Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 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 European Patent Litigation In Europe, Alimta (pemetrexed) was protected by a patent through June 2021. A number of legal proceedings that were initiated prior to patent expiration are ongoing. Emgality Patent Litigation We are a named 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 three different Teva patents would be infringed by our launch and continued sales of Emgality for the prevention of migraine in adults. Trial began 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. We challenged these two patents by filing requests for Inter Partes Review with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and in October 2022, the PTAB granted our requests.The corresponding district court litigation is stayed while this PTAB proceeding is ongoing. Jardiance Patent Litigation In November 2018, Boehringer Ingelheim, 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 a 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. In April 2021, Novartis petitioned the Court of Rome Intellectual Property Division for a preliminary injunction (PI) against us related to our commercialization of Taltz in Italy. In May 2021, We commenced patent revocation proceedings against Novartis before the Court of Milan’s IP Division where we also sought a declaration of non-infringement. Novartis counter-claimed for patent infringement and sought a permanent injunction. A hearing on the PI request before the Court of Rome Intellectual Property Division took place in May 2022 and in July 2022, the court rejected Novartis' request. In November 2021, Novartis petitioned the Swiss Federal Patent Court for a PI and a permanent injunction in main infringement proceedings against us related to our commercialization of Taltz in Switzerland. We petitioned the court to revoke the patent and for a declaration of non-infringement. In April 2022, Novartis withdrew its PI request. In January 2022, we commenced an action in the Hague District Court asking for a judgment that a Novartis Dutch patent is not infringed by our commercialization of Taltz in the Netherlands and is invalid. In October 2022, Novartis filed a counterclaim for infringement and sought a permanent injunction. In October 2022, we entered into a settlement and mutual release agreement with Novartis, which resolves the above-described disputes. Without any admission of liability or wrongdoing, we and Novartis have agreed to mutual releases for past claims and mutual covenants not to sue the other in relation to Taltz and the patents Novartis purchased from Genentech. 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, Trademark 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. In August 2022, the Court dismissed the appeal and in October 2022, Apotex appealed the decision. This matter is ongoing. Product Liability Litigation Byetta® Product Liability We have been named as a defendant in over 500 Byetta product liability lawsuits in the U.S. that were first initiated in March 2009 and involved over 800 plaintiffs. These lawsuits have been filed in various state and federal jurisdictions, including California state court (coordinated in Los Angeles County Superior Court), and various federal courts, the majority of which are coordinated in a multi-district litigation (MDL) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The majority of these suits contain allegations that Byetta caused or contributed to the plaintiffs' cancer (primarily pancreatic cancer or thyroid cancer). The federal MDL and coordinated California state trial courts granted summary judgment in our favor on claims pertaining to pancreatic cancer, and the plaintiffs have dismissed Lilly from their appeal of the MDL ruling (the parties still await the order of judgment in the Los Angeles County Superior Court). Most of the MDL and state court lawsuits have been dismissed as of November 2022. 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 filed notices of appeal related to the court's summary judgment order. Oral argument took place in October 2022 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, which was granted in September 2022. In October 2022, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint. 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 U.S. 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 remedial and compensatory actions including health coverage for a class of individuals and certain of their children. In July 2018, the appeals court (TRT) generally affirmed our appeal of the Labor Court's ruling, which included a liquidated award of 300 million Brazilian real, which, 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 $185 million as of September 30, 2022). 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, which were allowed to proceed in June 2021; 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 and September 2020, the LPA filed applications in the Labor Court for enforcement of certain remedies granted by the TRT in its July 2018 decision, 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. 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, which ruling was subsequently limited in scope and the security was reduced to 100 million Brazilian real. ABL and LPA appealed the June 2021 Labor Court ruling to the TST, which appeal is under review. The Labor Court is currently assessing the status of Lilly Brasil’s and ABL’s compliance with such portion of the July 2018 TRT decision and an inspection in the industrial plant is expected. These matters are ongoing. Individual Former Employee Litigation Lilly Brasil is also named in over 20 pending lawsuits filed in the Labor Court by individual former employees making similar claims. These individual lawsuits are at various stages in the litigation process. 