Edgar Filing: GILEAD SCIENCES INC

Q2'14 Form 10-Q

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q



ý	QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
	For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014



o	TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
	For the transition period from ________ to ________

Commission File No. 0-19731

GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)



Delaware	94-3047598
(State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization)	(IRS Employer Identification No.)

333 Lakeside Drive, Foster City, California	94404
(Address of principal executive offices)	(Zip Code)

650-574-3000

Registrant’s Telephone Number, Including Area Code

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ý No ¬

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes ý No ¬

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Large accelerated filer ý Accelerated filer ¬ Non-accelerated filer ¬ Smaller reporting company ¬

(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ¬ No ý

Number of shares outstanding of the issuer’s common stock, par value $0.001 per share, as of July 25, 2014: 1,511,670,456

GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.

INDEX



PART I.	FINANCIAL INFORMATION		2

	Item 1.	Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements	2

		Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at June 30, 2014 (unaudited) and December 31, 2013	2

		Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income for the Three and Six Months Ended June 30, 2014 and 2013 (unaudited)	3

		Condensed Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income for the Three and Six Months Ended June 30, 2014 and 2013 (unaudited)	4

		Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the Six Months Ended June 30, 2014 and 2013 (unaudited)	5

		Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (unaudited)	6

	Item 2.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	26

	Item 3.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk	35

	Item 4.	Controls and Procedures	35

PART II.	OTHER INFORMATION		36

	Item 1.	Legal Proceedings	36

	Item 1A.	Risk Factors	41

	Item 2.	Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds	58

	Item 3.	Defaults Upon Senior Securities	58

	Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures	58

	Item 5.	Other Information	58

	Item 6.	Exhibits	59

SIGNATURES			66

We own or have rights to various trademarks, copyrights and trade names used in our business, including the following: GILEAD^®, GILEAD SCIENCES^®, SOVALDI^®, STRIBILD^®, COMPLERA^®, EVIPLERA^®, TRUVADA^®, VIREAD^®, EMTRIVA^®, TYBOST^®, ZYDELIG^®, HEPSERA^®, VITEKTA^®,LETAIRIS^®, RANEXA^®, CAYSTON^®, AMBISOME^®, VOLIBRIS^® and RAPISCAN^®. ATRIPLA^® is a registered trademark belonging to Bristol-Myers Squibb & Gilead Sciences, LLC. LEXISCAN^® is a registered trademark belonging to Astellas U.S. LLC. MACUGEN^® is a registered trademark belonging to Eyetech, Inc. SUSTIVA^® is a registered trademark of Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharma Company. TAMIFLU^® is a registered trademark belonging to Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. This report also includes other trademarks, service marks and trade names of other companies.


PART I.	FINANCIAL INFORMATION


ITEM I.	CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(in thousands, except per share amounts)



	June 30, 2014			December 31, 2013
	(unaudited)
Assets
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents	$	8,730,522		$	2,112,806
Short-term marketable securities	68,546			18,756
Accounts receivable, net	3,436,711			2,100,286
Inventories	2,068,753			2,055,788
Deferred tax assets	386,580			330,530
Prepaid taxes	376,716			398,010
Prepaid expenses	232,151			165,652
Other current assets	199,360			91,925
Total current assets	15,499,339			7,273,753
Property, plant and equipment, net	1,380,776			1,166,181
Long-term portion of prepaid royalties	497,502			198,766
Long-term deferred tax assets	153,552			154,765
Long-term marketable securities	782,315			439,028
Intangible assets, net	11,508,319			11,900,106
Goodwill	1,171,561			1,169,023
Other long-term assets	212,800			195,163
Total assets	$	31,206,164		$	22,496,785

Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable	$	1,162,307		$	1,255,914
Accrued government rebates	1,606,555			983,490
Accrued compensation and employee benefits	220,093			243,540
Income taxes payable	97,302			10,855
Other accrued liabilities	1,443,377			1,023,938
Deferred revenues	126,284			110,640
Current portion of long-term debt and other obligations, net	1,572,079			2,697,044
Total current liabilities	6,227,997			6,325,421
Long-term debt, net	7,932,536			3,938,708
Long-term income taxes payable	338,238			162,412
Long-term deferred tax liabilities	67,980			83,286
Other long-term obligations	174,196			178,626
Commitments and contingencies
Equity component of currently redeemable convertible notes	35,875			63,831
Stockholders’ equity:
Preferred stock, par value $0.001 per share; 5,000 shares authorized; none outstanding	—			—
Common stock, par value $0.001 per share; shares authorized of 5,600,000; shares issued and outstanding of 1,526,043 and 1,534,414	1,526			1,534
Additional paid-in capital	5,930,987			5,386,735
Accumulated other comprehensive loss	(41,460		)	(124,446		)
Retained earnings	10,199,576			6,105,244
Total Gilead stockholders’ equity	16,090,629			11,369,067
Noncontrolling interest	338,713			375,434
Total stockholders’ equity	16,429,342			11,744,501
Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity	$	31,206,164		$	22,496,785

See accompanying notes.

GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME

(unaudited)

(in thousands, except per share amounts)



	Three Months Ended						Six Months Ended
	June 30,						June 30,
	2014			2013			2014			2013
Revenues:
Product sales	$	6,412,937		$	2,657,285		$	11,283,911		$	5,050,853
Royalty, contract and other revenues	122,006			110,109			249,988			248,176
Total revenues	6,534,943			2,767,394			11,533,899			5,299,029
Costs and expenses:
Cost of goods sold	924,709			684,663			1,737,914			1,319,111
Research and development	583,924			523,902			1,178,902			1,021,534
Selling, general and administrative	613,555			404,991			1,161,678			779,287
Total costs and expenses	2,122,188			1,613,556			4,078,494			3,119,932
Income from operations	4,412,755			1,153,838			7,455,405			2,179,097
Interest expense	(102,004		)	(78,008		)	(178,273		)	(159,795		)
Other income (expense), net	(3,645		)	(231		)	(21,557		)	(3,555		)
Income before provision for income taxes	4,307,106			1,075,599			7,255,575			2,015,747
Provision for income taxes	656,621			307,981			1,382,503			530,419
Net income	3,650,485			767,618			5,873,072			1,485,328
Net loss attributable to noncontrolling interest	5,108			4,987			9,931			9,463
Net income attributable to Gilead	$	3,655,593		$	772,605		$	5,883,003		$	1,494,791
Net income per share attributable to Gilead common stockholders—basic	$	2.39		$	0.51		$	3.83		$	0.98
Shares used in per share calculation—basic	1,532,723			1,526,945			1,534,614			1,524,174
Net income per share attributable to Gilead common stockholders—diluted	$	2.20		$	0.46		$	3.52		$	0.89
Shares used in per share calculation—diluted	1,664,415			1,694,577			1,672,435			1,683,269

See accompanying notes.

GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME

(unaudited)

(in thousands)



	Three Months Ended						Six Months Ended
	June 30,						June 30,
	2014			2013			2014			2013
Net income	$	3,650,485		$	767,618		$	5,873,072		$	1,485,328
Other comprehensive income:
Change in foreign currency translation gain (loss), net of tax	1,186			11,730			6,969			2,774
Available-for-sale securities:
Change in net unrealized gains (losses), net of tax impact of $1,096, $(1,144), $1,178 and $(128)	1,679			(2,019		)	1,826			(234		)
Reclassifications to net income, net of tax impact of $(110), $(32), $(224) and $(41)	(187		)	(58		)	(386		)	(75		)
Net change	1,492			(2,077		)	1,440			(309		)
Cash flow hedges:
Change in net unrealized gains (losses), net of tax impact of $(1,906), $1,730, $(174) and $3,579	31,621			5,022			32,886			79,082
Reclassifications to net income, net of tax impact of $(1,072), $(241), $(2,062) and $(252)	20,010			(5,110		)	41,691			(5,561		)
Net change	51,631			(88		)	74,577			73,521
Other comprehensive income	54,309			9,565			82,986			75,986
Comprehensive income	3,704,794			777,183			5,956,058			1,561,314
Comprehensive loss attributable to noncontrolling interest	5,108			4,987			9,931			9,463
Comprehensive income attributable to Gilead	$	3,709,902		$	782,170		$	5,965,989		$	1,570,777

See accompanying notes.

GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(unaudited)

(in thousands)



	Six Months Ended
	June 30,
	2014			2013
Operating Activities:
Net income	$	5,873,072		$	1,485,328
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating activities:
Depreciation expense	53,479			50,091
Amortization expense	454,468			97,412
Stock-based compensation expense	165,276			117,720
Excess tax benefits from stock-based compensation	(214,258		)	(89,151		)
Tax benefits from exercise and vesting of stock-based awards	215,826			89,025
Deferred income taxes	(53,543		)	9,974
Change in fair value of contingent consideration	7,966			17,442
Other	21,413			26,655
Changes in operating assets and liabilities:
Accounts receivable, net	(1,332,395		)	(181,266		)
Inventories	(20,863		)	(200,856		)
Prepaid expenses and other assets	(521,748		)	(153,801		)
Accounts payable	(89,945		)	64,831
Income taxes payable	297,670			42,321
Accrued liabilities	877,062			232,193
Deferred revenues	19,831			17,187
Net cash provided by operating activities	5,753,311			1,625,105

Investing Activities:
Purchases of marketable securities	(650,151		)	(199,357		)
Proceeds from sales of marketable securities	238,858			159,828
Proceeds from maturities of marketable securities	17,592			39,571
Acquisitions, net of cash acquired	—			(378,645		)
Capital expenditures	(254,487		)	(84,130		)
Net cash used in investing activities	(648,188		)	(462,733		)

Financing Activities:
Proceeds from debt financing, net of issuance costs	3,965,532			—
Proceeds from convertible note hedges	1,312,054			1,205,956
Purchases of convertible note hedges	(26,249		)	—
Proceeds from issuances of common stock	162,918			146,342
Repurchases of common stock	(1,650,296		)	(82,239		)
Repayments of debt and other long-term obligations	(2,438,882		)	(2,135,575		)
Excess tax benefits from stock-based compensation	214,258			89,151
Contributions from (distributions to) noncontrolling interest	(26,790		)	19,716
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities	1,512,545			(756,649		)
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash	48			(7,241		)
Net change in cash and cash equivalents	6,617,716			398,482
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period	2,112,806			1,803,694
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period	$	8,730,522		$	2,202,176

See accompanying notes.

GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(unaudited)


1.	SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

Basis of Presentation

The accompanying unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements have been prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles for interim financial information. The financial statements include all adjustments (consisting only of normal recurring adjustments) that the management of Gilead Sciences, Inc. (Gilead, we or us) believes are necessary for a fair presentation of the periods presented. These interim financial results are not necessarily indicative of results expected for the full fiscal year or for any subsequent interim period.

The accompanying Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements include the accounts of Gilead, our wholly-owned subsidiaries and our joint ventures with Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMS), for which we are the primary beneficiary. We record a noncontrolling interest in our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements to reflect BMS’s interest in the joint ventures. All intercompany transactions have been eliminated. The Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements include the results of companies acquired by us from the date of each acquisition for the applicable reporting periods.

The accompanying Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements and related Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements should be read in conjunction with the audited Consolidated Financial Statements and the related notes thereto for the year ended December 31, 2013, included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Significant Accounting Policies, Estimates and Judgments

The preparation of these Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements requires us to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses, and related disclosures. On an ongoing basis, management evaluates its significant accounting policies or estimates. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various market specific and other relevant assumptions that we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Actual results may differ significantly from these estimates.

Concentrations of Risk

We are subject to credit risk from our portfolio of cash equivalents and marketable securities. Under our investment policy, we limit amounts invested in such securities by credit rating, maturity, industry group, investment type and issuer, except for securities issued by the U.S. government. We are not exposed to any significant concentrations of credit risk from these financial instruments. The goals of our investment policy, in order of priority, are as follows: safety and preservation of principal and diversification of risk; liquidity of investments sufficient to meet cash flow requirements; and a competitive after-tax rate of return.

We are also subject to credit risk from our accounts receivable related to our product sales. The majority of our trade accounts receivable arises from product sales in the United States and Europe.

As of June 30, 2014, our accounts receivable in Southern Europe, specifically Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain, totaled approximately $652.4 million, of which $173.0 million were greater than 120 days past due and $53.6 million were greater than 365 days past due. To date, we have not experienced significant losses with respect to the collection of our accounts receivable. We believe that our allowance for doubtful accounts was adequate at June 30, 2014.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In May 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, jointly with the International Accounting Standards Board, issued a comprehensive new standard on revenue recognition from contracts with customers. The standard's core principle is that a reporting entity will recognize revenue when it transfers promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. In applying this new guidance to contracts within its scope, an entity will: (1) identify the contract(s) with a customer, (2) identify the performance obligations in the contract, (3) determine the transaction price, (4) allocate the transaction price to the performance obligations in the contract, and (5) recognize revenue when (or as) the entity satisfies a performance obligation. Additionally, this new guidance will require significantly expanded revenue recognition disclosures. This guidance will become effective for

us beginning in the first quarter of 2017. Early application is not permitted. Entities have the option of using either a full retrospective or a modified retrospective approach to adopt this new guidance. We are currently evaluating the impact of our pending adoption of this standard on our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.


2.	FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS

We determine the fair value of financial and non-financial assets and liabilities using the fair value hierarchy, which establishes three levels of inputs that may be used to measure fair value, as follows:


•	Level 1 inputs which include quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities;

•

Level 2 inputs which include observable inputs other than Level 1 inputs, such as quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities; quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in markets that are not active; or other inputs that are observable or can be corroborated by observable market data for substantially the full term of the asset or liability. For our marketable securities, we review trading activity and pricing as of the measurement date. When sufficient quoted pricing for identical securities is not available, we use market pricing and other observable market inputs for similar securities obtained from various third-party data providers. These inputs either represent quoted prices for similar assets in active markets or have been derived from observable market data; and

•

Level 3 inputs which include unobservable inputs that are supported by little or no market activity and that are significant to the fair value of the underlying asset or liability. Our Level 3 liabilities include those whose fair value measurements are determined using pricing models, discounted cash flow methodologies or similar valuation techniques and significant management judgment or estimation.

Our financial instruments consist principally of cash and cash equivalents, marketable securities, accounts receivable, foreign currency exchange contracts, accounts payable and short-term and long-term debt. Cash and cash equivalents, marketable securities and foreign currency exchange contracts that hedge accounts receivable and forecasted sales are reported at their respective fair values on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Short-term and long-term debt are reported at their amortized cost on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. The remaining financial instruments are reported on our Condensed Consolidated Balances Sheets at amounts that approximate current fair values.

The fair values of our convertible senior notes and senior unsecured notes were determined using Level 2 inputs based on their quoted market values. The following table summarizes the carrying values and fair values of our convertible senior notes and senior unsecured notes (in thousands):



		June 30, 2014				December 31, 2013
Type of Borrowing	Description	Carrying Value		Fair Value		Carrying Value		Fair Value
Convertible Senior	May 2014 Notes	$	—	$	—	$	234,217	$	783,651
Convertible Senior	May 2016 Notes	822,139		3,084,363		1,113,043		3,871,516
Senior Unsecured	April 2021 Notes	994,210		1,099,010		993,781		1,075,480
Senior Unsecured	December 2014 Notes	749,868		756,195		749,710		762,637
Senior Unsecured	December 2016 Notes	699,441		734,146		699,326		740,705
Senior Unsecured	December 2021 Notes	1,247,861		1,375,563		1,247,716		1,336,738
Senior Unsecured	December 2041 Notes	997,923		1,171,090		997,885		1,118,660
Senior Unsecured	April 2019 Notes	499,189		500,985		—		—
Senior Unsecured	April 2024 Notes	1,747,271		1,798,843		—		—
Senior Unsecured	April 2044 Notes	1,746,641		1,853,028		—		—

The following table summarizes, for assets or liabilities recorded at fair value, the respective fair value and the classification by level of input within the fair value hierarchy previously defined (in thousands):



	June 30, 2014								December 31, 2013
	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total		Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Assets:
Debt securities:
Money market funds	$	5,892,347	$	—	$	—	$	5,892,347	$	1,490,964	$	—	$	—	$	1,490,964
Corporate debt securities	—		347,545		—		347,545		—		220,025		—		220,025
U.S. treasury securities	365,061		—		—		365,061		85,403		—		—		85,403
U.S. government agencies securities	—		41,668		—		41,668		—		93,350		—		93,350
Residential mortgage and asset-backed securities	—		87,358		—		87,358		—		46,941		—		46,941
Municipal debt securities	—		9,229		—		9,229		—		12,065		—		12,065
Total debt securities	6,257,408		485,800		—		6,743,208		1,576,367		372,381		—		1,948,748
Deferred compensation plan	49,827		—		—		49,827		44,461		—		—		44,461
Derivatives	—		22,874		—		22,874		—		13,879		—		13,879
	$	6,307,235	$	508,674	$	—	$	6,815,909	$	1,620,828	$	386,260	$	—	$	2,007,088

Liabilities:
Contingent consideration	$	—	$	—	$	271,726	$	271,726	$	—	$	—	$	263,760	$	263,760
Derivatives	—		40,472		—		40,472		—		99,057		—		99,057
Deferred compensation plan	49,827		—		—		49,827		44,461		—		—		44,461
	$	49,827	$	40,472	$	271,726	$	362,025	$	44,461	$	99,057	$	263,760	$	407,278

Level 2 Inputs

We estimate the fair values of our government agency securities, corporate debt, residential mortgage and asset-backed securities by taking into consideration valuations obtained from third-party pricing services. The pricing services utilize industry standard valuation models, including both income- and market-based approaches, for which all significant inputs are observable, either directly or indirectly, to estimate fair value. These inputs include reported trades of and broker/dealer quotes on the same or similar securities; issuer credit spreads; benchmark securities; prepayment/default projections based on historical data and other observable inputs.

