General

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company was incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware in August 1933 under the name Bristol-Myers Company, as successor to a New York business started in 1887. In 1989, Bristol-Myers Company changed its name to Bristol-Myers Squibb Company as a result of a merger. We are engaged in the discovery, development, licensing, manufacturing, marketing, distribution and sale of biopharmaceutical products on a global basis. Refer to the Summary of Abbreviated Terms at the end of this 2018 Form 10-K for terms used throughout the document.

We operate in one segment—BioPharmaceuticals. For additional information about business segments, refer to “Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data—Note 1 . Accounting Policies and Recently Issued Accounting Standards.” Our principal strategy is to combine the resources, scale and capability of a pharmaceutical company with the speed and focus on innovation of the biotech industry. Our focus as a specialty biopharmaceutical company is on discovering, developing and delivering transformational medicines for patients facing serious diseases. Our four strategic priorities are to drive business performance, continue to further build a leading franchise in IO, maintain a diversified portfolio both within and outside of IO, and continue our disciplined approach to capital allocation, including establishing partnerships, collaborations and in-licensing or acquiring investigational compounds as an essential component of successfully delivering transformational medicines to patients. We expect that our planned acquisition of Celgene that we announced in January 2019 will enable us to create a leading focused specialty biopharmaceutical company that is well positioned to address the needs of patients with cancer, inflammatory, immunologic or cardiovascular diseases through high-value innovative medicines and leading scientific capabilities. We plan to remain focused while broadening our portfolio of marketed medicines and pipeline assets. With complementary disease areas, the combined company will operate with global reach and scale, the speed and agility that is core to each company's strategic approach. For a further discussion of our strategy initiatives, see “Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Strategy.”

We compete with other worldwide research-based drug companies, smaller research companies and generic drug manufacturers. Our products are sold worldwide, primarily to wholesalers, retail pharmacies, hospitals, government entities and the medical profession. We manufacture products in the U.S., Puerto Rico and in four foreign countries. Most of our revenues come from products in the following therapeutic classes: oncology; cardiovascular and immunoscience.

The percentage of revenues by significant region/country were as follows:

Acquisitions, Divestitures and Licensing Arrangements

Acquisitions, divestitures and licensing arrangements allow us to focus our resources behind growth opportunities which drive the greatest long-term value. On January 3, 2019, we announced that we have entered into a definitive merger agreement with Celgene under which we will acquire Celgene. For further discussion on our pending acquisition with Celgene and on our other acquisitions, divestitures and licensing arrangements, refer to “Item 1A. Risk Factors,” “Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data—Note 4 . Acquisitions, Divestitures, Licensing and Other Arrangements” and “—Note 19 . Subsequent Event.”

Products, Intellectual Property and Product Exclusivity

Our pharmaceutical products include chemically-synthesized or small molecule drugs and products produced from biological processes, called “biologics.” Small molecule drugs are typically administered orally, e.g., in the form of a pill or tablet, although other drug delivery mechanisms are used as well. Biologics are typically administered to patients through injections or by intravenous infusion.

Below is a product summary including approved indications. For information about our alliance arrangements for the products below, refer to “—Alliances” below and “Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data—Note 3 . Alliances.”

Sunvepra (asunaprevir) is an NS3 protease inhibitor.

Beclabuvir is an NS5B inhibitor.

We own or license a number of patents in the U.S. and foreign countries primarily covering our products. We have also developed many brand names and trademarks for our products. We consider the overall protection of our patents, trademarks, licenses and other intellectual property rights to be of material value and act to protect these rights from infringement.

In the pharmaceutical industry, the majority of an innovative product’s commercial value is usually realized during the period in which the product has market exclusivity. A product’s market exclusivity is generally determined by two forms of intellectual property: patent rights held by the innovator company and any regulatory forms of exclusivity to which the innovative drug is entitled.