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. The trial began in May 2022; however, the Municipality filed a new motion requesting the CFI to award damages. The request was denied by the CFI in our favor and the Municipality filed for revision at the AP, which we opposed, staying the case. 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. Following a trial in August 2022, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The case is proceeding with post-trial motions after which the court will enter final judgment in the case. This matter is ongoing. Health Choice Alliance We are named as a defendant in two 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, for certain patient support programs related to our products Humalog, Humulin, and Forteo. The Texas state court action has been stayed. The New Jersey state court action was dismissed with prejudice pending an ongoing appeal before the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court. This matter is ongoing. Pricing Litigation In December 2017 and February 2018, we, along with Sanofi and Novo Nordisk, were named as defendants in a consolidated purported class action lawsuit, In re. Insulin Pricing Litigation and in MSP Recovery Claims, Series, LLC et al. v. Sanofi Aventis U.S. LLC et al., both filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The cases relate to insulin pricing and seek damages or other relief under various theories, including state consumer protection laws, common law fraud, unjust enrichment, and the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (federal RICO Act). In both cases, 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 allowed the Arizona RICO statute and certain state civil conspiracy law claims to proceed. Additionally in 2020, we, along with Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, CVS, Express Scripts, and Optum, have been sued in a putative class action, FWK Holdings, LLC v. Novo Nordisk Inc., et al., filed in the same court, for alleged violations of the federal RICO Act as well as the New Jersey RICO Act and antitrust law. The 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., which were both initiated in March 2020, with the plaintiffs seeking damages 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 federal RICO Act 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, seeking damages for 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 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, which was denied. This matter is ongoing. In May 2022, the state of Arkansas filed suit against us Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, ESI, CVS/Caremark/Aetna, and Optum, asserting state law consumer protection, civil conspiracy, and unjust enrichment claims. The case has been removed to federal court and is ongoing. In September 2022, the County of Albany, New York filed a suit against us, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Evernorth/ESI, CVS/Caremark and United/Optum asserting violations of federal RICO statute and state law claims for deceptive trade practices, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy. This matter is ongoing. In September 2022, the State of Montana filed a suit against us, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Evernorth/ESI, Medco Health Solutions, CVS/Caremark and Optum asserting violations of the Montana Unfair Practices and Consumer Protection Act, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy. This matter is ongoing. Investigations, Subpoenas, and Inquiries In connection with the pricing and sale of our insulin and other products, we have been subject to various investigations and received subpoenas, civil investigative demand requests, information requests, interrogatories, and other inquiries from various governmental entities. These include subpoenas from the New York and Vermont Attorney General Offices, civil investigative demands from the Washington, New Mexico, Colorado, Illinois, Ohio Attorney General Offices, the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, as well as information requests from the Mississippi, Washington D.C., California, Florida, Hawaii, and Nevada Attorney General Offices. In January 2022, the Michigan Attorney General filed a petition in Michigan state court seeking authorization to investigate Lilly for potential violations of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA), and a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that the Attorney General has authority to investigate Lilly's sale of insulin under the MCPA. The court authorized the proposed investigation and the issuance of civil investigative subpoenas. 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. In July 2022, the court dismissed the case in its entirety. The Michigan Attorney General filed a notice of appeal and an application to obtain review by the Michigan Supreme Court, which remain pending. 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 similar 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. 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 the 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. 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, which were denied. We filed supplemental summary judgment motions. A trial date has not been set. Potential damages payable under the litigation, if finally awarded after an appeal, could be material but are not currently reasonably estimable. This matter is ongoing.

