Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies We are involved in various lawsuits, claims, government investigations and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. These claims or proceedings can involve various types of parties, including governments, competitors, customers, suppliers, service providers, licensees, employees, or shareholders, among others. These matters may involve patent infringement, antitrust, securities, pricing, sales and marketing practices, environmental, commercial, contractual rights, licensing obligations, health and safety matters, consumer fraud, employment matters, product liability and insurance coverage, among others. The resolution of these matters often develops over a long period of time and expectations can change as a result of new findings, rulings, appeals or settlement arrangements. Legal proceedings that are significant or that we believe could become significant or material are described below. We believe the legal proceedings in which we are named as defendants are without merit and we are defending against them vigorously. 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 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. Litigation accruals, environmental liabilities, and the related estimated insurance recoverables are reflected on a gross basis as liabilities and assets, respectively, on our consolidated balance sheets. With respect to the product liability claims currently asserted against us, we have accrued for our estimated exposures to the extent they are both probable and reasonably estimable based on the information available to us. We accrue for certain product liability claims incurred but not filed to the extent we can formulate a reasonable estimate of their costs. We estimate these expenses based primarily on historical claims experience and data regarding product usage. Legal defense costs expected to be incurred in connection with significant product liability loss contingencies are accrued when both probable and reasonably estimable. 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. Patent Litigation Alimta Patent Litigation 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 and cash flows. 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 Alimta (pemetrexed) is protected by a vitamin regimen patent until 2021, plus pediatric exclusivity through May 2022. In August 2017, we filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against Apotex Inc. (Apotex) alleging infringement of Alimta's vitamin regimen patent for its application to market a pemetrexed product. In December 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted our motion for summary judgment of infringement, and in December 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that ruling. Apotex did not request reconsideration or a rehearing of that ruling. However, Apotex could petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. 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. 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 and that generic competitors may choose to launch at risk. Following a final decision in the Supreme Court of Germany in July 2020 overturning the lower court and upholding the validity of our Alimta patent, several generics that were on the market at risk left. We have removed the remaining generics from the market by obtaining preliminary injunctions in our favor. In September 2020, the Paris Court of First Instance in France issued a final decision upholding the validity of our Alimta patent and found infringement by Fresenius Kabi France and Fresenius Kabi Groupe France’s (collectively, Kabi) pemetrexed product. The court issued an injunction against Kabi and provisionally awarded us damages. In January 2021, that same court issued a preliminary injunction against Zentiva France S.A.S. (Zentiva), the last remaining company with a generic pemetrexed product on the French market, and provisionally awarded us damages. In October 2020, the Court of Appeal of the Netherlands overturned a lower court decision and ruled that our Alimta patent is valid and infringed and reinstated an injunction against Kabi, thereby removing Kabi's pemetrexed product from the Netherlands market. Kabi has appealed this decision to the Netherlands Supreme Court. Kabi's generic pemetrexed product was the only at risk generic on the market in the Netherlands. Our vitamin regimen patents have also been challenged in other smaller European jurisdictions. We will continue to seek to remove any generic pemetrexed products launched at risk in other European markets, seek damages with respect to such launches, and defend our patents against validity challenges. Japanese Administrative Proceedings In October 2020, the Japanese Patent Office (JPO) issued notices closing Hopira Inc.'s (Hospira) invalidation against our Japanese Alimta patents. As a result, Hospira filed a withdrawal notice with the JPO and the JPO accepted the withdrawal in November. This matter is now closed. Emgality Patent Litigation In September 2018, we were 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. Trial is expected in December 2021. Separately, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (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. In April 2020, we appealed the USPTO’s March 2020 ruling, and Teva appealed the USPTO’s February 2020 ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The district court litigation will proceed in parallel with the IPR appeals. Jardiance Patent Litigation In November 2018, Boehringer Ingelheim (BI), our partner in marketing and development of Jardiance, initiated U.S. patent litigation in the U.S. District Court of Delaware alleging infringement arising from Alkem Laboratories Ltd.'s (Alkem) and Ascend Laboratories, LLC's (Ascend) submissions of Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDA) seeking approval to market generic versions of 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). Particularly with respect to Jardiance, Alkem's and Ascend's ANDAs seek approval to market generic versions of Jardiance prior to the expiration of the relevant patents, and allege that certain patents, including in some allegations the compound patent, are invalid or would not be infringed. We are not a party to this litigation. Trial was scheduled for April 2021 but has been postponed. Taltz Patent Litigation In July 2018, we were named as a defendant in litigation filed by Genentech, Inc. (Genentech) in