Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2013
Loss Contingency, Information about Litigation Matters [Abstract]
Contingencies [Text Block]	Note 16: 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 specifically noted below with respect to the Alimta^® patent litigation and administrative proceedings, 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. Alimta Patent Litigation and Administrative Proceedings We are engaged in various U.S. patent litigation matters involving Alimta brought pursuant to procedures set out in the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (the Hatch-Waxman Act). Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc. (Teva); APP Pharmaceuticals, LLC (APP); Barr Laboratories, Inc. (Barr); Pliva Hrvatska D.O.O. (Pliva); Accord Healthcare Inc. (Accord); and Apotex Inc. (Apotex) each submitted Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) seeking approval to market generic versions of Alimta prior to the expiration of our vitamin dosage regimen patent (expiring in 2021 plus pediatric exclusivity expiring in 2022) and alleging the patent is invalid. In October 2010, we filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against Teva, APP, Pliva, and Barr seeking rulings that the patent is valid and infringed. Trial in this case occurred in August 2013, and we are awaiting a decision. In January 2012 and April 2012, we filed similar lawsuits in the same court against Accord and Apotex, respectively. We filed a second lawsuit against Accord in February 2013. In September 2013, we filed a similar lawsuit in the same court against Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. and Sun Pharma Global seeking a ruling that Lilly's patent is valid and infringed. In January 2014, we filed a similar lawsuit in the same court against Glenmark Generics Inc., USA, seeking a ruling that Lilly’s patent is valid and infringed. The Accord and Apotex cases have been consolidated and stayed by the court and the parties have agreed to be bound by the outcome of the Teva/APP litigation. In June 2013, Accord filed a petition requesting review of the patent by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which was denied in October 2013. This denial is final and cannot be appealed. Generic manufacturers have filed an opposition to the European Patent Office's decision to grant a vitamin dosage regimen patent. The Opposition Division upheld the patent and the generic manufacturers have lodged an appeal. In addition, in the UK, Actavis Group ehf and other Actavis companies have filed litigation asking for a declaratory judgment that commercialization of certain salt forms of pemetrexed (the active ingredient in Alimta) would not infringe the vitamin dosage regimen patents in the UK, Italy, France, Germany, and Spain. This case is scheduled to be heard by the trial court in April 2014. We have commenced separate infringement proceedings against certain Actavis companies in Germany. The German case is scheduled to be heard by the trial court in March 2014. We believe our Alimta vitamin dosage patents are valid and enforceable against these generic manufacturers and we expect to prevail in these proceedings. However, it is not possible to determine the outcome of the proceedings, 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 275 Byetta product liability lawsuits involving approximately 700 plaintiffs. Approximately 95 of these lawsuits, covering about 510 plaintiffs, are filed in California and coordinated in a Los Angeles Superior Court. Approximately 190 of these lawsuits, involving approximately 265 plaintiffs, contain allegations that Byetta caused or contributed to the plaintiffs' cancer (primarily pancreatic cancer or thyroid cancer). We are aware of approximately 460 additional claimants who have not yet filed suit. The majority of these additional claims allege damages for pancreatitis. We believe these lawsuits and claims are without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously. Prozac^® Product Liability Litigation We have been named as a defendant in approximately 10 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 370 additional claims related to birth defects, which have not yet been filed. We believe these lawsuits and claims are without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously. Brazil–Employee Litigation We have been named in a lawsuit brought by the Labor Attorney for 15th Region in the Labor Court of Paulinia, State of Sao Paulo, Brazil, alleging possible harm to employees and former employees caused by exposure to heavy metals at a former Lilly manufacturing facility in Cosmopolis, Brazil. Final arguments were submitted in September and we are awaiting a decision. We have also been named in approximately 30 lawsuits filed in the same court by individual former employees making similar claims. We believe these lawsuits 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. Due to a very restrictive market for product liability insurance, we are self-insured for product liability losses for all our currently marketed products.

