Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2014
Loss Contingency, Information about Litigation Matters [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 noted below with respect to the Alimta^® patent litigation and administrative proceedings, 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. Alimta Patent Litigation and Administrative Proceedings A number of generic manufacturers are seeking approvals in various countries to market generic forms of Alimta prior to the expiration of our vitamin dosage regimen patents, alleging that those patents are invalid, not infringed, or both. We believe our Alimta vitamin dosage patents are valid and enforceable against these generic manufacturers and we expect to prevail in these proceedings. However, it is not possible to determine the ultimate outcome of the proceedings, 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 that a loss of exclusivity for Alimta would result in a rapid and severe decline in future revenues in the relevant market. U.S. Patent Litigation We are engaged in various U.S. patent litigation matters involving Alimta brought pursuant to procedures set out in the Hatch-Waxman Act. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc. (Teva); APP Pharmaceuticals, LLC (APP); Barr Laboratories, Inc. (Barr); Pliva Hrvatska D.O.O. (Pliva); Accord Healthcare Inc. (Accord), Apotex Inc. (Apotex), Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. (Sun); Sun Pharma Global FZE (Sun Global); and Glenmark Generics Inc., USA (Glenmark), Nang Kuang Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (Nang Kuang), and Sandoz Inc. (Sandoz) each submitted Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) seeking approval to market generic versions of Alimta prior to the expiration of our vitamin dosage regimen patent (expiring in 2021 plus pediatric exclusivity expiring in 2022) and alleging the patent is invalid. In October 2010, we filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against Teva, APP, Pliva, and Barr seeking rulings that the U.S. vitamin dosage regimen patent is valid and infringed (the Teva/APP litigation). Teva and APP stipulated to infringement of our vitamin dosage regimen patent, with the contingency that Teva and APP would be permitted to litigate the issue of infringement if the U.S. Supreme Court vacated an en banc decision of the Federal Circuit that dealt with the issues of liability related to infringement (Akamai v. Limelight Networks). Thus, the sole issue before the district court was to determine the issue of patent validity. Trial in the Teva/APP litigation occurred in August 2013. In March 2014, the court ruled that the asserted claims of the vitamin dosage patent are valid. The defendants filed their notice of appeal in April 2014. In June 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Akamai decision. In July 2014, the court of appeals in the Teva/APP litigation entered an order remanding the case back to the district court to consider the issue of infringement. A hearing on the question of infringement has been scheduled for February 2015. In January 2012 and April 2012, we filed similar lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against Accord and Apotex, respectively. We filed a second lawsuit against Accord in February 2013. The Accord and Apotex cases have been consolidated and stayed by the court and the parties have agreed to be bound by the outcome of the Teva/APP litigation. In September 2013, we filed a similar lawsuit in the same court against Sun and Sun Global seeking a ruling that our patent is valid and infringed. This case has been stayed, and we and Sun have agreed to be bound by the outcome of the Teva/APP litigation. In January 2014, we filed a similar lawsuit in the same court against Glenmark seeking a ruling that our patent is valid and infringed. That case was amended in March 2014 to add two related Glenmark companies. This case has been stayed, and Lilly and Glenmark have agreed to be bound by the outcome of the Teva/APP litigation. In October 2014, we filed a lawsuit against Nang Kuang in the same court, seeking a ruling that our patents are valid and infringed. In December 2014, Lilly filed a lawsuit against Sandoz in the same court, seeking a ruling that our patent is valid and infringed. European Patent Litigation and Administrative Proceedings Generic manufacturers filed an opposition to the European Patent Office's decision to grant us a vitamin dosage regimen patent. The Opposition Division of the European Patent Office upheld the patent and the generic manufacturers lodged an appeal. In addition, in the United Kingdom (U.K.), Actavis Group ehf and other Actavis companies filed litigation asking for a declaratory judgment that commercialization of certain salt forms of pemetrexed (the active ingredient in Alimta) would not infringe the vitamin dosage regimen patents in the U.K., Italy, France, and Spain. This trial occurred in April 2014. In May 2014, the court ruled that the vitamin dosage patents for Alimta would not be infringed by the defendants' commercialization of alternative salt forms of pemetrexed, after expiration of the compound patents in December 2015. We filed a motion to appeal the court's ruling in June 2014, and a hearing is scheduled to occur in March 2015. We commenced separate infringement proceedings against certain Actavis companies in Germany. The German case was heard by the trial court in March 2014. In April 2014, the German trial court ruled in our favor. The defendants filed their notice of appeal in May 2014, and a hearing is scheduled to occur in March 2015. Japanese Administrative Proceedings Sawai Pharmaceutical Company Limited, has filed a demand for invalidation of our vitamin dosage regimen patents with the Japanese Patent Office. A hearing date has been scheduled for February 2015. Effient Patent Litigation and Administrative Proceedings We, along with Daiichi Sankyo, Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., and Ube Industries (Ube) are engaged in various U.S. patent litigation matters involving Effient brought pursuant to procedures set out in the Hatch-Waxman Act. Accord Healthcare Inc., USA (Accord USA); Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC (Amneal); Apotex; Aurobindo Pharma Limited (Aurobindo); Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. (Dr. Reddy’s); First Time US Generics LLC (FTUG); Glenmark; Hetero USA Inc. and Hetero Labs Limited Unit V (Hetero); Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Mylan); Panacea Biotec, Ltd. (Panacea); Sun Global; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Teva USA); Watson Laboratories, Inc. (Watson); and Zydus Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Zydus) each submitted ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of Effient prior to the expiration of Daiichi Sankyo’s and Ube’s patents (expiring in 2022) covering methods of using Effient with aspirin, and alleging the patents are invalid. The ANDA filed by Mylan also alleges that the compound patent for Effient (expiring in 2017) is invalid. In March 2014, we filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against Accord