Germany seeking a ruling that Genentech’s patent would be infringed by our continued sales of Taltz in Germany. After it sold its patent rights to Novartis Pharma AG (Novartis) in June 2020, Genentech withdrew its infringement litigation and Novartis subsequently filed litigation against us in Germany asserting infringement based on sales of Taltz. In January 2021, we entered into a settlement agreement with Novartis whereby all pending litigation in Germany related to the Taltz patent has been withdrawn and this matter has concluded. We were also named in litigation in the U.K. in which Genentech asserted similar claims regarding its corresponding U.K. patent. Novartis purchased Genentech's U.K. patent rights for Taltz, sought substitution for Genentech in the U.K. litigation and then sought dismissal of all appeals. Orders to this effect were issued by the Patents Court and Court of Appeal in November 2020 and these matters have concluded. Zyprexa Canada Patent Litigation Beginning in the mid-2000’s, several generic companies in Canada challenged the validity of our Zyprexa compound patent. In 2012, the Canadian Federal Court of Appeals denied our appeal of a lower court's decision that certain patent claims were invalid for lack of utility. In 2013, Apotex Inc. and Apotex Pharmachem Inc. (collectively, Apotex) brought claims against us in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice at Toronto for damages related to our enforcement of the Zyprexa compound patent under Canadian regulations governing patented drugs. Apotex seeks compensation based on novel legal theories under the Statute of Monopolies, Trade-Mark Act, and common law. Trial is expected in 2021 or 2022. Product Liability Litigation Actos® Product Liability We are named along with Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd. and Takeda affiliates (collectively, Takeda) as a defendant in four purported product liability class actions in Canada related to Actos, which we commercialized with Takeda in Canada until 2009, including one in Ontario filed December 2011 (Casseres et al. v. Takeda Pharmaceutical North America, Inc., et al.), one in Quebec filed July 2012 (Whyte et al. v. Eli Lilly et al.), one in Saskatchewan filed November 2017 (Weiler v. Takeda Canada Inc. et al.), and one in Alberta filed January 2013 (Epp v. Takeda Canada Inc. et al.). In general, plaintiffs in these actions alleged that Actos caused or contributed to their bladder cancer. Byetta® Product Liability First initiated in March 2009, we are named as a defendant in approximately 570 Byetta product liability lawsuits in the U.S. involving approximately 810 plaintiffs. Approximately 55 of these lawsuits, covering about 285 plaintiffs, are filed in California state court and coordinated in a Los Angeles Superior Court. Approximately 515 of the lawsuits, covering about 515 plaintiffs, are filed in federal court, the majority of which are coordinated in a multi-district litigation (MDL) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Three lawsuits, representing approximately four plaintiffs, have also been filed in various state courts. Approximately 565 of the lawsuits, involving approximately 800 plaintiffs, contain allegations that Byetta caused or contributed to the plaintiffs' cancer (primarily pancreatic cancer or thyroid cancer); while six plaintiffs allege Byetta caused or contributed to pancreatitis. In addition, one case alleges that Byetta caused or contributed to ampullary cancer. The federal and state trial courts granted summary judgment in favor of us and our co-defendants on the claims alleging pancreatic cancer. The plaintiffs appealed those rulings. In November 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the U.S. District Court's grant of summary judgment based on that court's discovery rulings and remanded the cases for further proceedings. In November 2018, the California Court of Appeal reversed the state court's grant of summary judgment based on that court's discovery rulings and remanded for further proceedings. We are aware of approximately 20 additional claimants who have not yet filed suit. These additional claims allege damages for pancreatic cancer or thyroid cancer. Cialis Product Liability First initiated in August 2015, we are named as a defendant in approximately 350 Cialis product liability lawsuits in the U.S. These cases, many of which were originally filed in various federal courts, contain allegations that Cialis caused or contributed to the plaintiffs' cancer (melanoma). In December 2016, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) granted the plaintiffs' petition to have filed cases and an unspecified number of future cases coordinated into a federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alongside an existing coordinated proceeding involving Viagra®. The JPML ordered the transfer of the existing cases to the now-renamed MDL In re: Viagra (Sildenafil Citrate) and Cialis (Tadalafil) Products Liability Litigation. In April 2020, the MDL court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all of the claims brought against them by the plaintiffs. In May 2020, plaintiffs filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Jardiance Product Liability First initiated in January 2019, we and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a subsidiary of BI, have been named as a defendant in approximately 95 product liability lawsuits in the U.S., mostly in Stamford Superior Court in Connecticut, alleging that Jardiance caused or contributed to plaintiffs’ Fournier’s gangrene. Our agreement with BI calls for BI to defend and indemnify us against any damages, costs, expenses, and certain other losses with respect to product liability claims in accordance with the terms of the agreement. Environmental Proceedings Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, commonly known as "Superfund," we have been designated as one of several potentially responsible parties with respect to the cleanup of fewer than 10 sites. Under Superfund, each responsible party may be jointly and severally liable for the entire amount of the cleanup. Other Matters 340B Litigation We are the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed in January 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Secretary of HHS, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), and the Administrator of HRSA. The lawsuit challenges the HHS's December 30, 2020 advisory opinion stating that drug manufacturers