Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2020
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. Patent Litigation Alimta Patent Litigation and Administrative Proceedings A number of 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 June 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana ruled in our favor in two cases, finding Dr. Reddy's Laboratories' (Dr. Reddy) and Hospira, Inc.'s (Hospira) proposed products using an alternative form of pemetrexed (the active ingredient in Alimta) 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. In November 2019, the court denied Dr. Reddy and Hospira’s petition for rehearing of the court’s doctrine of equivalents ruling. Dr. Reddy and Hospira have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. We have two additional lawsuits pending in federal courts in which we allege infringement against Actavis LLC (Actavis) and Apotex Inc. (Apotex) in response to their applications to market products using alternative forms of pemetrexed. In December 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted our motion for summary judgment of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents against Apotex. Apotex has appealed that ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The lawsuit against Actavis pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana has been stayed, pending the conclusion of the Dr. Reddy and Hospira appeals (described above). In December 2019, we settled a lawsuit we filed against Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Eagle) in response to its application to market a product using an alternative form of pemetrexed. Per the settlement agreement, Eagle has a limited initial entry into the market with its product starting February 2022 (up to an approximate three-week supply) and subsequent unlimited entry starting April 2022. Alimta is protected by a vitamin regimen patent until 2021, plus pediatric exclusivity through May 2022. European Patent Litigation Legal proceedings are ongoing regarding our Alimta patents 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, 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 has rejected demands for invalidation by Sawai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and Nipro Corporation, and both rejections have been affirmed on appeal. The JPO scheduled a hearing in March 2020 concerning the demands brought by Hospira, but the hearing has been postponed because of the COVID-19 pandemic and the court has not yet scheduled a new date for the hearing. 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. Jardiance Patent Litigation Boehringer Ingelheim, our partner in marketing and development of Jardiance, initiated U.S. patent litigation in the U.S. District Court of Delaware involving Jardiance, Glyxambi, and Synjardy in accordance with the procedures set out in the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (the Hatch-Waxman Act). Several companies submitted Abbreviated New Drug Applications seeking approval to market generic versions of Jardiance prior to the expiration of the relevant patents, alleging certain patents, including in some allegations the compound patent, are invalid or would not be infringed. Trial is scheduled for April 2021. Taltz Patent Litigation We have been named as a defendant in litigation filed by Genentech, Inc. (Genentech) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California seeking a ruling that Genentech’s patent would be infringed by our continued sales of Taltz. Separately, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) granted our request to initiate a post grant review (PGR) to examine the validity of Genentech’s patent asserted against us in the litigation. Genentech asked the USPTO to enter adverse judgment against it in the PGR proceeding, and the district court case has been dismissed with prejudice naming us the prevailing party. We have filed a motion seeking attorneys' fees and costs related to our successful defense. We have also been named as defendant in litigation filed by Genentech in Germany asserting infringement of a related Genentech patent by sales of Taltz in Germany. We expect a trial to assess Genentech's infringement claims could take place in 2021. We have been named in litigation in the U.K. in which Genentech has asserted similar claims regarding Genentech’s corresponding U.K. patent. We believe all of these lawsuits are without merit and we are vigorously defending against them. Emgality Patent Litigation We have been named as a defendant in litigation filed by Teva Pharmaceuticals International GMBH and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (collectively, Teva) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking a ruling that various claims in nine different Teva patents would be infringed by our launch and continued sales of Emgality for the prevention of migraine in adults. We believe this lawsuit is without merit and are defending against it vigorously. Separately, the USPTO granted our request to initiate an inter partes review (IPR) to reexamine the validity of the nine Teva patents asserted against us in the litigation. In February 2020, the USPTO ruled in our favor and found that the claims asserted against us in six of Teva's nine patents were invalid. In March 2020, the USPTO ruled against us on the remaining three Teva patents, finding that we failed to show that the remaining three patents were unpatentable based on the subset of invalidity arguments available in an IPR proceeding. We plan to appeal the USPTO's March 2020 ruling. The district court litigation will proceed in parallel with any appeals of the IPR rulings on the nine Teva patents. Product Liability Litigation 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 persons 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 their purchases. After the district court denied the plaintiffs' motions for class certification, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims. 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 appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In July 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied the plaintiffs’ motion to reopen the case. In January 2020, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision and subsequently denied plaintiffs’ petition for rehearing. Other Matters 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 $95 million as of March 31, 2020). 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 $95 million as of March 31, 2020). Lilly Brasil filed a writ of mandamus challenging this ruling, but the court stayed its decision on this writ and instead directed the parties to attend conciliation hearings, a process which is ongoing. The labor court also 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. If the conciliation hearings are unsuccessful, once concluded, we intend to file a motion to strike the Labor Attorney’s application to enforce the previous healthcare coverage given the appeals court’s stay in September 2019 of a number of elements of its prior decision described above. 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. We believe all of these lawsuits are without merit and are defending against them vigorously. Pricing Litigation, Investigations, and Inquiries 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 seeking 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. In both In re. Insulin Pricing Litigation and the MSP Recovery Claims litigation, the court dismissed claims under the federal RICO Act and certain state laws. Also in the same court, we, along with Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, CVS, Express Scripts, and Optum, have been sued in a purported class action, FWK Holdings, LLC v. Novo Nordisk Inc., et al., for alleged violations of the federal RICO Act as well as the New Jersey RICO Act and anti-trust law. That same group of defendants, along with Medco Health and United Health Group, also have been sued in other purported class actions in the same court, Rochester Drug Co-Operative Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co. et al. and Value Drug Co. v. Eli Lilly & Co. et al., for alleged violations of the federal RICO Act. The Minnesota Attorney General’s Office has initiated litigation 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, 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. Harris County in Texas filed a complaint against us, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Express Scripts, CVS, Optum, and Aetna, County of Harris Texas v. Eli Lilly & Co., et al., in federal court in the Southern District of Texas, alleging violations of the federal RICO Act, federal and state anti-trust law, and the state deceptive trade practices-consumer protection act. Harris County also alleges common law claims such as, fraud, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy. This lawsuit relates to our insulin products as well as Trulicity. 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, New Mexico, and Colorado 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 requests from the House of Representatives’ Committee on Oversight and Reform and the Senate’s Committee on Finance, which seek detailed commercial information and business records. We are cooperating with all of these aforementioned investigations, subpoenas, and inquiries. 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 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 June 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana ruled in our favor in two cases, finding Dr. Reddy's Laboratories' (Dr. Reddy) and Hospira, Inc.'s (Hospira) proposed products using an alternative form of pemetrexed (the active ingredient in Alimta) 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. In November 2019, the court denied Dr. Reddy and Hospira’s petition for rehearing of the court’s doctrine of equivalents ruling. Dr. Reddy and Hospira have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

