion on June 30, 2025, which reversed the PTAB’s claim construction of certain limitation, vacated its obviousness finding, and remanded for further proceedings. Furthermore, two additional patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 11,596,600 and 11,833,245) have issued and been listed in the Orange Book as related to Lumify®. Lawsuits alleging infringement of these patents were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Slayback and its licensees, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories S.A. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. (collectively, “DRL”) (the “DRL Lawsuits”). The Slayback Lawsuit and DRL Lawsuits were subsequently consolidated into one district court action before the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (3:21-cv-16766-RK-RLS). On December 15, 2023, B&L Inc., Bausch + Lomb Ireland Limited, and Eye Therapies filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction requesting the court to enjoin any infringing activities by DRL and a hearing was held in January 2024. On May 10, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion, finding that Plaintiffs had not proven that they would be “irreparably harmed” absent a preliminary injunction. Additionally, on December 18, 2023, B&L Inc., Bausch + Lomb Ireland Limited, and Eye Therapies amended their complaint in the consolidated district court action to add claims for copyright infringement, as well as claims under the Lanham Act, including trademark and trade dress infringement. DRL subsequently petitioned for IPR of the U.S. Patent Nos. 11,596,600 and 11,833,245; the PTAB instituted both petitions (IPR2024-00467 and IPR2024-00563). Oral argument was held before the PTAB on May 13, 2025. On July 9, 2025, settlement was reached with DRL and B&L Inc., Bausch + Lomb Ireland Limited, Eye Therapies and DRL entered into a settlement agreement effective as of July 9, 2025, providing for, among other things, a market entry date of June 30, 2027 (or earlier subject to certain acceleration clauses) for DRL’s generic drops. On July 14, 2025, the consolidated district court action (3:21-cv-16766-RK-RLS) was dismissed without prejudice and on July 22, 2025, the PTAB terminated IPR2024-00467 and IPR2024-00563. On August 13, 2025, the PTAB terminated IPR2022-00142 following remand from the Federal Circuit. On March 28, 2025, B&L Inc. received a Notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Somerset Therapeutics, LLC (“Somerset”), in which Somerset asserted that U.S. Patent Nos. 8,293,742, 9,259,425, 11,596,600 and 11,833,245, are either invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use or sale of Somerset’s generic drops, for which an ANDA has been filed by Somerset (the “Somerset ANDA”). On April 28, 2025, B&L Inc., Bausch + Lomb Ireland Limited and Eye Therapies filed suit against Somerset and certain affiliates pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, alleging infringement by Somerset of one or more claims of the Lumify Patents, thereby triggering a 30-month stay of the approval of the Somerset ANDA. The case was dismissed on January 12, 2026. On April 25, 2025, B&L Inc. and Bausch + Lomb Ireland Limited received a Notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Gland Pharma Limited (“Gland”), in which Gland asserted that U.S. Patent Nos. 8,293,742, 9,259,425, 11,596,600 and 11,833,245, each of which is listed in the FDA’s Orange Book for Lumify® (brimonidine tartrate solution) drops, are either invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use or sale of Gland’s generic drops, for which an ANDA has been filed by Gland. On April 28, 2025, B&L Inc., Bausch + Lomb Ireland Limited and Eye Therapies filed suit against Gland pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, alleging infringement by Gland of one or more claims of such Lumify Patents, thereby triggering a 30-month stay of the approval of the Gland ANDA. A stipulation and order of dismissal was entered by the court on December 23, 2025. On November 6, 2025, B&L Inc. and Bausch + Lomb Ireland Limited received a Notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Granules India Ltd. (“Granules”), in which Granules asserted that U.S. Patent Nos. 8,293,742, 9,259,425, 11,596,600 and 11,833,245, each of which is listed in the FDA’s Orange Book for Lumify® (brimonidine tartrate solution) drops, are either invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use or sale of Granules’ generic drops, for which an ANDA has been filed by Granules. On December 9, 2025, B&L Inc., Bausch + Lomb Ireland Limited and Eye Therapies filed suit against Granules pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, alleging infringement by Granules of one or more claims of such Lumify Patents, thereby triggering a 30-month stay of the approval of the Granules ANDA. A consent judgment was entered by the court on April 1, 2026, and the matter was dismissed. There are currently no ongoing litigation proceedings with respect to Lumify® drops.
|