are required to deliver discounts under the 340B program to all contract pharmacies. We seek a declaratory judgment that the defendants violated the Administrative Procedures Act and the U.S. Constitution, a preliminary injunction enjoining implementation of the alternative dispute resolution process created by defendants and, with it, their application of the advisory opinion, and other related relief. A hearing on our motion for preliminary injunction has been scheduled for February 26, 2021. In January 2021, we, along with other pharmaceutical manufacturers, were named as a defendant in a petition currently pending before the HHS Administration Dispute Resolution Panel. Petitioner seeks declaratory and other injunctive relief related to the 340B program. Brazil Litigation – Cosmopolis Facility Labor Attorney Litigation First initiated in 2008, 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 a liquidated award of 300 million Brazilian real (for moral damages, donation of equipment, and creation of a foundation) which, adjusted for inflation and interest using the current Central Bank of Brazil's special system of clearance and custody rate (SELIC), is approximately 950 million Brazilian real (approximately $180 million as of December 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. The cost of any such health coverage has not been determined. 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. Lilly Brasil filed a writ of mandamus challenging this ruling, but the court has stayed its decision on this writ and instead directed the parties to attend conciliation hearings, a process that concluded unsuccessfully in September 2020. Consequently, the partial stay of the proceedings relating to Lilly Brasil's application to appeal in the main proceedings has been lifted. In addition, the Labor Attorney's application for preliminary enforcement of the July 2018 healthcare coverage ruling was granted. As the conciliation hearings have been unsuccessful, we have filed a brief to strike the Labor Attorney’s application to enforce the previous healthcare coverage. Lilly Brasil is currently awaiting a determination as to whether its application seeking leave to appeal to the superior labor court has been successful. Individual Former Employee Litigation First initiated in 2003, we have also been 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. China NDRC Antitrust Matter The competition authority in China has investigated our distributor pricing practices in China in connection with a broader inquiry into pharmaceutical industry pricing. We have cooperated with this investigation. Eastern District of Pennsylvania Pricing (Average Manufacturer Price) Inquiry In November 2014, we, along with another pharmaceutical manufacturer, are named as co-defendants in United States et al. ex rel. Streck v. Takeda Pharm. Am., Inc., et al., which was filed in November 2014 and unsealed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges that the defendants should have treated certain credits from distributors as retroactive price increases and included such increases in calculating average manufacturer prices. Trial is scheduled for February 2022. Health Choice Alliance We are named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in June 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas seeking damages under the federal anti-kickback statute and state and federal false claims acts for certain patient support programs related to our products Humalog, Humulin, and Forteo. In September 2019, the U.S. District Court granted the U.S. Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss the relator’s second amended complaint. In January 2020, the relator appealed the District Court’s dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. We are also named as a defendant in two similar lawsuits filed in Texas and New Jersey state courts in October 2019 seeking damages under the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act and New Jersey Medicaid False Claims Act, respectively. In November 2020, the Texas state court action was stayed pending a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on the aforementioned District Court appeal. Pricing Litigation, Investigations, and Inquires Litigation In December 2017, we, along with Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC (Sanofi) and Novo Nordisk, Inc. (Novo Nordisk) were named as defendants in a consolidated purported class action lawsuit, In re. Insulin Pricing Litigation, in the U.S. District Court for the District 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, in February 2018, we, along with Sanofi and Novo Nordisk, were 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, filed in the same court in November 2020, 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. both initiated in March 2020, for alleged violations of the federal RICO Act. In September 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate FWK Holdings, LLC v. Novo Nordisk Inc., et al., Rochester Drug Co-Operative Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co. et al., and Value Drug Co. v. Eli Lilly & Co. et al. In October 2018, the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office 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 for the District of New Jersey, alleging unjust enrichment, violations of various Minnesota state consumer protection laws, and the federal RICO Act. Additionally, in May 2019, 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. In November 2019, Harris County in Texas initiated litigation 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. Investigations, Subpoenas, and Inquiries We received a subpoena from the New York and Vermont Attorney General Offices 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 and a subpoena 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. In January 2021, the Senate’s Committee on Finance released a report summarizing the findings of its investigation. We are cooperating with all of these aforementioned investigations, subpoenas, and inquiries. Research Corporation Technologies, Inc. In April 2016, we were named as a defendant in litigation filed by Research Corporation Technologies, Inc. (RCT) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. RCT is seeking damages for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion related to processes used to manufacture certain products, including Humalog and Humulin. A trial date has not been set.