USA, Amneal, Aurobindo, Dr. Reddy’s, Glenmark, Hetero, Mylan, Sun Global, Teva USA, Watson and Zydus, and their related companies, seeking a ruling that the patents are valid and infringed. We filed similar lawsuits in the same court against Apotex (April 2014), Panacea (June 2014), and FTUG (July 2014). In October 2014, the court consolidated the pending cases. The lawsuits against Aurobindo, Hetero, and FTUG have been stayed, and the parties have agreed to be bound by the outcome of the consolidated litigation. We believe the Effient patents are valid and enforceable against these generic manufacturers and we expect to prevail in these proceedings. However, it is not possible to determine the outcome of the proceedings, and accordingly, we can provide no assurance that we will prevail. We expect a loss of exclusivity for Effient would result in a rapid and severe decline in future revenues for the product in the relevant market. Actos^® Product Liability Litigation We are named along with Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd., and Takeda affiliates (collectively, Takeda) as a defendant in approximately 5,275 product liability cases in the U.S. related to the diabetes medication Actos, which we co-promoted with Takeda in the U.S. from 1999 until September 2006. In general, plaintiffs in these actions allege that Actos caused or contributed to their bladder cancer. Almost all of the active cases have been consolidated in federal multi-district litigation in the Western District of Louisiana or are pending in a coordinated state court proceeding in California or a coordinated state court proceeding in Illinois. We believe these lawsuits are without merit, and we and Takeda are prepared to defend against them vigorously. In April 2014, a jury in the Western District of Louisiana found in favor of the plaintiffs in the case of Terrence Allen, et al. v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals, et al., no. 6:12-md-00064. In September 2014, judgment was entered awarding $1.3 million in compensatory damages to plaintiffs (allocated 75 percent to Takeda and 25 percent to us) and punitive damages of $6.00 billion against Takeda and $3.00 billion against us. In October 2014, the judge issued an order substantially reducing the amount of punitive damages awarded to approximately $28 million against Takeda and approximately $9 million against us. We continue to believe the evidence did not support plaintiffs’ claims and strongly disagree with the verdict. We and Takeda intend to vigorously challenge this outcome through all available legal means. We and Takeda have appealed this judgment and plaintiffs have filed a cross-appeal objecting to the reduction in punitive damages. Our agreement with Takeda calls for Takeda to defend and indemnify us against our losses and expenses with respect to the U.S. product liability litigation and other related expenses in accordance with the terms of the agreement. After the jury reached its verdict in Allen, Takeda notified us that it was reserving its right to challenge its obligations to defend and indemnify us with respect to the Allen case. We believe we are entitled to full indemnification of our losses and expenses in Allen and all other U.S. cases; however, there can be no guarantee we will ultimately be successful in obtaining full indemnification. We are also named along with Takeda as a defendant in three purported product liability class actions in Canada related to Actos, including one in Ontario (Casseres et al. v. Takeda Pharmaceutical North America, Inc., et al.), one in Quebec (Whyte et al. v. Eli Lilly et al.), and one in Alberta (Epp v. Takeda Canada et al.). We promoted Actos in Canada until 2009. We believe these claims are without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously. Byetta Product Liability Litigation We are named as a defendant in approximately 415 Byetta product liability lawsuits involving approximately 920 plaintiffs. Approximately 95 of these lawsuits, covering about 540 plaintiffs, are filed in California state court and coordinated in a Los Angeles Superior Court. Approximately 310 lawsuits, covering about 350 plaintiffs, are filed in federal court, the majority of which are coordinated in a multi-district litigation in the Southern District of California. The remaining approximately 10 lawsuits, representing about 30 plaintiffs, are in various state courts. Approximately 350 of the lawsuits, involving approximately 540 plaintiffs, contain allegations that Byetta caused or contributed to the plaintiffs' cancer (primarily pancreatic cancer or thyroid cancer). We are aware of approximately 395 additional claimants who have not yet filed suit. The majority of these additional claims allege damages for pancreatitis. We believe these lawsuits and claims are without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously. Prozac^® Product Liability Litigation We are named as a defendant in approximately 10 U.S. lawsuits primarily related to allegations that the antidepressant Prozac caused or contributed to birth defects in the children of women who ingested the drug during pregnancy. We are aware of approximately 470 additional claims related to birth defects, which have not yet been filed. We believe these lawsuits and claims are without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously. Brazil–Employee Litigation Our subsidiary in Brazil, Eli Lilly do Brasil (Lilly Brasil), is named in a lawsuit brought by the Labor Attorney for 15th Region in the Labor Court of Paulinia, State of Sao Paulo, Brazil, alleging possible harm to employees and former employees caused by exposure to heavy metals at a former Lilly manufacturing facility in Cosmopolis, Brazil, operated by the company between 1977 and 2003. The plaintiffs allege that some employees at the facility were exposed to benzene and heavy metals; however, Lilly Brasil maintains that these alleged contaminants were never used in the facility. In May 2014, the labor court judge ruled against Lilly Brasil. The judge's ruling orders Lilly Brasil to undertake several actions of unspecified financial impact, including paying lifetime medical insurance for the employees and contractors who worked at the Cosmopolis facility more than six months during the affected years and their children born during and after this period. While we cannot currently estimate the range of reasonably possible financial losses that could arise in the event we do not ultimately prevail in the litigation, the judge has estimated the total financial impact of the ruling to be approximately 1.0 billion Brazilian real (approximately $375 million as of December 31, 2014) plus interest. We strongly disagree with the decision and filed an appeal in May 2014. We are also named in approximately 30 lawsuits filed in the same court by individual former employees making similar claims. We believe these lawsuits are without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously. 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 in the future. Due to a very restrictive market for product liability insurance, we are self-insured for product liability losses for all our currently marketed products.

