Legal Proceedings and Contingencies | Legal Proceedings and ContingenciesAbbVie is subject to contingencies, such as various claims, legal proceedings and investigations regarding product liability, intellectual property, commercial, securities and other matters that arise in the normal course of business. The most significant matters are described below. Loss contingency provisions are recorded for probable losses at management’s best estimate of a loss, or when a best estimate cannot be made, a minimum loss contingency amount within a probable range is recorded. Initiation of new legal proceedings or a change in the status of existing proceedings may result in a change in the estimated loss accrued by AbbVie. While it is not feasible to predict the outcome of all proceedings and exposures with certainty, management believes that their ultimate disposition should not have a material adverse effect on AbbVie’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.Subject to certain exceptions specified in the separation agreement by and between Abbott Laboratories (Abbott) and AbbVie, AbbVie assumed the liability for, and control of, all pending and threatened legal matters related to its business, including liabilities for any claims or legal proceedings related to products that had been part of its business, but were discontinued prior to the distribution, as well as assumed or retained liabilities, and will indemnify Abbott for any liability arising out of or resulting from such assumed legal matters. Antitrust Litigation Lawsuits are pending against AbbVie and others generally alleging that the 2005 patent litigation settlement involving Niaspan entered into between Kos Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a company acquired by Abbott in 2006 and presently a subsidiary of AbbVie) and a generic company violates federal and state antitrust laws and state unfair and deceptive trade practices and unjust enrichment laws. Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages and/or injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. The lawsuits pending in federal court consist of four individual plaintiff lawsuits and two consolidated purported class actions: one brought by Niaspan direct purchasers and one brought by Niaspan end-payers. The cases are pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings under the MDL Rules as In re: Niaspan Antitrust Litigation , MDL No. 2460. In August 2019, the court certified a class of direct purchasers of Niaspan. In June 2020, the court denied the end-payers' motion to certify a class. In October 2016, the Orange County, California District Attorney’s Office filed a lawsuit on behalf of the State of California regarding the Niaspan patent litigation settlement in Orange County Superior Court, asserting a claim under the unfair competition provision of the California Business and Professions Code seeking injunctive relief, restitution, civil penalties and attorneys’ fees. In September 2014, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a lawsuit, FTC v. AbbVie Inc., et al. , against AbbVie and others in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that 2011 patent litigation with two generic companies regarding AndroGel was sham litigation and the settlements of that litigation violated federal antitrust law. In May 2015, the court dismissed the FTC’s settlement-related claim. In June 2018, following a bench trial, the court found for the FTC on its sham litigation claim and ordered a disgorgement remedy of $448 million, plus prejudgment interest. The court denied the FTC’s request for injunctive relief. In September 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the district court’s finding of sham litigation with respect to one generic company and affirmed with respect to the other but held the FTC lacked authority to obtain a disgorgement remedy and vacated the district court’s award. The Third Circuit also affirmed the district court’s denial of the FTC’s injunction request and reinstated the FTC’s settlement-related claim for further proceedings in the district court. In August 2019, direct purchasers of AndroGel filed a lawsuit, King Drug Co. of Florence, Inc., et al. v. AbbVie Inc., et al. , against AbbVie and others in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that 2006 patent litigation settlements and related agreements by Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a company Abbott acquired in February 2010 and now known as AbbVie Products LLC) with three generic companies violated federal antitrust law, and also making allegations similar to those in FTC v. AbbVie Inc. (above). In May 2020, Perrigo Company and related entities filed a lawsuit against AbbVie and others in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, making sham litigation allegations similar to those in FTC v. AbbVie Inc . (above). In October 2020, the Perrigo lawsuit was transferred to the United States District Court for New Jersey. Between March and May 2019, 12 putative class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by indirect Humira purchasers, alleging that AbbVie’s settlements with biosimilar manufacturers and AbbVie’s Humira patent portfolio violated state and federal antitrust laws. The court consolidated these lawsuits as In re: Humira (Adalimumab) Antitrust Litigation . In June 2020, the court dismissed the consolidated litigation with prejudice. The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal. Lawsuits are pending against Forest Laboratories, LLC and others generally alleging that 2009 and 2010 patent litigation settlements involving Namenda entered into between Forest and generic companies and other conduct by Forest involving Namenda, violated state antitrust, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and unjust enrichment laws. Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. The lawsuits, purported class actions filed by indirect purchasers of Namenda, are consolidated as In re: Namenda Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Lawsuits are pending against Allergan Inc. generally alleging that Allergan’s petitioning to the U.S. Patent Office and Food and Drug Administration and other conduct by Allergan involving Restasis violated federal and state antitrust laws and state unfair and deceptive trade practices and unjust enrichment laws. Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. The lawsuits, certified as a class action filed on behalf of indirect purchasers of Restasis, are consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York under the MDL Rules as In re: Restasis (Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Emulsion) Antitrust Litigation , MDL No. 2819. Lawsuits are pending against Forest Laboratories, LLC and others generally alleging that 2012 and 2013 patent litigation settlements involving Bystolic with six generic manufacturers violated federal and state antitrust laws and state unfair and deceptive trade practices and unjust enrichment laws. Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees. The lawsuits, purported class actions filed on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of Bystolic, are consolidated as In re: Bystolic Antitrust Litigation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Government Proceedings Lawsuits are pending against Allergan and several other manufacturers generally alleging that they improperly promoted and sold prescription opioid products. Approximately 3,100 matters are pending against Allergan. The federal court cases are consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio under the MDL rules as In re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation , MDL No. 2804. Approximately 300 of the claims are pending in various state courts. The plaintiffs in these cases, which include states, counties, cities, and Native American tribes, generally seek compensatory damages. In July 2019, the New Mexico Attorney General filed a lawsuit, State of New Mexico ex rel. Balderas v. AbbVie Inc., et al. , in New Mexico District Court for Santa Fe County against AbbVie and other companies alleging their marketing of AndroGel violated New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act. In October 2020, the state added a claim under the New Mexico False Advertising Act. Shareholder and Securities Litigation In June 2016, a lawsuit, Elliott Associates, L.P., et al. v. AbbVie Inc. , was filed by five investment funds against AbbVie in the Cook County, Illinois Circuit Court alleging that AbbVie made misrepresentations and omissions in connec tion with its proposed t ransaction with Shire. Similar lawsuits were filed between July 2017 and October 2019 against AbbVie and in some instances its chief executive officer in the same court by additional investment funds. The court granted motions dismissing the claims of three investment-fund plaintiffs, which they appealed. In March 2021, in the first of those appeals, the dismissal was affirmed. One of these plaintiffs refiled its lawsuit in New York state court in June 2020 while the appeal of its dismissal in Illinois is pending. In November 2020, the New York Supreme Court for the County of New York dismissed that lawsuit, which is being appealed. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages. In October 2018, a federal securities purported class action lawsuit, Holwill v. AbbVie Inc., et al ., was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois) against AbbVie, its chief executive officer and former chief financial officer, alleging that reasons stated for Humira sales growth in financial filings between 2013 and 2017 were misleading because they omitted alleged misconduct in connection with Humira patient and reimbursement support services and other services and items of value that allegedly induced Humira prescriptions. Lawsuits are pending against Allergan and certain of its current and former officers alleging they made misrepresentations and omissions regarding Allergan's textured breast implants. The lawsuits, which were filed by Allergan shareholders, have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York as In re: Allergan plc Securities Litigation . The plaintiffs generally seek compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees. In September 2019, the court partially granted Allergan's motion to dismiss. In September 2020, the court denied plaintiffs’ class