Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	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 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 A number of generic manufacturers are seeking approvals in the U.S., a number of countries in Europe, and Japan to market generic forms of Alimta prior to the expiration of our vitamin regimen patents, alleging that those patents are invalid, not infringed, or both. We believe our Alimta vitamin regimen patents are valid and enforceable against these generic manufacturers. However, it is not possible to determine the ultimate outcome of the proceedings, and accordingly, we can provide no assurance that we will prevail. An unfavorable outcome in the U.S. could have a material adverse impact on our future consolidated results of operations, liquidity, and financial position. We expect that a loss of exclusivity for Alimta in any of the below jurisdictions would result in a rapid and severe decline in future revenue for the product in the relevant market. U.S. Patent Litigation and Administrative Proceedings In the U.S., more than 10 Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) seeking approval to market generic versions of Alimta prior to the expiration of our vitamin regimen patent (expiring in 2021 plus pediatric exclusivity expiring in 2022) have been filed by a number of companies, including Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc. (Teva) and APP Pharmaceuticals, LLC (APP) pursuant to procedures set out in the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (the Hatch-Waxman Act). We have received favorable decisions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (affirming the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana's decisions finding our U.S. vitamin regimen patent valid and infringed) against Teva, APP, and two other defendants' proposed products, and similar favorable judgments have been entered by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against five other companies. In October 2017, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued written decisions in our favor following inter partes review (IPR) of our U.S. vitamin regimen patent, finding that the generic company petitioners failed to show that the claims in our patent are unpatentable. In April 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the written decisions of the USPTO IPR upholding our U.S. vitamin regimen patent. There were five remaining ANDA applicants who agreed to a preliminary injunction or stay pending the appeal of the IPR decision. In view of the Court of Appeals’ affirmance, favorable judgments have been entered by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against all five of these remaining ANDA applicants. We also currently have pending lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana alleging infringement against Actavis LLC (Actavis) and Apotex Inc. (Apotex) in response to their applications to market products using alternative forms of pemetrexed (the active ingredient in Alimta) products. Trial against Apotex is scheduled for January 2020. The lawsuit against Actavis has been stayed, pending the conclusion of the Dr. Reddy's Laboratories' (Dr. Reddy) and Hospira, Inc.'s (Hospira) appeals (described below). We filed a similar lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Eagle). Trial against Eagle is scheduled for late October 2019 and we expect a decision later in the fourth quarter of 2019 or the first quarter of 2020. In June 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana ruled in our favor in two similar cases, finding Dr. Reddy's and Hospira's proposed products would infringe our method of use patent under the doctrine of equivalents. The district court also ruled that the use of Hospira’s proposed product would literally infringe our method of use patent. In August 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling that the use of Dr. Reddy’s and Hospira’s proposed products would infringe our patent under the doctrine of equivalents, but reversed the finding of literal infringement with respect to Hospira’s product. Dr. Reddy and Hospira have petitioned for rehearing of the court’s doctrine of equivalents ruling. European Patent Litigation In July 2017, the United Kingdom (U.K.) Supreme Court ruled that commercialization of certain salt forms of pemetrexed by Actavis Group ehf and other Actavis companies directly infringes our vitamin regimen patents in the U.K., Italy, France, and Spain. This litigation in the U.K. is now concluded. Legal proceedings are ongoing in various national courts throughout Europe. We are aware that several companies have received approval to market generic versions of pemetrexed in major European markets (including generics currently on the market at risk in France, Germany, and the Netherlands) and that additional generic competitors may choose to launch at risk. We will continue to seek to remove any generic pemetrexed products launched at risk in European markets, including Germany, France, and the Netherlands, seek damages with respect to such launches, and defend our patents against validity challenges. Japanese Administrative Proceedings Three separate sets of demands for invalidation of our two Japanese vitamin regimen patents, involving several companies, have been filed with the Japanese Patent Office (JPO). The JPO rejected a demand for