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
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