Note 16: 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 specifically noted below with respect to the Alimta^® patent litigation and administrative proceedings, 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.

Alimta Patent Litigation and Administrative Proceedings

We are engaged in various U.S. patent litigation matters involving Alimta brought pursuant to procedures set out in the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (the Hatch-Waxman Act). Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc. (Teva); APP Pharmaceuticals, LLC (APP); Barr Laboratories, Inc. (Barr); Pliva Hrvatska D.O.O. (Pliva); Accord Healthcare Inc. (Accord); and Apotex Inc. (Apotex) each submitted Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) seeking approval to market generic versions of Alimta prior to the expiration of our vitamin dosage regimen patent (expiring in 2021 plus pediatric exclusivity expiring in 2022) and alleging the patent is invalid.

In October 2010, we filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against Teva, APP, Pliva, and Barr seeking rulings that the patent is valid and infringed. Trial in this case occurred in August 2013, and we are awaiting a decision. In January 2012 and April 2012, we filed similar lawsuits in the same court against Accord and Apotex, respectively. We filed a second lawsuit against Accord in February 2013. In September 2013, we filed a similar lawsuit in the same court against Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. and Sun Pharma Global seeking a ruling that Lilly's patent is valid and infringed. In January 2014, we filed a similar lawsuit in the same court against Glenmark Generics Inc., USA, seeking a ruling that Lilly’s patent is valid and infringed. The Accord and Apotex cases have been consolidated and stayed by the court and the parties have agreed to be bound by the outcome of the Teva/APP litigation. In June 2013, Accord filed a petition requesting review of the patent by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which was denied in October 2013. This denial is final and cannot be appealed.

Generic manufacturers have filed an opposition to the European Patent Office's decision to grant a vitamin dosage regimen patent. The Opposition Division upheld the patent and the generic manufacturers have lodged an appeal. In addition, in the UK, Actavis Group ehf and other Actavis companies have filed litigation asking for a declaratory judgment that commercialization of certain salt forms of pemetrexed (the active ingredient in Alimta) would not infringe the vitamin dosage regimen patents in the UK, Italy, France, Germany, and Spain. This case is scheduled to be heard by the trial court in April 2014. We have commenced separate infringement proceedings against certain Actavis companies in Germany. The German case is scheduled to be heard by the trial court in March 2014.

We believe our Alimta vitamin dosage patents are valid and enforceable against these generic manufacturers and we expect to prevail in these proceedings. However, it is not possible to determine the outcome of the proceedings, 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 275 Byetta product liability lawsuits involving approximately 700 plaintiffs. Approximately 95 of these lawsuits, covering about 510 plaintiffs, are filed in California and coordinated in a Los Angeles Superior Court. Approximately 190 of these lawsuits, involving approximately 265 plaintiffs, contain allegations that Byetta caused or contributed to the plaintiffs' cancer (primarily pancreatic cancer or thyroid cancer). We are aware of approximately 460 additional claimants who have not yet filed suit. The majority of these additional claims allege damages for pancreatitis. We believe these lawsuits and claims are without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously.

Prozac^® Product Liability Litigation

We have been named as a defendant in approximately 10 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 370 additional claims related to birth defects, which have not yet been filed. We believe these lawsuits and claims are without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously.

Brazil–Employee Litigation

We have been named in a lawsuit brought by the Labor Attorney for 15th Region in the Labor Court of Paulinia, State of Sao Paulo, Brazil, alleging possible harm to employees and former employees caused by exposure to heavy metals at a former Lilly manufacturing facility in Cosmopolis, Brazil. Final arguments were submitted in September and we are awaiting a decision. We have also been named in approximately 30 lawsuits filed in the same court by individual former employees making similar claims. We believe these lawsuits 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. Due to a very restrictive market for product liability insurance, we are self-insured for product liability losses for all our currently marketed products.