AbbVie Humira Lawsuit: The 'Patent Thicket' Antitrust Fight

The "Patent Thicket"

Humira (adalimumab) was for years the world’s best-selling drug, an injectable treatment for arthritis and other immune conditions made by AbbVie. Although Humira’s main patent expired around 2016, cheaper near-copies called biosimilars did not reach US patients for years afterward. Buyers alleged the reason was a deliberate strategy: AbbVie built a “patent thicket” of more than 100 additional patents around the drug and used it to pressure biosimilar makers into agreements that delayed their US launches (while letting them sell earlier in Europe). Class-action plaintiffs argued this was an anticompetitive scheme that kept US prices high.

The core accusation was that patent gamesmanship, not genuine innovation, blocked competition.

What the Courts Decided

Here the outcome is important and often misunderstood: the plaintiffs lost. In 2020 a federal court dismissed the antitrust class action with prejudice, and an appeals court later affirmed. The courts reasoned that holding and enforcing many patents is not itself illegal, and that the settlements with biosimilar makers did not involve AbbVie paying competitors to stay out — the biosimilars were allowed to enter (on a schedule) rather than blocked entirely. So there was no antitrust payout to consumers from this litigation.

The legal loss did not end the debate; the case fueled calls in Congress and among regulators to curb patent-thicket tactics that can delay cheaper drugs.

Why It Matters

For patients, the practical relief came not from the lawsuit but from the market: multiple Humira biosimilars finally launched in the US in 2023, and competition began pushing prices down. The Humira saga remains a leading example in the policy fight over how drug patents can be used to extend monopolies — a reminder that what is legal is not always what is best for consumers, and that reform is being debated precisely because the courts allowed the strategy.