Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2022
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 final 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 condensed 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 litigation liability insurance, we are self-insured for litigation liability losses for all our currently and previously marketed products. Patent Litigation Alimta Patent Litigation U.S. Patent Litigation Alimta (pemetrexed) was protected by a vitamin regimen patent until November 2021, and since then has been protected by pediatric exclusivity through May 2022. 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 In Europe, Alimta was protected by the vitamin regimen patent through June 2021. Despite the recent patent expiration, a number of legal proceedings that were initiated prior to expiration are ongoing. 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 currently scheduled to begin in October 2022. In June 2021, we were named as a defendant in a second litigation filed by Teva in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking a ruling that two of Teva's patents, which are directed toward use of the active ingredient in Emgality to treat migraine, would be infringed by our continued sales of Emgality. This matter is ongoing. 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 submissions of Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDA) by a number of generic companies 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, the generic companies' 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. This litigation has been stayed. Taltz Patent Litigation In April 2021, we petitioned the High Court of Ireland to declare invalid the patent that Novartis Pharma AG (Novartis) purchased from Genentech, Inc. in 2020. Novartis responded by filing a claim against us alleging patent infringement related to our commercialization of Taltz and seeking damages for past infringement and an injunction against future infringement. This matter is ongoing. In April 2021 and November 2021, Novartis petitioned the Court of Rome Intellectual Property Division and the Swiss Federal Patent Court, respectively, in preliminary injunction (PI) and main infringement proceedings against us related to our commercialization of Taltz. In June 2021, the Court of Rome Intellectual Property Division dismissed Novartis' PI action. Novartis appealed the ruling and, in October 2021, the panel hearing Novartis' appeal appointed a technical expert to assess the merits of the case. In April 2022, Novartis withdrew its PI request in Switzerland, but the main infringement proceedings continue. A hearing on the Italian PI request is scheduled for May 2022. Zyprexa Canada Patent Litigation Beginning in the mid-2000s, 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. In March 2021, the Ontario Superior Court granted our motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing Apotex's case. Apotex appealed that ruling to the Court of Appeal for Ontario in April 2021 and a hearing occurred February 2022. We await a decision. Product Liability Litigation Byetta® Product Liability We are named as a defendant in approximately 570 Byetta product liability lawsuits in the U.S. which were first initiated in March 2009 and involve approximately 805 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. Two lawsuits, representing approximately two 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 for the Southern District of California's grant of summary judgment in the MDL based on that court's discovery rulings and remanded the cases back to the U.S. District Court for further proceedings. In March 2021, the U.S. District Court granted summary judgment for the defendants. In April 2021, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, but we have now been dismissed from that appeal. In March 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court's grant of summary judgment with respect to the remaining defendant in the appeal. Certain plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss their lawsuits in exchange for a waiver of costs, and individual plaintiffs have begun dismissing their claims based upon this agreement. Approximately 333 of the MDL lawsuits have been dismissed as of April 2022. In the state court actions, in November 2018, the California Court of Appeal reversed the Los Angeles County Superior Court of California's grant of summary judgment based on that court's discovery rulings and remanded for further proceedings. In April 2021, the Los Angeles County Superior Court of California granted summary judgment for the defendants and the parties await entry of the order of judgment. Approximately 34 of the state court lawsuits have been dismissed as of April 2022. We are aware of approximately 20 additional potential claimants who have not yet filed suit. These additional possible claims allege damages for pancreatic cancer or thyroid cancer. Cialis Product Liability We are named as a defendant in approximately 350 Cialis product liability lawsuits in the U.S. which were first initiated in August 2015. 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 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. The parties have reached agreement to resolve the majority of claims pending in the appeal and expect those claims to soon be dismissed. 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 five currently pending product liability lawsuits 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. All pending cases have been paused to allow for settlement negotiations and dismissals. 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 and Investigations 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 administrative dispute resolution process created by defendants and, with it, their application of the advisory opinion, and other related relief. In March 2021, the court entered an order preliminarily enjoining the government's enforcement of the administrative dispute resolution process against us. In May 2021, HRSA notified us that it determined that our policy was contrary to the 340B statute. In response, in May 2021, we filed a motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order requesting that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana enjoin defendants from taking any action against us relating to the 340B drug pricing program until after the court issues a final judgment on the aforementioned litigation. In May 2021, the court denied our motion for a temporary restraining order but deferred resolution of our motion for preliminary injunction. In June 2021, the defendants withdrew the HHS December 30, 2020 advisory opinion. In July 2021, the court held oral argument on