Johnson and Johnson 2015 Annual Report Download - page 88

General Litigation
In September 2006, Johnson & Johnson filed a lawsuit against Guidant Corporation (Guidant) in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that Guidant breached provisions of a merger agreement between
Johnson & Johnson and Guidant. In June 2011, Guidant filed a motion for summary judgment and in July 2014, the judge
denied Guidant’s motion. The trial concluded in January 2015 and in February 2015, before a decision was issued by the
Court, Johnson & Johnson and Guidant entered into a settlement agreement, pursuant to which Guidant agreed to pay
Johnson & Johnson $600 million and agreed that it will not sue Johnson & Johnson or its affiliates for patent infringement
regarding certain stent products. Johnson & Johnson dismissed its action against Guidant with prejudice. The Company
recorded a gain associated with this transaction in fiscal first quarter of 2015.
In June 2009, following the public announcement that Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. (OCD) had received a grand jury
subpoena from the United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, in connection with an investigation that has
since been closed, multiple class action complaints were filed against OCD by direct purchasers seeking damages for
alleged price fixing. These cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania as In re Blood Reagent Antitrust Litigation . Following the divestiture of OCD, Johnson &
Johnson retains any liability that may result from these cases. In August 2012, the District Court granted a motion filed by
Plaintiffs for class certification. In April 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the class
certification ruling and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. In October 2015, the District
Court again granted the motion by Plaintiffs for class certification.
In September 2011, Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Inc. and McNeil Consumer Healthcare Division of Johnson &
Johnson Inc. received a Notice of Civil Claim filed by Nick Field in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada (the
BC Civil Claim). The BC Civil Claim is a putative class action brought on behalf of persons who reside in British Columbia
and who purchased during the period between September 20, 2001 and in or about December 2010 one or more various
McNeil infants’ or children’s over-the-counter medicines that were manufactured at the Fort Washington facility. The BC
Civil Claim alleges that the defendants violated the BC Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, and other
Canadian statutes and common laws, by selling medicines that were allegedly not safe and/or effective or did not comply
with Canadian Good Manufacturing Practices. The class certification hearing scheduled for October 2015 was adjourned,
and there is currently no date set for that hearing.
In August 2014, United States Customs and Border Protection (US CBP) issued a Penalty Notice against Janssen Ortho
LLC (Janssen Ortho), assessing penalties for the alleged improper classification of darunavir ethanolate (PREZISTA®)in
connection with its importation into the United States. In October 2014, Janssen Ortho submitted a Petition for Relief in
response to the Penalty Notice. In May 2015, US CBP issued an Amended Penalty Notice assessing substantial penalties
and Janssen Ortho filed its Petition for Relief in July 2015.
In March 2015, Costco Wholesale Corporation (Costco) filed a complaint against Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc.
(JJVCI) in the United States District Court of the Northern District of California, alleging antitrust claims of an unlawful
vertical price fixing agreement between JJVCI, Costco and unnamed other distributors and retailers. Costco alleges that
the alleged agreements harmed competition by causing increases in the price Costco customers pay for JJVCI contact
lenses. Costco is seeking an injunction and monetary damages. In June 2015, the case was transferred to the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida along with related class action cases described below. In November
2015, the Court denied a JJVCI motion to dismiss.
In March and April 2015, over 30 putative class action complaints were filed by contact lens patients in a number of courts
around the United States against Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. (JJVCI), other contact lens manufacturers,
distributors, and retailers, alleging vertical and horizontal conspiracies to fix the retail prices of contact lenses. The
complaints alleged that the manufacturers reached agreements between each other and certain distributors and retailers
concerning the prices at which some contact lenses could be sold to consumers. The plaintiffs are seeking damages. All
of the class action cases were transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida in June
2015 along with the related case filed by Costco Wholesale Corporation described above. The plaintiffs filed a
Consolidated Class Action complaint in November 2015, and in December 2015, JJVCI and other defendants filed
motions to dismiss.
In April 2015, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. (JJVCI) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Utah against the State of Utah seeking a declaratory judgment that a law passed by the state to ban unilateral
pricing policies solely in the contact lens market violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The
Court denied JJVCI’s motion for a preliminary injunction. JJVCI appealed. Argument on the appeal was held in August
2015.
76 •Johnson & Johnson 2015 Annual Report