invalidation by Sawai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., which was affirmed on appeal in 2017. In July 2018, the JPO issued written decisions dismissing demands brought by Nipro Corporation (Nipro) for invalidation of our two Japanese vitamin regimen patents. Nipro filed an appeal, and we anticipate decisions by the Japan Intellectual Property High Court later in the fourth quarter of 2019. We also anticipate the JPO will schedule a hearing with respect to the third set of demands, brought by Hospira, after the Nipro decision is handed down. If upheld through all challenges, these patents would provide intellectual property protection for Alimta until June 2021. Notwithstanding our patents, generic versions of Alimta received regulatory approval in Japan starting in February 2016. We do not currently anticipate that generic versions of Alimta will proceed to pricing approval. Cymbalta Product Liability Litigation We were named as a defendant in a purported class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (now called Strafford et al. v. Eli Lilly and Company) involving Cymbalta. The plaintiffs, purporting to represent a class of all persons within the U.S. who purchased and/or paid for Cymbalta, asserted claims under the consumer protection statutes of California, Massachusetts, Missouri, and New York, and sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief for various alleged economic injuries arising from discontinuing treatment with Cymbalta. The district court denied the plaintiffs' motions for class certification and dismissed the suits. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In November 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed the suit. In July 2018, the U.S. District Court for the District of California denied plaintiffs’ motion to reopen the case. Plaintiffs’ appeal of this denial is currently pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Brazil Litigation – Cosmopolis Facility Labor Attorney Litigation Our subsidiary in Brazil, Eli Lilly do Brasil Limitada (Lilly Brasil), is named in a lawsuit brought by the Labor Attorney for the 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 Brasil manufacturing facility in Cosmopolis, Brazil, operated by the company between 1977 and 2003. In May 2014, the labor court judge ruled against Lilly Brasil, ordering it to undertake several actions of unspecified financial impact, including paying lifetime health coverage for the employees and contractors who worked at the Cosmopolis facility more than six months during the affected years and their children born during and after this period. We appealed this decision. In July 2018, the appeals court affirmed the labor court's ruling with the total financial impact of the ruling estimated to be approximately 500 million Brazilian real (approximately $120 million as of September 30, 2019). The appeals court restricted the broad health coverage awarded by the labor court to health problems that claimants could show arose from exposure to the alleged contamination. In August 2019, Lilly Brasil filed an appeal to the superior labor court. In September 2019, the appeals court stayed a number of elements of its prior decision, including the obligation to provide health coverage for contractors, their children, and children of employees who worked at the Cosmopolis facility, pending the determination of Lilly Brasil’s appeal to the superior labor court. In June 2019, the Labor Attorney filed an application in the labor court for enforcement of the healthcare coverage granted by the appeals court in its July 2018 ruling and requested restrictions on Lilly Brasil’s assets in Brazil. In July 2019, the labor court issued a ruling requiring either a freeze of Lilly Brasil’s immovable property or, alternatively, a security deposit of 500 million Brazilian real (approximately $120 million as of September 30, 2019). Lilly Brasil filed a writ of mandamus challenging this ruling and we expect a decision later in the fourth quarter of 2019. In the meantime, the labor court stayed the Labor Attorney’s application to enforce the previous healthcare coverage ruling until after the appeals court ruled on the various motions pending before it. Given the appeals court’s stay in September 2019 of a number of elements of its prior decision described above, we intend to file a motion to strike the Labor Attorney’s application to enforce the previous healthcare coverage. Individual Former Employee Litigation We are also named in approximately 30 lawsuits filed in the same labor court by individual former employees making similar claims. These lawsuits are each at various stages in the litigation process, with judgments being handed down in approximately half of the lawsuits, nearly all of which are on appeal in the labor courts. Mental Anguish Litigation Lilly Brasil and Elanco Quimica Ltda. have been named in two similar lawsuits in the same labor court involving approximately 410 individual plaintiffs. We agreed to indemnify Elanco Quimica Ltda. in this litigation as part of the divestiture of Elanco. In the first lawsuit (involving approximately 305 plaintiffs), plaintiffs alleged harm to employees and former employees, and their dependents. In the second lawsuit (involving approximately 105 plaintiffs), plaintiffs alleged harm to contractors and suppliers, and their dependents. The plaintiffs’ claims in