We are involved in various lawsuits, claims, government investigations and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. These claims or proceedings can involve various types of parties, including governments, competitors, customers, suppliers, service providers, licensees, employees, or shareholders, among others. These matters may involve patent infringement, antitrust, securities, pricing, sales and marketing practices, environmental, commercial, contractual rights, licensing obligations, health and safety matters, consumer fraud, employment matters, product liability and insurance coverage, among others. The resolution of these matters often develops over a long period of time and expectations can change as a result of new findings, rulings, appeals or settlement arrangements. Legal proceedings that are significant or that we believe could become significant or material are described below.

We believe the legal proceedings in which we are named as defendants are without merit and we are defending against them vigorously. 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 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.

Litigation accruals, environmental liabilities, and the related estimated insurance recoverables are reflected on a gross basis as liabilities and assets, respectively, on our consolidated balance sheets. With respect to the product liability claims currently asserted against us, we have accrued for our estimated exposures to the extent they are both probable and reasonably estimable based on the information available to us. We accrue for certain product liability claims incurred but not filed to the extent we can formulate a reasonable estimate of their costs. We estimate these expenses based primarily on historical claims experience and data regarding product usage. Legal defense costs expected to be incurred in connection with significant product liability loss contingencies are accrued when both probable and reasonably estimable.

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 and cash flows. 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 August 2017, we filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against Apotex Inc. (Apotex) alleging infringement of Alimta's vitamin regimen patent for its application to market a pemetrexed product. In December 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted our motion for summary judgment of infringement, and in December 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that ruling. Apotex did not request reconsideration or a rehearing of that ruling. However, Apotex could petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

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.

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 and that generic competitors may choose to launch at risk. Following a final decision in the Supreme Court of Germany in July 2020 overturning the lower court and upholding the validity of our Alimta patent, several generics that were on the market at risk left. We have removed the remaining generics from the market by obtaining preliminary injunctions in our favor. In September 2020, the Paris Court of First Instance in France issued a final decision upholding the validity of our Alimta patent and found infringement by Fresenius Kabi France and Fresenius Kabi Groupe France’s (collectively, Kabi) pemetrexed product. The court issued an injunction against Kabi and provisionally awarded us damages. In January 2021, that same court issued a preliminary injunction against Zentiva France S.A.S. (Zentiva), the last remaining company with a generic pemetrexed product on the French market, and provisionally awarded us damages. In October 2020, the Court of Appeal of the Netherlands overturned a lower court decision and ruled that our Alimta patent is valid and infringed and reinstated an injunction against Kabi, thereby removing Kabi's pemetrexed product from the Netherlands market. Kabi has appealed this decision to the Netherlands Supreme Court. Kabi's generic pemetrexed product was the only at risk generic on the market in the Netherlands.

In September 2018, we were 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. Trial is expected in December 2021. Separately, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (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. In April 2020, we appealed the USPTO’s March 2020 ruling, and Teva appealed the USPTO’s February 2020 ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The district court litigation will proceed in parallel with the IPR appeals.