We have two additional lawsuits pending in federal courts in which we allege infringement against Actavis LLC (Actavis) and Apotex Inc. (Apotex) in response to their applications to market products using alternative forms of pemetrexed. In December 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted our motion for summary judgment of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents against Apotex. Apotex has appealed that ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The lawsuit against Actavis pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana has been stayed, pending the conclusion of the Dr. Reddy and Hospira appeals (described above).

In December 2019, we settled a lawsuit we filed against Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Eagle) in response to its application to market a product using an alternative form of pemetrexed. Per the settlement agreement, Eagle has a limited initial entry into the market with its product starting February 2022 (up to an approximate three-week supply) and subsequent unlimited entry starting April 2022. Alimta is protected by a vitamin regimen patent until 2021, plus pediatric exclusivity through May 2022.

Legal proceedings are ongoing regarding our Alimta patents 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, 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 has rejected demands for invalidation by Sawai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and Nipro Corporation, and both rejections have been affirmed on appeal. The JPO scheduled a hearing in March 2020 concerning the demands brought by Hospira, but the hearing has been

postponed because of the COVID-19 pandemic and the court has not yet scheduled a new date for the hearing. 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.

Boehringer Ingelheim, our partner in marketing and development of Jardiance, initiated U.S. patent litigation in the U.S. District Court of Delaware involving Jardiance, Glyxambi, and Synjardy in accordance with the procedures set out in the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (the Hatch-Waxman Act). Several companies submitted Abbreviated New Drug Applications seeking approval to market generic versions of Jardiance prior to the expiration of the relevant patents, alleging certain patents, including in some allegations the compound patent, are invalid or would not be infringed. Trial is scheduled for April 2021.