these two lawsuits relate only to mental anguish attributable to the possibility of illness due to alleged exposure to heavy metals or other contaminants. In 2017, the labor court dismissed the claims brought by all but the first named plaintiff in each of the lawsuits. The plaintiffs in both lawsuits appealed. In April 2019 and July 2019, the appeals court issued written decisions rejecting the plaintiffs’ appeals in both of these lawsuits. The appeals court’s decisions were procedurally based and were without a judgment on the merits, meaning that the plaintiffs are able to bring individual actions, notwithstanding the court’s rulings. We believe all of these lawsuits are without merit and are defending against them vigorously. Adocia, S.A. We were named as a respondent in an arbitration filed by Adocia, S.A. (Adocia), with which we entered into agreements for the co-development of an ultra-rapid insulin product. Adocia alleged that we misappropriated and misused Adocia's confidential information and intellectual property and sought approximately $1.39 billion in damages and other specific relief. We asserted several counterclaims relating to fraudulent misrepresentation and sought approximately $188 million in damages. In August 2019, the arbitration panel ruled that we did not misappropriate or misuse Adocia's intellectual property or confidential information and denied Adocia’s claims for damages. The arbitration panel also denied our counterclaims. Throughout the dispute process, Adocia made statements alleging that Adocia employees should be listed as inventors on two of our patents related to our ultra-rapid insulin product currently in development. While inventorship of these two patents was not at issue in the arbitration proceedings, in October 2018 we filed a declaratory judgment action against Adocia in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to confirm our inventorship. In September 2019, a consent judgment was entered in our favor confirming that inventorship is correct for the relevant patents and dismissing with prejudice all of Adocia’s counterclaims, which improperly asserted that certain Adocia employees should be named as inventors. Insulin Pricing Litigation and Investigations Litigation We, along with Sanofi and Novo Nordisk, are named as defendants in a consolidated purported class action lawsuit, In re. Insulin Pricing Litigation, in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey relating to insulin pricing. Plaintiffs seek damages under various state consumer protection laws and the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (federal RICO Act). Separately, we, along with Sanofi and Novo Nordisk, are named as defendants in MSP Recovery Claims, Series, LLC et al. v. Sanofi Aventis U.S. LLC et al., in the same court, seeking damages under various state consumer protection laws, common law fraud, unjust enrichment, and the federal RICO Act. Also in the same court, we, along with Sanofi and Novo Nordisk, have been named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit, Prof’l Drug Co., Inc. & FWK Holdings, LLC v. Novo Nordisk Inc. et al., seeking damages under the federal and New Jersey RICO Acts. The Minnesota Attorney General’s Office filed a complaint against us, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk, State of Minnesota v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC et al., in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey, alleging unjust enrichment, and violations of various Minnesota state consumer protection laws and the federal RICO Act. Additionally, the Kentucky Attorney General’s Office filed a complaint against us, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk, Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Novo Nordisk, Inc. et al., in Kentucky state court, alleging violations of the Kentucky consumer protection law, false advertising, and unjust enrichment. We believe all of these claims are without merit and are defending against them vigorously. Investigations, Subpoenas, and Inquiries We have received a subpoena from the New York Attorney General’s Office and civil investigative demands from the Washington and New Mexico Attorney General Offices relating to the pricing and sale of our insulin products. The Offices of the Attorney General in Mississippi, Washington D.C., California, Florida, Hawaii, and Nevada have requested information relating to the pricing and sale of our insulin products. We also received interrogatories from the California Attorney General's Office regarding our competition in the long-acting insulin market. We received two requests from the House of Representatives’ Committee on Energy and Commerce and a request from the Senate’s Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, seeking certain information related to the pricing of insulin products, among other issues. We also received a request from the House of Representatives’ Committee on Oversight and Reform and one from the Senate’s Committee on Finance, both of which seek detailed commercial information and business records. We are cooperating with all of these aforementioned requests and investigations. Product Liability Insurance Because of the nature of pharmaceutical products, it is possible that we could become subject to large numbers of additional 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 and previously marketed products.