In November 2018, Boehringer Ingelheim (BI), our partner in marketing and development of Jardiance, initiated U.S. patent litigation in the U.S. District Court of Delaware alleging infringement arising from Alkem Laboratories Ltd.'s (Alkem) and Ascend Laboratories, LLC's (Ascend) submissions of Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDA) seeking approval to market generic versions of 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). Particularly with respect to Jardiance, Alkem's and Ascend's ANDAs seek approval to market generic versions of Jardiance prior to the expiration of the relevant patents, and allege that certain patents, including in some allegations the compound patent, are invalid or would not be infringed. We are not a party to this litigation. Trial was scheduled for April 2021 but has been postponed.

In July 2018, we were named as a defendant in litigation filed by Genentech, Inc. (Genentech) in Germany seeking a ruling that Genentech’s patent would be infringed by our continued sales of Taltz in Germany. After it sold its patent rights to Novartis Pharma AG (Novartis) in June 2020, Genentech withdrew its infringement litigation and Novartis subsequently filed litigation against us in Germany asserting infringement based on sales of Taltz. In January 2021, we entered into a settlement agreement with Novartis whereby all pending litigation in Germany related to the Taltz patent has been withdrawn and this matter has concluded. We were also named in litigation in the U.K. in which Genentech asserted similar claims regarding its corresponding U.K. patent. Novartis purchased Genentech's U.K. patent rights for Taltz, sought substitution for Genentech in the U.K. litigation and then sought dismissal of all appeals. Orders to this effect were issued by the Patents Court and Court of Appeal in November 2020 and these matters have concluded.

Beginning in the mid-2000’s, several generic companies in Canada challenged the validity of our Zyprexa compound patent. In 2012, the Canadian Federal Court of Appeals denied our appeal of a lower court's decision that certain patent claims were invalid for lack of utility. In 2013, Apotex Inc. and Apotex Pharmachem Inc. (collectively, Apotex) brought claims against us in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice at Toronto for damages related to our enforcement of the Zyprexa compound patent under Canadian regulations governing patented drugs. Apotex seeks compensation based on novel legal theories under the Statute of Monopolies, Trade-Mark Act, and common law. Trial is expected in 2021 or 2022.

We are named along with Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd. and Takeda affiliates (collectively, Takeda) as a defendant in four purported product liability class actions in Canada related to Actos, which we commercialized with Takeda in Canada until 2009, including one in Ontario filed December 2011 (Casseres et al. v. Takeda Pharmaceutical North America, Inc., et al.), one in Quebec filed July 2012 (Whyte et al. v. Eli Lilly et al.), one in Saskatchewan filed November 2017 (Weiler v. Takeda Canada Inc. et al.), and one in Alberta filed January 2013 (Epp v. Takeda Canada Inc. et al.). In general, plaintiffs in these actions alleged that Actos caused or contributed to their bladder cancer.

First initiated in March 2009, we are named as a defendant in approximately 570 Byetta product liability lawsuits in the U.S. involving approximately 810 plaintiffs. Approximately 55 of these lawsuits, covering about 285 plaintiffs, are filed in California state court and coordinated in a Los Angeles Superior Court. Approximately 515 of the lawsuits, covering about 515 plaintiffs, are filed in federal court, the majority of which are coordinated in a multi-district litigation (MDL) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Three lawsuits, representing approximately four plaintiffs, have also been filed in various state courts. Approximately 565 of the lawsuits, involving approximately 800 plaintiffs, contain allegations that Byetta caused or contributed to the plaintiffs' cancer (primarily pancreatic cancer or thyroid cancer); while six plaintiffs allege Byetta caused or contributed to pancreatitis. In addition, one case alleges that Byetta caused or contributed to ampullary cancer. The federal and state trial courts granted summary judgment in favor of us and our co-defendants on the claims alleging pancreatic cancer. The plaintiffs appealed those rulings. In November 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the U.S. District Court's grant of summary judgment based on that court's discovery rulings and remanded the cases for further proceedings. In November 2018, the California Court of Appeal reversed the state court's grant of summary judgment based on that court's discovery rulings and remanded for further proceedings. We are aware of approximately 20 additional claimants who have not yet filed suit. These additional claims allege damages for pancreatic cancer or thyroid cancer.

