Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2013
Loss Contingency, Information about Litigation Matters [Abstract]
Contingencies [Text Block]	Note 12: Contingencies We are a party to various legal actions and government investigations. The most significant of these are described below. It is not possible to determine the outcome of these matters and we cannot reasonably estimate the maximum potential exposure or the range of possible loss in excess of amounts accrued for any of these matters; however, we believe that, except as noted below with respect to the Alimta^® Hatch-Waxman patent challenges, the resolution of all such matters will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or liquidity, but could possibly be material to our consolidated results of operations in any one accounting period. Patent Litigation We have been engaged in the following U.S. patent litigation matters involving Alimta brought pursuant to procedures set out in the Hatch-Waxman Act (the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984). Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc. (Teva); APP Pharmaceuticals, LLC (APP); and Barr Laboratories, Inc. (Barr) each submitted ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of Alimta prior to the expiration of the relevant U.S. patents and data-based pediatric exclusivity period (compound patent licensed from the Trustees of Princeton University and expiring in 2017, vitamin dosage regimen patent expiring in 2022) and alleging the patents are invalid. We, along with Princeton, filed lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Teva, APP, and Barr seeking rulings that the compound patent is valid and infringed. In July 2011, the district court entered judgment in our favor, upholding that patent’s validity. In August 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the district court's judgment in our favor. Teva and APP filed a petition for en banc review of the CAFC's panel decision, which was denied in November 2012. The window for Teva and APP to seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court has expired, which fully resolves this litigation. In October 2010, we filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against Teva, APP, Pliva Hrvatska D.O.O., and Barr seeking rulings that our vitamin dosage regimen patent is valid and infringed. Trial in this case is scheduled to begin in August 2013. In January 2012 and April 2012, we filed similar lawsuits against Accord Healthcare Inc. and Apotex Inc., respectively. A second lawsuit against Accord was filed in February 2013. In addition, generic manufacturers have opposed the European Patent Office's decision to grant a vitamin dosage regimen patent, and are seeking revocation of that patent. We believe the challenges to the vitamin dosage regimen patents are without merit and expect to prevail. However, it is not possible to determine the outcome of the challenges, and accordingly, we can provide no assurance that we will prevail. An unfavorable outcome could have a material adverse impact on our future consolidated results of operations, liquidity, and financial position. We expect a loss of exclusivity for Alimta would result in a rapid and severe decline in future revenues in the relevant market. Byetta Product Liability Litigation We have been named as a defendant in approximately 160 Byetta product liability lawsuits involving approximately 545 plaintiffs. Approximately 100 of these lawsuits, covering about 485 plaintiffs, are filed in California and coordinated in a Los Angeles Superior Court. We are aware of approximately 460 additional claimants who have not yet filed suit. The majority of the claims allege damages for pancreatitis. A smaller number of claimants allege that Byetta caused or contributed to their pancreatic cancer. We believe these claims are without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously. Diethylstilbestrol Product Liability Litigation In approximately 80 U.S. lawsuits against us involving approximately 80 claimants, plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of children or grandchildren of women who were prescribed diethylstilbestrol (DES) during pregnancy in the 1950s and 1960s. Approximately 75 of these claimants allege that they were indirectly exposed in utero to the medicine and later developed breast cancer as a consequence. We believe these claims are without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously. Prozac^® Product Liability Litigation We have been named as a defendant in seven U.S. lawsuits primarily related to allegations that the antidepressant Prozac caused or contributed to birth defects in the children of women who ingested the drug during pregnancy. We are aware of approximately 340 additional claims related to birth defects, which have not yet been filed. We believe these claims are without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously. Product Liability Insurance Because of the nature of pharmaceutical products, it is possible that we could become subject to large numbers of product liability and related claims in the future. In the past several years, we have been unable to obtain product liability insurance due to a very restrictive insurance market. Therefore, for substantially all of our currently marketed products, we have been and expect that we will continue to be completely self-insured for product liability losses. The DES claims are covered by insurance, subject to deductibles and coverage limits. There is no assurance that we will be able to fully collect from our insurance carriers in the future.