certification motion because it found the lead plaintiff to be an inadequate representative of the proposed class but allowed another putative class member to propose itself as a new lead plaintiff. In December 2020, the court appointed a new lead plaintiff. Lawsuits are pending against Allergan and certain of its current and former officers alleging they made misrepresentations and omissions regarding Allergan’s former Actavis generics unit and its alleged anticompetitive conduct with other generic drug companies. The lawsuits were filed by Allergan shareholders and consist of three purported class actions and one individual action that have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey as In re: Allergan Generic Drug Pricing Securities Litigation . Another individual action in New Jersey state court was dismissed in September 2020. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages and attorneys’ fees. Product Liability and General Litigation In 2018, a qui tam lawsuit, U.S. ex rel. Silbersher v. Allergan Inc., et al. , was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against several Allergan entities and others, alleging that their conduct before the U.S. Patent Office resulted in false claims for payment being made to federal and state healthcare payors for Namenda XR and Namzaric. The plaintiff-relator seeks damages and attorneys' fees under the federal False Claims Act and state law analogues. The federal government and state governments declined to intervene in the lawsuit. Intellectual Property Litigation Pharmacyclics LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of AbbVie, is seeking to enforce its patent rights relating to ibrutinib capsules (a drug Pharmacyclics sells under the trademark Imbruvica). In February 2018 a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Sandoz Inc. and Lek Pharmaceuticals D.D. In the case, Pharmacyclics alleges the defendants' proposed generic ibrutinib product infringes certain Pharmacyclics patents and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. Janssen Biotech, Inc. which is in a global collaboration with Pharmacyclics concerning the development and marketing of Imbruvica, is the co-plaintiff in this suit. Pharmacyclics LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of AbbVie, is seeking to enforce its patent rights relating to ibrutinib tablets (a drug Pharmacyclics sells under the trademark Imbruvica). Cases were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in March 2019 and March 2020 against Alvogen Pine Brook LLC and Natco Pharma Ltd. Pharmacyclics alleges defendants’ proposed generic ibrutinib tablet product infringes certain Pharmacyclics patents and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. Janssen Biotech, Inc. which is in a global collaboration with Pharmacyclics concerning the development and marketing of Imbruvica, is the co-plaintiff in these suits. Allergan USA, Inc., Allergan Sales, LLC, and Forest Laboratories Holdings Limited, wholly owned subsidiaries of AbbVie, are seeking to enforce patent rights relating to cariprazine (a drug sold under the trademark Vraylar). Litigation was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in December 2019 against Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited and Sun Pharma Global FZE; Aurobindo Pharma Limited and Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc.; and Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA), Inc. and Cadila Healthcare Limited. Allergan alleges defendants' proposed generic cariprazine products infringe certain patents and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. Gedeon Richter Plc, Inc. which is in a global collaboration with Allergan concerning the development and marketing of Vraylar, is the co-plaintiff in this suit. In January 2019, Allergan, Inc. and Allergan plc (now Allergan Limited) and Medytox Inc. (collectively, "Complainants") filed a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) against Daewoong Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd., Daewoong Co., Ltd., and Evolus Inc. (collectively, "Respondents") requesting the ITC commence an investigation regarding the importation into the United States of Respondents' botulinum neurotoxin products, including Jeuveau, which Complainants assert were developed using Medytox's trade secrets. Complainants seek permanent exclusion and cease and desist orders covering Respondents' products, including Jeuveau. In July 2020, the administrative law judge issued an initial ruling in favor of Allergan and Medytox. In December 2020, the full Commission affirmed, in part, and reversed, in part, the initial ruling. In April 2021, Complainants and Evolus filed a motion for termination of the ITC proceeding without prejudice after settlement. In August 2020, BTL Industries, Inc. (BTL) filed an ITC action against Allergan USA, Inc., Allergan Limited, Allergan, Inc., Zeltiq Aesthetics, Inc., Zeltiq Ireland Unlimited Company, and Zimmer Medizinsysteme GmbH, for patent infringement alleging that the CoolTone and CoolSculpting devices infringe its patents and seeking an exclusion order preventing importation of the devices and any components used to make or use the devices. |