First initiated in August 2015, we are named as a defendant in approximately 350 Cialis product liability lawsuits in the U.S. These cases, many of which were originally filed in various federal courts, contain allegations that Cialis caused or contributed to the plaintiffs' cancer (melanoma). In December 2016, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) granted the plaintiffs' petition to have filed cases and an unspecified number of future cases coordinated into a federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alongside an existing coordinated proceeding involving Viagra®. The JPML ordered the transfer of the existing cases to the now-renamed MDL In re: Viagra (Sildenafil Citrate) and Cialis (Tadalafil) Products Liability Litigation. In April 2020, the MDL court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all of the claims brought against them by the plaintiffs. In May 2020, plaintiffs filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

First initiated in January 2019, we and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a subsidiary of BI, have been named as a defendant in approximately 95 product liability lawsuits in the U.S., mostly in Stamford Superior Court in Connecticut, alleging that Jardiance caused or contributed to plaintiffs’ Fournier’s gangrene. Our agreement with BI calls for BI to defend and indemnify us against any damages, costs, expenses, and certain other losses with respect to product liability claims in accordance with the terms of the agreement.

We are the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed in January 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Secretary of HHS, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), and the Administrator of HRSA. The lawsuit challenges the HHS's December 30, 2020 advisory opinion stating that drug manufacturers are required to deliver discounts under the 340B program to all contract pharmacies. We seek a declaratory judgment that the defendants violated the Administrative Procedures Act and the U.S. Constitution, a preliminary injunction enjoining implementation of the alternative dispute resolution process created by defendants and, with it, their application of the advisory opinion, and other related relief. A hearing on our motion for preliminary injunction has been scheduled for February 26, 2021.

First initiated in 2008, 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 a liquidated award of 300 million Brazilian real (for moral damages, donation of equipment, and creation of a foundation) which, adjusted for inflation and interest using the current Central Bank of Brazil's special system of clearance and custody rate (SELIC), is approximately 950 million Brazilian real (approximately $180 million as of December 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. The cost of any such health coverage has not been determined.

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. Lilly Brasil filed a writ of mandamus challenging this ruling, but the court has stayed its decision on this writ and instead directed the parties to attend conciliation hearings, a process that concluded unsuccessfully in September 2020. Consequently, the partial stay of the proceedings relating to Lilly Brasil's application to appeal in the main proceedings has been lifted. In addition, the Labor Attorney's application for preliminary enforcement of the July 2018 healthcare coverage ruling was granted. As the conciliation hearings have been unsuccessful, we have filed a brief to strike the Labor Attorney’s application to enforce the previous healthcare coverage. Lilly Brasil is currently awaiting a determination as to whether its application seeking leave to appeal to the superior labor court has been successful.

In November 2014, we, along with another pharmaceutical manufacturer, are named as co-defendants in United States et al. ex rel. Streck v. Takeda Pharm. Am., Inc., et al., which was filed in November 2014 and unsealed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges that the defendants should have treated certain credits from distributors as retroactive price increases and included such increases in calculating average manufacturer prices. Trial is scheduled for February 2022.

We are named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in June 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas seeking damages under the federal anti-kickback statute and state and federal false claims acts for certain patient support programs related to our products Humalog, Humulin, and Forteo. In September 2019, the U.S. District Court granted the U.S. Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss the relator’s second amended complaint. In January 2020, the relator appealed the District Court’s dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. We are also named as a defendant in two similar lawsuits filed in Texas and New Jersey state courts in October 2019 seeking damages under the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act and New Jersey Medicaid False Claims Act, respectively. In November 2020, the Texas state court action was stayed pending a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on the aforementioned District Court appeal.

In December 2017, we, along with Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC (Sanofi) and Novo Nordisk, Inc. (Novo Nordisk) were named as defendants in a consolidated purported class action lawsuit, In re. Insulin Pricing Litigation, in the U.S. District Court for the District 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, in February 2018, we, along with Sanofi and Novo Nordisk, were 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, filed in the same court in November 2020, 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. both initiated in March 2020, for alleged violations of the federal RICO Act. In September 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate FWK Holdings, LLC v. Novo Nordisk Inc., et al., Rochester Drug Co-Operative Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co. et al., and Value Drug Co. v. Eli Lilly & Co. et al.

In October 2018, the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office 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 for the District of New Jersey, alleging unjust enrichment, violations of various Minnesota state consumer protection laws, and the federal RICO Act. Additionally, in May 2019, 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. In November 2019, Harris County in Texas initiated litigation 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 received a subpoena from the New York and Vermont Attorney General Offices 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 and a subpoena 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. In January 2021, the Senate’s Committee on Finance released a report summarizing the findings of its investigation. We are cooperating with all of these aforementioned investigations, subpoenas, and inquiries.