| LEGAL PROCEEDINGS | LEGAL PROCEEDINGS Bausch + Lomb is involved, and, from time to time, may become involved, in various legal and administrative proceedings, which include or may 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, Bausch + Lomb also initiates or may initiate actions or file counterclaims. Bausch + Lomb could be subject to counterclaims or other suits in response to actions it may initiate. Bausch + Lomb believes that the prosecution of these actions and counterclaims is important to preserve and protect Bausch + Lomb, its reputation and its assets. On a quarterly basis, Bausch + Lomb 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, 2023, Bausch + Lomb’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets includes accrued current loss contingencies of $4 million related to matters which are both probable and reasonably estimable. For all other matters, unless otherwise indicated, Bausch + Lomb 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 Bausch + Lomb’s business, financial condition and results of operations, and could cause the market value of its common shares to decline. Antitrust Generic Pricing Antitrust Litigation BHC’s subsidiaries, Oceanside Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Bausch Health US, LLC (formerly Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC) (“Bausch Health US”), and Bausch Health Americas, Inc. (formerly Valeant Pharmaceuticals International) (“Bausch Health Americas”) (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). 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 have been 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, States, and various Counties, Cities, and Towns, have been or will be consolidated into the MDL. There are also additional, separate complaints which have been consolidated in the same MDL that do not name the Company or any of its subsidiaries as a defendant. There are cases pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County against the Company and other defendants related to the multidistrict litigation, but no complaint has been filed in these cases. The cases have been put in deferred status. The Company disputes the claims against it and these cases will be defended vigorously. Additionally, BHC and certain U.S. and Canadian subsidiaries (for the purposes of this paragraph, collectively “the Company”) have been 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 seeks 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 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 contains similar allegations to the In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation pending in the United States Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Company disputes the claims against it and this case will be defended vigorously. These lawsuits cover products of both Bausch + Lomb and BHC’s other businesses. It is anticipated that Bausch + Lomb and BHC 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 MSA. PreserVision ® AREDS 2 Antitrust Litigation Bausch & Lomb Incorporated ("B&L Inc.") is a defendant in an antitrust suit filed by a competitor on December 20, 2021, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (ZeaVision, LLC v. Bausch & Lomb Incorporated, et al., Civil Action No. 4:21-cv-01487). The complaint alleged various antitrust and Lanham act claims. After B&L Inc. moved to dismiss the original complaint on February 11, 2022, ZeaVision, LLC (“ZeaVision”) filed its First Amended Complaint on March 4, 2022, dismissing B&L Inc.’s co-defendant and its conspiracy to monopolize claim. The First Amended Complaint alleges that B&L Inc.’s efforts to enforce its patents constitutes sham litigation, that certain B&L Inc. advertising is false and violates antitrust laws and that certain conduct by B&L Inc. constitutes monopolization. It also includes a false advertising claim under the Lanham Act. On April 1, 2022, B&L Inc. filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, to stay or transfer the First Amended Complaint. On November 21, 2022, B&L Inc.’s motion was granted, and the action was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. ZeaVision has appealed this decision to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. ZeaVision filed its opening Appellant brief on February 9, 2023. B&L Inc. filed its responsive Appellee brief on April 5, 2023. In addition to responding to ZeaVision’s personal jurisdiction arguments, B&L Inc. also raised Rule 12(b)(6) arguments as an alternative basis to affirm the District Court’s dismissal of the First Amended Complaint. ZeaVision filed its Reply brief on April 27, 2023. The matter is now fully briefed on appeal. The Eighth Circuit has indicated that the case will be set for oral argument, but, to date, no oral argument has been scheduled. B&L Inc. disputes the claims against it and will defend the case vigorously. Product Liability Shower to Shower ® Products Liability Litigation Since 2016, BHC 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-six (26) 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. 