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 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.

A number of generic manufacturers are seeking approvals in the U.S., a number of countries in Europe, and Japan to market generic forms of Alimta prior to the expiration of our vitamin regimen patents, alleging that those patents are invalid, not infringed, or both. We believe our Alimta vitamin regimen patents are valid and enforceable against these generic manufacturers. However, it is not possible to determine the ultimate outcome of the proceedings, and accordingly, we can provide no assurance that we will prevail. An unfavorable outcome in the U.S. could have a material adverse impact on our future consolidated results of operations, liquidity, and financial position. We expect that a loss of exclusivity for Alimta in any of the below jurisdictions would result in a rapid and severe decline in future revenue for the product in the relevant market.

In the U.S., more than 10 Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) seeking approval to market generic versions of Alimta prior to the expiration of our vitamin regimen patent (expiring in 2021 plus pediatric exclusivity expiring in 2022) have been filed by a number of companies, including Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc. (Teva) and APP Pharmaceuticals, LLC (APP) pursuant to procedures set out in the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (the Hatch-Waxman Act). We have received favorable decisions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (affirming the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana's decisions finding our U.S. vitamin regimen patent valid and infringed) against Teva, APP, and two other defendants' proposed products, and similar favorable judgments have been entered by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against five other companies. In October 2017, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued written decisions in our favor following inter partes review (IPR) of our U.S. vitamin regimen patent, finding that the generic company petitioners failed to show that the claims in our patent are unpatentable. In April 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the written decisions of the USPTO IPR upholding our U.S. vitamin regimen patent. There were five remaining ANDA applicants who agreed to a preliminary injunction or stay pending the appeal of the IPR decision. In view of the Court of Appeals’ affirmance, favorable judgments have been entered by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against all five of these remaining ANDA applicants.

We also currently have pending lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana alleging infringement against Actavis LLC (Actavis) and Apotex Inc. (Apotex) in response to their applications to market products using alternative forms of pemetrexed (the active ingredient in Alimta) products. Trial against Apotex is scheduled for January 2020. The lawsuit against Actavis has been stayed, pending the conclusion of the Dr. Reddy's Laboratories' (Dr. Reddy) and Hospira, Inc.'s (Hospira) appeals (described below). We filed a similar lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Eagle). Trial against Eagle is scheduled for late October 2019 and we expect a decision later in the fourth quarter of 2019 or the first quarter of 2020. In June 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana ruled in our favor in two similar cases, finding Dr. Reddy's and Hospira's proposed products would infringe our method of use patent under the doctrine of equivalents. The district court also ruled that the use of Hospira’s proposed product would literally infringe our method of use patent. In August 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling that the use of Dr. Reddy’s and Hospira’s proposed products would infringe our patent under the doctrine of equivalents, but reversed the finding of literal infringement with respect to Hospira’s product. Dr. Reddy and Hospira have petitioned for rehearing of the court’s doctrine of equivalents ruling.

In July 2017, the United Kingdom (U.K.) Supreme Court ruled that commercialization of certain salt forms of pemetrexed by Actavis Group ehf and other Actavis companies directly infringes our vitamin regimen patents in the U.K., Italy, France, and Spain. This litigation in the U.K. is now concluded. Legal proceedings are ongoing in various national courts throughout Europe. We are aware that several companies have received approval to market generic versions of pemetrexed in major European markets (including generics currently on the market at risk in France,

Germany, and the Netherlands) and that additional generic competitors may choose to launch at risk. We will continue to seek to remove any generic pemetrexed products launched at risk in European markets, including Germany, France, and the Netherlands, seek damages with respect to such launches, and defend our patents against validity challenges.

