Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Contingencies	Jun. 30, 2023
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 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. Following a trial, in November 2022, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Teva. The parties have filed post-trial motions on which the court will rule and then enter final judgment in the case. We intend to appeal the jury verdict if necessary. Pursuant to agreement by the parties, the award, if any, will not become due until completion of the appeal process. This matter is ongoing. 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 for the District 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 are invalid or would not be infringed. We are not a party to this litigation. This matter is ongoing. 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 in 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 to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). In April 2023, the SCC denied Apotex's appeal petition and this matter is now closed. Product Liability Litigation Actos® Litigation We are named along with Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd. and Takeda affiliates (collectively, Takeda) in a third party payor class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Painters et al. v. Takeda et al.). Plaintiffs claim that they and similarly situated class members are entitled to recover money paid for or to reimburse Actos prescriptions because of alleged concealment of bladder cancer risk. Our agreement with Takeda calls for Takeda to defend and indemnify us against our losses and expenses with respect to U.S. litigation arising out of the manufacture, use, or sale of Actos and other related expenses in accordance with the terms of the agreement. In June 2023, we and Takeda filed a petition for permission to appeal the class certification order. This matter is ongoing. Actos is a registered trademark of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited. 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 HHS's December 30, 2020 advisory opinion stating that drug manufacturers are required to deliver discounts under the 340B program to all contract pharmacies and HHS's Administrative Dispute Resolution regulations. We seek a declaratory judgment that the defendants violated the Administrative Procedure 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 sent us an enforcement letter notifying us that it determined that our policy was contrary to the 340B statute. In response, in May 2021, we amended our complaint to bring claims related to HRSA's determination and 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. In October 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held oral argument. 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 (AstraZeneca), 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, Novo Nordisk, and AstraZeneca, 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 reais, 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 1.15 billion Brazilian reais (approximately $238 million as of June 30, 2023). 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. A mediation hearing is scheduled for August 2023. 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 reais, which ruling in June 2021 was limited in scope and the security was reduced to 100 million Brazilian reais (approximately $21 million as of June 30, 2023). 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 various pending lawsuits filed in the Labor Court by individual former employees making related 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 execute an alleged judgment. 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. The AP denied the Municipality's motion for revision. This matter is ongoing. Average Manufacturer Price Litigation 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. Lilly filed its notice of appeal to the Seventh Circuit in June 2023, and briefing is currently suspended. 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 We, along with Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, and in some matters certain pharmacy benefit managers, have been named in lawsuits related to insulin pricing that assert various theories, including consumer protection, fraud, false advertising, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, federal and state RICO statutes, deceptive trade practices, antitrust, and unfair competition claims. These lawsuits include In re. Insulin Pricing Litigation, a putative consumer class action (U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, 2017); MSP Recovery Claims, Series, LLC et al. v. Sanofi Aventis U.S. LLC et al. (U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, 2018); FWK Holdings, LLC v. Novo Nordisk Inc., et al., a putative class action brought by direct purchasers of insulin (U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, 2020), Sistema Integrado De Salud Del Oeste, LLC et al. v. Eli Lilly and Company et al. (U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, 2023) and suits brought by the State of Minnesota (U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, 2018), State of Kentucky (Franklin County Circuit Court, 2019), State of Mississippi (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, 2021), State of Arkansas (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, 2022), County of Albany, New York (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, 2022), State of Montana (U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, 2022), State of Kansas (U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, 2022), State of Illinois (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 2022), State of California (Los Angeles County Superior Court, 2023), Jackson County, Missouri in a putative class action on behalf of Missouri counties and municipalities (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri), the Government of Puerto Rico (Court of First Instance Superior Court, San Juan, 2023), Lake County, Illinois (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 2023), County of Monmouth, New Jersey (U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, 2023), City of Cleveland, Ohio (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, 2023), and Bossier Parish, Louisiana (U.S. District Court for Middle District of Louisiana, 2023). These lawsuits are at various stages in the litigation process. A settlement has been reached in the In re Insulin Pricing Litigation consumer class action and a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement is pending. In August 2023, the Arkansas, Illinois, Kansas, Mississippi, and Montana cases were transferred to the District of New Jersey for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings by the Judicial Panel for Multi-District Litigation. 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, Louisiana, Texas and Ohio Attorney General Offices, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, as well as information requests from the Mississippi, Washington D.C., California, Florida, Hawaii, and Nevada Attorney General Offices. In May 2023, Lilly entered into a non-monetary settlement agreement with the New York Attorney General's office that resolved all matters related to New York's insulin pricing subpoena. 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 of Michigan 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. In June 2023, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in our favor. In August 2023, the Michigan Attorney General filed an application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court. 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 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 temporary stay on the proceedings was lifted in April 2023, but 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