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 noted below with respect to the Alimta^® patent litigation and administrative proceedings, 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.

Alimta Patent Litigation and Administrative Proceedings

A number of generic manufacturers are seeking approvals in various countries to market generic forms of Alimta prior to the expiration of our vitamin dosage regimen patents, alleging that those patents are invalid, not infringed, or both. We believe our Alimta vitamin dosage patents are valid and enforceable against these generic manufacturers and we expect to prevail in these proceedings. However, it is not possible to determine the ultimate outcome of the proceedings, 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 that a loss of exclusivity for Alimta would result in a rapid and severe decline in future revenues in the relevant market.

U.S. Patent Litigation

We are engaged in various U.S. patent litigation matters involving Alimta brought pursuant to procedures set out in the Hatch-Waxman Act. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc. (Teva); APP Pharmaceuticals, LLC (APP); Barr Laboratories, Inc. (Barr); Pliva Hrvatska D.O.O. (Pliva); Accord Healthcare Inc. (Accord), Apotex Inc. (Apotex), Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. (Sun); Sun Pharma Global FZE (Sun Global); and Glenmark Generics Inc., USA (Glenmark), Nang Kuang Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (Nang Kuang), and Sandoz Inc. (Sandoz) each submitted Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) seeking approval to market generic versions of Alimta prior to the expiration of our vitamin dosage regimen patent (expiring in 2021 plus pediatric exclusivity expiring in 2022) and alleging the patent is invalid.

