Phase III OCEANIC-STROKE Study Evaluating Asundexian

Post Durnell Argument Statements – Attributable to Monsanto

We appreciate the Court’s careful consideration of FIFRA’s Uniformity language and how its federal preemption provision applies to state-based label warnings.

We believe the U.S. Government and the Company made persuasive arguments that state-based warning claims ‘in addition to or different from’ warning labels approved by EPA under FIFRA, as in Durnell, are preempted, and this is necessary to avoid a patchwork of 50 different warning labels. Companies should not be punished under state law for complying with federal label requirements. The security and affordability of the nation’s food supply depend on farmers’ and manufacturers’ ability to rely on the science-based judgments of federal regulators. A favorable ruling by the Supreme Court would provide essential regulatory clarity for companies who seek to bring currently approved and new products to market, addressing their ability to serve U.S. farmers and consumers.

Bayer Releases Statement on Judge’s Ruling on False Advertising Suit Against J&J and Janssen Biotech

On Friday, April 17, a NY federal court declined to issue a preliminary injunction following two days of hearing in connection with Bayer’s false advertising lawsuit against J&J.  A preliminary injunction is a court order issued early in a lawsuit that prohibits or commands a party to take specific actions until a final decision is made.  

This decision comes at a very early stage in the case and only addresses the preliminary, pre-trial relief sought by the company. Significantly, the court found that Bayer presented a ‘plausible hypothesis’ of methodological problems with the J&J study but lacked ‘empirical data’ to support it. The court's observation regarding Bayer’s evidence was due to the fact that J&J refused to turn over the full data set from its study to Bayer. During the merits phase, Bayer will seek this data once again through the discovery process and is confident that the Company will be able to provide sufficient data to the court to demonstrate the flaws in the study’s methodology and its false conclusions. 

Bayer maintains that J&J’s superiority claims over NUBEQA are false, misapply real-world evidence, mislead prescribers and patients, and are intended to increase its market share in a concentrated and increasingly competitive prostate cancer treatment market.

Passage of New Kentucky Bill a Win for Farmers

We applaud Kentucky for joining Georgia and North Dakota as states that prioritize farmers over the litigation industry. This legislation is a testament to the important work of farmers and agriculture groups in the state who work tirelessly to advocate for crucial tools that underpin food security and keep grocery prices in check.

Statement in Response to White House Action Ensuring an Adequate Supply of Elemental Phosphorus and Glyphosate-Based Herbicides

President Trump’s Executive Order reinforces the critical need for U.S. farmers to have access to essential, domestically produced crop protection tools such as glyphosate. We will comply with this order to produce glyphosate and elemental phosphorus. 

Bayer Statement on mRNA Lawsuits

Bayer did not manufacture and has never manufactured the COVID vaccine. This lawsuit alleges the defendants infringed on patented innovations owned by Bayer which increase mRNA stability and which Bayer initially used [for agricultural purposes]. The defendants’ unlicensed use of Bayer’s intellectual property enabled them to address mRNA instability, solving one of the biggest challenges they faced during vaccine development.

Statement on RoundUp Active Ingredient Safety

American Agriculture at Risk- An Open Letter on Glyphosate

Bayer statement on Monsanto/glyphosate trial

Bayer statement on Xarelto March 25, 2019

Kogenate FS Recall Healthcare Provider Notification

Kogenate FS Recall Update

Kogenate FS Recall Bayer Response to NHF/HFA

Statement on Delaware Supreme Court’s Decision (Nov. 2023)

“Bayer is pleased with the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision to affirm the Chancery Court’s dismissal with prejudice of Merck’s meritless case against the company. The Supreme Court’s affirmance is based on the same reasons given by the Chancery Court, which found that Merck was solely liable and responsible for all product-liability claims relating to the time before the closing of the Purchase Agreement between the two companies under its terms.”