We have been named as a defendant in litigation filed by Genentech, Inc. (Genentech) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California seeking a ruling that Genentech’s patent would be infringed by our continued sales of Taltz. Separately, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) granted our request to initiate a post grant review (PGR) to examine the validity of Genentech’s patent asserted against us in the litigation. Genentech asked the USPTO to enter adverse judgment against it in the PGR proceeding, and the district court case has been dismissed with prejudice naming us the prevailing party. We have filed a motion seeking attorneys' fees and costs related to our successful defense.

We have also been named as defendant in litigation filed by Genentech in Germany asserting infringement of a related Genentech patent by sales of Taltz in Germany. We expect a trial to assess Genentech's infringement claims could take place in 2021. We have been named in litigation in the U.K. in which Genentech has asserted similar claims regarding Genentech’s corresponding U.K. patent.

We have been named as a defendant in litigation filed by Teva Pharmaceuticals International GMBH and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (collectively, Teva) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking a ruling that various claims in nine different Teva patents would be infringed by our launch and continued sales of Emgality for the prevention of migraine in adults. We believe this lawsuit is without merit and are defending against it vigorously. Separately, the USPTO granted our request to initiate an inter partes review (IPR) to reexamine the validity of the nine Teva patents asserted against us in the litigation. In February 2020, the USPTO ruled in our favor and found that the claims asserted against us in six of Teva's nine patents were invalid. In March 2020, the USPTO ruled against us on the remaining three Teva patents, finding that we failed to show that the remaining three patents were unpatentable based on the subset of invalidity arguments available in an IPR proceeding. We plan to appeal the USPTO's March 2020 ruling. The district court litigation will proceed in parallel with any appeals of the IPR rulings on the nine Teva patents.

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 persons 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 their purchases. After the district court denied the plaintiffs' motions for class certification, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims. 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 appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In July 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied the plaintiffs’ motion to reopen the case. In January 2020, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision and subsequently denied plaintiffs’ petition for rehearing.

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 $95 million as of March 31, 2020). 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 $95 million as of March 31, 2020). Lilly Brasil filed a writ of mandamus challenging this ruling, but the court stayed its decision on this writ and instead directed the parties to attend conciliation hearings, a process which is ongoing. The labor court also 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. If the conciliation hearings are unsuccessful, once concluded, we intend to file a motion to strike the Labor Attorney’s application to enforce the previous healthcare coverage given the appeals court’s stay in September 2019 of a number of elements of its prior decision described above.

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.

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 seeking 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. In both In re. Insulin Pricing Litigation and the MSP Recovery Claims litigation, the court dismissed claims under the federal RICO Act and certain state laws. Also in the same court, we, along with Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, CVS, Express Scripts, and Optum, have been sued in a purported class action, FWK Holdings, LLC v. Novo Nordisk Inc., et al., for alleged violations of the federal RICO Act as well as the New Jersey RICO Act and anti-trust law. That same group of defendants, along with Medco Health and United Health Group, also have been sued in other purported class actions in the same court, Rochester Drug Co-Operative Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co. et al. and Value Drug Co. v. Eli Lilly & Co. et al., for alleged violations of the federal RICO Act.

The Minnesota Attorney General’s Office has initiated litigation 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, 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. Harris County in Texas filed a complaint against us, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Express Scripts, CVS, Optum, and Aetna, County of Harris Texas v. Eli Lilly & Co., et al., in federal court in the Southern District of Texas, alleging violations of the federal RICO Act, federal and state anti-trust law, and the state deceptive trade practices-consumer protection act. Harris County also alleges common law claims such as, fraud, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy. This lawsuit relates to our insulin products as well as Trulicity.

We have received a subpoena from the New York Attorney General’s Office and civil investigative demands from the Washington, New Mexico, and Colorado 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 requests from the House of Representatives’ Committee on Oversight and Reform and the Senate’s Committee on Finance, which seek detailed commercial information and business records. We are cooperating with all of these aforementioned investigations, subpoenas, and inquiries.