Substantially all of our foreign currency derivative contracts have maturities primarily over an 18-month time horizon and all are with counterparties that have a minimum credit rating of A- or equivalent by Standard & Poor's, Moody's Investors Service, Inc. or Fitch, Inc. We estimate the fair values of these contracts by taking into consideration valuations obtained from a third-party valuation service that utilizes an income-based industry standard valuation model for which all significant inputs are observable, either directly or indirectly. These inputs include foreign currency rates, London Interbank Offered Rates (LIBOR) and swap rates. These inputs, where applicable, are at commonly quoted intervals.

Level 3 Inputs

As of June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, the only assets or liabilities that were measured using Level 3 inputs were contingent consideration liabilities. Our policy is to recognize transfers into or out of Level 3 classification as of the actual date of the event or change in circumstances that caused the transfer.

Contingent Consideration Liabilities

In connection with certain acquisitions, we may be required to pay future consideration that is contingent upon the achievement of specified development, regulatory approval or sales-based milestone events. We estimate the fair value of the contingent consideration liabilities on the acquisition date and each reporting period thereafter using a probability-weighted income approach, which reflects the probability and timing of future payments. This fair value measurement is based on significant Level 3 inputs such as the anticipated timelines and probability of achieving development, regulatory approval or sales-based milestone events and projected revenues. The resulting probability-weighted cash flows are discounted using credit-risk adjusted interest rates.

Each reporting period thereafter, we revalue these obligations by performing a review of the assumptions listed above and

record increases or decreases in the fair value of these contingent consideration obligations in research and development (R&D) expenses within our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income until such time that the related product candidate receives marketing approval. In the absence of any significant changes in key assumptions, the quarterly determination of fair values of these contingent consideration obligations would primarily reflect the passage of time.

Significant judgment is employed in determining Level 3 inputs and fair value measurements as of the acquisition date and for each subsequent period. Updates to assumptions could have a significant impact on our results of operations in any given period and actual results may differ from estimates. For example, significant increases in the probability of achieving a milestone or projected revenues would result in a significantly higher fair value measurement while significant decreases in the estimated probability of achieving a milestone or projected revenues would result in a significantly lower fair value measurement. Significant increases in the discount rate or in the anticipated timelines would result in a significantly lower fair value measurement while significant decreases in the discount rate or anticipated timelines would result in a significantly higher fair value measurement.

The potential contingent consideration payments required upon achievement of development or regulatory approval-based milestones related to our CGI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Calistoga Pharmaceuticals, Inc. acquisitions range from no payment if none of the milestones are achieved to an estimated maximum of $254.0 million (undiscounted), of which we had accrued $225.3 million as of June 30, 2014 and $220.5 million as of December 31, 2013. The remainder of the contingent consideration liabilities accrual as of June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013 relates to potential future payments resulting from the acquisition of Arresto Biosciences, Inc. for royalty obligations on future sales once specified sales-based milestones are achieved.

The following table provides a rollforward of our contingent consideration liabilities, which are recorded as part of other accrued liabilities and other long-term obligations in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (in thousands):



Balance at December 31, 2013	$	263,760
Additions from new acquisitions	—
Net changes in valuation	7,966
Balance at June 30, 2014	$	271,726


3.	AVAILABLE-FOR-SALE SECURITIES

Estimated fair values of available-for-sale securities are generally based on prices obtained from commercial pricing services. The following table is a summary of available-for-sale debt securities recorded in cash and cash equivalents or marketable securities in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (in thousands):



	June 30, 2014									December 31, 2013
	Amortized Cost		Gross Unrealized Gains		Gross Unrealized Losses			Estimated Fair Value		Amortized Cost		Gross Unrealized Gains		Gross Unrealized Losses			Estimated Fair Value

Debt securities:
Money market funds	$	5,892,347	$	—	$	—		$	5,892,347	$	1,490,964	$	—	$	—		$	1,490,964
Corporate debt securities	346,815		875		(145		)	347,545		219,242		885		(102		)	220,025
U.S. treasury securities	364,724		359		(22		)	365,061		85,337		94		(28		)	85,403
U.S. government agencies securities	41,569		99		—			41,668		93,211		156		(17		)	93,350
Residential mortgage and asset-backed securities	87,256		127		(25		)	87,358		46,969		37		(65		)	46,941
Municipal debt securities	9,175		54		—			9,229		12,009		56		—			12,065
Total	$	6,741,886	$	1,514	$	(192	)	$	6,743,208	$	1,947,732	$	1,228	$	(212	)	$	1,948,748

The following table summarizes the classification of the available-for-sale debt securities on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (in thousands):



	June 30, 2014		December 31, 2013
Cash and cash equivalents	$	5,892,347	$	1,490,964
Short-term marketable securities	68,546		18,756
Long-term marketable securities	782,315		439,028
Total	$	6,743,208	$	1,948,748

Cash and cash equivalents in the table above exclude cash of $2.84 billion as of June 30, 2014 and $621.8 million as of December 31, 2013.

The following table summarizes our portfolio of available-for-sale debt securities by contractual maturity (in thousands):



	June 30, 2014
	Amortized Cost		Fair Value
Less than one year	$	5,960,662	$	5,960,893
Greater than one year but less than five years	773,969		775,051
Greater than five years but less than ten years	2,449		2,458
Greater than ten years	4,806		4,806
Total	$	6,741,886	$	6,743,208

The following table summarizes the gross realized gains and losses related to sales of marketable securities (in thousands):



	Three Months Ended						Six Months Ended
	June 30,						June 30,
	2014			2013			2014			2013
Gross realized gains on sales	$	363		$	201		$	701		$	383
Gross realized losses on sales	$	(66	)	$	(111	)	$	(91	)	$	(267	)

The cost of securities sold was determined based on the specific identification method.

The following table summarizes our available-for-sale debt securities that were in a continuous unrealized loss position, but were not deemed to be other-than-temporarily impaired (in thousands):



	Less Than 12 Months					12 Months or Greater					Total
	Gross Unrealized Losses			Estimated Fair Value		Gross Unrealized Losses			Estimated Fair Value		Gross Unrealized Losses			Estimated Fair Value
June 30, 2014
Debt securities:
U.S. treasury securities	$	(22	)	$	42,128	$	—		$	—	$	(22	)	$	42,128
Corporate debt securities	(145		)	81,950		—			—		(145		)	81,950
Residential mortgage and asset-backed securities	(8		)	27,768		(17		)	909		(25		)	28,677
U.S. government agencies securities	—			—		—			—		—			—
Total	$	(175	)	$	151,846	$	(17	)	$	909	$	(192	)	$	152,755

December 31, 2013
Debt securities:
U.S. treasury securities	$	(28	)	$	24,562	$	—		$	—	$	(28	)	$	24,562
Corporate debt securities	(102		)	37,076		—			1,505		(102		)	38,581
Residential mortgage and asset-backed securities	(38		)	19,563		(27		)	6,731		(65		)	26,294
U.S. government agencies securities	(17		)	10,858		—			—		(17		)	10,858
Total	$	(185	)	$	92,059	$	(27	)	$	8,236	$	(212	)	$	100,295

We held a total of 64 securities as of June 30, 2014 and 40 securities as of December 31, 2013 that were in an unrealized loss position. Based on our review of these securities, we believe we had no other-than-temporary impairments on these securities as of June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, because we do not intend to sell these securities and we believe it is not more likely than not that we will be required to sell these securities before the recovery of their amortized cost basis.


4.	DERIVATIVE FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS

We operate in foreign countries, which exposes us to market risk associated with foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations between the U.S. dollar and various foreign currencies, the most significant of which is the Euro. In order to manage this risk, we may hedge a portion of our foreign currency exposures related to outstanding monetary assets and liabilities as well as forecasted product sales using foreign currency exchange forward or option contracts. In general, the market risk related to these contracts is offset by corresponding gains and losses on the hedged transactions. The credit risk associated with these contracts is driven by changes in interest and currency exchange rates and, as a result, varies over time. By working only with major banks and closely monitoring current market conditions, we seek to limit the risk that counterparties to these contracts may be unable to perform. We also seek to limit our risk of loss by entering into contracts that permit net settlement at maturity. Therefore, our overall risk of loss in the event of a counterparty default is limited to the amount of any unrecognized gains on outstanding contracts (i.e. those contracts that have a positive fair value) at the date of default. We do not enter into derivative contracts for trading purposes.

