AbbVie 2014 Annual Report Download - page 102

13NOV201221352027
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 2084 includes: (a) three individual plaintiff lawsuits; (b) seven purported class
actions; and (c) Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., filed in May 2009 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. 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.
In September 2014, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed suit in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against AbbVie and others, alleging that 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 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 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.
On August 14, 2014, the district court dismissed all of the plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice. Plaintiffs have
appealed the district court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, where
the matter is currently pending.
Lawsuits have been filed against AbbVie and others generally alleging that the 2005 patent litigation
settlement involving Niaspan姞 entered into between Kos Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a company acquired by
Abbott Laboratories 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. In September 2013, all of
these pending putative class action lawsuits were centralized for consolidated or coordinated pre-trial
proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under the Multi-
District Litigation Rules as In re Niaspan Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2460.
In November 2007, GlaxoSmithKline filed a lawsuit against Abbott Laboratories in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that Abbott violated antitrust 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 the plaintiff. In January 2014, a 3-judge panel of 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 has been returned to the trial
court for further proceedings. AbbVie assumed the liability for and control of this proceeding in connection
with its separation from Abbott.
AbbVie is seeking to enforce its patent rights relating to testosterone gel (a drug AbbVie sells under
the trademark AndroGel姞 1.62%). In a case filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware in February 2013, AbbVie alleges that Perrigo Company’s and Perrigo Israel Pharmaceutical Ltd.’s
proposed generic product infringes AbbVie patents and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. In a second
case filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in March 2013, AbbVie alleges that
Watson Laboratories Inc.’s and Actavis Inc.’s proposed generic product infringes AbbVie’s patents and seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief. In November 2014, AbbVie, Watson and Actavis entered into a confidential
settlement and license agreement. The litigation was dismissed by stipulation of the parties.
AbbVie is seeking to enforce its patent rights relating to ritonavir/lopinavir tablets (a drug AbbVie sells
under the trademark Kaletra姞). 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.
96 2014 Form 10-K