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 BHC and its affiliates, including Bausch + Lomb, and legal fees and costs will be paid by Johnson & Johnson. Twenty-five (25) 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 BHC 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 BHC 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 BHC as a defendant; as a result, the British Columbia class action is concluded as to BHC. Johnson & Johnson, through one or more subsidiaries has purported to have completed 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 United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina. Pursuant to court orders entered in November 2021, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "Bankruptcy Court"), and substantially all cases related to Johnson & Johnson’s talc liability were stayed for a period of sixty (60) days pursuant to a preliminary injunction. Notwithstanding the divisional merger and LTL’s bankruptcy case, BHC and Bausch + Lomb continue to have indemnification claims and rights against Johnson & Johnson and LTL pursuant to the terms of the indemnification agreement entered into between JJCI and its affiliates and BHC and its affiliates, which indemnification agreement remains in effect. As a result, it is Bausch + Lomb’s current expectation that BHC and Bausch + Lomb will not incur any material impairments with respect to its indemnification claims as a result of the divisional merger or the bankruptcy. In December 2021, certain talc claimants filed motions to dismiss the bankruptcy case. Shortly thereafter, LTL filed a motion in the Bankruptcy Court to extend the 60-day preliminary injunction. On February 25, 2022, the Bankruptcy Court entered orders denying the motions to dismiss and extending the preliminary injunction staying substantially all cases subject to the indemnification agreement related to Johnson & Johnson’s talc liability through at least June 29, 2022, which it later extended indefinitely. The order denying the motions to dismiss and the order extending the preliminary injunction were subject to appeal and the Bankruptcy Court certified their appeals directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On May 11, 2022, the Third Circuit granted authorization for the parties to proceed with their direct appeals. Oral argument before the Third Circuit was held on September 19, 2022. On January 30, 2023, a unanimous three-judge Third Circuit Court of Appeals panel issued its decision directing the Bankruptcy Court to dismiss LTL’s bankruptcy case, concluding that LTL was not in financial distress and could not file a bankruptcy case in good faith. LTL requested a rehearing, and on March 22, 2023, the Third Circuit denied LTL’s rehearing request. Thereafter LTL moved for a stay of the mandate of the Third Circuit’s dismissal decision while LTL sought review by the Supreme Court. On March 31, 2023, the Third Circuit denied LTL’s stay motion. At that juncture, the Bankruptcy Court determined it appropriate to discontinue the proceedings pending there, and on April 4, 2023, entered orders dismissing the bankruptcy case and related adversary proceedings and terminating the preliminary injunction. However, on April 4, 2023, LTL re-filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the Bankruptcy Court and again commenced an adversary proceeding seeking a preliminary injunction enjoining substantially all cases subject to the indemnification agreement. The Bankruptcy Court granted a temporary restraining order enjoining litigation against the “Protected Parties”, including BHC and Bausch + Lomb. The Bankruptcy Court held a hearing on April 18, 2023, to consider the preliminary injunction, and on April 20, 2023, the Bankruptcy Court ordered a preliminary injunction solely on a limited basis to enjoin the commencement or continuation of any trial against any Protected Party (including the Bausch entities), which the Bankruptcy Court extended to August 22, 2023. The injunction did not enjoin the commencement of a new suit or any discovery or pre-trial activity in pending suits. The Bankruptcy Court denied the talc claimants’ motion to have the injunction decision certified for direct appeal to the Third Circuit. On or around April 24, 2023, multiple motions to dismiss the newly filed Chapter 11 case were filed, and a hearing on the motions to dismiss was held the week of June 27, 2023. On July 28, 2023, the Bankruptcy Court granted the motions to dismiss LTL’s bankruptcy case and directed the parties to prepare and propose a form of Order consistent with the Court’s dismissal. If the bankruptcy case is ultimately dismissed, BHC’s and Bausch + Lomb’s position vis a vis Johnson & Johnson would return to the status quo prior to the filing. The litigation against BHC, Bausch + Lomb and other defendants will no longer be