the parties' cross motions for summary judgment, the defendants' motion to dismiss, and our motion for preliminary injunction related to HRSA's May 2021 enforcement letter. In October 2021, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, and granted in part and denied in part the parties' cross motions for summary judgment. Both parties have filed notices of appeal related to the court's summary judgment order. In April 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit remanded the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana for the limited purpose of the district court amending its partial final judgment to ensure proper jurisdiction for the appeal. The district court amended its partial final judgment in April 2022, and the appeal will proceed to briefing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. This matter is ongoing. In January 2021, we, along with other pharmaceutical manufacturers, were named as a defendant in a petition currently pending before the HHS Administrative Dispute Resolution Panel. Petitioner seeks declaratory and other injunctive relief related to the 340B program. As described above, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana has entered a preliminary injunction enjoining the government's enforcement of this administrative dispute resolution process against us. In July 2021, we, along with Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC (Sanofi), Novo Nordisk Inc. (Novo Nordisk), and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, were named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York by Mosaic Health, Inc. alleging antitrust and unjust enrichment claims related to the defendants' 340B distribution programs. We, with Sanofi and Novo Nordisk, filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. This matter is ongoing. We received a civil investigative subpoena in February 2021 from the Office of the Attorney General for the State of Vermont relating to the sale of pharmaceutical products to Vermont covered entities under the 340B program. We are cooperating with this subpoena. Branchburg Manufacturing Facility In May 2021, we received a subpoena from the United States Department of Justice requesting the production of certain documents relating to our manufacturing site in Branchburg, New Jersey. We are cooperating with the subpoena. 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 Public Civil Action brought by the Labor Public Attorney (LPA) for the 15th Region in the Labor Court of Paulinia, State of Sao Paulo, Brazil, (the Labor Court) alleging possible harm to employees and former employees caused by alleged exposure to soil and groundwater contaminants 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, including some with unspecified financial impact, consisting primarily of paying lifetime health coverage for the employees and contractors who worked at the Cosmopolis facility for more than six months during the affected years and their children who were born during and after this period. We appealed this decision. In July 2018, the appeals court (TRT) generally affirmed the Labor Court's ruling, which included a liquidated award of 300 million Brazilian real. This 300 million Brazilian real liquidated award, when adjusted for inflation and the addition of pre and post judgment interest using the current Central Bank of Brazil's special system of clearance and custody rate, is approximately one billion Brazilian real (approximately $210 million as of March 31, 2022). The TRT also restricted the broad health coverage awarded by the Labor Court to health problems that claimants could prove in a separate evidentiary proceeding arose from exposure to the alleged contamination. In August 2019, Lilly Brasil filed an appeal to the superior labor court (TST) and in June 2021, the TRT published its decision on the admissibility of Lilly Brasil's appeal, allowing the majority of the elements of the appeal to proceed; elements not proceeding are subject to an interlocutory appeal to the TST that was filed in June 2021. In September 2019, the TRT stayed a number of elements of its trial court decision pending the determination of Lilly Brasil's appeal to the TST. In June 2019, the LPA filed an application in the Labor Court for enforcement of the healthcare coverage granted by the TRT in its July 2018 ruling, requested restrictions on Lilly Brasil’s assets in Brazil, and required Lilly Brasil and Antibióticos do Brasil Ltda. (ABL) to submit a list of potential beneficiaries of the Public Civil Action for the LPA to identify and contact those individuals. In July 2019, the Labor Court issued a ruling requiring a freeze of Lilly Brasil’s immovable property or, alternatively, a security deposit or lien of 500 million Brazilian real. Lilly Brasil filed a writ of mandamus challenging this ruling. In June 2021, the court reduced the security deposit or lien to 100 million Brazilian real and limited the scope of the initial order. ABL and LPA appealed to the TST, which appeal is currently still under review. In addition, in September 2020, the LPA initiated a second preliminary enforcement of the portion of the July 2018 TRT decision in the Labor Court that prohibits the exposure of workers to the contaminated areas. The Labor Court is currently assessing the status of Lilly Brasil’s compliance with such portion of the July 2018 TRT decision and an inspection in the industrial plant should be scheduled at some point. These matters are ongoing. Individual Former Employee Litigation Lilly Brasil is also named in approximately 27 pending lawsuits filed in the 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 more than half of the lawsuits by the trial courts, of which, approximately half of those judgments are on appeal in the labor courts. Puerto Rico Tax Matter In May 2013, the Municipality of Carolina in Puerto Rico (Municipality) filed a lawsuit against us alleging noncompliance with respect to a contract with the Municipality and seeking a declaratory judgment. In December 2020, the Puerto Rico Appellate Court (AP) reversed the summary judgment previously granted by the Court of First Instance (CFI) in our favor, dismissing the Municipality's complaint in its entirety. The AP remanded the case to the CFI for trial on the merits and trial has been scheduled to begin in May and continue in September 2022. In October 2021, the Municipality filed a motion to execute a purported judgment, and the CFI scheduled a hearing in March 2022 to consider the Municipality's motion. In April 2022, the CFI denied the Municipality's motion. This matter is ongoing. Eastern District of Pennsylvania Pricing (Average Manufacturer Price) Inquiry In November 2014, we, along with another pharmaceutical manufacturer, were 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. In October 2021 the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. In February 2022, the U.S. District Court denied our motion and partially granted the relator's motion. In March 2022, we filed a motion for interlocutory appeal and the relator filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's summary judgment rulings. Both motions were denied, and the court set trial to begin in July 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. In July 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the lawsuit, and the relator did not petition the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari. 