Legal Proceedings and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
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. 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 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 pending in federal court consist of six individual plaintiff lawsuits and a certified class action by Niaspan direct purchasers. 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 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 were filed 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, were consolidated as In re: Bystolic Antitrust Litigation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In February 2023, the court granted Forest Laboratories’ motion to dismiss the cases, dismissing them with prejudice. Plaintiffs are appealing the court’s motion to dismiss ruling. Government Proceedings Lawsuits are pending against Allergan and several other manufacturers generally alleging that they improperly promoted and sold prescription opioid products. Approximately 580 lawsuits are pending against Allergan in federal and state courts. Most of the federal court lawsuits 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 130 of the lawsuits are pending in various state courts. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits, 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. Of these approximately 580 lawsuits, approximately 165 of them are brought by states, counties, cities, and other municipal entities, approximately 125 of which are in the process of being dismissed pursuant to the previously announced settlement for which 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. In March 2023, AbbVie Inc. filed a petition in the United States Tax Court, AbbVie Inc. and Subsidiaries v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The petition disputes the Internal Revenue Service determination concerning a $572 million income tax benefit recorded in 2014 related to a payment made to a third party for the termination of a proposed business combination. Shareholder and Securities Litigation 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. Lawsuits were filed against Allergan and certain of its 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. In February 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissals. 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 United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that certain AbbVie directors and officers breached fiduciary and other legal duties in making or allowing alleged 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. Product Liability and General Litigation In April 2023, a putative class action lawsuit, Camargo v. AbbVie Inc., was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of Humira patients who paid for Humira based on its list price or who, after losing insurance coverage, discontinued Humira because they could not pay based on its list price, alleging that Humira’s list price is excessive in violation of multiple states’ unfair and deceptive trade practices statutes. The plaintiff generally seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees. 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 sought 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 March 2023, the court granted Allergan’s motion to dismiss, dismissing plaintiff-relator’s federal law claims with prejudice and state law claims without prejudice. The plaintiff-relator is appealing the court’s motion to dismiss ruling. Intellectual Property Litigation 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 Inc. is seeking to enforce patent rights relating to upadacitinib (a drug sold under the trademark Rinvoq). Litigation was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in November 2023 against Hetero USA, Inc., Hetero Labs Limited, Hetero Labs Limited Unit-V, Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., Sandoz, Inc. Sandoz Private Limited, Sandoz GMBH, Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Accord Healthcare, Inc., and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. AbbVie alleges defendants’ proposed generic upadacitinib products infringe certain patents and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. AbbVie Inc. is seeking to enforce patent rights related to ubrogepant (a drug sold under the trademark Ubrelvy). Litigation was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in March 2024 against Aurobindo Pharma U.S.A., Inc., Aurobindo Pharma Limited, and Apitoria Pharma Private Limited; Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. and Zydus Lifesciences Limited; MSN Pharmaceuticals Inc., MSN Laboratories Private Limited, and MSN Life Sciences Private Limited; and Hetero USA Inc., Hetero Labs Limited Unit-III, and Hetero Labs Limited. AbbVie alleges defendants’ proposed generic ubrogepant products infringe certain patents and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, which exclusively licenses certain patents to AbbVie, is a co-plaintiff in the litigation.

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 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 pending in federal court consist of six individual plaintiff lawsuits and a certified class action by Niaspan direct purchasers. 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 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 were filed 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, were consolidated as In re: Bystolic Antitrust Litigation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In February 2023, the court granted Forest Laboratories’ motion to dismiss the cases, dismissing them with prejudice. Plaintiffs are appealing the court’s motion to dismiss ruling.

Lawsuits are pending against Allergan and several other manufacturers generally alleging that they improperly promoted and sold prescription opioid products. Approximately 580 lawsuits are pending against Allergan in federal and state courts. Most of the federal court lawsuits 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 130 of the lawsuits are pending in various state courts. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits, 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. Of these approximately 580 lawsuits, approximately 165 of them are brought by states, counties, cities, and other municipal entities, approximately 125 of which are in the process of being dismissed pursuant to the previously announced settlement for which 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.

In March 2023, AbbVie Inc. filed a petition in the United States Tax Court, AbbVie Inc. and Subsidiaries v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The petition disputes the Internal Revenue Service determination concerning a $572 million income tax benefit recorded in 2014 related to a payment made to a third party for the termination of a proposed business combination.

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.

Lawsuits were filed against Allergan and certain of its 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

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 United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that certain AbbVie directors and officers breached fiduciary and other legal duties in making or allowing alleged 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 April 2023, a putative class action lawsuit, Camargo v. AbbVie Inc., was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of Humira patients who paid for Humira based on its list price or who, after losing insurance coverage, discontinued Humira because they could not pay based on its list price, alleging that Humira’s list price is excessive in violation of multiple states’ unfair and deceptive trade practices statutes. The plaintiff generally seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees.

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 sought 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 March 2023, the court granted Allergan’s motion to dismiss, dismissing plaintiff-relator’s federal law claims with prejudice and state law claims without prejudice. The plaintiff-relator is appealing the court’s motion to dismiss ruling.

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 Inc. is seeking to enforce patent rights relating to upadacitinib (a drug sold under the trademark Rinvoq). Litigation was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in November 2023 against Hetero USA, Inc., Hetero Labs Limited, Hetero Labs Limited Unit-V, Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., Sandoz, Inc. Sandoz Private Limited, Sandoz GMBH, Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Accord Healthcare, Inc., and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. AbbVie alleges defendants’ proposed generic upadacitinib products infringe certain patents and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief.

AbbVie Inc. is seeking to enforce patent rights related to ubrogepant (a drug sold under the trademark Ubrelvy). Litigation was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in March 2024 against Aurobindo Pharma U.S.A., Inc., Aurobindo Pharma Limited, and Apitoria Pharma Private Limited; Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. and Zydus Lifesciences Limited; MSN Pharmaceuticals Inc., MSN Laboratories Private Limited, and MSN Life Sciences Private Limited; and Hetero USA Inc., Hetero Labs Limited Unit-III, and Hetero Labs Limited. AbbVie alleges defendants’ proposed generic ubrogepant products infringe certain patents and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, which exclusively licenses certain patents to AbbVie, is a co-plaintiff in the litigation.