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.

We are a named 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 three different Teva patents would be infringed by our launch and continued sales of Emgality for the prevention of migraine in adults. Trial began 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. We challenged these two patents by filing requests for Inter Partes Review with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and in October 2022, the PTAB granted our requests.The corresponding district court litigation is stayed while this PTAB proceeding is ongoing.

In November 2018, Boehringer Ingelheim, 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, Novartis petitioned the Court of Rome Intellectual Property Division for a preliminary injunction (PI) against us related to our commercialization of Taltz in Italy. In May 2021, We commenced patent revocation proceedings against Novartis before the Court of Milan’s IP Division where we also sought a declaration of non-infringement. Novartis counter-claimed for patent infringement and sought a permanent injunction. A hearing on the PI request before the Court of Rome Intellectual Property Division took place in May 2022 and in July 2022, the court rejected Novartis' request.

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, Trademark 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. In August 2022, the Court dismissed the appeal and in October 2022, Apotex appealed the decision. This matter is ongoing.

We have been named as a defendant in over 500 Byetta product liability lawsuits in the U.S. that were first initiated in March 2009 and involved over 800 plaintiffs. These lawsuits have been filed in various state and federal jurisdictions, including California state court (coordinated in Los Angeles County Superior Court), and various federal courts, the majority of which are coordinated in a multi-district litigation (MDL) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The majority of these suits contain allegations that Byetta caused or contributed to the plaintiffs' cancer (primarily pancreatic cancer or thyroid cancer). The federal MDL and coordinated California state trial courts granted summary judgment in our favor on claims pertaining to pancreatic cancer, and the plaintiffs have dismissed Lilly from their appeal of the MDL ruling (the parties still await the order of judgment in the Los Angeles County Superior Court). Most of the MDL and state court lawsuits have been dismissed as of November 2022.

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 filed notices of appeal related to the court's summary judgment order. Oral argument took place in October 2022 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, which was granted in September 2022. In October 2022, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint. 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 remedial and compensatory actions including health coverage for a class of individuals and certain of their children. In July 2018, the appeals court (TRT) generally affirmed our appeal of the Labor Court's ruling, which included a liquidated award of 300 million Brazilian real, which, 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 $185 million as of September 30, 2022). 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, which were allowed to proceed in June 2021; 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 and September 2020, the LPA filed applications in the Labor Court for enforcement of certain remedies granted by the TRT in its July 2018 decision, 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. 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, which ruling was subsequently limited in scope and the security was reduced to 100 million Brazilian real. ABL and LPA appealed the June 2021 Labor Court ruling to the TST, which appeal is under review. The Labor Court is currently assessing the status of Lilly Brasil’s and ABL’s compliance with such portion of the July 2018 TRT decision and an inspection in the industrial plant is expected. 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. The trial began in May 2022; however, the Municipality filed a new motion requesting the CFI to award damages. The request was denied by the CFI in our favor and the Municipality filed for revision at the AP, which we opposed, staying the case. This matter is ongoing.

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. Following a trial in August 2022, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The case is proceeding with post-trial motions after which the court will enter final judgment in the case. This matter is ongoing.

We are named as a defendant in two 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, for certain patient support programs related to our products Humalog, Humulin, and Forteo. The Texas state court action has been stayed. The New Jersey state court action was dismissed with prejudice pending an ongoing appeal before the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court. This matter is ongoing.

In December 2017 and February 2018, we, along with Sanofi and Novo Nordisk, were named as defendants in a consolidated purported class action lawsuit, In re. Insulin Pricing Litigation and in MSP Recovery Claims, Series, LLC et al. v. Sanofi Aventis U.S. LLC et al., both filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The cases relate to insulin pricing and seek damages or other relief under various theories, including state consumer protection laws, common law fraud, unjust enrichment, and the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (federal RICO Act). In both cases, 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 allowed the Arizona RICO statute and certain state civil conspiracy law claims to proceed. Additionally in 2020, we, along with Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, CVS, Express Scripts, and Optum, have been sued in a putative class action, FWK Holdings, LLC v. Novo Nordisk Inc., et al., filed in the same court, for alleged violations of the federal RICO Act as well as the New Jersey RICO Act and antitrust law. The 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., which were both initiated in March 2020, with the plaintiffs seeking damages 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 federal RICO Act 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, seeking damages for 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 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, which was denied. This matter is ongoing.

In connection with the pricing and sale of our insulin and other products, we have been subject to various investigations and received subpoenas, civil investigative demand requests, information requests, interrogatories, and other inquiries from various governmental entities. These include subpoenas from the New York and Vermont Attorney General Offices, civil investigative demands from the Washington, New Mexico, Colorado, Illinois, Ohio Attorney General Offices, the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, as well as information requests from the Mississippi, Washington D.C., California, Florida, Hawaii, and Nevada Attorney General Offices. In January 2022, the Michigan Attorney General filed a petition in Michigan state court seeking authorization to investigate Lilly for potential violations of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA), and a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that the Attorney General has authority to investigate Lilly's sale of insulin under the MCPA. The court authorized the proposed investigation and the issuance of civil investigative subpoenas. 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. In July 2022, the court dismissed the case in its entirety. The Michigan Attorney General filed a notice of appeal and an application to obtain review by the Michigan Supreme Court, which remain pending.

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 similar 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. 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. 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, which were denied. We filed supplemental summary judgment motions. A trial date has not been set. Potential damages payable under the litigation, if finally awarded after an appeal, could be material but are not currently reasonably estimable. This matter is ongoing.