Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2011
Contingencies [Abstract]
Contingencies [Text Block]	Note 15: Contingencies We are a party to various legal actions and government investigations. The most significant of these are described below. It is not possible to determine the outcome of these matters, and we cannot reasonably estimate the maximum potential exposure or the range of possible loss in excess of amounts accrued for any of these matters; however, we believe that, except as specifically noted below with respect to the Alimta Hatch-Waxman Act patent challenges, 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. Patent Litigation We are engaged in the following U.S. patent litigation matters brought pursuant to procedures set out in the Hatch-Waxman Act (the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984): • Alimta: Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc. (Teva); APP Pharmaceuticals, LLC (APP); and Barr Laboratories, Inc. (Barr) each submitted ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of Alimta prior to the expiration of the relevant U.S. patents and data-based pediatric exclusivity period (compound patent licensed from the Trustees of Princeton University and expiring in 2017, concomitant nutritional supplement use patent expiring in 2022) and alleging the patents are invalid. We, along with Princeton, filed lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Teva, APP, and Barr seeking rulings that the compound patent is valid and infringed. In July 2011, the district court entered judgment in our favor, upholding that patent's validity. The generic manufacturers have appealed this decision. In October 2010, we filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against Teva, APP, Pliva Hrvatska D.O.O., and Barr seeking rulings that our concomitant nutritional supplement use patent is valid and infringed. No trial date has yet been set. In January 2012, we filed a similar lawsuit against Accord Healthcare Inc. We believe the Hatch-Waxman challenges to Alimta are without merit and expect to prevail in this litigation. However, it is not possible to determine the outcome of this litigation, and accordingly, we can provide no assurance that we will prevail. An unfavorable outcome could have a material adverse impact on our future consolidated results of operations, liquidity, and financial position. We expect a loss of exclusivity for Alimta would result in a rapid and severe decline in future revenues in the relevant market. • Strattera: Actavis Elizabeth LLC (Actavis), Apotex Inc. (Apotex), Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. (Aurobindo), Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Mylan), Sandoz Inc. (Sandoz), Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (Sun Ltd.), and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Teva USA) each submitted an ANDA seeking permission to market generic versions of Strattera prior to the expiration of our relevant U.S. patent and data-based pediatric exclusivity period (expiring in 2017), and alleging that this patent is invalid. In 2007, we brought a lawsuit against Actavis, Apotex, Aurobindo, Mylan, Sandoz, Sun Ltd., and Teva USA in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In August 2010, the court ruled that our patent was invalid; however, in July 2011, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned that decision, upholding the patent. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals denied the generic manufacturers' petition for rehearing en banc in October 2011, and the deadline for any further appeal has passed. Zydus Pharmaceuticals (Zydus) filed an action in the New Jersey district court in October 2010 seeking a declaratory judgment that it has the right to launch a generic atomoxetine product, based on the district court ruling. We believe that Zydus is subject to the injunction issued by the court of appeals in the Actavis case. Zyprexa Litigation We are a defendant in approximately 40 Zyprexa product liability lawsuits in the U.S. covering approximately 120 plaintiffs. The lawsuits allege a variety of injuries from the use of Zyprexa, with the majority alleging that the product caused or contributed to diabetes or high blood-glucose levels. The claims seek substantial compensatory and punitive damages and typically accuse us of inadequately testing for and warning about side effects of Zyprexa. Many of the claims also allege that we improperly promoted the drug. Approximately 25 of the lawsuits, covering about 30 plaintiffs, are part of a Multi-District Litigation (MDL) proceeding before The Honorable Jack Weinstein in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York (EDNY) (MDL No. 1596). In October 2011, a jury trial in a California state court was decided in our favor. We are prepared to continue our vigorous defense of Zyprexa in all these lawsuits and claims. We were served with lawsuits filed by 13 states alleging that Zyprexa caused or contributed to diabetes or high blood-glucose levels, and that we improperly promoted the drug. We settled the Zyprexa-related claims of all of these states, incurring pretax charges of $230.0 million in 2009 and $15.0 million in 2008. In 2005 and 2006, four lawsuits were filed in the EDNY purporting to be nationwide class actions on behalf of all consumers and third-party payors, excluding governmental entities, which made or will make payments for their members or insured patients being prescribed Zyprexa. These actions were consolidated into a single lawsuit, brought under certain state consumer-protection statutes, the federal civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and common law theories, seeking a refund of the cost of Zyprexa, treble damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. As with the product liability suits, these lawsuits allege that we inadequately tested for and warned about side effects of Zyprexa and improperly promoted the drug. In September 2008, Judge Weinstein certified a class consisting of third-party payors, excluding governmental entities and individual consumers, and denied our motion for summary judgment. In September 2010, both decisions were reversed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which found that the case cannot proceed as a class action and entered a judgment in our favor on plaintiffs' overpricing claim. The U.S. Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' petition for certiorari. All remaining claims at issue in these cases have now been resolved. Byetta Litigation We have been named as a defendant in approximately 120 lawsuits involving approximately 480 plaintiffs, primarily seeking to recover damages for pancreatitis experienced by patients prescribed Byetta. We are aware of approximately 530 additional claimants who have not yet filed suit. Approximately 100 of these lawsuits are filed in California and coordinated in a Los Angeles Superior Court. Other Product Liability Litigation We have been named as a defendant in numerous other product liability lawsuits involving primarily diethylstilbestrol. These claims are covered by insurance, subject to deductibles and coverage limits. Product Liability Insurance Because of the nature of pharmaceutical products, it is possible that we could become subject to large numbers of product liability and related claims for other products in the future. In the past several years, we have been unable to obtain product liability insurance due to a very restrictive insurance market. Therefore, for substantially all of our currently marketed products, we have been and expect that we will continue to be completely self-insured for future product liability losses. In addition, there is no assurance that we will be able to fully collect from our insurance carriers in the future.