Note 12: Contingencies

We are a party to various legal actions and government investigations. The most significant of these are described below. It is not possible to determine the outcome of these matters and we cannot reasonably estimate the maximum potential exposure or the range of possible loss in excess of amounts accrued for any of these matters; however, we believe that, except as noted below with respect to the Alimta^® Hatch-Waxman patent challenges, the resolution of all such matters will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or liquidity, but could possibly be material to our consolidated results of operations in any one accounting period.

Patent Litigation

We have been engaged in the following U.S. patent litigation matters involving Alimta brought pursuant to procedures set out in the Hatch-Waxman Act (the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984). Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc. (Teva); APP Pharmaceuticals, LLC (APP); and Barr Laboratories, Inc. (Barr) each submitted ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of Alimta prior to the expiration of the relevant U.S. patents and data-based pediatric exclusivity period (compound patent licensed from the Trustees of Princeton University and expiring in 2017, vitamin dosage regimen patent expiring in 2022) and alleging the patents are invalid. We, along with Princeton, filed lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Teva, APP, and Barr seeking rulings that the compound patent is valid and infringed. In July 2011, the district court entered judgment in our favor, upholding that patent’s validity. In August 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the district court's judgment in our favor. Teva and APP filed a petition for en banc review of the CAFC's panel decision, which was denied in November 2012. The window for Teva and APP to seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court has expired, which fully resolves this litigation.

In October 2010, we filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against Teva, APP, Pliva Hrvatska D.O.O., and Barr seeking rulings that our vitamin dosage regimen patent is valid and infringed. Trial in this case is scheduled to begin in August 2013. In January 2012 and April 2012, we filed similar lawsuits against Accord Healthcare Inc. and Apotex Inc., respectively. A second lawsuit against Accord was filed in February 2013. In addition, generic manufacturers have opposed the European Patent Office's decision to grant a vitamin dosage regimen patent, and are seeking revocation of that patent.

We believe the challenges to the vitamin dosage regimen patents are without merit and expect to prevail. However, it is not possible to determine the outcome of the challenges, and accordingly, we can provide no assurance that we will prevail. An unfavorable outcome could have a material adverse impact on our future consolidated results of operations, liquidity, and financial position. We expect a loss of exclusivity for Alimta would result in a rapid and severe decline in future revenues in the relevant market.

Byetta Product Liability Litigation

We have been named as a defendant in approximately 160 Byetta product liability lawsuits involving approximately 545 plaintiffs. Approximately 100 of these lawsuits, covering about 485 plaintiffs, are filed in California and coordinated in a Los Angeles Superior Court. We are aware of approximately 460 additional claimants who have not yet filed suit. The majority of the claims allege damages for pancreatitis. A smaller number of claimants allege that Byetta caused or contributed to their pancreatic cancer. We believe these claims are without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously.

Diethylstilbestrol Product Liability Litigation

In approximately 80 U.S. lawsuits against us involving approximately 80 claimants, plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of children or grandchildren of women who were prescribed diethylstilbestrol (DES) during pregnancy in the 1950s and 1960s. Approximately 75 of these claimants allege that they were indirectly exposed in utero to the medicine and later developed breast cancer as a consequence. We believe these claims are without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously.

Prozac^® Product Liability Litigation

We have been named as a defendant in seven U.S. lawsuits primarily related to allegations that the antidepressant Prozac caused or contributed to birth defects in the children of women who ingested the drug during pregnancy. We are aware of approximately 340 additional claims related to birth defects, which have not yet been filed. We believe these claims are without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously.

Product Liability Insurance

Because of the nature of pharmaceutical products, it is possible that we could become subject to large numbers of product liability and related claims in the future. In the past several years, we have been unable to obtain product liability insurance due to a very restrictive insurance market. Therefore, for substantially all of our currently marketed products, we have been and expect that we will continue to be completely self-insured for product liability losses. The DES claims are covered by insurance, subject to deductibles and coverage limits. There is no assurance that we will be able to fully collect from our insurance carriers in the future.