stayed, and LTL and Johnson & Johnson will continue to have indemnification obligations running to BHC and its affiliates, including Bausch + Lomb, for Shower to Shower ® related product liability litigation. To the extent that any cases proceed during the pendency of the bankruptcy case, or if the case is ultimately dismissed, it is Bausch + Lomb’s and BHC's expectation that Johnson & Johnson, in accordance with the indemnification agreement, will continue to vigorously defend BHC and Bausch + Lomb in each of the remaining actions. General Civil Actions U.S. Securities Litigation - New Jersey Declaratory Judgment Lawsuit On March 24, 2022, BHC 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 BHC’s common shares and debt securities who are also maintaining individual securities fraud claims against BHC and certain current or former officers and directors as part of the U.S. Securities Litigation. This action seeks a declaratory judgment that alleged transfers of certain BHC assets to Bausch + Lomb would constitute a voidable transfer under the New Jersey Voidable Transactions Act and that Bausch + Lomb be liable for damages, if any, awarded against BHC in the individual opt-out actions. The declaratory judgment action also alleges that the potential future separation of Bausch + Lomb from BHC by distribution of Bausch + Lomb stock to BHC’s shareholders would leave BHC 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 BHC in the underlying individual opt-out actions and BHC 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 Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (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 BHC 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 BHC and/or failures to disclose information about BHC’s business and prospects, including relating to drug pricing and the use of specialty pharmacies. On March 31, 2022, BHC 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 BHC’s and Bausch + Lomb’s forthcoming motions to dismiss, while instructing BHC to provide certain notice to plaintiffs of the intended completion of a future potential 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, BHC 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. Both BHC and Bausch + Lomb dispute the claims in this declaratory judgment action and intend to vigorously defend this matter. California Proposition 65 Related Matter On June 19, 2019, plaintiffs filed a proposed class action in California state court against Bausch Health US and Johnson & Johnson (Gutierrez, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. 37-2019-00025810-CU-NP-CTL), asserting claims for purported violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law in connection with their sale of talcum powder products that the plaintiffs allege violated Proposition 65 and/or the California Safe Cosmetics Act. This lawsuit was served on Bausch Health US in June 2019 and was subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, where it is currently pending. Plaintiffs seek damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief, and reimbursement/restitution. BHC filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims, which was granted in April 2020 without prejudice. In May 2020, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and in June 2020, filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint further, which was granted. In August 2020, Plaintiffs filed the Fifth Amended Complaint. On January 22, 2021, the Court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice. On February 19, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On July 1, 2021, Appellants (Plaintiffs) filed their opening brief; Appellees’ response briefs were filed October 8, 2021. This matter was stayed by the Ninth Circuit on December 7, 2021, due to the preliminary injunction entered by the Bankruptcy Court in the LTL bankruptcy proceeding. This stay included Appellants’ reply brief deadline, which was previously due to be filed on or before December 2, 2021. On March 9, 2022, the Ninth Circuit issued an order extending the stay through July 29, 2022. On July 29, 2022, Johnson & Johnson filed a status report in the Gutierrez appeal, outlining the developments since the last status report and the imposition of the stay. Johnson & Johnson noted that following a July 26, 2022, hearing, the Bankruptcy Court left the preliminary injunction in place, and asked the Ninth Circuit to continue to stay this action while the bankruptcy preliminary injunction remained in place. On January 20, 2023, the Ninth Circuit extended the stay until February 17, 2023. On February 17, 2023, Johnson & Johnson requested that the court afford it 60 days – until April 18, 2023, or seven (7) days following any lifting of the LTL Bankruptcy Court’s preliminary injunction, whichever comes earliest – to provide an additional status report about the bankruptcy proceeding and the Third Circuit dismissal for which the LTL has requested