Note 15: Contingencies

We are a party to various legal actions and government investigations. The most significant of these are described below. It is not possible to determine the outcome of these matters, and we cannot reasonably estimate the maximum potential exposure or the range of possible loss in excess of amounts accrued for any of these matters; however, we believe that, except as specifically noted below with respect to the Alimta Hatch-Waxman Act patent challenges, 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.

Patent Litigation

We are engaged in the following U.S. patent litigation matters brought pursuant to procedures set out in the Hatch-Waxman Act (the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984):

• Alimta: Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc. (Teva); APP Pharmaceuticals, LLC (APP); and Barr Laboratories, Inc. (Barr) each submitted ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of Alimta prior to the expiration of the relevant U.S. patents and data-based pediatric exclusivity period (compound patent licensed from the Trustees of Princeton University and expiring in 2017, concomitant nutritional supplement use patent expiring in 2022) and alleging the patents are invalid. We, along with Princeton, filed lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Teva, APP, and Barr seeking rulings that the compound patent is valid and infringed. In July 2011, the district court entered judgment in our favor, upholding that patent's validity. The generic manufacturers have appealed this decision. In October 2010, we filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against Teva, APP, Pliva Hrvatska D.O.O., and Barr seeking rulings that our concomitant nutritional supplement use patent is valid and infringed. No trial date has yet been set. In January 2012, we filed a similar lawsuit against Accord Healthcare Inc.

We believe the Hatch-Waxman challenges to Alimta are without merit and expect to prevail in this litigation. However, it is not possible to determine the outcome of this litigation, and accordingly, we can provide no assurance that we will prevail. An unfavorable outcome could have a material adverse impact on our future consolidated results of operations, liquidity, and financial position. We expect a loss of exclusivity for Alimta would result in a rapid and severe decline in future revenues in the relevant market.

