Legal proceedings covering a wide range of matters are pending or threatened in various U.S. and foreign jurisdictions against us and our subsidiaries, including PM USA, as well as our and their respective indemnitees and indemnitors. Various types of claims may be raised in these proceedings, including product liability, unfair trade practices, antitrust, tax, contraband-related claims, patent infringement, employment matters, claims alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), claims for contribution and claims of competitors, shareholders and distributors. Legislative action, such as changes to tort law, also may expand the types of claims and remedies available to plaintiffs.
Competitors and other third parties have brought and may in the future bring action against us, our subsidiaries and/or our suppliers alleging patent infringement. Such claims, regardless of merit, expose us to significant litigation costs and damages, importation bans with respect to products and product components manufactured abroad, divert management's attention and compromise our operating companies' abilities to commercialize and improve their products. This risk is especially pertinent to smoke-free products where technology continues advancing rapidly, resulting in a high volume of patents in relevant technology spaces. In a patent lawsuit adjudicated before the U.S. International Trade Commission ("ITC"), the ITC banned the importation of IQOS devices, Marlboro HeatSticks and component parts into the United States and the sale and marketing of any such products previously imported into the United States. As a result of the ITC's decision, PM USA removed the IQOS devices, Marlboro HeatSticks and any infringing components from the marketplace. In a separate patent lawsuit brought by JUUL currently pending before the ITC, the ITC could impose similar restrictions on NJOY ACE. Any ban on the importation or sale of NJOY ACE could have a negative impact on our business, our valuation of NJOY's assets and our plans with respect to the e-vapor category.
In certain litigation, we and our subsidiaries may face potentially significant non-monetary remedies in addition to importation bans that could have a material adverse effect on our businesses. For example, in the Federal Government's lawsuit alleging that certain defendants, including Altria and PM USA, violated RICO and engaged in certain "sub-schemes" to defraud, the district court did not impose monetary penalties but ordered significant non-monetary remedies, including the issuance of "corrective statements."
Litigation is subject to significant uncertainty, and there could be adverse developments in pending or future cases. An unfavorable outcome or settlement of pending tobacco-related or other litigation could encourage the commencement of additional litigation. Damages claimed in some tobacco-related or other litigation are significant and, in certain cases, have ranged in the billions of dollars. The variability in pleadings in multiple jurisdictions and the actual experience of management in litigating claims demonstrate that the monetary relief that may be specified in a lawsuit bears little relevance to the ultimate outcome.
In certain cases, plaintiffs claim that defendants' liability is joint and several. In such cases, we may face the risk that one or more co-defendants decline or otherwise fail to participate in the bonding required for an appeal or to pay their proportionate or jury-allocated share of a judgment. As a result, we may have to pay more than our proportionate share of any bonding- or judgment-related amounts under certain circumstances. Furthermore, in cases where plaintiffs are successful, we also may be required to pay interest and attorneys' fees.
Although we historically have been able to obtain required bonds or relief from bonding requirements in order to prevent plaintiffs from seeking to collect judgments while adverse verdicts have been appealed, there remains a risk that such relief may not be obtainable in all cases. This risk has been substantially reduced given that 47 states and Puerto Rico now limit the dollar amount of bonds or require no bond at all. However, tobacco litigation plaintiffs have challenged the constitutionality of Florida's bond cap statute in several cases and plaintiffs may challenge state bond cap statutes in other jurisdictions as well. Such challenges may include the applicability of state bond caps in federal court. Although we cannot predict the outcome of such challenges, it is possible that our business, results of operations, cash flows or financial position could be materially adversely affected in a particular fiscal quarter or fiscal year by an unfavorable outcome of one or more such challenges.
Each of Altria and our subsidiaries named as a defendant in pending litigation believes, and each has been so advised by counsel handling the respective cases, that it has valid defenses to the litigation pending against it, as well as valid bases for appeal of adverse verdicts.
We have defended, and will continue to defend, vigorously against litigation challenges. However, we may enter into settlement discussions in particular cases if we believe it is in our best interests to do so.
We cannot predict the outcome of any litigation proceedings or governmental investigations, and unfavorable outcomes in any such proceedings or investigations could materially adversely affect our results of operations, cash flows or financial position.