a rehearing. On April 7, 2023, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. filed a status report regarding the bankruptcy proceeding advising the Court of the dismissal of the prior bankruptcy proceeding and the filing of the second bankruptcy proceeding, as well as the preliminary injunction and stay order, and requesting the stay of the appeal remain in place until May 10, 2023, which was granted. Following the entry of a preliminary injunction applicable to this case, which was extended until August 26, 2023, the Ninth Circuit extended the stay to June 15, 2023. On June 22, 2023, J&J/LTL filed a status report requesting the stay be extended to August 26, 2023, consistent with the extension of the preliminary injunction by the bankruptcy court. The Ninth Circuit has not yet acted on that request. Bausch Health US disputes the claims in this lawsuit and will defend it vigorously. New Mexico Attorney General Consumer Protection Actio n BHC and Bausch Health US were named in an action brought by State of New Mexico ex rel. Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General of New Mexico, in the County of Santa Fe New Mexico First Judicial District Court (New Mexico ex rel. Balderas v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Civil Action No. D-101-CV-2020-00013, filed on January 2, 2020), alleging consumer protection claims against Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc., BHC and Bausch Health US related to Shower to Shower ® and its alleged causal link to mesothelioma and other cancers. In April 2020, Bausch Health US filed a motion to dismiss, which in September 2020, the Court granted in part as to the New Mexico Medicaid Fraud Act and New Mexico Fraud Against Taxpayers Act claims and denied as to all other claims. The State of New Mexico brings claims against all defendants under the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act and other common law and equitable causes of action, alleging defendants engaged in wrongful marketing, sale and promotion of talcum powder products. The lawsuit seeks to recover the cost of the talcum powder products as well as the cost of treating asbestos-related cancers allegedly caused by those products. Bausch Health US filed its answer on November 16, 2020. On December 30, 2020, Johnson & Johnson filed a Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings and on January 4, 2021, Bausch Health US filed a joinder to that motion, which was denied on March 8, 2021. Trial was scheduled to begin on May 30, 2023, until the case was stayed by an interlocutory appeal to the New Mexico Supreme Court by Johnson & Johnson. On July 14, 2022, LTL filed an adversary proceeding in the Bankruptcy Court (Case No. 21-30589, Adv. Pro. No. 22-01231) against the State of New Mexico ex rel. Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General, and a motion seeking an injunction barring the New Mexico Attorney General from continuing to prosecute the action while the bankruptcy case is pending. A hearing was held on September 14, 2022, and, on October 4, 2022, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order granting the injunction. The New Mexico and Mississippi AGs appealed the order granting the preliminary injunction and sought direct appeal to the Third Circuit. The Bankruptcy Court certified the matter for direct appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Following the Third Circuit’s decision requiring dismissal of the main bankruptcy proceeding, and its subsequent denials of LTL’s requests for a rehearing or a stay pending disposition by the Supreme Court, on April 4, 2023, the Bankruptcy Court entered orders dismissing the bankruptcy case and related adversary proceedings. However, also on April 4, 2023, LTL re-filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the Bankruptcy Court and again sought a preliminary injunction, though it does not currently include this lawsuit. The Bankruptcy Court did not grant the broad preliminary injunction requested and, instead, issued a preliminary injunction solely on a limited basis to enjoin the commencement or continuation of any trial against any Protected Party. However, this action remains stayed due to a separate September 13, 2022, stay order from the New Mexico Supreme Court in a pending appeal from a Motion to Compel filed by Johnson & Johnson. Accordingly, at this time this matter remains stayed pending the outcome of that appeal. BHC and Bausch Health US dispute the claims against them, and this lawsuit will be defended vigorously. Doctors Allergy Formula Lawsuit In April 2018, Doctors Allergy Formula, LLC (“Doctors Allergy”), filed a lawsuit against Bausch Health Americas 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 Bausch Health Americas. Doctors Allergy claims its damages are not less than $23 million. Bausch Health Americas has asserted counterclaims against Doctors Allergy. Bausch Health Americas filed a motion seeking an order granting Bausch Health Americas' summary judgment on its counterclaims against Plaintiff and dismissing Plaintiff’s claims against Bausch Health Americas. 