Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 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, access, sales and marketing practices, environmental, commercial, contractual rights, licensing obligations, health and safety matters, consumer fraud, employment matters, product liability, insurance coverage, and regulatory compliance, 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 are defending against the legal proceedings in which we are named as defendants 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 and 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 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. In September 2023, the court granted our motion to overrule the jury verdict and found all asserted claims of the three patents invalid. Teva has appealed the decision. 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. In September 2023, the PTAB issued decisions finding all claims of both patents invalid. Teva has agreed not to appeal the decisions and has dismissed the corresponding district court litigation. This matter is closed. 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 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. 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 August 2023, the Ninth Circuit granted our and Takeda's petition for permission to appeal the class certification order, and briefing was submitted in January 2024. This matter is ongoing. Mounjaro and Trulicity Product Liability Litigation We, along with Novo Nordisk A/S (Novo) and other related Novo entities, are named in numerous lawsuits by plaintiffs alleging injuries following purported use of incretin products. Certain complaints name us and allege injuries that plaintiffs claim are associated with the use of Mounjaro and/or Trulicity. These lawsuits were filed beginning in August 2023 and are pending in various federal courts. In February 2024, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation established Multi-District Litigation for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This matter is ongoing. 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. 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 and the defendants' motion to dismiss. 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. We, along with other pharmaceutical manufacturers, have been named as a defendant in petitions filed in 2021 and 2023 and currently pending before the HHS Administrative Dispute Resolution Panel. Petitioners seek declaratory, injunctive, and/or monetary relief related to the 340B program. 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. In January 2024, the court denied the motion for leave to amend and dismissed the case. 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, Eli Lilly do Brasil Limitada (Lilly Brasil) is named in a Public Civil Action brought by the Labor Public Attorney (LPA) alleging harm to employees and former employees caused by alleged exposure to soil and groundwater contaminants at a former manufacturing facility in Cosmopolis, operated by the company between 1977 and 2003. In May 2014, the trial Court 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 generally affirmed the trial Court's ruling, which included a liquidated award of 300 million Brazilian reais, which, when adjusted for inflation, is approximately 1.26 billion Brazilian reais (approximately $260 million as of December 31, 2023). In August 2019, Lilly Brasil appealed to the superior labor court (TST) and in June 2021, the majority of the elements of Lilly Brasil's appeal were admitted; elements not proceeding are subject to an interlocutory appeal to the TST that was filed in June 2021. Mediation hearings are ongoing. In July 2019, at the LPA's request, the trial Court ordered a freeze of Lilly Brasil’s immovable property in the amount of 500 million Brazilian reais, which was reduced on Lilly Brasil's appeal and, when adjusted for inflation, is approximately 131 million Brazilian reais (approximately $27 million as of December 31, 2023). The parties appealed to the TST, which appeal is under review. The trial Court is currently assessing the status of Lilly Brasil’s compliance with the obligations as to the land and an inspection in the industrial plant occurred in October 2023. These matters are ongoing. Individual Former Employee Litigation Lilly Brasil is also named in various pending lawsuits filed in the trial 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 and trial has been scheduled for August 2024. 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 appealed to the Seventh Circuit and the appeal is pending. 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 numerous lawsuits, including putative class actions, by states and state attorneys general, counties, municipalities, third-party payers, consumers, and other parties related to insulin pricing and rebates paid by manufacturers to pharmacy benefit managers. These lawsuits assert various theories, including consumer protection and deceptive trade practice, fraud, false advertising, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, federal and state RICO statutes, antitrust, and unfair competition claims. These lawsuits have been brought in various state and federal courts since 2017 and are at various stages in the litigation process. Starting in August 2023 after a ruling by the Judicial Panel for Multi-District Litigation, several of these cases were transferred to or filed in the District of New Jersey for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings. In May 2023, we reached a settlement in the In re Insulin Pricing Litigation consumer class action. A motion for preliminary approval of our settlement is pending. In January 2024, the Multi-District Litigation court denied the consumer class plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and ordered the parties to submit briefs addressing the impact of that denial on the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. In February 2024, we entered into a non-monetary settlement with the Minnesota Attorney General's Office that resolved all matters related to Minnesota's insulin pricing lawsuit. Investigations, Subpoenas, and Inquiries We have been subject to various investigations and received subpoenas, civil investigative demand requests, information requests, interrogatories, and other inquiries from various governmental entities related to pricing issues, including the pricing and sale of insulins and other products and calculations of AMP and best price. These include subpoenas from the Vermont Attorney General Office, 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 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, which is being set for argument. 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. Trial is scheduled for August 2024. 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, access, sales and marketing practices, environmental, commercial, contractual rights, licensing obligations, health and safety matters, consumer fraud, employment matters, product liability, insurance coverage, and regulatory compliance, 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 are defending against the legal proceedings in which we are named as defendants 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 and 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.