Patents are a key determinant of market exclusivity for most branded pharmaceuticals. Patents provide the innovator with the right to exclude others from practicing an invention related to the medicine. Patents may cover, among other things, the active ingredient(s), various uses of a drug product, pharmaceutical formulations, drug delivery mechanisms and processes for (or intermediates useful in) the manufacture of products. Protection for individual products extends for varying periods in accordance with the expiration dates of patents in the various countries. The protection afforded, which may also vary from country to country, depends upon the type of patent, its scope of coverage and the availability of meaningful legal remedies in the country.

Market exclusivity is also sometimes influenced by RDP exclusivity rights. Many developed countries provide certain non-patent incentives for the development of medicines. For example, in the U.S., EU, Japan and certain other countries, RDP exclusivity rights are offered as incentives for research on medicines for rare diseases, or orphan drugs, and on medicines useful in treating pediatric patients. These incentives can provide a market exclusivity period on a product that expires beyond the patent term.

The U.S., EU and Japan each provide RDP, a period of time after the approval of a new drug during which the regulatory agency may not rely upon the innovator’s data to approve a competitor’s generic copy. In certain markets where patent protection and other forms of market exclusivity may have expired, RDP can be of particular importance. However, most regulatory forms of exclusivity do not prevent a competitor from gaining regulatory approval prior to the expiration of RDP exclusivity on the basis of the competitor’s own safety and efficacy data on its drug, even when that drug is identical to that marketed by the innovator. When these patent rights and other forms of exclusivity expire and generic versions of a medicine are approved and marketed, there are often substantial and rapid declines in the sales of the original innovative product. For further discussion of the impact of generic competition on our business, refer to “—Competition” below.

Specific aspects of the law governing market exclusivity and data regulatory protection for pharmaceuticals vary from country to country. The following summarizes key exclusivity rules in markets representing significant sales:

United States

In the U.S., most of our key products are protected by patents with varying terms depending on the type of patent and the filing date. A significant portion of a product’s patent life, however, is lost during the time it takes an innovative company to develop and obtain regulatory approval of a new drug. As compensation at least in part for the lost patent term due to regulatory review periods, the innovator may, depending on a number of factors, apply to the government to restore lost patent term by extending the expiration date of one patent up to a maximum term of five years, provided that the extension cannot cause the patent to be in effect for more than 14 years from the date of drug approval.

A company seeking to market an innovative pharmaceutical in the U.S. must submit a complete set of safety and efficacy data to the FDA. If the innovative pharmaceutical is a chemical product, the company files an NDA. If the medicine is a biological product, a BLA is filed. The type of application filed affects RDP exclusivity rights.

Chemical products

A competitor seeking to launch a generic substitute of a chemical innovative drug in the U.S. must file an aNDA with the FDA. In the aNDA, the generic manufacturer needs to demonstrate only “bioequivalence” between the generic substitute and the approved NDA drug. The aNDA relies upon the safety and efficacy data previously filed by the innovator in its NDA.

An innovator company is required to list certain of its patents covering the medicine with the FDA in what is commonly known as the Orange Book. Absent a successful patent challenge, the FDA cannot approve an aNDA until after the innovator’s listed patents expire. However, after the innovator has marketed its product for four years, a generic manufacturer may file an aNDA and allege that one or more of the patents listed in the Orange Book under an innovator’s NDA is either invalid or not infringed. This allegation is commonly known as a Paragraph IV certification. The innovator then must decide whether to file a patent infringement suit against the generic manufacturer. From time to time, aNDAs, including Paragraph IV certifications, are filed with respect to certain of our products. We evaluate these aNDAs on a case-by-case basis and, where warranted, file suit against the generic manufacturer to protect our patent rights.

In addition to patent protection, certain innovative pharmaceutical products can receive periods of regulatory exclusivity. An NDA that is designated as an orphan drug can receive seven years of exclusivity for the orphan indication. During this time period, neither NDAs nor aNDAs for the same drug product can be approved for the same orphan use. A company may also earn six months of additional exclusivity for a drug where specific clinical studies are conducted at the written request of the FDA to study the use of the medicine to treat pediatric patients, and submission to the FDA is made prior to the loss of basic exclusivity.