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 Bausch Health Americas’ motion. On June 14, 2023, Bausch Health Americas filed a Notice of Appeal as to the Decision and Order. Bausch Health Americas disputes the claims against it and this lawsuit will be defended vigorously. Intellectual Property Matters PreserVision ® AREDS Patent Litigation PreserVision ® AREDS and PreserVision ® AREDS 2 are OTC eye vitamin formulas for those with moderate-to-advanced AMD. The PreserVision ® U.S. formulation patent expired in March 2021, but a patent covering methods of using the formulation remains in force into 2026. B&L Inc. has filed patent infringement proceedings against 19 named defendants in 16 proceedings claiming infringement of these patents and, in certain circumstances, related unfair competition and false advertising causes of action. Twelve of these proceedings were subsequently settled; two resulted in a default. As of the date of this filing, there are two ongoing actions: (1) Bausch & Lomb Inc. & PF Consumer Healthcare 1 LLC v. ZeaVision LLC, C.A. No. 4:22-cv-00914-AGF (E.D. Mo.); and (2) Bausch & Lomb Inc. & PF Consumer Healthcare 1 LLC v. SBH Holdings LLC, C.A. No. 20-cv-01463-GBW-CJB (D. Del.). Bausch + Lomb remains confident in the strength of these patents and B&L Inc. will continue to vigorously pursue these matters and defend its intellectual property. Patent Litigation against Certain Ocuvite ® and PreserVision ® On June 22, 2021, ZeaVision filed a complaint for patent infringement against certain of the Ocuvite ® and PreserVision ® products in the Eastern District of Missouri (Case No. 4:21-cv-00739-RWS). On June 29, 2021, ZeaVision amended its complaint to assert a second patent against certain of the Ocuvite ® and PreserVision ® products. On November 16, 2021, ZeaVision filed an additional complaint for patent infringement to assert a third patent against certain of the PreserVision ® products (Case No. 4:21-cv-01352-RWS). On March 1, 2022, the cases were consolidated. On March 10, 2022, the court granted Bausch + Lomb’s motion to stay all proceedings pending inter partes review. On July 8, 2022, ZeaVision filed a motion to partially lift the stay to allow Case No. 4:21-cv-00739-RWS to proceed, and this motion was denied. On April 18, 2023, the Court ordered all proceedings stayed pending inter partes review of the patents-in-suit. The Company disputes the claims and intends to vigorously defend this matter. Lumify ® Paragraph IV Proceedings On August 16, 2021, 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, 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 Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) has been filed by Slayback. B&L Inc., through its affiliate Bausch + Lomb Ireland Limited, exclusively licenses the Lumify Patents (as defined below) from Eye Therapies, LLC (“Eye Therapies”). On September 10, 2021, B&L Inc., Bausch + Lomb Ireland Limited and Eye Therapies filed suit against Slayback pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, alleging infringement by Slayback of one or more claims of the Lumify Patents, 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 January 20, 2022, B&L Inc. received a Notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Lupin Ltd. (“Lupin”), in which Lupin 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 Lupin’s generic brimonidine tartrate solution, for which its ANDA No. 216716 has been filed by Lupin. On February 2, 2022, B&L Inc., Bausch + Lomb Ireland Limited and Eye Therapies filed suit against Lupin pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, alleging patent infringement by Lupin of one or more claims of the Lumify Patents, thereby triggering a 30-month stay of the approval of the Lupin ANDA. Since then, U.S. Patent No. 9,259,425 has been dismissed from the case. On May 15, 2023, the United States Patent & Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a Final Written Decision, finding all claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,293,742 unpatentable. This decision has been appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and is ongoing. Additionally, an additional patent (US. Patent No. 11,596,600) has been listed in the Orange Book related to Lumify ® , and lawsuits have been filed against Slayback and its licensee, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories S.A. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. and Lupin, respectively. Those cases have been consolidated and are ongoing in the District of New Jersey, with no trial date set. Bausch + Lomb remains confident in the strength of the Lumify ® related patents and B&L Inc. intends to vigorously defend its intellectual property. In addition to the intellectual property matters described above, in connection with the Vyzulta ® and Lotemax ® |