We hedge our exposure to foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations for certain monetary assets and liabilities of our foreign subsidiaries that are denominated in a non-functional currency. The derivative instruments we use to hedge this exposure are not designated as hedges, and as a result, changes in their fair value are recorded in other income (expense), net on our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income.

We hedge our exposure to foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations for forecasted product sales that are denominated in a non-functional currency. The derivative instruments we use to hedge this exposure are designated as cash flow hedges and have maturity dates of 18 months or less. Upon executing a hedging contract and quarterly thereafter, we assess prospective hedge effectiveness using a regression analysis which calculates the change in cash flow as a result of the hedge instrument. On a monthly basis, we assess retrospective hedge effectiveness using a dollar offset approach. We exclude time value from our effectiveness testing and recognize changes in the time value of the hedge in other income (expense), net. The effective component of our hedge is recorded as an unrealized gain or loss on the hedging instrument in accumulated other comprehensive income (OCI) within stockholders' equity. When the hedged forecasted transaction occurs, the hedge is de-

designated and the unrealized gains or losses are reclassified into product sales. The majority of gains and losses related to the hedged forecasted transactions reported in accumulated OCI at June 30, 2014 will be reclassified to product sales within 12 months.

The cash flow effects of our derivatives contracts for the six months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013 are included within net cash provided by operating activities in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows.

We had notional amounts on foreign currency exchange contracts outstanding of $4.78 billion at June 30, 2014 and $4.28 billion at December 31, 2013.

While all of our derivative contracts allow us the right to offset assets or liabilities, we have presented amounts on a gross basis. Under the International Swap Dealers Association, Inc. master agreements with the respective counterparties of the foreign currency exchange contracts, subject to applicable requirements, we are allowed to net settle transactions of the same currency with a single net amount payable by one party to the other. The following table summarizes the location and fair values of derivative instruments on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (in thousands):



	June 30, 2014
	Asset Derivatives			Liability Derivatives
	Classification	Fair Value		Classification	Fair Value
Derivatives designated as hedges:
Foreign currency exchange contracts	Other current assets	$	15,055	Other accrued liabilities	$	37,957
Foreign currency exchange contracts	Other long-term assets	7,812		Other long-term obligations	2,467
Total derivatives designated as hedges		22,867			40,424
Derivatives not designated as hedges:
Foreign currency exchange contracts	Other current assets	7		Other accrued liabilities	48
Total derivatives not designated as hedges		7			48
Total derivatives		$	22,874		$	40,472



	December 31, 2013
	Asset Derivatives			Liability Derivatives
	Classification	Fair Value		Classification	Fair Value
Derivatives designated as hedges:
Foreign currency exchange contracts	Other current assets	$	12,647	Other accrued liabilities	$	85,541
Foreign currency exchange contracts	Other long-term assets	1,229		Other long-term obligations	13,299
Total derivatives designated as hedges		13,876			98,840
Derivatives not designated as hedges:
Foreign currency exchange contracts	Other current assets	3		Other accrued liabilities	217
Total derivatives not designated as hedges		3			217
Total derivatives		$	13,879		$	99,057

The following table summarizes the effect of our foreign currency exchange contracts on our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income (in thousands):



	Three Months Ended					Six Months Ended
	June 30,					June 30,
	2014			2013		2014			2013
Derivatives designated as hedges:
Gains recognized in OCI (effective portion)	$	29,715		$	11,801	$	32,712		$	82,661
Gains (losses) reclassified from accumulated OCI into product sales (effective portion)	$	(18,938	)	$	5,351	$	(39,629	)	$	5,813
Gains (losses) recognized in other income (expense), net (ineffective portion and amounts excluded from effectiveness testing)	$	(3,983	)	$	1,908	$	(3,899	)	$	(224	)
Derivatives not designated as hedges:
Gains recognized in other income (expense), net	$	8,008		$	9,077	$	9,111		$	41,697

From time to time, we may discontinue cash flow hedges and as a result, record related amounts in other income (expense), net on our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income. There were no material amounts recorded in other income (expense), net for the three and six months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013 as a result of the discontinuance of cash flow hedges.

As of June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, we held one type of financial instrument, derivative contracts related to foreign currency exchange contracts. The following table summarizes the potential effect of offsetting derivatives by type of financial instrument on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (in thousands):



June 30, 2014
Offsetting of Derivative Assets/Liabilities
									Gross Amounts Not Offset in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet
Description	Gross Amounts of Recognized Assets/Liabilities			Gross Amounts Offset in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet		Amounts of Assets/Liabilities Presented in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet			Derivative Financial Instruments			Cash Collateral Received/Pledged		Net Amount (Legal Offset)
Derivative assets	$	22,874		$	—	$	22,874		$	(22,475	)	$	—	$	399
Derivative liabilities	$	(40,472	)	$	—	$	(40,472	)	$	22,475		$	—	$	(17,997	)



December 31, 2013
Offsetting of Derivative Assets/Liabilities
									Gross Amounts Not Offset in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet
Description	Gross Amounts of Recognized Assets/Liabilities			Gross Amounts Offset in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet		Amounts of Assets/Liabilities Presented in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet			Derivative Financial Instruments			Cash Collateral Received/Pledged		Net Amount (Legal Offset)
Derivative assets	$	13,879		$	—	$	13,879		$	(13,879	)	$	—	$	—
Derivative liabilities	$	(99,057	)	$	—	$	(99,057	)	$	13,879		$	—	$	(85,178	)


5.	INVENTORIES

Inventories are summarized as follows (in thousands):



	June 30, 2014		December 31, 2013
Raw materials	$	944,892	$	1,049,403
Work in process	563,883		412,945
Finished goods	559,978		593,440
Total	$	2,068,753	$	2,055,788

The joint ventures formed by Gilead and BMS (See Note 7, Collaborative Arrangements), which are included in our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, held efavirenz active pharmaceutical ingredient in inventory. This efavirenz

inventory was purchased from BMS at BMS's estimated net selling price of efavirenz and totaled $1.24 billion as of June 30, 2014 and $1.28 billion as of December 31, 2013.


6.	INTANGIBLE ASSETS AND GOODWILL

Intangible Assets

The following table summarizes the carrying amount of our intangible assets (in thousands):



	June 30, 2014		December 31, 2013
Finite-lived intangible assets	$	10,926,729	$	11,325,751
Indefinite-lived intangible assets	581,590		574,355
Total intangible assets	$	11,508,319	$	11,900,106

Finite-Lived Intangible Assets

The following table summarizes our finite-lived intangible assets (in thousands):



	June 30, 2014				December 31, 2013
	Gross Carrying Amount		Accumulated Amortization		Gross Carrying Amount		Accumulated Amortization
Intangible asset - sofosbuvir	$	10,720,000	$	407,826	$	10,720,000	$	58,261
Intangible asset - Ranexa	688,400		226,081		688,400		190,849
Other	305,795		153,559		305,795		139,334
Total	$	11,714,195	$	787,466	$	11,714,195	$	388,444

Upon U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and commercial launch of Sovaldi in December 2013, we reclassified the in-process R&D related to sofosbuvir to finite-lived intangible assets. Amortization expense related to finite-lived intangible assets included primarily in cost of goods sold in our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income totaled $199.5 million and $399.0 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2014 and $21.5 million and $43.1 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2013. The weighted-average amortization period for all finite-lived intangible assets is approximately 15 years. As of June 30, 2014, the estimated future amortization expense associated with our intangible assets for the remaining six months of 2014 and each of the five succeeding fiscal years is as follows (in thousands):



Fiscal Year	Amount
2014 (remaining six months)	$	399,022
2015	803,496
2016	811,428
2017	815,871
2018	827,980
2019	792,823
Total	$	4,450,620

Indefinite-Lived Intangible Assets

The following table summarizes our indefinite-lived intangible assets (in thousands):



	June 30, 2014		December 31, 2013
Indefinite-lived intangible asset - momelotinib (formerly CYT387)	$	308,155	$	362,700
Indefinite-lived intangible assets - other	266,200		266,200
	574,355		628,900
Foreign currency translation adjustment	7,235		(54,545		)
Total	$	581,590	$	574,355

Goodwill

The following table summarizes the changes in the carrying amount of goodwill (in thousands):



Balance at December 31, 2013	$	1,169,023
Foreign currency translation adjustment	2,538
Balance at June 30, 2014	$	1,171,561