Medicines approved under an NDA can also receive several types of RDP. An innovative chemical pharmaceutical product is entitled to five years of RDP in the U.S., during which the FDA cannot approve generic substitutes. If an innovator’s patent is challenged, as described above, a generic manufacturer may file its aNDA after the fourth year of the five-year RDP period. A pharmaceutical drug product that contains an active ingredient that has been previously approved in an NDA, but is approved in a new formulation, but not for the drug itself, or for a new indication on the basis of new clinical studies, may receive three years of RDP for that formulation or indication.

Biologic products

The U.S. healthcare legislation enacted in 2010 created an approval pathway for biosimilar versions of innovative biological products that did not previously exist. Prior to that time, innovative biologics had essentially unlimited regulatory exclusivity. Under the new regulatory mechanism, the FDA can approve products that are similar to (but not generic copies of) innovative biologics on the basis of less extensive data than is required by a full BLA. After an innovator has marketed its product for four years, any manufacturer may file an application for approval of a “biosimilar” version of the innovator product. However, although an application for approval of a biosimilar version may be filed four years after approval of the innovator product, qualified innovative biological products will receive 12 years of regulatory exclusivity, meaning that the FDA may not approve a biosimilar version until 12 years after the innovative biological product was first approved by the FDA. The law also provides a mechanism for innovators to enforce the patents that protect innovative biological products and for biosimilar applicants to challenge the patents. Such patent litigation may begin as early as four years after the innovative biological product is first approved by the FDA.

In the U.S., the increased likelihood of generic and biosimilar challenges to innovators’ intellectual property has increased the risk of loss of innovators’ market exclusivity. First, generic companies have increasingly sought to challenge innovators’ basic patents covering major pharmaceutical products. Second, statutory and regulatory provisions in the U.S. limit the ability of an innovator company to prevent generic and biosimilar drugs from being approved and launched while patent litigation is ongoing. As a result of all of these developments, it is not possible to predict the length of market exclusivity for a particular product with certainty based solely on the expiration of the relevant patent(s) or the current forms of regulatory exclusivity.

European Union

Patents on pharmaceutical products are generally enforceable in the EU and, as in the U.S., may be extended to compensate for the patent term lost during the regulatory review process. Such extensions are granted on a country-by-country basis.

The primary route we use to obtain marketing authorization of pharmaceutical products in the EU is through the “centralized procedure.” This procedure is compulsory for certain pharmaceutical products, in particular those using biotechnological processes, and is also available for certain new chemical compounds and products. A company seeking to market an innovative pharmaceutical product through the centralized procedure must file a complete set of safety data and efficacy data as part of an MAA with the EMA. After the EMA evaluates the MAA, it provides a recommendation to the EC and the EC then approves or denies the MAA. It is also possible for new chemical products to obtain marketing authorization in the EU through a “mutual recognition procedure,” in which an application is made to a single member state, and if the member state approves the pharmaceutical product under a national procedure, then the applicant may submit that approval to the mutual recognition procedure of some or all other member states.

After obtaining marketing authorization approval, a company must obtain pricing and reimbursement for the pharmaceutical product, which is typically subject to member state law. In certain EU countries, this process can take place simultaneously while the product is marketed but in other EU countries, this process must be completed before the company can market the new product. The pricing and reimbursement procedure can take months and sometimes years to complete.

Throughout the EU, all products for which marketing authorizations have been filed after October/November 2005 are subject to an “8+2+1” regime. Eight years after the innovator has received its first community authorization for a medicinal product, a generic company may file a MAA for that product with the health authorities. If the MAA is approved, the generic company may not commercialize the product until after either 10 or 11 years have elapsed from the initial marketing authorization granted to the innovator. The possible extension to 11 years is available if the innovator, during the first eight years of the marketing authorization, obtains an additional indication that is of significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing treatments. For products that were filed prior to October/November 2005, there is a 10-year period of data protection under the centralized procedures and a period of either six or 10 years under the mutual recognition procedure (depending on the member state).

