Legal Proceedings and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2015
Legal Proceedings and Contingencies
Legal Proceedings and Contingencies	Note 12Legal Proceedings and Contingencies AbbVie 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. 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. The recorded accrual balance for litigation at September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014 was not significant. 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 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. Several pending lawsuits filed against Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a company Abbott acquired in February 2010 and now known as AbbVie Products LLC) and others are consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under the Multi-District Litigation (MDL) Rules as In re: AndroGel Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2084. These cases, brought by private plaintiffs and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), generally allege Solvay’s 2006 patent litigation involving AndroGel® was sham litigation and the patent litigation settlement agreement and related agreements with three generic companies violate federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection and unjust enrichment laws. Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages and/or injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. MDL No. 2084 includes: (a) four individual plaintiff lawsuits; (b) six purported class actions; and (c) Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. Following the district court’s dismissal of all plaintiffs’ claims, appellate proceedings led to the reinstatement of the claims regarding the patent litigation settlement, which are proceeding in discovery in the district court. The Attorney General of the State of Alaska has served AbbVie with a Civil Investigative Demand, primarily seeking documents that AbbVie produced in these lawsuits. In November 2007, GlaxoSmithKline plc (GSK) filed a lawsuit against Abbott in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that Abbott violated federal antitrust and various state laws in connection with the 2003 Norvir® re-pricing. In March 2011, a jury found that Abbott did not violate antitrust laws, but breached its license agreement with GSK. In January 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed this verdict and remanded the case for a new trial due to the alleged improper exclusion of a potential juror. The case was returned to the district court in California, but after GSK dismissed its federal antitrust claims, the case was transferred in April 2015 to the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, where pre-trial proceedings are pending. AbbVie assumed the liability for and control of this proceeding in connection with its separation from Abbott. 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 consist of two individual plaintiff lawsuits and two consolidated purported class actions: one brought by three named direct purchasers of Niaspan® and the other brought by ten named end-payor purchasers of Niaspan®. The cases are consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under the MDL Rules as In re: Niaspan Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2460. The office of the Attorney General of the State of Alaska has served AbbVie with a Civil Investigative Demand, primarily seeking documents that AbbVie produced in this lawsuit. In September 2014, the FTC filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against AbbVie and others, alleging that the 2011 patent litigation with two generic companies regarding AndroGel® was sham litigation and the patent litigation settlement with one of those generic companies violates federal antitrust laws. The FTC’s complaint seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. In May 2015, the court dismissed the FTC’s claim regarding the patent litigation settlement, and in August 2015, the court denied the FTC’s request for reconsideration of the dismissal. The office of the Attorney General of the State of Alaska has served AbbVie with a Civil Investigative Demand, primarily seeking documents that AbbVie produced in this lawsuit. In March 2015, the State of Louisiana filed a lawsuit, State of Louisiana v. Fournier Industrie et Sante, et al., against AbbVie, Abbott and affiliated Abbott entities in Louisiana state court. Plaintiff alleges that patent applications and patent litigation filed and other alleged conduct from the early 2000’s and before related to the drug TriCor® violated Louisiana state antitrust and unfair trade practices laws. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages and attorneys’ fees. In August 2015, the court dismissed the case as time-barred. The state’s appeal of that dismissal is pending. In August 2013, a putative class action lawsuit, Sidney Hillman Health Center of Rochester, et al. v. AbbVie Inc., et al., was filed against AbbVie in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by three healthcare benefit providers alleging violations of Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statutes and state deceptive business practice and unjust enrichment laws in connection with reimbursements for certain uses of Depakote® from 1998 to 2012. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and/or equitable relief and attorneys’ fees. In April 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s decision to dismiss all of the plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice on statute of limitations grounds. The case has been returned to the district court for further proceedings. In November 2014, a putative class action lawsuit, Medical Mutual of Ohio v. AbbVie Inc., et al., was filed against several manufacturers of testosterone replacement therapies (TRTs), including AbbVie, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of all insurance companies, health benefit providers, and other third party payors who paid for TRTs, including AndroGel®. The claims asserted include violations of the federal RICO Act and state consumer fraud and deceptive trade practices laws. The complaint seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. Product liability cases are pending in which plaintiffs generally allege that AbbVie and other manufacturers of TRTs did not adequately warn about risks of certain injuries, primarily heart attacks, strokes and blood clots. Approximately 1,600 cases are consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under the MDL Rules as In re: Testosterone Replacement Therapy Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2545. Approximately 70 cases are pending in various state courts. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages. Product liability cases are pending in which plaintiffs generally allege that AbbVie did not adequately warn about risk of certain injuries, primarily various birth defects, arising from use of Depakote®. Over ninety percent of the approximately 700 claims are pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, and the rest are pending in various other federal and state courts. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages. In November 2014, five individuals filed a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers and sellers of certain Shire plc (Shire) securities between June 20 and October 14, 2014, against AbbVie and its chief executive officer in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging that the defendants made and/or are responsible for material misstatements in violation of federal securities laws in connection with AbbVie’s proposed transaction with Shire. The complaint seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. In December 2014, a shareholder derivative lawsuit, Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 60 Pension Plans v. J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, et al., was filed in Delaware Chancery Court, alleging that AbbVie’s directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the approval and termination of AbbVie’s proposed transaction with Shire. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages for AbbVie, among other relief. AbbVie is seeking to enforce its patent rights relating to ritonavir/lopinavir tablets (a drug AbbVie sells under the trademark Kaletra®). In a case filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in March 2009, AbbVie alleges that Matrix Laboratories, Inc.’s, Matrix Laboratories, Ltd.’s, and Mylan, Inc.’s proposed generic products infringe AbbVie’s patents and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. Upon Matrix’s motion in November 2009, the court granted a five-year stay of the litigation unless good cause to lift the stay is shown. On July 1, 2014, the stay was lifted pursuant to the original terms of the court order entered in 2009. In February 2015, in a related case filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, AbbVie alleges that Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s, Mylan Laboratories, Ltd.’s and Mylan Laboratories, Inc.’s proposed generic lopinavir/ritonavir products infringe additional AbbVie patents and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. On September 30, 2015, AbbVie and Mylan entered into a confidential settlement and license agreement and the litigation was dismissed by the stipulation of the parties. AbbVie is seeking to enforce its patent rights relating to ritonavir tablets (a drug AbbVie sells under the trademark Norvir®). In a case filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in October 2014, AbbVie alleges that Mylan Pharmaceutical Inc.’s proposed generic ritonavir tablets product infringes AbbVie’s patents and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. On September 30, 2015, AbbVie and Mylan entered into a confidential settlement and license agreement and the litigation was dismissed by stipulation of the parties.