7.	COLLABORATIVE ARRANGEMENTS

From time to time, as a result of entering into strategic collaborations, we may hold investments in non-public companies. We review our interests in investee companies for consolidation and/or disclosure based on applicable guidance. For variable interest entities (VIEs), we may be required to consolidate an entity if the contractual terms of the arrangement essentially provide us with control over the entity, even if we do not have a majority voting interest. We assess whether we are the primary beneficiary of a VIE based on our power to direct the activities of the VIE that most significantly impact the VIE's economic performance and our obligation to absorb losses or the right to receive benefits from the VIE that could potentially be significant to the VIE. As of June 30, 2014, we determined that certain of our investee companies are VIEs; however, other than with respect to our joint ventures with BMS, we are not the primary beneficiary and therefore do not consolidate these investees.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company

North America

In 2004, we entered into a collaboration arrangement with BMS to develop and commercialize a single tablet regimen containing our Truvada and BMS's Sustiva (efavirenz) in the United States. This combination was approved for use in the United States in 2006 and is sold under the brand name Atripla. We and BMS structured this collaboration as a joint venture that operates as a limited liability company named Bristol-Myers Squibb & Gilead Sciences, LLC, which we consolidate. We and BMS granted royalty free sublicenses to the joint venture for the use of our respective company owned technologies and, in return, were granted a license by the joint venture to use any intellectual property that results from the collaboration. In 2006, we and BMS amended the joint venture's collaboration agreement to allow the joint venture to sell Atripla in Canada. The economic interests of the joint venture held by us and BMS (including share of revenues and out-of-pocket expenses) are based on the portion of the net selling price of Atripla attributable to efavirenz and Truvada. Since the net selling price for Truvada may change over time relative to the net selling price of efavirenz, both our and BMS's respective economic interests in the joint venture may vary annually.

We and BMS shared marketing and sales efforts. Starting in the second quarter of 2011, except for a limited number of activities that will be jointly managed, the parties no longer coordinate detailing and promotional activities in the United States, and the parties have begun to reduce their joint promotional efforts since we launched Complera in August 2011 and Stribild in August 2012. The parties will continue to collaborate on activities such as manufacturing, regulatory, compliance and pharmacovigilance. The daily operations of the joint venture are governed by four primary joint committees formed by both BMS and Gilead. We are responsible for accounting, financial reporting, tax reporting, manufacturing and product distribution for the joint venture. Both parties provide their respective bulk active pharmaceutical ingredients to the joint venture at their approximate market values. The agreement will continue until terminated by the mutual agreement of the parties. In addition, either party may terminate the other party's participation in the collaboration within 30 days after the launch of at least one generic version of such other party's single agent products (or the double agent products). The terminating party then has the right to continue to sell Atripla and become the continuing party, but will be obligated to pay the terminated party certain royalties for a three-year period following the effective date of the termination.

As of June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, the joint venture held efavirenz active pharmaceutical ingredient which it purchased from BMS at BMS's estimated net selling price of efavirenz in the U.S. market. These amounts are included in inventories on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. As of June 30, 2014, total assets held by the joint venture were $2.32 billion and consisted primarily of cash and cash equivalents of $214.7 million, accounts receivable of $278.1 million and inventories of $1.81 billion; total liabilities were $1.44 billion and consisted primarily of accounts payable of $986.2 million and other accrued expenses of $446.8 million. As of December 31, 2013, total assets held by the joint venture were $2.24 billion and consisted primarily of cash and cash equivalents of $245.7 million, accounts receivable of $275.3 million and inventories of $1.72 billion; total liabilities were $1.26 billion and consisted primarily of accounts payable of $915.4 million and other accrued expenses of $341.2 million. These asset and liability amounts do not reflect the impact of intercompany eliminations that are included in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Although we consolidate the joint venture, the legal structure of the joint venture limits the recourse that its creditors will have over our general credit or assets. Similarly, the assets held in the joint venture can be used only to settle obligations of the joint venture.

Europe

In 2007, Gilead Sciences Limited, our wholly-owned subsidiary in Ireland, and BMS entered into a collaboration agreement with BMS which sets forth the terms and conditions under which we and BMS commercialize and distribute Atripla in the European Union, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland (collectively, the European Territory). The parties formed a limited liability company which we consolidate, to manufacture Atripla for distribution in the European Territory using efavirenz that it purchases from BMS at BMS's estimated net selling price of efavirenz in the European Territory. We are responsible for manufacturing, product distribution, inventory management and warehousing. Through our local subsidiaries, we have primary responsibility for order fulfillment, collection of receivables, customer relations and handling of sales returns in all the territories where we and BMS promote Atripla. In general, the parties share revenues and out-of-pocket expenses in proportion to the net selling prices of the components of Atripla, Truvada and efavirenz.

Starting in 2012, except for a limited number of activities that will be jointly managed, the parties no longer coordinate detailing and promotional activities in the region. We are responsible for accounting, financial reporting and tax reporting for the collaboration. As of June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, efavirenz purchased from BMS at BMS's estimated net selling price of efavirenz in the European Territory is included in inventories on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

The parties also formed a limited liability company to hold the marketing authorization for Atripla in Europe. We have primary responsibility for regulatory activities. In the major market countries, both parties have agreed to independently continue to use commercially reasonable efforts to promote Atripla.

The agreement will terminate upon the expiration of the last-to-expire patent which affords market exclusivity to Atripla or one of its components in the European Territory. In addition, starting December 31, 2013, either party may terminate the agreement for any reason and such termination will be effective two calendar quarters after notice of termination. The non-terminating party has the right to continue to sell Atripla and become the continuing party, but will be obligated to pay the terminating party certain royalties for a three-year period following the effective date of the termination. In the event the continuing party decides not to sell Atripla, the effective date of the termination will be the date Atripla is withdrawn in each country or the date on which a third party assumes distribution of Atripla, whichever is earlier.


8.	DEBT AND CREDIT FACILITY

Financing Arrangements

The following table summarizes the carrying amount of our borrowings under various financing arrangements (in thousands):



Type of Borrowing	Description	Issue Date	Due Date	Interest Rate	June 30, 2014		December 31, 2013
Convertible Senior	May 2014 Notes	July 2010	May 2014	1.00%	$	—	$	234,217
Convertible Senior	May 2016 Notes	July 2010	May 2016	1.625%	822,139		1,113,043
Senior Unsecured	April 2021 Notes	March 2011	April 2021	4.50%	994,210		993,781
Senior Unsecured	December 2014 Notes	December 2011	December 2014	2.40%	749,868		749,710
Senior Unsecured	December 2016 Notes	December 2011	December 2016	3.05%	699,441		699,326
Senior Unsecured	December 2021 Notes	December 2011	December 2021	4.40%	1,247,861		1,247,716
Senior Unsecured	December 2041 Notes	December 2011	December 2041	5.65%	997,923		997,885
Senior Unsecured	April 2019 Notes	March 2014	April 2019	2.05%	499,189		—
Senior Unsecured	April 2024 Notes	March 2014	April 2024	3.70%	1,747,271		—
Senior Unsecured	April 2044 Notes	March 2014	April 2044	4.80%	1,746,641		—
Credit Facility	Five-Year Revolver	January 2012	January 2017	Variable	—		600,000
Total debt, net					9,504,543		6,635,678
Less current portion					1,572,007		2,696,970
Total long-term debt, net					$	7,932,536	$	3,938,708

Convertible Senior Notes

During the six months ended June 30, 2014, our convertible senior notes due in May 2014 (May 2014 Notes) matured and a portion of our convertible senior notes due in May 2016 (May 2016 Notes) (together, the Notes) was converted. During the six months ended June 30, 2014, we repaid $553.1 million of principal balance relating to the Notes. We also paid $1.29 billion in cash related to the conversion spread of the Notes, which represents the conversion value in excess of the principal amount, and received $1.29 billion in cash from the convertible note hedges related to the Notes.

As of June 30, 2014, the May 2016 Notes were classified as current given that their conversion criteria had been met. As a result, the related unamortized discount of $35.9 million was classified as equity component of currently redeemable convertible notes on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet.

There are 55.5 million shares of our common stock underlying our warrants expiring in 2014 (the 2014 Warrants). The 2014 Warrants have a strike price of $28.38 per share and expire during the 40 trading-day period commencing August 1, 2014 and ending on September 26, 2014. On July 29, 2014, we exercised our option to settle the warrants in cash. As a result, during the third quarter of 2014, we expect to pay cash to settle the warrants. Because the warrants could have been settled, at our option, in cash or shares of our common stock, and the related contracts met all of the applicable criteria for equity classification, the settlement will be recorded as a reduction of additional paid-in capital in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet.