Three separate sets of demands for invalidation of our two Japanese vitamin regimen patents, involving several companies, have been filed with the Japanese Patent Office (JPO). The JPO rejected a demand for invalidation by Sawai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., which was affirmed on appeal in 2017. In July 2018, the JPO issued written decisions dismissing demands brought by Nipro Corporation (Nipro) for invalidation of our two Japanese vitamin regimen patents. Nipro filed an appeal, and we anticipate decisions by the Japan Intellectual Property High Court later in the fourth quarter of 2019. We also anticipate the JPO will schedule a hearing with respect to the third set of demands, brought by Hospira, after the Nipro decision is handed down. If upheld through all challenges, these patents would provide intellectual property protection for Alimta until June 2021. Notwithstanding our patents, generic versions of Alimta received regulatory approval in Japan starting in February 2016. We do not currently anticipate that generic versions of Alimta will proceed to pricing approval.

We were named as a defendant in a purported class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (now called Strafford et al. v. Eli Lilly and Company) involving Cymbalta. The plaintiffs, purporting to represent a class of all persons within the U.S. who purchased and/or paid for Cymbalta, asserted claims under the consumer protection statutes of California, Massachusetts, Missouri, and New York, and sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief for various alleged economic injuries arising from discontinuing treatment with Cymbalta. The district court denied the plaintiffs' motions for class certification and dismissed the suits. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In November 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed the suit. In July 2018, the U.S. District Court for the District of California denied plaintiffs’ motion to reopen the case. Plaintiffs’ appeal of this denial is currently pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Our subsidiary in Brazil, Eli Lilly do Brasil Limitada (Lilly Brasil), is named in a lawsuit brought by the Labor Attorney for the 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 Brasil manufacturing facility in Cosmopolis, Brazil, operated by the company between 1977 and 2003. In May 2014, the labor court judge ruled against Lilly Brasil, ordering it to undertake several actions of unspecified financial impact, including paying lifetime health coverage for the employees and contractors who worked at the Cosmopolis facility more than six months during the affected years and their children born during and after this period. We appealed this decision. In July 2018, the appeals court affirmed the labor court's ruling with the total financial impact of the ruling estimated to be approximately 500 million Brazilian real (approximately $120 million as of September 30, 2019). The appeals court restricted the broad health coverage awarded by the labor court to health problems that claimants could show arose from exposure to the alleged contamination. In August 2019, Lilly Brasil filed an appeal to the superior labor court. In September 2019, the appeals court stayed a number of elements of its prior decision, including the obligation to provide health coverage for contractors, their children, and children of employees who worked at the Cosmopolis facility, pending the determination of Lilly Brasil’s appeal to the superior labor court.

In June 2019, the Labor Attorney filed an application in the labor court for enforcement of the healthcare coverage granted by the appeals court in its July 2018 ruling and requested restrictions on Lilly Brasil’s assets in Brazil. In July 2019, the labor court issued a ruling requiring either a freeze of Lilly Brasil’s immovable property or, alternatively, a security deposit of 500 million Brazilian real (approximately $120 million as of September 30, 2019). Lilly Brasil filed a writ of mandamus challenging this ruling and we expect a decision later in the fourth quarter of 2019. In the meantime, the labor court stayed the Labor Attorney’s application to enforce the previous healthcare coverage ruling until after the appeals court ruled on the various motions pending before it. Given the appeals court’s stay in September 2019 of a number of elements of its prior decision described above, we intend to file a motion to strike the Labor Attorney’s application to enforce the previous healthcare coverage.