Note 12Legal Proceedings and Contingencies

AbbVie 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. 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. The recorded accrual balance for litigation at September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014 was not significant. 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 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.

Several pending lawsuits filed against Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a company Abbott acquired in February 2010 and now known as AbbVie Products LLC) and others are consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under the Multi-District Litigation (MDL) Rules as In re: AndroGel Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2084. These cases, brought by private plaintiffs and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), generally allege Solvay’s 2006 patent litigation involving AndroGel® was sham litigation and the patent litigation settlement agreement and related agreements with three generic companies violate federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection and unjust enrichment laws. Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages and/or injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. MDL No. 2084 includes: (a) four individual plaintiff lawsuits; (b) six purported class actions; and (c) Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. Following the district court’s dismissal of all plaintiffs’ claims, appellate proceedings led to the reinstatement of the claims regarding the patent litigation settlement, which are proceeding in discovery in the district court. The Attorney General of the State of Alaska has served AbbVie with a Civil Investigative Demand, primarily seeking documents that AbbVie produced in these lawsuits.

In November 2007, GlaxoSmithKline plc (GSK) filed a lawsuit against Abbott in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that Abbott violated federal antitrust and various state laws in connection with the 2003 Norvir® re-pricing. In March 2011, a jury found that Abbott did not violate antitrust laws, but breached its license agreement with GSK. In January 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed this verdict and remanded the case for a new trial due to the alleged improper exclusion of a potential juror. The case was returned to the district court in California, but after GSK dismissed its federal antitrust claims, the case was transferred in April 2015 to the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, where pre-trial proceedings are pending. AbbVie assumed the liability for and control of this proceeding in connection with its separation from Abbott.

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 consist of two individual plaintiff lawsuits and two consolidated purported class actions: one brought by three named direct purchasers of Niaspan® and the other brought by ten named end-payor purchasers of Niaspan®. The cases are consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under the MDL Rules as In re: Niaspan Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2460. The office of the Attorney General of the State of Alaska has served AbbVie with a Civil Investigative Demand, primarily seeking documents that AbbVie produced in this lawsuit.