There are 55.1 million shares of our common stock underlying our warrants expiring in 2016 (the 2016 Warrants). The 2016 Warrants have a strike price of $30.05 per share and are exercisable only on their expiration date. If the market value of our common stock at the time of the exercise of the warrants exceeds their strike price, we will be required to net settle in cash or shares of our common stock, at our option, for the value of the warrants in excess of the warrant strike price.

April 2019, 2024 and 2044 Senior Unsecured Notes

In March 2014, we issued senior unsecured notes in a registered offering for a total aggregate principal amount of $4.00 billion. We issued senior unsecured notes due in April 2019 (April 2019 Notes) for $500.0 million that pay interest at a fixed annual rate of 2.05%, senior unsecured notes due in April 2024 (April 2024 Notes) for $1.75 billion that pay interest at a fixed annual rate of 3.70% and senior unsecured notes due in April 2044 (April 2044 Notes) for $1.75 billion that pay interest at a fixed annual rate of 4.80%. Debt issuance costs incurred in connection with the issuance of this debt totaled approximately $27.5 million and are being amortized to interest expense over the contractual term of each of the respective notes.

These notes may be redeemed at our option at any time or from time to time, at a redemption price equal to the greater of (i) 100% of the principal amount of the notes to be redeemed and (ii) the sum, as determined by an independent investment banker, of the present values of the remaining scheduled payments of principal and interest on the notes to be redeemed (exclusive of interest accrued to the date of redemption) discounted to the redemption date on a semiannual basis at the Treasury Rate plus 10 basis points in the case of the April 2019 Notes, 15 basis points in the case of the April 2024 Notes and 20 basis points in the case of the April 2044 Notes plus, in each case, accrued and unpaid interest on the notes to be redeemed to the date of redemption.

At any time on or after the date that is three months prior to the maturity date of the April 2024 Notes, we may redeem the notes, in whole or in part, at 100% of the principal amount of the notes to be redeemed, plus accrued and unpaid interest to the date of redemption. At any time on or after the date that is six months prior to the maturity date of the April 2044 Notes, we may redeem the notes, in whole or in part, at 100% of the principal amount of the notes to be redeemed, plus accrued and unpaid interest to the date of redemption.

In the event of the occurrence of both a change in control and a downgrade in the rating of a series of notes below an investment grade rating by Standard & Poor's Ratings Services and Moody's Investors Service, Inc., the holders of such series of notes may require us to purchase all or a portion of their notes of such series at a price equal to 101% of the aggregate principal amount of the notes repurchased, plus accrued and unpaid interest.

Credit Facility

During the first quarter of 2014, we repaid the remaining balance of $600.0 million that was outstanding under the revolving credit facility credit agreement. There were no amounts outstanding under the revolving credit facility credit agreement as of June 30, 2014.

We are required to comply with certain covenants under the credit agreement and note indentures and as of June 30, 2014, we believe we were in compliance with all such covenants.


9.	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Legal Proceedings

Litigation Related to Sofosbuvir

In January 2012, we acquired Pharmasset, Inc. (Pharmasset). Through the acquisition, we acquired sofosbuvir, a nucleotide analog that acts to inhibit the replication of the hepatitis C virus (HCV). In December 2013, we received FDA approval of sofosbuvir, now known commercially as Sovaldi. We have received a number of contractual and intellectual property claims regarding sofosbuvir. We have carefully considered these claims both prior to and following the acquisition and believe they are without merit.

Arbitration with F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd and Hoffman-La Roche Inc. (collectively, Roche)

Gilead (as successor to Pharmasset) is a party to an October 29, 2004 collaboration agreement with Roche. The agreement granted Roche rights to develop PSI-6130, a cytidine analog, and its prodrugs, for the treatment of HCV infection. The collaborative research efforts under the agreement ended on December 31, 2006. Roche later asked Pharmasset to consider whether Roche may have contributed to the inventorship of sofosbuvir and whether Pharmasset has complied with the confidentiality provisions of the collaboration agreement. Pharmasset advised us that it carefully considered the issues raised by Roche and that it believed any such issues are without merit. We have also considered these issues and reached the same conclusion. In March 2013, Roche initiated an arbitration against us and Pharmasset, predecessor to Gilead Pharmasset LLC, regarding the collaboration agreement. In the arbitration demand, Roche asserts that it has an exclusive license to sofosbuvir pursuant to the collaboration agreement because sofosbuvir, a prodrug of a uridine monophosphate analog, is allegedly a prodrug of PSI-6130, a cytidine analog. Roche further claims that, because it has exclusive rights to sofosbuvir, it also has an exclusive license to a patent covering sofosbuvir, and that we will infringe that patent by selling and offering for sale products containing sofosbuvir. Gilead and Gilead Pharmasset LLC filed their response to Roche's arbitration demand in April 2013. The arbitration hearing was held in New York in June 2014. We expect a decision in the arbitration by the end of 2014.

Interference Proceedings and Litigation with Idenix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Idenix)

In February 2012, we received notice that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) had declared Interference No. 105,871 (First Idenix Interference) between our U.S. Patent No. 7,429,572 and Idenix's pending U.S. Patent Application No. 12/131,868. An interference is an administrative proceeding before the USPTO designed to determine who was the first to invent the subject matter claimed by both parties. Our patent covers metabolites of sofosbuvir and RG7128, a prodrug of a cytidine nucleoside analog that Pharmasset licensed to Roche. Idenix is attempting to patent a class of compounds, including these metabolites. The purpose of the First Idenix Interference was to determine who was first to invent these compounds and therefore who is entitled to the patent claiming these compounds. In March 2013, the USPTO Patent Trials and Appeal Board (the Board) determined that Idenix is not entitled to the benefit of any of its early application filing dates because none of those patent applications, including the application that led to Idenix’s U.S. Patent No. 7,608,600 (the ‘600 patent), taught how to make the compounds in dispute. The Board also determined that because we are entitled to the filing date of our earliest application, we were first to file the patent application on the compounds in dispute, and we were therefore the “senior party” in the First Idenix Interference. On January 29, 2014, the Board determined that Pharmasset and not Idenix was the first to invent the compounds in dispute and accordingly Gilead prevailed. In its decision, the Board held that Idenix failed to prove that it was first to conceive of any of the compounds in dispute. Specifically, Idenix failed to prove that the Idenix inventors had identified the structure, a method of making and a use for any of the disputed compounds. The Board went on to conclude that Idenix failed to work diligently toward making and testing the compounds in dispute during the relevant time period. Idenix has appealed the Board’s decisions to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. If either or both of the Board’s decisions are reversed on appeal and the court determines that Idenix is entitled to their patent claims, and it is determined that we have infringed those claims, we may be required to obtain a license from and pay royalties to Idenix to commercialize sofosbuvir and RG7128 in the United States. A decision by the District Court can be appealed by either party to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC).

We believe the claims in the Idenix application involved in the First Idenix Interference, and similar U.S. and foreign patents claiming the same compounds and metabolites, are invalid. As a result, we filed an Impeachment Action in the Federal Court of Canada to invalidate Idenix Canadian Patent No. 2,490,191 (the ‘191 patent), which is the Canadian patent that corresponds to the ‘600 patent and the Idenix patent application that is the subject of the First Idenix Interference. Idenix has now asserted that the commercialization of Sovaldi in Canada will infringe its ‘191 patent and that our Canadian Patent No. 2,527,657, corresponding to our U.S. Patent No. 7,429,572 in the First Idenix Interference, is invalid.

We filed a similar legal action in Norway in the Oslo District Court seeking to invalidate Idenix's corresponding Norwegian patent. In September 2013, Idenix filed an invalidation action in the Norwegian proceedings against our Norwegian Patent No. 333700 patent, which corresponds to our U.S. Patent No. 7,429,572. The trial was held in November 2013. On

March 21, 2014, the Norwegian court found all claims in the Idenix Norwegian patent to be invalid and upheld the validity of all claims in the challenged Gilead patent. Additionally, the Norwegian court ordered Idenix to pay us over $2.0 million in attorney fees as the losing party to the litigation. On April 30, 2014, Idenix appealed the March 21, 2014 decision to the Norwegian Court of Appeal. Idenix’s obligation to pay our attorneys’ fees will be stayed during the pendency of the appeal.

In August 2013 and April 2014, Idenix filed two separate requests for invalidation with the Chinese Patent Office of our Chinese Patent CN ZL200480019148.4, which corresponds to our U.S. Patent No. 7,429,572 patent.

We filed a legal action in the Federal Court of Australia seeking to invalidate Idenix’s Australian patent corresponding to the ‘600 patent. In April 2013, Idenix asserted that the commercialization of sofosbuvir will infringe the Australian patent corresponding to the ‘600 patent.