In contrast to the U.S., patents in the EU are not listed with regulatory authorities. Generic versions of pharmaceutical products can be approved after data protection expires, regardless of whether the innovator holds patents covering its drug. Thus, it is possible that an innovator may be seeking to enforce its patents against a generic competitor that is already marketing its product. Also, the European patent system has an opposition procedure in which generic manufacturers may challenge the validity of patents covering innovator products within nine months of grant.

In general, EU law treats chemically-synthesized drugs and biologically-derived drugs the same with respect to intellectual property and data protection. In addition to the relevant legislation and annexes related to biologic medicinal products, the EMA has issued guidelines that outline the additional information to be provided for biosimilar products, also known as generic biologics, in order to review an application for marketing approval.

Japan

In Japan, medicines of new chemical entities are generally afforded eight years of data exclusivity for approved indications and dosage. Patents on pharmaceutical products are enforceable. Generic copies can receive regulatory approval after data exclusivity and patent expirations. As in the U.S., patents in Japan may be extended to compensate for the patent term lost during the regulatory review process.

In general, Japanese law treats chemically-synthesized and biologically-derived drugs the same with respect to intellectual property and market exclusivity.

Rest of the World

In countries outside of the U.S., the EU and Japan, there is a wide variety of legal systems with respect to intellectual property and market exclusivity of pharmaceuticals. Most other developed countries utilize systems similar to either the U.S. or the EU. Among developing countries, some have adopted patent laws and/or regulatory exclusivity laws, while others have not. Some developing countries have formally adopted laws in order to comply with WTO commitments, but have not taken steps to implement these laws in a meaningful way. Enforcement of WTO actions is a long process between governments, and there is no assurance of the outcome. Thus, in assessing the likely future market exclusivity of our innovative drugs in developing countries, we take into account not only formal legal rights but political and other factors as well.

The following chart shows our key products together with the year in which the earliest basic exclusivity loss (patent rights or data exclusivity) occurred or is currently estimated to occur in the U.S., the EU and Japan. We also sell our pharmaceutical products in other countries; however, data is not provided on a country-by-country basis because individual country revenues are not significant outside the U.S., the EU and Japan. In many instances, the basic exclusivity loss date listed below is the expiration date of the patent that claims the active ingredient of the drug or the method of using the drug for the approved indication, if there is only one approved indication. In some instances, the basic exclusivity loss date listed in the chart is the expiration date of the data exclusivity period. In situations where there is only data exclusivity without patent protection, a competitor could seek regulatory approval by submitting its own clinical study data to obtain marketing approval prior to the expiration of data exclusivity.

We estimate the market exclusivity period for each of our products for the purpose of business planning only. The length of market exclusivity for any of our products is impossible to predict with certainty because of the complex interaction between patent and regulatory forms of exclusivity and the inherent uncertainties regarding patent litigation. There can be no assurance that a particular product will enjoy market exclusivity for the full period of time that appears in the estimate or that the exclusivity will be limited to the estimate.

Generally, the estimated LOE in the table below pertains to RDP or the Composition of Matter (COM) patent expiration for the respective products and patent term restoration (PTR) if granted.

Research and Development

R&D is critical to our long-term competitiveness. We concentrate our R&D efforts in the following disease areas with significant unmet medical needs: oncology, including IO; immunoscience with priorities in psoriasis, lupus, RA and inflammatory bowel disease; cardiovascular with priority in heart disease; and fibrotic disease with priorities in lung (IPF) and liver (NASH). We also continue to analyze and may selectively pursue promising leads in other areas. Our R&D pipeline includes potential medicines in various modalities that are mostly small (chemically manufactured) molecules and large (protein) molecules—also known as biologics—but also include millamolecules, antibody drug conjugates, and gene therapies. In addition to discovering and developing new molecular entities, we look for ways to expand the value of existing products through new indications and formulations that can provide additional benefits to patients.

In order for a new drug to reach the market, industry practice and government regulations in the U.S., the EU and most foreign countries provide for the determination of a drug’s effectiveness and safety through preclinical tests and controlled clinical evaluation. The clinical development of a potential new drug typically includes Phase I, Phase II and Phase III clinical studies that have been designed specifically to support an NDA for a particular indication, assuming the studies are successful.