In September 2014, the FTC filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against AbbVie and others, alleging that the 2011 patent litigation with two generic companies regarding AndroGel® was sham litigation and the patent litigation settlement with one of those generic companies violates federal antitrust laws. The FTC’s complaint seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. In May 2015, the court dismissed the FTC’s claim regarding the patent litigation settlement, and in August 2015, the court denied the FTC’s request for reconsideration of the dismissal. The office of the Attorney General of the State of Alaska has served AbbVie with a Civil Investigative Demand, primarily seeking documents that AbbVie produced in this lawsuit.

In March 2015, the State of Louisiana filed a lawsuit, State of Louisiana v. Fournier Industrie et Sante, et al., against AbbVie, Abbott and affiliated Abbott entities in Louisiana state court. Plaintiff alleges that patent applications and patent litigation filed and other alleged conduct from the early 2000’s and before related to the drug TriCor® violated Louisiana state antitrust and unfair trade practices laws. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages and attorneys’ fees. In August 2015, the court dismissed the case as time-barred. The state’s appeal of that dismissal is pending.

In August 2013, a putative class action lawsuit, Sidney Hillman Health Center of Rochester, et al. v. AbbVie Inc., et al., was filed against AbbVie in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by three healthcare benefit providers alleging violations of Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statutes and state deceptive business practice and unjust enrichment laws in connection with reimbursements for certain uses of Depakote® from 1998 to 2012. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and/or equitable relief and attorneys’ fees. In April 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s decision to dismiss all of the plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice on statute of limitations grounds. The case has been returned to the district court for further proceedings.

In November 2014, a putative class action lawsuit, Medical Mutual of Ohio v. AbbVie Inc., et al., was filed against several manufacturers of testosterone replacement therapies (TRTs), including AbbVie, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of all insurance companies, health benefit providers, and other third party payors who paid for TRTs, including AndroGel®. The claims asserted include violations of the federal RICO Act and state consumer fraud and deceptive trade practices laws. The complaint seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief.

Product liability cases are pending in which plaintiffs generally allege that AbbVie and other manufacturers of TRTs did not adequately warn about risks of certain injuries, primarily heart attacks, strokes and blood clots. Approximately 1,600 cases are consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under the MDL Rules as In re: Testosterone Replacement Therapy Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2545. Approximately 70 cases are pending in various state courts. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages.

Product liability cases are pending in which plaintiffs generally allege that AbbVie did not adequately warn about risk of certain injuries, primarily various birth defects, arising from use of Depakote®. Over ninety percent of the approximately 700 claims are pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, and the rest are pending in various other federal and state courts. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages.

In November 2014, five individuals filed a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers and sellers of certain Shire plc (Shire) securities between June 20 and October 14, 2014, against AbbVie and its chief executive officer in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging that the defendants made and/or are responsible for material misstatements in violation of federal securities laws in connection with AbbVie’s proposed transaction with Shire. The complaint seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief.

In December 2014, a shareholder derivative lawsuit, Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 60 Pension Plans v. J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, et al., was filed in Delaware Chancery Court, alleging that AbbVie’s directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the approval and termination of AbbVie’s proposed transaction with Shire. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages for AbbVie, among other relief.

AbbVie is seeking to enforce its patent rights relating to ritonavir/lopinavir tablets (a drug AbbVie sells under the trademark Kaletra®). In a case filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in March 2009, AbbVie alleges that Matrix Laboratories, Inc.’s, Matrix Laboratories, Ltd.’s, and Mylan, Inc.’s proposed generic products infringe AbbVie’s patents and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. Upon Matrix’s motion in November 2009, the court granted a five-year stay of the litigation unless good cause to lift the stay is shown. On July 1, 2014, the stay was lifted pursuant to the original terms of the court order entered in 2009. In February 2015, in a related case filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, AbbVie alleges that Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s, Mylan Laboratories, Ltd.’s and Mylan Laboratories, Inc.’s proposed generic lopinavir/ritonavir products infringe additional AbbVie patents and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. On September 30, 2015, AbbVie and Mylan entered into a confidential settlement and license agreement and the litigation was dismissed by the stipulation of the parties.

AbbVie is seeking to enforce its patent rights relating to ritonavir tablets (a drug AbbVie sells under the trademark Norvir®). In a case filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in October 2014, AbbVie alleges that Mylan Pharmaceutical Inc.’s proposed generic ritonavir tablets product infringes AbbVie’s patents and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. On September 30, 2015, AbbVie and Mylan entered into a confidential settlement and license agreement and the litigation was dismissed by stipulation of the parties.