On March 12, 2014, the European Patent Office (EPO) granted Idenix European Patent No. 1 523 489 (the ‘489 patent), which corresponds to the ‘600 patent. The same day that the ‘489 patent granted, we filed an opposition with the EPO seeking to revoke the ‘489 patent. Also on March 12, 2014, Idenix initiated infringement proceedings against us in the United Kingdom, Germany and France alleging that the commercialization of Sovaldi in those countries would infringe the respective national counterparts of the ‘489 patent. In the United Kingdom, the court has ordered an October 2014 trial date to determine the issues of infringement and validity of the Idenix United Kingdom patent. In Germany, the court in Düsseldorf has ordered a hearing date of December 2, 2014 to determine the issue of infringement of the Idenix German patent. We do not have a trial date for the French lawsuit.

Idenix has not been awarded patents corresponding to the ‘600 patent in Japan or China. In the event such patents issue, we expect to challenge them in proceedings similar to those we invoked in Europe, Canada, Norway and Australia. If the courts hearing these proceedings determine that Idenix is entitled to their patent claims and it is determined that we have infringed those claims, we may be required to obtain a license from and pay royalties to Idenix to commercialize sofosbuvir and RG7128 in that country.

In December 2013, after receiving our request to do so, the USPTO declared Interference No. 105,981 (Second Idenix Interference) between our pending U.S. Patent Application No. 11/854,218 and the ‘600 patent. The ‘600 patent includes claims directed to methods of treating HCV with nucleoside compounds similar to those which were involved in the First Idenix Interference. The Second Idenix Interference will determine who was first to invent the claimed methods of treating HCV. In the declaration of the Second Idenix Interference, the USPTO has initially designated Gilead as the junior party based upon the patent application filing dates appearing on the face of the ‘600 patent. We believe the Board’s determination in the First Idenix Interference that Idenix is not entitled to the benefit of any of its earlier application filing dates, including the filing date of the ‘600 patent, will be equally applicable to the Second Idenix Interference. If we are correct, the Board may conclude that Gilead is the senior party in the Second Idenix Interference, consistent with the determination in the First Idenix Interference. In light of the Board’s conclusion in the First Idenix Interference that the application that led to the ‘600 patent does not teach how to make the claimed compounds, it is possible that the Board will make the same determination in the Second Idenix Interference and eliminate the need for the Board to address who was the first to invent the claimed methods of treating HCV. However, if the Board does consider who was the first to invent the claimed methods of treating HCV and ultimately concludes that Gilead was first, the claims in the ‘600 patent may be revoked. If the Board determines that Idenix was first to invent and is entitled to these patent claims, and it is determined in other proceedings that we have infringed those claims, we may be required to obtain a license from and pay royalties to Idenix to commercialize sofosbuvir and RG7128. Any determination by the Board can be appealed by either party to U.S. federal court.

In December 2013, Idenix, Universita Degli Studi di Cagliari (UDSG), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique and L’Université Montpellier II sued us in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that the commercialization of sofosbuvir will infringe the ‘600 patent and that an interference exists between the ‘600 patent and our U.S. Patent No. 8,415,322. We believe that the claims in the ‘600 patent are invalid and that we have the sole right to commercialize sofosbuvir. However, if the court disagrees with our view and further determines that the ‘600 patent is infringed, we may be required to obtain a license from and pay royalties to Idenix to commercialize sofosbuvir. A decision by the District Court can be appealed by either party to the CAFC.

Also in December 2013, Idenix and UDSG sued us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging that the commercialization of sofosbuvir will infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,914,054 and 7,608,597. On June 30, 2014, the court in Massachusetts granted our request and transferred the Massachusetts litigation to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. We believe that Idenix’s patents are invalid and would not be infringed by our commercialization of sofosbuvir and that we have the sole right to commercialize sofosbuvir. However, if the court disagrees with our view and determines that these patents are infringed, we may be required to obtain a license from and pay royalties to Idenix to commercialize sofosbuvir. A decision by the District Court can be appealed by either party to the CAFC. We have an expansive patent

portfolio covering NS5A inhibitors for the treatment of HCV. Following the disclosure of the structure of Idenix’s NS5A inhibitor, samatasvir (also known as IDX-719), we are evaluating the compound in light of the claims of our granted U.S. Patent No. 8,669,234.

On June 9, 2014, Merck and Idenix announced that the companies had entered into a definitive agreement under which Merck will acquire Idenix. While this merger does not change our view of the merits of Merck's and Idenix's claims, Merck has greater resources than Idenix and may therefore choose to fund the litigation at higher levels than Idenix.

Litigation with Merck & Co., Inc. (Merck)

In August 2013, Merck contacted us requesting that we pay royalties on the sales of sofosbuvir and obtain a license to U.S. Patent Nos. 7,105,499 and 8,481,712, which it co-owns with Isis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. We believe that Merck’s patents are invalid and would not be infringed by our commercialization of sofosbuvir and that we have the sole right to commercialize sofosbuvir. Accordingly, in August 2013, we filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeking declaratory judgment that the Merck patents are invalid and not infringed. Merck’s U.S. Patent Nos. 7,105,499 and 8,481,712 cover compounds which do not include, but may relate to, sofosbuvir. During patent prosecution, Merck amended its patent application in an attempt to cover compounds related to sofosbuvir and ultimately extract royalty payments for sofosbuvir’s commercialization, or to exclude it from the market. If the court determines that Merck’s patents are valid and that we have infringed those claims, we may be required to obtain a license from and pay royalties to Merck to commercialize sofosbuvir. Either party can appeal a decision by the District Court to the CAFC. The court has set a trial date of March 7, 2016 for this litigation. While this merger does not change our view of the merits of Merck's and Idenix's claims, Merck has greater resources than Idenix and may therefore choose to fund the litigation at higher levels than Idenix.

Litigation with AbbVie, Inc. (AbbVie)

AbbVie has obtained U.S. Patent Nos. 8,466,159, 8,492,386, 8,680,106 and 8,685,984, which purport to claim the use of a combination of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (LDV/SOF) for the treatment of HCV. We own published and pending patent applications directed to the use of combinations for the treatment of HCV, and, specifically, to combinations of ledipasvir and sofosbuvir. Certain of those applications were filed before AbbVie’s patents. For this reason and others, we believe AbbVie’s patents are invalid.

Accordingly, in December 2013, we filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware seeking declaratory judgment that the AbbVie patents are invalid and unenforceable, as well as other relief. We believe that Abbott Laboratories, Inc. and AbbVie conspired to eliminate competition in the HCV market by falsely representing to the USPTO that they, and not Gilead, invented methods of treating HCV using a combination of LDV/SOF. In February and March 2014, AbbVie responded to our lawsuit by filing two lawsuits also in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that our fixed-dose combination of LDV/SOF will infringe its patents. We do not expect AbbVie’s patents to block or delay the commercialization of our combination products. If the court determines that AbbVie’s patents are valid and that we have infringed those claims, we may be required to obtain a license from and pay royalties to AbbVie to commercialize sofosbuvir combination products. Either party can appeal a decision by the District Court to the CAFC. We are aware that AbbVie is pursuing similar patents in Europe and other countries.

We cannot predict the ultimate outcome of contractual and intellectual property claims related to sofosbovir, and we may spend significant resources enforcing and defending these patents. If these parties successfully obtain valid and enforceable patents, and successfully prove infringement of those patents by sofosbuvir, we could be prevented from selling sofosbuvir unless we were able to obtain a license under such patents. Such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Further, if any party is successful in establishing exclusive rights to sofosbuvir, our expected revenues and earnings from the sale of sofosbuvir would be adversely affected. A range of losses cannot be estimated at this time.

Litigation with Generic Manufacturers

As part of the approval process for some of our products, the FDA granted us a New Chemical Entity (NCE) exclusivity period during which other manufacturers' applications for approval of generic versions of our product will not be approved. Generic manufacturers may challenge the patents protecting products that have been granted NCE exclusivity one year prior to the end of the NCE exclusivity period. Generic manufacturers have sought and may continue to seek FDA approval for a similar or identical drug through an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA), the application form typically used by manufacturers seeking approval of a generic drug. We received notices that generic manufacturers have submitted ANDAs to manufacture a generic version of Atripla, Truvada, Viread, Emtriva, Ranexa and Tamiflu in the United States and Atripla, Truvada and Viread in Canada. Current legal proceedings of significance with some of our generic manufacturers include:

Natco

In March 2011, we and F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. (Roche) filed a lawsuit against Natco Pharma Ltd. (Natco) in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey for infringement of one of the patents associated with Tamiflu. In December 2012,

the court issued a ruling in favor of Gilead and Roche, that our patent is not invalid for the reasons stated in Natco’s notice letter. Natco has appealed this decision to the CAFC. In April 2014, the CAFC issued a decision which will allow Natco’s patent invalidity challenge to proceed if the case is remanded to the District Court of New Jersey for a full trial on the merits. On June 30, 2014, we filed a petition for rehearing en banc with the CAFC.