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 final determination with respect to the aforementioned federal lawsuit. In April 2021, the New Jersey state court action was dismissed with prejudice and in June 2021, the relator appealed the state court's decision to the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court. In January 2022, the relator filed its appellate brief and we filed our response in March 2022. Pricing Litigation, Investigations, and Inquiries Litigation In December 2017, we, along with Sanofi and 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. In April 2021, the plaintiffs in In re. Insulin Pricing Litigation amended their complaint to allege additional state law claims for civil conspiracy and violations of state RICO statutes. The court has allowed the Arizona RICO statute and certain state civil conspiracy law claims to proceed. Also, 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., filed in the same court in November 2020, for alleged violations of the federal RICO Act as well as the New Jersey RICO Act and antitrust 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 July 2021, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed the three antitrust claims alleged by plaintiffs in the consolidated litigation and denied dismissal of the RICO claims. 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. In March 2021, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed with prejudice the Minnesota Attorney General's federal RICO claims and false advertising claims under state law; the consumer fraud and other related state law claims remain ongoing. 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, the state deceptive trade practices-consumer protection act, and common law claims such as fraud, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy. Harris County also alleged violations of federal and state antitrust law, but voluntarily dismissed them. This lawsuit relates to our insulin products as well as Trulicity. In March 2022, the Court entered final judgment for all defendants and dismissed all remaining claims with prejudice. In June 2021, the City of Miami, Florida initiated litigation against us, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, ESI, CVS/Caremark/Aetna, and Optum, asserting state law antitrust, common law fraud, money had and received, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy claims. After removing the case to federal court, we, along with the other defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. In January 2022, the court granted the motion in part but has allowed the antitrust and conspiracy claims to proceed against us, Sanofi and Novo Nordisk. We, along with Sanofi and Novo Nordisk, have moved the court to reconsider its denial of our motion to dismiss the antitrust and conspiracy claims. In June 2021, the Mississippi Attorney General's Office initiated litigation against us, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Evernorth/ESI, CVS/Caremark, and United/Optum in the Hinds County, Mississippi Chancery Court, alleging state law consumer protection, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy claims. After the case was removed to federal court, we, along with the other defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. This matter is ongoing. Investigations, Subpoenas, and Inquiries We received subpoenas 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, which was subsequently withdrawn in June 2021. In January 2022, the Michigan Attorney General filed against us in state court a petition seeking authorization to investigate Lilly for potential violations of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA), and a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that the MCPA applies to the conduct it seeks to investigate and allows it to conduct the investigation. The state court granted the State's petition to investigate, authorizing the State to issue civil investigative subpoenas. The State's complaint for declaratory judgment remains pending. In March 2022, we filed a motion for summary disposition in the State's declaratory judgment action seeking judgment in our favor. Hearing on our motion for summary disposition is scheduled for September 2022. In April 2022, the parties entered into a stipulation providing that the State will not issue any civil investigative subpoena to us under the MCPA until the declaratory judgment action is resolved. We received a request in January 2019 from the House of Representatives' Committee on Oversight and Reform seeking commercial information and business records related to the pricing of insulin products, among other issues. We also received requests from the Senate Finance Committee and the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and separate requests from the House Committee on Energy and Commerce majority and minority members. Those requests sought pricing and other commercial information regarding Lilly's insulin products. In January 2021, the Senate Finance Committee released a report summarizing the findings of its investigation. In December 2021 the House of Representatives' Committee on Oversight and Reform majority and minority staffs released separate reports with findings from their investigations into drug pricing, including of insulin products. 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. Both parties moved for summary judgment and hearing on the motions took place in August 2021. In October 2021, the Court issued a summary judgment decision finding in favor of RCT on certain issues, including with respect to a disputed royalty. Both parties filed motions for reconsideration. This matter is ongoing. Potential damages payable under the litigation, if finally awarded after an appeal, could be material but are not currently reasonably estimable. 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 final 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 condensed 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.

