$^{ }$As previously disclosed, in 2007, YES Pharmaceutical Development Services GmbH (YES Pharmaceutical) filed an application for  marketing authorization in Germany for an alternate salt form of clopidogrel. This application relied on data from studies that were  originally conducted by Sanofi and BMS for  Plavix  and were still the subject of data protection in the EU. Sanofi and BMS have filed  an action against YES Pharmaceutical and its partners in the administrative court in Cologne objecting to the marketing authorization.  This matter is currently pending, although these specific marketing authorizations now have been withdrawn from the market. The  resolution of this lawsuit is not expected to have a material impact on the Company.  $^{ }$On April 22, 2009, Apotex filed an impeachment action against Sanofi in the Federal Court of Canada alleging that Sanofi’s Canadian  Patent No. 1,336,777 (the ‘777 Patent) is invalid. On June 8, 2009, Sanofi filed its defense to the impeachment action and filed a suit  against Apotex for infringement of the ‘777 Patent. The trial was completed in June 2011 and in December 2011, the Federal Court of  Canada issued a decision that the ‘777 Patent is invalid. Sanofi has appealed this decision though generic companies have since  entered the market and a decision is expected later this year.  $^{ }$As previously disclosed, Otsuka has filed patent infringement actions against Teva, Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Barr), Sandoz Inc.  (Sandoz), Synthon Laboratories, Inc (Synthon), Sun Pharmaceuticals (Sun), Zydus Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Zydus), and Apotex  relating to U.S. Patent No. 5,006,528, (‘528 Patent) which covers aripiprazole and expires in April 2015 (including the additional six- month pediatric exclusivity period). Aripiprazole is comarketed by the Company and Otsuka in the U.S. as  Abilify . A non-jury trial in  the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (NJ District Court) against Teva/Barr and Apotex was completed in August  2010. In November 2010, the NJ District Court upheld the validity and enforceability of the ‘528 Patent, maintaining the main patent  protection for  Abilify  in the U.S. until April 2015. The NJ District Court also ruled that the defendants’ generic aripiprazole product  infringed the ‘528 Patent and permanently enjoined them from engaging in any activity that infringes the ‘528 Patent, including  marketing their generic product in the U.S. until after the patent (including the six-month pediatric extension) expires. Sandoz,  Synthon, Sun and Zydus are also bound by the NJ District Court’s decision. In December 2010, Teva/Barr and Apotex appealed this  decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit). In May 2012, the Federal Circuit affirmed the NJ  District Court’s decision. In June 2012, Apotex filed a petition for rehearing  en banc  which was denied . In December 2012, the  United States Supreme Court denied Apotex’s Petition for a Writ of Certiorari requesting an appeal of the Federal Circuit decision,  which concluded the matter. $^{ }$In April 2009, Teva filed an abbreviated New Drug Application (aNDA) to manufacture and market a generic version of  Atripla .  Atripla  is a single tablet three-drug regimen combining the Company’s  Sustiva  and Gilead’s  Truvada . As of this time, the Company’s  U.S. patent rights covering  Sustiva ’s composition of matter and method of use have not been challenged. Teva sent Gilead a Paragraph  IV certification letter challenging two of the fifteen Orange Book-listed patents for  Atripla . Atripla  is the product of a joint venture  between the Company and Gilead. In May 2009, Gilead filed a patent infringement action against Teva in the U.S. District Court for  the Southern District of New York (SDNY). In January 2010, the Company received a notice that Teva has amended its aNDA and is  challenging eight additional Orange Book-listed patents for  Atripla . In March 2010, the Company and Merck, Sharp & Dohme Corp.  (Merck) filed a patent infringement action against Teva also in the SDNY relating to two U.S. Patents which claim crystalline or  polymorph forms of efavirenz. In March 2010, Gilead filed two patent infringement actions against Teva in the SDNY relating to six  Orange Book-listed patents for  Atripla . Trial is expected in 2013. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of  these lawsuits or their impact on the Company.  In August 2010, Teva filed an aNDA to manufacture and market generic versions of  Baraclude . The Company received a  Paragraph IV certification letter from Teva challenging the one Orange Book-listed patent for  , U.S. Patent No. 5,206,244  (the ‘244 Patent). In September 2010, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of  Delaware (Delaware District Court) against Teva for infringement. In February 2013, the Delaware District Court ruled against the  Company and invalidated the ‘244 Patent. The Company will appeal the Delaware District Court’s decision and is evaluating all other  legal options. Upon final FDA approval of its aNDA, Teva could launch its generic product. There could be a rapid and significant  negative impact on U.S. sales of  Baraclude  beginning in 2013. U.S. net sales of  Baraclude  were $241 million in 2012.  In June 2012, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Sandoz following the receipt of a Paragraph IV certification  letter challenging the same Orange-Book listed patent. In February 2013, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal and the case has  been dismissed.  66 Baraclude  $^{ }$Atripla $^{ }$Abilify  $^{ }$Plavix  – Canada (Apotex, Inc.)  Plavix  – EU  Bristol-Myers Squibb 