Good Health Can’t Wait.

Consolidated Financial Statements
Annual Report 2014 - 15
NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(All amounts in Indian Rupees millions, except share data and where otherwise stated)
2.27: CONTINGENT LIABILITIES AND COMMITMENTS
(A) Contingent liabilities:
PARTICULARS
AS AT
31 MARCH 2015
AS AT
31 MARCH 2014
Claims against the Company not acknowledged as debts in respect of:
(a) Income tax matters under dispute (refer note ‘o’ below) 1,181 1,264
(b) Excise matters (including service tax), under dispute (refer note ‘m’ below) 402 633
(c) Sales tax matters, under dispute (refer note ‘n’ below) 317 319
(d) DPCO matters
The Company is contesting various demands for payment to the credit of the Drug Prices Equalisation Account under Drugs (Price Control) Order,
1995 for few of its products, including norfloxacin. Based on its best estimate, the Company has made a provision for the potential liability related
to the overcharged amount including the interest thereon and believes that the possibility of any liability that may arise on account of penalty on
this demand is not probable. In the event the Company is unsuccessful in its litigation in the Supreme Court, it will be required to remit the sale
proceeds in excess of the notified selling prices to the Government of India with interest and including penalties, if any, which amounts are not readily
ascertainable.
(e) Ibandronate Sodium litigation
In June 2012, the Company launched its ibandronate sodium 150 mg tablet product, a generic version of Boniva® tablets, which are marketed and
distributed by Genentech USA, Inc., a member of the Roche Group.The Company is defending patent infringement actions brought by Hoffmann-La
Roche Inc. and Genentech USA, Inc. (collectively, “Roche”) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey with respect to this product.
These actions were first commenced in September 2007 and over time expanded to assert infringement of four patents – one formulation patent (U.S.
patent number 6,294,196) and three method of use patents (numbers 7,192,938, 7,410,957 and 7,718,634). Claims regarding U.S. patent numbers
6,294,196 and 7,192,938 were dismissed in December 2008 and April 2010, respectively.
On 7 May 2012, the Court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment that U.S. patent number 7,718,634 was invalid based on obviousness.
In June 2012, the Company launched its ibandronate sodium 150 mg tablet product. On 1 October 2012, the Court granted summary judgment in
the Company’s favor finding U.S. patent number 7,410,957 invalid.
On 15 November 2012, the Court issued a final judgment in favor of the Company. Roche filed a motion for reconsideration on 16 November 2012
which was denied by the Court on 25 January 2013. Roche has appealed both of the Court’s summary judgment decisions. Argument of the appeal
was heard on 6 December 2013, and on 11 April 2014, the Court of Appeals affirmed that the U.S. patent numbers 7,718,634 and 7,410,957 are
invalid as obvious. A petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc was filed by Roche on 12May2014, and the Company filed its response on 9 June
2014. On 11 July 2014, the Court denied the petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc.
(f) Nexium litigations
Five federal antitrust class action lawsuits have been brought on behalf of direct purchasers of Nexium, and ten federal class action lawsuits have been
brought under both state and federal law on behalf of end-payors of Nexium. These actions have been filed against various generic manufacturers,
including the Company and its U.S. subsidiary Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. These actions have been consolidated in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts.
The complaints allege that, beginning in 2005, AstraZeneca sued various generic manufacturers, including the Company, for infringement with
respect to patents purporting to cover AstraZeneca’s branded drug, Nexium.
Plaintiffs allege that AstraZeneca’s settlement agreements with these various generic manufacturers, including the Company, violated federal and
state antitrust laws, as well as state unfair competition laws. The complaints seek unspecified damages for class members as a result of an alleged
delay in the entry of generic versions of Nexium.
The Company believes that each of these complaints lacks merit and that the Company’s conduct complied with all applicable laws and regulations.
All of the defendants, including the Company, filed motions to dismiss the complaints, which motions were denied in April 2013. The defendants also
filed motions for summary judgment. Arguments regarding these motions were heard on 21 January 2014.
On 12 February 2014, the Court issued an order granting the Company’s motion in part, finding that the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the
Company’s settlement of patent litigation with AstraZeneca included a large and unjustified reverse payment. On 20 October 2014, the Company
reached a settlement with a majority of the plaintiffs, subject to the Court’s approval. Under the terms of the settlement, the Company will not make
any payment to the plaintiffs. On 28 January 2015, the Court granted the Company’s consent motion for approval of the settlement agreements.
In addition, two complaints, similar in nature to those referenced above, were filed in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania by
plaintiffs who chose to opt out of the class action lawsuit. No dispositive motions have been filed in these actions.
197