Lilly Brasil and Elanco Quimica Ltda. have been named in two similar lawsuits in the same labor court involving approximately 410 individual plaintiffs. We agreed to indemnify Elanco Quimica Ltda. in this litigation as part of the divestiture of Elanco. In the first lawsuit (involving approximately 305 plaintiffs), plaintiffs alleged harm to employees and former employees, and their dependents. In the second lawsuit (involving approximately 105 plaintiffs), plaintiffs alleged harm to contractors and suppliers, and their dependents. The plaintiffs’ claims in these two lawsuits relate only to mental anguish attributable to the possibility of illness due to alleged exposure to heavy metals or other contaminants. In 2017, the labor court dismissed the claims brought by all but the first named plaintiff in each of the lawsuits. The plaintiffs in both lawsuits appealed. In April 2019 and July 2019, the appeals court issued written decisions rejecting the plaintiffs’ appeals in both of these lawsuits. The appeals court’s decisions were procedurally based and were without a judgment on the merits, meaning that the plaintiffs are able to bring individual actions, notwithstanding the court’s rulings.

We were named as a respondent in an arbitration filed by Adocia, S.A. (Adocia), with which we entered into agreements for the co-development of an ultra-rapid insulin product. Adocia alleged that we misappropriated and misused Adocia's confidential information and intellectual property and sought approximately $1.39 billion in damages and other specific relief. We asserted several counterclaims relating to fraudulent misrepresentation and sought approximately $188 million in damages. In August 2019, the arbitration panel ruled that we did not misappropriate or misuse Adocia's intellectual property or confidential information and denied Adocia’s claims for damages. The arbitration panel also denied our counterclaims.

Throughout the dispute process, Adocia made statements alleging that Adocia employees should be listed as inventors on two of our patents related to our ultra-rapid insulin product currently in development. While inventorship of these two patents was not at issue in the arbitration proceedings, in October 2018 we filed a declaratory judgment action against Adocia in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to confirm our inventorship. In September 2019, a consent judgment was entered in our favor confirming that inventorship is correct for the relevant patents and dismissing with prejudice all of Adocia’s counterclaims, which improperly asserted that certain Adocia employees should be named as inventors.

We, along with Sanofi and Novo Nordisk, are named as defendants in a consolidated purported class action lawsuit, In re. Insulin Pricing Litigation, in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey relating to insulin pricing. Plaintiffs seek damages under various state consumer protection laws and the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (federal RICO Act). Separately, we, along with Sanofi and Novo Nordisk, are named as defendants in MSP Recovery Claims, Series, LLC et al. v. Sanofi Aventis U.S. LLC et al., in the same court, seeking damages under various state consumer protection laws, common law fraud, unjust enrichment, and the federal RICO Act. Also in the same court, we, along with Sanofi and Novo Nordisk, have been named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit, Prof’l Drug Co., Inc. & FWK Holdings, LLC v. Novo Nordisk Inc. et al., seeking damages under the federal and New Jersey RICO Acts.

The Minnesota Attorney General’s Office filed a complaint against us, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk, State of Minnesota v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC et al., in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey, alleging unjust enrichment, and violations of various Minnesota state consumer protection laws and the federal RICO Act. Additionally, the Kentucky Attorney General’s Office filed a complaint against us, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk, Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Novo Nordisk, Inc. et al., in Kentucky state court, alleging violations of the Kentucky consumer protection law, false advertising, and unjust enrichment.

We have received a subpoena from the New York Attorney General’s Office and civil investigative demands from the Washington and New Mexico Attorney General Offices relating to the pricing and sale of our insulin products. The Offices of the Attorney General in Mississippi, Washington D.C., California, Florida, Hawaii, and Nevada have requested information relating to the pricing and sale of our insulin products. We also received interrogatories from the California Attorney General's Office regarding our competition in the long-acting insulin market. We received two requests from the House of Representatives’ Committee on Energy and Commerce and a request from the Senate’s Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, seeking certain information related to the pricing of insulin products, among other issues. We also received a request from the House of Representatives’ Committee on Oversight and Reform and one from the Senate’s Committee on Finance, both of which seek detailed commercial information and business records. We are cooperating with all of these aforementioned requests and investigations.