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 currently scheduled to begin in October 2022. In June 2021, we were named as a defendant in a second litigation filed by Teva in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking a ruling that two of Teva's patents, which are directed toward use of the active ingredient in Emgality to treat migraine, would be infringed by our continued sales of Emgality. This matter is ongoing.

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 submissions of Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDA) by a number of generic companies 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, the generic companies' 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. This litigation has been stayed.

In April 2021 and November 2021, Novartis petitioned the Court of Rome Intellectual Property Division and the Swiss Federal Patent Court, respectively, in preliminary injunction (PI) and main infringement proceedings against us related to our commercialization of Taltz. In June 2021, the Court of Rome Intellectual Property Division dismissed Novartis' PI action. Novartis appealed the ruling and, in October 2021, the panel hearing Novartis' appeal appointed a technical expert to assess the merits of the case. In April 2022, Novartis withdrew its PI request in Switzerland, but the main infringement proceedings continue. A hearing on the Italian PI request is scheduled for May 2022.

Beginning in the mid-2000s, 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. In March 2021, the Ontario Superior Court granted our motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing Apotex's case. Apotex appealed that ruling to the Court of Appeal for Ontario in April 2021 and a hearing occurred February 2022. We await a decision.

We are named as a defendant in approximately 570 Byetta product liability lawsuits in the U.S. which were first initiated in March 2009 and involve approximately 805 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. Two lawsuits, representing approximately two 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 for the Southern District of California's grant of summary judgment in the MDL based on that court's discovery rulings and remanded the cases back to the U.S. District Court for further proceedings. In March 2021, the U.S. District Court granted summary judgment for the defendants. In April 2021, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, but we have now been dismissed from that appeal. In March 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court's grant of summary judgment with respect to the remaining defendant in the appeal. Certain plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss their lawsuits in exchange for a waiver of costs, and individual plaintiffs have begun dismissing their claims based upon this agreement. Approximately 333 of the MDL lawsuits have been dismissed as of April 2022. In the state court actions, in November 2018, the California Court of Appeal reversed the Los Angeles County Superior Court of California's grant of summary judgment based on that court's discovery rulings and remanded for further proceedings. In April 2021, the Los Angeles County Superior Court of California granted summary judgment for the defendants and the parties await entry of the order of judgment. Approximately 34 of the state court lawsuits have been dismissed as of April 2022.

We are named as a defendant in approximately 350 Cialis product liability lawsuits in the U.S. which were first initiated in August 2015. 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 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. The parties have reached agreement to resolve the majority of claims pending in the appeal and expect those claims to soon be dismissed.

First initiated in January 2019, we and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a subsidiary of BI, have been named as a defendant in five currently pending product liability lawsuits 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. All pending cases have been paused to allow for settlement negotiations and dismissals.

