AbbVie asks US Supreme Court to weigh protections for attorney records
By Mike Scarcella
July 11 (Reuters) -Pharmaceutical company AbbVie ABBV.N has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take up its fight to protect corporate records, warning that a lower court ruling threatens to erode the shield that keeps most attorney communications off-limits from a company's courtroom opponents.
The Illinois-based drugmaker petitioned the justices this week to review a U.S. appeals court decision that said the filing of a sham patent-infringement lawsuit can overcome attorney-client privilege.
AbbVie is battling allegations in Philadelphia federal court from a group of drug wholesalers that claim they were overcharged for the blockbuster testosterone replacement drug AndroGel.
Purchasers including AmerisourceBergen and McKesson said AbbVie pursued a meritless patent case against drugmaker Perrigo PRGO.N in 2011 to delay its marketing of cheaper generic version of AndroGel.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in February ruled that AbbVie must turn over to the wholesalers 19 documents that include in-house attorney notes and memos from outside attorneys addressing the company’s lawsuit against Perrigo.
The appeals court said sham patent cases can be considered fraudulent activity that triggers what is known as the crime-fraud exception, which pierces the attorney-client privilege if a client's communication with an attorney was made with the intention to further a crime.
AbbVie told the justices that the ruling greatly expanded the crime-fraud exception. It said the 3rd Circuit and the Washington, D.C.-based Federal Circuit, which specializes in litigation over intellectual property, are in conflict over what “fraud” triggers the exception.
The 3rd Circuit’s decision will incentivize plaintiffs to file antitrust lawsuits claiming that related patent litigation was a sham, AbbVie told the Supreme Court. Those plaintiffs would be able weaponize the threat that they will get their hands on internal attorney records.
AbbVie and attorneys for the wholesalers did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Wednesday. AbbVie denies wrongdoing. The company, which was spun off by Abbott Laboratories in 2012, has said it had a valid basis to sue Perrigo.
AndroGel’s annual U.S. net sales sometimes topped $1 billion before 2015, when generic versions entered the market.
Litigation over AndroGel has dragged out for years, and included a Federal Trade Commission lawsuit that has since been resolved. The drug wholesalers’ case against AbbVie was filed in 2019.
The case is In re: Abbott Laboratories et al, U.S. Supreme Court, unassigned.
For petitioners: Donald Verrilli of Munger, Tolles & Olson
For respondents: No appearance yet
Read more:
Here’s what AbbVie doesn’t want you to know about its sham AndroGel patent case
Perrigo loses bid to revive antitrust case against AbbVie over AndroGel
U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs AbbVie appeal in patent fight involving AndroGel drug
U.S. court voids $448 million award against AbbVie, but revives FTC claim over AndroGel
Reporting by Mike Scarcella
Activos relacionados
Últimas noticias
Descargo de responsabilidades: Cada una de las entidades de XM Group proporciona un servicio de solo ejecución y acceso a nuestra plataforma de trading online, permitiendo a una persona ver o usar el contenido disponible en o a través del sitio web, sin intención de cambiarlo ni ampliarlo. Dicho acceso y uso están sujetos en todo momento a: (i) Términos y Condiciones; (ii) Advertencias de riesgo; y (iii) Descargo completo de responsabilidades. Por lo tanto, dicho contenido se proporciona exclusivamente como información general. En particular, por favor tenga en cuenta que, los contenidos de nuestra plataforma de trading online no son ni solicitud ni una oferta para entrar a realizar transacciones en los mercados financieros. Operar en cualquier mercado financiero implica un nivel de riesgo significativo para su capital.
Todo el material publicado en nuestra plataforma de trading online tiene únicamente fines educativos/informativos y no contiene –y no debe considerarse que contenga– asesoramiento ni recomendaciones financieras, tributarias o de inversión, ni un registro de nuestros precios de trading, ni una oferta ni solicitud de transacción con instrumentos financieros ni promociones financieras no solicitadas.
Cualquier contenido de terceros, así como el contenido preparado por XM, como por ejemplo opiniones, noticias, investigaciones, análisis, precios, otras informaciones o enlaces a sitios de terceros que figuran en este sitio web se proporcionan “tal cual”, como comentarios generales del mercado y no constituyen un asesoramiento en materia de inversión. En la medida en que cualquier contenido se interprete como investigación de inversión, usted debe tener en cuenta y aceptar que dicho contenido no fue concebido ni elaborado de acuerdo con los requisitos legales diseñados para promover la independencia en materia de investigación de inversiones y, por tanto, se considera como una comunicación comercial en virtud de las leyes y regulaciones pertinentes. Por favor, asegúrese de haber leído y comprendido nuestro Aviso sobre investigación de inversión no independiente y advertencia de riesgo en relación con la información anterior, al que se puede acceder aquí.