• Strattera: Actavis Elizabeth LLC (Actavis), Apotex Inc. (Apotex), Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. (Aurobindo), Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Mylan), Sandoz Inc. (Sandoz), Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (Sun Ltd.), and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Teva USA) each submitted an ANDA seeking permission to market generic versions of Strattera prior to the expiration of our relevant U.S. patent and data-based pediatric exclusivity period (expiring in 2017), and alleging that this patent is invalid. In 2007, we brought a lawsuit against Actavis, Apotex, Aurobindo, Mylan, Sandoz, Sun Ltd., and Teva USA in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In August 2010, the court ruled that our patent was invalid; however, in July 2011, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned that decision, upholding the patent. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals denied the generic manufacturers' petition for rehearing en banc in October 2011, and the deadline for any further appeal has passed. Zydus Pharmaceuticals (Zydus) filed an action in the New Jersey district court in October 2010 seeking a declaratory judgment that it has the right to launch a generic atomoxetine product, based on the district court ruling. We believe that Zydus is subject to the injunction issued by the court of appeals in the Actavis case.

Zyprexa Litigation

We are a defendant in approximately 40 Zyprexa product liability lawsuits in the U.S. covering approximately 120 plaintiffs. The lawsuits allege a variety of injuries from the use of Zyprexa, with the majority alleging that the product caused or contributed to diabetes or high blood-glucose levels. The claims seek substantial compensatory and punitive damages and typically accuse us of inadequately testing for and warning about side effects of Zyprexa. Many of the claims also allege that we improperly promoted the drug. Approximately 25 of the lawsuits, covering about 30 plaintiffs, are part of a Multi-District Litigation (MDL) proceeding before The Honorable Jack Weinstein in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York (EDNY) (MDL No. 1596). In October 2011, a jury trial in a California state court was decided in our favor. We are prepared to continue our vigorous defense of Zyprexa in all these lawsuits and claims.

We were served with lawsuits filed by 13 states alleging that Zyprexa caused or contributed to diabetes or high blood-glucose levels, and that we improperly promoted the drug. We settled the Zyprexa-related claims of all of these states, incurring pretax charges of $230.0 million in 2009 and $15.0 million in 2008.

In 2005 and 2006, four lawsuits were filed in the EDNY purporting to be nationwide class actions on behalf of all consumers and third-party payors, excluding governmental entities, which made or will make payments for their members or insured patients being prescribed Zyprexa. These actions were consolidated into a single lawsuit, brought under certain state consumer-protection statutes, the federal civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and common law theories, seeking a refund of the cost of Zyprexa, treble damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. As with the product liability suits, these lawsuits allege that we inadequately tested for and warned about side effects of Zyprexa and improperly promoted the drug. In September 2008, Judge Weinstein certified a class consisting of third-party payors, excluding governmental entities and individual consumers, and denied our motion for summary judgment. In September 2010, both decisions were reversed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which found that the case cannot proceed as a class action and entered a judgment in our favor on plaintiffs' overpricing claim. The U.S. Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' petition for certiorari. All remaining claims at issue in these cases have now been resolved.

Byetta Litigation

We have been named as a defendant in approximately 120 lawsuits involving approximately 480 plaintiffs, primarily seeking to recover damages for pancreatitis experienced by patients prescribed Byetta. We are aware of approximately 530 additional claimants who have not yet filed suit. Approximately 100 of these lawsuits are filed in California and coordinated in a Los Angeles Superior Court.

Other Product Liability Litigation

We have been named as a defendant in numerous other product liability lawsuits involving primarily diethylstilbestrol. These claims are covered by insurance, subject to deductibles and coverage limits.

Product Liability Insurance

Because of the nature of pharmaceutical products, it is possible that we could become subject to large numbers of product liability and related claims for other products in the future. In the past several years, we have been unable to obtain product liability insurance due to a very restrictive insurance market. Therefore, for substantially all of our currently marketed products, we have been and expect that we will continue to be completely self-insured for future product liability losses. In addition, there is no assurance that we will be able to fully collect from our insurance carriers in the future.