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 administrative dispute resolution process created by defendants and, with it, their application of the advisory opinion, and other related relief. In March 2021, the court entered an order preliminarily enjoining the government's enforcement of the administrative dispute resolution process against us. In May 2021, HRSA notified us that it determined that our policy was contrary to the 340B statute. In response, in May 2021, we filed a motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order requesting that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana enjoin defendants from taking any action against us relating to the 340B drug pricing program until after the court issues a final judgment on the aforementioned litigation. In May 2021, the court denied our motion for a temporary restraining order but deferred resolution of our motion for preliminary injunction. In June 2021, the defendants withdrew the HHS December 30, 2020 advisory opinion. In July 2021, the court held oral argument on the parties' cross motions for summary judgment, the defendants' motion to dismiss, and our motion for preliminary injunction related to HRSA's May 2021 enforcement letter. In October 2021, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, and granted in part and denied in part the parties' cross motions for summary judgment. Both parties have filed notices of appeal related to the court's summary judgment order. In April 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit remanded the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana for the limited purpose of the district court amending its partial final judgment to ensure proper jurisdiction for the appeal. The district court amended its partial final judgment in April 2022, and the appeal will proceed to briefing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. This matter is ongoing.

First initiated in 2008, our subsidiary in Brazil, Eli Lilly do Brasil Limitada (Lilly Brasil), is named in a Public Civil Action brought by the Labor Public Attorney (LPA) for the 15th Region in the Labor Court of Paulinia, State of Sao Paulo, Brazil, (the Labor Court) alleging possible harm to employees and former employees caused by alleged exposure to soil and groundwater contaminants 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, including some with unspecified financial impact, consisting primarily of paying lifetime health coverage for the employees and contractors who worked at the Cosmopolis facility for more than six months during the affected years and their children who were born during and after this period. We appealed this decision. In July 2018, the appeals court (TRT) generally affirmed the Labor Court's ruling, which included a liquidated award of 300 million Brazilian real. This 300 million Brazilian real liquidated award, when adjusted for inflation and the addition of pre and post judgment interest using the current Central Bank of Brazil's special system of clearance and custody rate, is approximately one billion Brazilian real (approximately $210 million as of March 31, 2022). The TRT also restricted the broad health coverage awarded by the Labor Court to health problems that claimants could prove in a separate evidentiary proceeding arose from exposure to the alleged contamination. In August 2019, Lilly Brasil filed an appeal to the superior labor court (TST) and in June 2021, the TRT published its decision on the admissibility of Lilly Brasil's appeal, allowing the majority of the elements of the appeal to proceed; elements not proceeding are subject to an interlocutory appeal to the TST that was filed in June 2021. In September 2019, the TRT stayed a number of elements of its trial court decision pending the determination of Lilly Brasil's appeal to the TST.

In June 2019, the LPA filed an application in the Labor Court for enforcement of the healthcare coverage granted by the TRT in its July 2018 ruling, requested restrictions on Lilly Brasil’s assets in Brazil, and required Lilly Brasil and Antibióticos do Brasil Ltda. (ABL) to submit a list of potential beneficiaries of the Public Civil Action for the LPA to identify and contact those individuals. In July 2019, the Labor Court issued a ruling requiring a freeze of Lilly Brasil’s immovable property or, alternatively, a security deposit or lien of 500 million Brazilian real. Lilly Brasil filed a writ of mandamus challenging this ruling. In June 2021, the court reduced the security deposit or lien to 100 million Brazilian real and limited the scope of the initial order. ABL and LPA appealed to the TST, which appeal is currently still under review. In addition, in September 2020, the LPA initiated a second preliminary enforcement of the portion of the July 2018 TRT decision in the Labor Court that prohibits the exposure of workers to the contaminated areas. The Labor Court is currently assessing the status of Lilly Brasil’s compliance with such portion of the July 2018 TRT decision and an inspection in the industrial plant should be scheduled at some point. These matters are ongoing.