Phase I clinical studies involve a small number of healthy volunteers or patients suffering from the indicated disease to test for safety and proper dosing. Phase II clinical studies involve a larger patient population to investigate side effects, efficacy and optimal dosage of the drug candidate. Phase III clinical studies are conducted to confirm Phase II results in a significantly larger patient population over a longer term and to provide reliable and conclusive data regarding the safety and efficacy of a drug candidate. Although regulatory approval is typically based on the results of Phase III clinical studies, there are times when approval can be granted based on data from earlier studies.

We consider our registrational studies to be our significant R&D programs. These programs may include both investigational compounds in Phases II and III development for initial indications and marketed products that are in development for additional indications or formulations. Expanding our currently marketed products, particularly Opdivo in combination with Yervoy and other agents in both first and second-line therapy with new indications, is a substantial portion of our R&D program strategy.

Drug development is time consuming, expensive and risky. The R&D process typically takes about fourteen years, with approximately two and a half years often spent in Phase III, or late-stage, development. On average, only about one in 10,000 molecules discovered by pharmaceutical industry researchers proves to be both medically effective and safe enough to become an approved medicine. Drug candidates can fail at any stage of the process, and even late-stage product candidates sometimes fail to receive regulatory approval. According to the KMR Group, based on industry success rates from 2013-2017, approximately 92% of small molecules that enter Phase I development fail to achieve regulatory approval. Small molecules that enter Phase II development have a failure rate of approximately 81% while approximately 32% fail Phase III development. For biologics, the failure rate is approximately 90% from Phase I development, approximately 78% from Phase II development and approximately 20% from Phase III development.

Total R&D expenses include the costs of discovery research, preclinical development, early-stage and late-stage clinical development, drug formulation, post-commercialization and medical support of marketed products, proportionate allocations of enterprise-wide costs and upfront and contingent milestone payments for licensing and acquiring assets. R&D expenses were $6.3 billion in 2018 , $6.5 billion in 2017 and $5.0 billion in 2016 , including license and asset acquisition charges of approximately $1.1 billion in 2018 and 2017 and $440 million in 2016 . At the end of 2018 , we employed approximately 7,700 people in R&D and related support activities, including a substantial number of physicians, scientists holding graduate or postgraduate degrees and higher-skilled technical personnel.

We manage our R&D programs on a product portfolio basis, investing resources in each stage of R&D from early discovery through late-stage development. We continually evaluate our portfolio of R&D assets to ensure that there is an appropriate balance of early-stage and late-stage programs to support the future growth of the Company. Spending on our late-stage development programs represented approximately 35-45% of our annual R&D expenses in the last three years. Opdivo is the only individual investigational compound or marketed product to represent 10% or more of our R&D expenses in any of the last three years.

As part of our operating model evolution, our R&D geographic footprint will significantly transform to foster speed and innovation in the future. The transformation involves the closing of our Hopewell, New Jersey and Wallingford, Connecticut R&D sites accompanied by additional investment in the expansion and opening of others. For example, we are expanding our Lawrenceville, New Jersey and Redwood City, California sites and opened a new R&D facility in Cambridge, Massachusetts in 2018. We supplement our internal drug discovery and development programs with alliances and collaborative agreements which help us bring new molecular agents, capabilities and platforms into our pipeline. Management continues to emphasize leadership, innovation, productivity and quality as strategies for success in our R&D activities.

Listed below are our investigational compounds that we have in clinical studies as well as the approved and potential indications for our marketed products in the related therapeutic area as of January 1, 2019. Whether any of the listed compounds ultimately becomes a marketed product depends on the results of clinical studies, the competitive landscape of the potential product’s market, reimbursement decisions by payers and the manufacturing processes necessary to produce the potential product on a commercial scale, among other factors. There can be no assurance that we will seek regulatory approval of any of these compounds or that, if such approval is sought, it will be obtained. There is also no assurance that a compound which gets approved will be commercially successful. At this stage of development, we cannot determine all intellectual property issues or all the patent protection that may, or may not, be available for these investigational compounds.