Teva

In August 2012, Teva Pharmaceuticals (Teva) filed an Impeachment Action in the Federal Court of Canada seeking invalidation of our two Canadian patents associated with Viread. In September 2013, a hearing on the consolidated requests for orders of prohibition in connection with all three of Teva’s abbreviated new drug submission (ANDS) filings to the Canadian Minister of Health (for Teva’s generic versions of Viread, Truvada, and Atripla) took place. In December 2013, the court issued our requested order prohibiting the Canadian Ministry of Health from issuing a Notice of Compliance for Teva’s generic versions of our Viread, Truvada, and Atripla products until expiry of our patent in July 2017. Teva appealed the decision of the court prohibiting the Minister of Heath from issuing the Notices of Compliance until expiry of our patent in July 2017. This decision did not rule on the validity of the patents and accordingly the only issue on appeal is whether the Minister of Health should be prohibited from issuing the Notices of Compliance for Teva’s products. Separately, the court will determine the validity of the patents in the pending Impeachment Action. A trial in the Impeachment Action is scheduled for March 2015. If Teva is successful in invalidating our patents, Teva may be able to launch generic versions of our Viread, Truvada and Atripla products in Canada prior to the expiry of our patents.

In April 2013, we and Teva reached an agreement to settle the ongoing patent litigation concerning the four patents that protect tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in our Atripla, Truvada and Viread products. Under the agreement, Teva will be allowed to launch a generic version of Viread on December 15, 2017. In April 2014, we and Teva entered an agreement to settle the ongoing patent litigation concerning the emtricitabine patents that protect Atripla and Truvada. The terms of the settlement agreement are confidential.

Lupin

In 2012, we filed lawsuits against Lupin Limited (Lupin) in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for infringement of our emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil patents related to Viread and Truvada. In May 2014, Lupin amended its ANDAs to certify that it is no longer seeking approval to market generic versions of Truvada and Viread prior to the expiration of the four patents associated with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in January 2018 (including pediatric exclusivity). As a result, in May 2014, the court granted Gilead and Lupin's Joint Motion for Order of Dismissal in our patent infringement lawsuit against Lupin for the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate patents. A trial relating to Lupin’s ANDA requesting permission to make a generic version of Truvada before the expiry of our patents covering emtricitabine is scheduled for December 2014.

In August 2013, we and Lupin reached an agreement to settle the patent litigation concerning certain patents that protect Ranexa. Under the agreement, Lupin would be allowed to launch a generic version of Ranexa on February 27, 2019.

We cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the foregoing actions and other litigation with generic manufacturers, and we may spend significant resources enforcing and defending these patents. If we are unsuccessful in these lawsuits, some or all of our original claims in the patents may be narrowed or invalidated and the patent protection for Truvada, Viread, Emtriva and Tamiflu in the United States and Atripla, Truvada and Viread in Canada could be substantially shortened. Further, if all of the patents covering one or more products are invalidated, the FDA or Canadian Minister of Health could approve the requests to manufacture a generic version of such products in the United States or Canada, respectively, prior to the expiration date of those patents. The sale of generic versions of these products earlier than their patent expiration would have a significant negative effect on our revenues and results of operations.

Department of Justice Investigation

In June 2011, we received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California requesting documents related to the manufacture, and related quality and distribution practices, of Complera, Atripla, Truvada, Viread, Emtriva, Hepsera and Letairis. We cooperated with the government’s inquiry. On April 16, 2014, the United States Department of Justice informed us that, following an investigation, it declined to intervene in a False Claims Act lawsuit filed by two former employees. We have moved to dismiss the complaint.

Other Matters

We are a party to various legal actions that arose in the ordinary course of our business. We do not believe that these other legal actions will have a material adverse impact on our consolidated business, financial position or results of operations.


10.	STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY

Stock Repurchase Program

Under our stock repurchase program announced in January 2011 (2011 Program), we repurchased a total of $1.20 billion or 15.2 million shares of common stock during the three months ended June 30, 2014, and a total of $1.65 billion or 20.9 million shares of common stock during the six months ended June 30, 2014. As of June 30, 2014, we had $1.70 billion remaining in our 2011 Program, which is expected to be completed by September 2014. In May 2014, our Board of Directors authorized a new stock repurchase program of up to $5.00 billion of our common stock.

Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)

The following table summarizes the changes in accumulated OCI (loss) by component, net of tax (in thousands):



	Foreign Currency Items			Unrealized Gains and Losses on Available-for-Sale Securities			Unrealized Gains and Losses on Cash Flow Hedges			Total
Balance at December 31, 2013	$	(45,860	)	$	11,907		$	(90,493	)	$	(124,446	)
Other comprehensive income before reclassifications	6,969			1,826			32,886			41,681
Amounts reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)	—			(386		)	41,691			41,305
Net current period other comprehensive income	6,969			1,440			74,577			82,986
Balance at June 30, 2014	$	(38,891	)	$	13,347		$	(15,916	)	$	(41,460	)

Amounts reclassified for gains (losses) on cash flow hedges were recorded as part of product sales on our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income. Amounts reclassified for unrealized gains (losses) on available-for-sale securities were recorded as part of other income (expense), net on our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income.


11.	STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION

The following table summarizes the stock-based compensation expense included in our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income (in thousands):



	Three Months Ended						Six Months Ended
	June 30,						June 30,
	2014			2013			2014			2013
Cost of goods sold	$	2,565		$	2,632		$	5,207		$	4,473
Research and development expenses	36,633			24,646			70,983			51,521
Selling, general and administrative expenses	43,935			28,675			89,168			61,726
Stock-based compensation expense included in total costs and expenses	83,133			55,953			165,358			117,720
Income tax effect	(10,934		)	(15,574		)	(30,023		)	(31,961		)
Stock-based compensation expense, net of tax	$	72,199		$	40,379		$	135,335		$	85,759


12.	NET INCOME PER SHARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO GILEAD COMMON STOCKHOLDERS

Basic net income per share attributable to Gilead common stockholders is calculated based on the weighted-average number of shares of our common stock outstanding during the period. Diluted net income per share attributable to Gilead common stockholders is calculated based on the weighted-average number of shares of our common stock outstanding and other dilutive securities outstanding during the period. The potential dilutive shares of our common stock resulting from the assumed exercise of outstanding stock options, performance shares and the assumed exercise of warrants relating to the convertible senior notes due in May 2013 (May 2013 Notes), May 2014 Notes and May 2016 Notes (collectively, the Convertible Notes) are determined under the treasury stock method.

Because the principal amount of the Convertible Notes will be settled in cash, only the conversion spread relating to the Convertible Notes is included in our calculation of diluted net income per share attributable to Gilead common stockholders. Our common stock resulting from the assumed settlement of the conversion spread of the May 2016 Notes has a dilutive effect when the average market price of our common stock during the period exceeds the conversion price of $22.71 for the May

2016 Notes. Warrants relating to the May 2016 Notes have a dilutive effect when the average market price of our common stock during the period exceeds the warrants’ exercise price of $30.05.

Our May 2013 Notes and May 2014 Notes matured and as a result, we have only included their impact for the period they were outstanding on our net income per share calculations for the periods shown. Our common stock resulting from the assumed settlement of the conversion spread of the May 2013 Notes and May 2014 Notes had a dilutive effect when the average market price of our common stock during the period exceeded the conversion price of $19.05 for the May 2013 Notes and $22.54 for the May 2014 Notes. Warrants related to our May 2013 Notes settled in August 2013 and as a result, we have only included their impact for the period they were outstanding on our net income per share calculation for the three and six months ended June 30, 2013. The related warrants had a dilutive effect when the average market price of our common stock during the period exceeded the warrants’ exercise price of $26.95. Warrants relating to the May 2014 Notes have a dilutive effect when the average market price of our common stock during the period exceeds the warrants’ exercise price of $28.38.

We have excluded stock options to purchase approximately 1.1 million and 0.9 million weighted-average shares of our common stock that were outstanding during the three and six months ended June 30, 2014, and approximately 1.0 million and 1.7 million weighted-average shares of our common stock that were outstanding during the three and six months ended June 30, 2013. These shares were excluded in the computation of diluted net income per share attributable to Gilead common stockholders because their effect was antidilutive.

The following table is a reconciliation of the numerator and denominator used in the calculation of basic and diluted net income per share attributable to Gilead common stockholders (in thousands):



	Three Months Ended			Six Months Ended
	June 30,			June 30,
	2014		2013	2014	2013
Numerator:
Net income attributable to Gilead	$	3,655,593	$