In May 2013, the Municipality of Carolina in Puerto Rico (Municipality) filed a lawsuit against us alleging noncompliance with respect to a contract with the Municipality and seeking a declaratory judgment. In December 2020, the Puerto Rico Appellate Court (AP) reversed the summary judgment previously granted by the Court of First Instance (CFI) in our favor, dismissing the Municipality's complaint in its entirety. The AP remanded the case to the CFI for trial on the merits and trial has been scheduled to begin in May and continue in September 2022.

In November 2014, we, along with another pharmaceutical manufacturer, were 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. In October 2021 the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. In February 2022, the U.S. District Court denied our motion and partially granted the relator's motion. In March 2022, we filed a motion for interlocutory appeal and the relator filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's summary judgment rulings. Both motions were denied, and the court set trial to begin in July 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. In July 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the lawsuit, and the relator did not petition the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari. 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 final determination with respect to the aforementioned federal lawsuit. In April 2021, the New Jersey state court action was dismissed with prejudice and in June 2021, the relator appealed the state court's decision to the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court. In January 2022, the relator filed its appellate brief and we filed our response in March 2022.

In December 2017, we, along with Sanofi and 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. In April 2021, the plaintiffs in In re. Insulin Pricing Litigation amended their complaint to allege additional state law claims for civil conspiracy and violations of state RICO statutes. The court has allowed the Arizona RICO statute and certain state civil conspiracy law claims to proceed. Also, 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., filed in the same court in November 2020, for alleged violations of the federal RICO Act as well as the New Jersey RICO Act and antitrust 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 July 2021, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed the three antitrust claims alleged by plaintiffs in the consolidated litigation and denied dismissal of the RICO claims.

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. In March 2021, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed with prejudice the Minnesota Attorney General's federal RICO claims and false advertising claims under state law; the consumer fraud and other related state law claims remain ongoing. 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, the state deceptive trade practices-consumer protection act, and common law claims such as fraud, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy. Harris County also alleged violations of federal and state antitrust law, but voluntarily dismissed them. This lawsuit relates to our insulin products as well as Trulicity. In March 2022, the Court entered final judgment for all defendants and dismissed all remaining claims with prejudice.

In June 2021, the City of Miami, Florida initiated litigation against us, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, ESI, CVS/Caremark/Aetna, and Optum, asserting state law antitrust, common law fraud, money had and received, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy claims. After removing the case to federal court, we, along with the other defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. In January 2022, the court granted the motion in part but has allowed the antitrust and conspiracy claims to proceed against us, Sanofi and Novo Nordisk. We, along with Sanofi and Novo Nordisk, have moved the court to reconsider its denial of our motion to dismiss the antitrust and conspiracy claims.

We received subpoenas 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, which was subsequently withdrawn in June 2021. In January 2022, the Michigan Attorney General filed against us in state court a petition seeking authorization to investigate Lilly for potential violations of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA), and a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that the MCPA applies to the conduct it seeks to investigate and allows it to conduct the investigation. The state court granted the State's petition to investigate, authorizing the State to issue civil investigative subpoenas. The State's complaint for declaratory judgment remains pending. In March 2022, we filed a motion for summary disposition in the State's declaratory judgment action seeking judgment in our favor. Hearing on our motion for summary disposition is scheduled for September 2022. In April 2022, the parties entered into a stipulation providing that the State will not issue any civil investigative subpoena to us under the MCPA until the declaratory judgment action is resolved.

We received a request in January 2019 from the House of Representatives' Committee on Oversight and Reform seeking commercial information and business records related to the pricing of insulin products, among other issues. We also received requests from the Senate Finance Committee and the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and separate requests from the House Committee on Energy and Commerce majority and minority members. Those requests sought pricing and other commercial information regarding Lilly's insulin products. In January 2021, the Senate Finance Committee released a report summarizing the findings of its investigation. In December 2021 the House of Representatives' Committee on Oversight and Reform majority and minority staffs released separate reports with findings from their investigations into drug pricing, including of insulin products.

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. Both parties moved for summary judgment and hearing on the motions took place in August 2021. In October 2021, the Court issued a summary judgment decision finding in favor of RCT on certain issues, including with respect to a disputed royalty. Both parties filed motions for reconsideration. This matter is ongoing. Potential damages payable under the litigation, if finally awarded after an appeal, could be material but are not currently reasonably estimable. A trial date has not been set.