Pfizer 2010 Annual Report Download - page 104

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
Pfizer Inc. and Subsidiary Companies
January 2008, respectively. Wyeth launched its own generic version of Protonix tablets in January 2008, and Wyeth and Nycomed
filed amended complaints in the pending patent-infringement action seeking compensation for damages resulting from Teva USA’s,
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries’ and Sun's at-risk launches.
In April 2010, the jury in the pending patent-infringement action upheld the validity of the basic patent for Protonix. In July 2010, the
court upheld the jury verdict, but it did not issue a judgment against Teva USA, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries or Sun because of
their other claims relating to the patent that still are pending. Wyeth and Nycomed will continue to pursue all available legal remedies
against those generic manufacturers, including compensation for damages resulting from their at-risk launches.
Separately, Wyeth and Nycomed are defendants in purported class actions brought by direct and indirect purchasers of Protonix in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Plaintiffs seek damages, on behalf of the respective putative classes, for the
alleged violation of antitrust laws in connection with the procurement and enforcement of the patents for Protonix. These purported
class actions have been stayed pending resolution of the underlying patent litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.
Rapamune (sirolimus)
In March 2010, Watson Laboratories, Inc. (Watson) and Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited (Ranbaxy) notified us that they had filed
abbreviated new drug applications with the FDA seeking approval to market generic versions of Rapamune. Watson and Ranbaxy
assert the invalidity and non-infringement of a method-of-use patent which (including the six-month pediatric exclusivity period)
expires in 2014 and a solid-dosage formulation patent which (including the six-month pediatric exclusivity period) expires in 2018. In
April 2010, we filed actions against Watson and Ranbaxy in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and against Watson in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida asserting the infringement of the method-of-use patent. In June 2010, our
action in the Southern District of Florida was transferred to the District of Delaware and consolidated with our pending action there.
ReFacto and Xyntha
In February 2008, Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc. (Novartis) filed suit against Wyeth and a subsidiary of Wyeth in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging that Wyeth’s ReFacto and Xyntha products infringe two Novartis patents.
Novartis’s complaint seeks damages, including treble damages, for alleged willful infringement. Wyeth and its subsidiary assert,
among other things, the invalidity and non-infringement of the Novartis patents. In November 2009, Novartis added a third patent to
its infringement claim against Wyeth and its subsidiary. In August 2010, Novartis granted Wyeth and its subsidiary a covenant not to
sue on the third patent and withdrew that patent from its pending action.
In May 2008, a subsidiary of Wyeth filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Novartis seeking
a declaration that the two Novartis patents initially asserted against Wyeth and its subsidiary in the action referred to in the
preceding paragraph are invalid on the ground that the Wyeth subsidiary was the first to invent the subject matter. In February 2010,
the District of Delaware declined to invalidate those two Novartis patents. In March 2010, the Wyeth subsidiary appealed the
decision to the U.S Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Tygacil (tigecycline)
In October 2009, Sandoz notified Wyeth that it had filed an abbreviated new drug application with the FDA seeking approval to
market a generic version of Tygacil. Sandoz asserts the invalidity and non-infringement of two of Wyeth’s patents relating to Tygacil,
including the basic patent, which expires in 2016. In December 2009, Wyeth filed suit against Sandoz in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware asserting infringement of the basic patent.
B. Product Litigation
Like other pharmaceutical companies, we are defendants in numerous cases, including but not limited to those discussed below,
related to our pharmaceutical and other products. Plaintiffs in these cases seek damages and other relief on various grounds for
alleged personal injury and economic loss.
Asbestos
•Quigley
Quigley Company, Inc. (Quigley), a wholly owned subsidiary, was acquired by Pfizer in 1968 and sold small amounts of products
containing asbestos until the early 1970s. In September 2004, Pfizer and Quigley took steps that were intended to resolve all
pending and future claims against Pfizer and Quigley in which the claimants allege personal injury from exposure to Quigley
products containing asbestos, silica or mixed dust. We recorded a charge of $369 million pre-tax ($229 million after-tax) in the third
quarter of 2004 in connection with these matters.
In September 2004, Quigley filed a petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York seeking
reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. In March 2005, Quigley filed a reorganization plan in the Bankruptcy
Court that needed the approval of both the Bankruptcy Court and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York after
receipt of the vote of 75% of the claimants. In connection with that filing, Pfizer entered into settlement agreements with lawyers
representing more than 80% of the individuals with claims related to Quigley products against Quigley and Pfizer. The agreements
provide for a total of $430 million in payments, of which $215 million became due in December 2005 and is being paid to claimants
upon receipt by the Company of certain required documentation from each of the claimants. The reorganization plan provided for the
establishment of a Trust (the Trust) for the payment of all remaining pending claims as well as any future claims alleging injury from
exposure to Quigley products.
102 2010 Financial Report