Legal Proceedings and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings and Contingencies	Legal 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. 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. For litigation matters discussed below for which a loss is probable or reasonably possible, the company is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, beyond the amounts accrued. 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. 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-payors. 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 and August 2021, the court denied the end-payors' 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 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 alleging that 2011 patent litigation by Abbott with two generic companies regarding AndroGel was sham litigation and the settlements of those litigations violated federal antitrust law. 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, alleging that Abbott's 2011 AndroGel patent lawsuit filed against Perrigo was sham litigation. In October 2020, the Perrigo lawsuit was transferred to the United States District Court for New Jersey. In September 2021, the New Jersey court granted AbbVie's motion for judgment on the pleadings in the Perrigo lawsuit, dismissing it with prejudice. Perrigo has appealed the dismissal. 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. In May 2021, the parties reached an agreement to settle this matter that is subject to final court approval. 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 3,130 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 251 of the claims are pending in various state courts. The plaintiffs in these cases, which include states, counties, cities, other municipal entities, Native American tribes, union trust funds and other third-party payors, private hospitals, and personal injury claimants, generally seek compensatory and punitive damages. In December 2021, a California state court reached a judgment for Allergan and other defendants in the trial of an opioid lawsuit by Orange, Los Angeles, and Santa Clara Counties and the City of Oakland. In December 2021, Allergan reached an agreement to settle a lawsuit brought by the State of New York and two New York counties, which also provides all other New York counties and political subdivisions the opportunity to participate in the settlement. 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 connection with its proposed transaction 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. In September 2021, the Illinois court granted AbbVie's motion for summary judgment against all remaining plaintiffs on all the remaining claims, dismissing them with prejudice. The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissals. In October 2018, a federal securities 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. In September 2021, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to certify a class. 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 2021, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to certify a class. 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. In July 2021, the parties reached an agreement to settle the class action lawsuits, which received court approval in November 2021. 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 AbbVie Inc. and AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd are seeking to enforce their patent rights relating to adalimumab (a drug AbbVie sells under the trademark Humira). In April 2021 and May 2021, cases were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Alvotech hf. AbbVie alleges defendant’s proposed biosimilar adalimumab product infringes certain AbbVie patents and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. In August 2021, the court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds in the first case; a motion in the second case remains pending. The court has set a trial on a subset of patents for August 2022. The court order provides that Alvotech will stay off the market until that decision. Litigation on the remaining patents is stayed. In October 2021, the May 2021 declaratory judgment action filed by Alvotech hf. and its U.S. subsidiary Alvotech USA, Inc. in the United States Eastern District of Virginia was transferred to the Northern District of Illinois and subsequently dismissed. 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 against Alvogen Pine Brook LLC and Natco Pharma Ltd.. In August 2021, the court issued a decision holding all asserted patents infringed and valid. The judgment precludes Defendants from obtaining regulatory approval and launching until the last patent expires in 2036. 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.

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. 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. For litigation matters discussed below for which a loss is probable or reasonably possible, the company is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, beyond the amounts accrued. 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.

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-payors. 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 and August 2021, the court denied the end-payors' 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 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 alleging that 2011 patent litigation by Abbott with two generic companies regarding AndroGel was sham litigation and the settlements of those litigations violated federal antitrust law. 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, alleging that Abbott's 2011 AndroGel patent lawsuit filed against Perrigo was sham litigation. In October 2020, the Perrigo lawsuit was transferred to the United States District Court for New Jersey. In September 2021, the New Jersey court granted AbbVie's motion for judgment on the pleadings in the Perrigo lawsuit, dismissing it with prejudice. Perrigo has appealed the dismissal.

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. In May 2021, the parties reached an agreement to settle this matter that is subject to final court approval.

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.

Lawsuits are pending against Allergan and several other manufacturers generally alleging that they improperly promoted and sold prescription opioid products. Approximately 3,130 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 251 of the claims are pending in various state courts. The plaintiffs in these cases, which include states, counties, cities, other municipal entities, Native American tribes, union trust funds and other third-party payors, private hospitals, and personal injury claimants, generally seek compensatory and punitive damages. In December 2021, a California state court reached a judgment for Allergan and other defendants in the trial of an opioid lawsuit by Orange, Los Angeles, and Santa Clara Counties and the City of Oakland. In December 2021, Allergan reached an agreement to settle a lawsuit brought by the State of New York and two New York counties, which also provides all other New York counties and political subdivisions the opportunity to participate in the settlement.

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.

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 connection with its proposed transaction 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. In September 2021, the Illinois court granted AbbVie's motion for summary judgment against all remaining plaintiffs on all the remaining claims, dismissing them with prejudice. The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissals.

In October 2018, a federal securities 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. In September 2021, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to certify a class.

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 2021, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to certify a class.

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. In July 2021, the parties reached an agreement to settle the class action lawsuits, which received court approval in November 2021.

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.

AbbVie Inc. and AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd are seeking to enforce their patent rights relating to adalimumab (a drug AbbVie sells under the trademark Humira). In April 2021 and May 2021, cases were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Alvotech hf. AbbVie alleges defendant’s proposed biosimilar adalimumab product infringes certain AbbVie patents and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. In August 2021, the court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds in the first case; a motion in the second case remains pending. The court has set a trial on a subset of patents for August 2022. The court order provides that Alvotech will stay off the market until that decision. Litigation on the remaining patents is stayed. In October 2021, the May 2021 declaratory judgment action filed by Alvotech hf. and its U.S. subsidiary Alvotech USA, Inc. in the United States Eastern District of Virginia was transferred to the Northern District of Illinois and subsequently dismissed.

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 against Alvogen Pine Brook LLC and Natco Pharma Ltd.. In August 2021, the court issued a decision holding all asserted patents infringed and valid. The judgment precludes Defendants from obtaining regulatory approval and launching until the last patent expires in 2036. 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.