Legal Proceedings and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2022
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 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-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. Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages and/or injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. In November 2022, the State of Oregon filed a lawsuit in the Multnomah County, Oregon Circuit Court making similar allegations regarding the 2011 patent litigation with one of the generic companies. Lawsuits are pending against Forest Laboratories, LLC, an AbbVie subsidiary, 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 and/or 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. In November 2022, the parties reached an agreement to settle this matter that has received preliminary 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 and/or 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 3,000 matters are pending against Allergan. Most of 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 270 matters 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 November 2022, Allergan finalized the terms of a settlement with state and local government entities and Native American tribes. That settlement is subject to certain conditions, including Allergan's determination that a sufficient number of government entities elect to participate in the settlement. AbbVie recorded a charge of $2.1 billion to selling, general and administrative expense in the consolidated statement of earnings in the second quarter of 2022 related to this potential settlement. 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. In September 2021, the Illinois court granted AbbVie's motion for summary judgment on all pending claims in all pending cases, dismissing them with prejudice. In November 2022, the Illinois appellate court affirmed summary judgment in AbbVie's favor and, in December 2022, that court denied plaintiffs' petition for rehearing. 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 2018 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. In May 2022, a shareholder derivative lawsuit, Ranney v. Gonzalez, et al., was filed in Delaware Chancery Court, alleging that certain AbbVie directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties based on related allegations. In December 2022, after AbbVie and the director/officer defendants filed a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice. 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. In December 2022, the court granted Allergan's motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims, dismissing them with prejudice. Plaintiffs are appealing the court's motion to dismiss and summary judgment rulings. In April 2022, a federal securities lawsuit, Nakata v. AbbVie Inc., was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against AbbVie and certain officers alleging misstatements regarding the potential effect that safety information about another company’s product would have on the Food and Drug Administration’s approval and labeling for AbbVie’s Rinvoq. In May and July 2022, two shareholder derivative lawsuits, Treppel Family Trust v. Gonzalez et al., and Katcher v. Gonzalez, et al., were filed in the same court, alleging that certain AbbVie directors and officers breached fiduciary and other legal duties based on related allegations. 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. In August 2022, the United States Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s denial of Allergan’s motion to dismiss. The case has been remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with that ruling. Intellectual Property Litigation 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. On August 30, 2021, Defendants appealed. On November 15, 2022, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment. 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. AbbVie Inc. is seeking to enforce patent rights relating to venetoclax (a drug sold under the trademark Venclexta). Litigation was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in July 2020 against Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc.: and Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Alembic Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Alembic Global Holdings SA. AbbVie alleges defendants’ proposed generic venetoclax products infringe certain patents and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. Genentech, Inc., which is in a global collaboration with AbbVie concerning the development and marketing of Venclexta, 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 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.

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. Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages and/or injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. In November 2022, the State of Oregon filed a lawsuit in the Multnomah County, Oregon Circuit Court making similar allegations regarding the 2011 patent litigation with one of the generic companies.

Lawsuits are pending against Forest Laboratories, LLC, an AbbVie subsidiary, 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 and/or 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. In November 2022, the parties reached an agreement to settle this matter that has received preliminary 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 and/or 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 3,000 matters are pending against Allergan. Most of 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 270 matters 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 November 2022, Allergan finalized the terms of a settlement with state and local government entities and Native American tribes. That settlement is subject to certain conditions, including Allergan's determination that a sufficient number of government entities elect to participate in the settlement. AbbVie recorded a charge of $2.1 billion to selling, general and administrative expense in the consolidated statement of earnings in the second quarter of 2022 related to this potential settlement.

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. In September 2021, the Illinois court granted AbbVie's motion for summary judgment on all pending claims in all pending cases, dismissing them with prejudice. In November 2022, the Illinois appellate court affirmed summary judgment in AbbVie's favor and, in December 2022, that court denied plaintiffs' petition for rehearing.

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 2018 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. In May 2022, a shareholder derivative lawsuit, Ranney v. Gonzalez, et al., was filed in Delaware Chancery Court, alleging that

certain AbbVie directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties based on related allegations. In December 2022, after AbbVie and the director/officer defendants filed a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice.

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. In December 2022, the court granted Allergan's motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims, dismissing them with prejudice. Plaintiffs are appealing the court's motion to dismiss and summary judgment rulings.

In April 2022, a federal securities lawsuit, Nakata v. AbbVie Inc., was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against AbbVie and certain officers alleging misstatements regarding the potential effect that safety information about another company’s product would have on the Food and Drug Administration’s approval and labeling for AbbVie’s Rinvoq. In May and July 2022, two shareholder derivative lawsuits, Treppel Family Trust v. Gonzalez et al., and Katcher v. Gonzalez, et al., were filed in the same court, alleging that certain AbbVie directors and officers breached fiduciary and other legal duties based on related allegations.

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. In August 2022, the United States Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s denial of Allergan’s motion to dismiss. The case has been remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with that ruling.

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. On August 30, 2021, Defendants appealed. On November 15, 2022, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment. 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.

AbbVie Inc. is seeking to enforce patent rights relating to venetoclax (a drug sold under the trademark Venclexta). Litigation was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in July 2020 against Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc.: and Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Alembic Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Alembic Global Holdings SA. AbbVie alleges defendants’ proposed generic venetoclax products infringe certain patents and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. Genentech, Inc., which is in a global collaboration with AbbVie concerning the development and marketing of Venclexta, is the co-plaintiff in this suit.