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.

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. In September 2023, the PTAB issued decisions finding all claims of both patents invalid. Teva has agreed not to appeal the decisions and has dismissed the corresponding district court litigation. This matter is closed.

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. 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 August 2023, the Ninth Circuit granted our and Takeda's petition for permission to appeal the class certification order, and briefing was submitted in January 2024. This matter is ongoing.

We, along with Novo Nordisk A/S (Novo) and other related Novo entities, are named in numerous lawsuits by plaintiffs alleging injuries following purported use of incretin products. Certain complaints name us and allege injuries that plaintiffs claim are associated with the use of Mounjaro and/or Trulicity. These lawsuits were filed beginning in August 2023 and are pending in various federal courts. In February 2024, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation established Multi-District Litigation for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This matter is ongoing.

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. 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 and the defendants' motion to dismiss. 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.

We, along with other pharmaceutical manufacturers, have been named as a defendant in petitions filed in 2021 and 2023 and currently pending before the HHS Administrative Dispute Resolution Panel. Petitioners seek declaratory, injunctive, and/or monetary relief related to the 340B program. 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. In January 2024, the court denied the motion for leave to amend and dismissed the case.

First initiated in 2008, Eli Lilly do Brasil Limitada (Lilly Brasil) is named in a Public Civil Action brought by the Labor Public Attorney (LPA) alleging harm to employees and former employees caused by alleged exposure to soil and groundwater contaminants at a former manufacturing facility in Cosmopolis, operated by the company between 1977 and 2003. In May 2014, the trial Court 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 generally affirmed the trial Court's ruling, which included a liquidated award of 300 million Brazilian reais, which, when adjusted for inflation, is approximately 1.26 billion Brazilian reais (approximately $260 million as of December 31, 2023). In August 2019, Lilly Brasil appealed to the superior labor court (TST) and in June 2021, the majority of the elements of Lilly Brasil's appeal were admitted; elements not proceeding are subject to an interlocutory appeal to the TST that was filed in June 2021. Mediation hearings are ongoing.

In July 2019, at the LPA's request, the trial Court ordered a freeze of Lilly Brasil’s immovable property in the amount of 500 million Brazilian reais, which was reduced on Lilly Brasil's appeal and, when adjusted for inflation, is approximately 131 million Brazilian reais (approximately $27 million as of December 31, 2023). The parties appealed to the TST, which appeal is under review. The trial Court is currently assessing the status of Lilly Brasil’s compliance with the obligations as to the land and an inspection in the industrial plant occurred in October 2023. 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 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 and trial has been scheduled for August 2024.

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 appealed to the Seventh Circuit and the appeal is pending. 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.

We, along with Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, and, in some matters, certain pharmacy benefit managers, have been named in numerous lawsuits, including putative class actions, by states and state attorneys general, counties, municipalities, third-party payers, consumers, and other parties related to insulin pricing and rebates paid by manufacturers to pharmacy benefit managers. These lawsuits assert various theories, including consumer protection and deceptive trade practice, fraud, false advertising, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, federal and state RICO statutes, antitrust, and unfair competition claims. These lawsuits have been brought in various state and federal courts since 2017 and are at various stages in the litigation process. Starting in August 2023 after a ruling by the Judicial Panel for Multi-District Litigation, several of these cases were transferred to or filed in the District of New Jersey for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings. In May 2023, we reached a settlement in the In re Insulin Pricing Litigation consumer class action. A motion for preliminary approval of our settlement is pending. In January 2024, the Multi-District Litigation court denied the consumer class plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and ordered the parties to submit briefs addressing the impact of that denial on the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. In February 2024, we entered into a non-monetary settlement with the Minnesota Attorney General's Office that resolved all matters related to Minnesota's insulin pricing lawsuit.

We have been subject to various investigations and received subpoenas, civil investigative demand requests, information requests, interrogatories, and other inquiries from various governmental entities related to pricing issues, including the pricing and sale of insulins and other products and calculations of AMP and best price. These include subpoenas from the Vermont Attorney General Office, 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 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, which is being set for argument.

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. Trial is scheduled for August 2024. 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.