In October 2010, we filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against Teva, APP, Pliva, and Barr seeking rulings that the U.S. vitamin dosage regimen patent is valid and infringed (the Teva/APP litigation). Teva and APP stipulated to infringement of our vitamin dosage regimen patent, with the contingency that Teva and APP would be permitted to litigate the issue of infringement if the U.S. Supreme Court vacated an en banc decision of the Federal Circuit that dealt with the issues of liability related to infringement (Akamai v. Limelight Networks). Thus, the sole issue before the district court was to determine the issue of patent validity.

Trial in the Teva/APP litigation occurred in August 2013. In March 2014, the court ruled that the asserted claims of the vitamin dosage patent are valid. The defendants filed their notice of appeal in April 2014.

In June 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Akamai decision. In July 2014, the court of appeals in the Teva/APP litigation entered an order remanding the case back to the district court to consider the issue of infringement. A hearing on the question of infringement has been scheduled for February 2015.

In January 2012 and April 2012, we filed similar lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against Accord and Apotex, respectively. We filed a second lawsuit against Accord in February 2013. The Accord and Apotex cases have been consolidated and stayed by the court and the parties have agreed to be bound by the outcome of the Teva/APP litigation. In September 2013, we filed a similar lawsuit in the same court against Sun and Sun Global seeking a ruling that our patent is valid and infringed. This case has been stayed, and we and Sun have agreed to be bound by the outcome of the Teva/APP litigation. In January 2014, we filed a similar lawsuit in the same court against Glenmark seeking a ruling that our patent is valid and infringed. That case was amended in March 2014 to add two related Glenmark companies. This case has been stayed, and Lilly and Glenmark have agreed to be bound by the outcome of the Teva/APP litigation. In October 2014, we filed a lawsuit against Nang Kuang in the same court, seeking a ruling that our patents are valid and infringed. In December 2014, Lilly filed a lawsuit against Sandoz in the same court, seeking a ruling that our patent is valid and infringed.

European Patent Litigation and Administrative Proceedings

Generic manufacturers filed an opposition to the European Patent Office's decision to grant us a vitamin dosage regimen patent. The Opposition Division of the European Patent Office upheld the patent and the generic manufacturers lodged an appeal. In addition, in the United Kingdom (U.K.), Actavis Group ehf and other Actavis companies filed litigation asking for a declaratory judgment that commercialization of certain salt forms of pemetrexed (the active ingredient in Alimta) would not infringe the vitamin dosage regimen patents in the U.K., Italy, France, and Spain. This trial occurred in April 2014. In May 2014, the court ruled that the vitamin dosage patents for Alimta would not be infringed by the defendants' commercialization of alternative salt forms of pemetrexed, after expiration of the compound patents in December 2015. We filed a motion to appeal the court's ruling in June 2014, and a hearing is scheduled to occur in March 2015.

We commenced separate infringement proceedings against certain Actavis companies in Germany. The German case was heard by the trial court in March 2014. In April 2014, the German trial court ruled in our favor. The defendants filed their notice of appeal in May 2014, and a hearing is scheduled to occur in March 2015.

Japanese Administrative Proceedings

Sawai Pharmaceutical Company Limited, has filed a demand for invalidation of our vitamin dosage regimen patents with the Japanese Patent Office. A hearing date has been scheduled for February 2015.

Effient Patent Litigation and Administrative Proceedings

We, along with Daiichi Sankyo, Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., and Ube Industries (Ube) are engaged in various U.S. patent litigation matters involving Effient brought pursuant to procedures set out in the Hatch-Waxman Act. Accord Healthcare Inc., USA (Accord USA); Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC (Amneal); Apotex; Aurobindo Pharma Limited (Aurobindo); Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. (Dr. Reddy’s); First Time US Generics LLC (FTUG); Glenmark; Hetero USA Inc. and Hetero Labs Limited Unit V (Hetero); Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Mylan); Panacea Biotec, Ltd. (Panacea); Sun Global; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Teva USA); Watson Laboratories, Inc. (Watson); and Zydus Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Zydus) each submitted ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of Effient prior to the expiration of Daiichi Sankyo’s and Ube’s patents (expiring in 2022) covering methods of using Effient with aspirin, and alleging the patents are invalid. The ANDA filed by Mylan also alleges that the compound patent for Effient (expiring in 2017) is invalid.

In March 2014, we filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against Accord USA, Amneal, Aurobindo, Dr. Reddy’s, Glenmark, Hetero, Mylan, Sun Global, Teva USA, Watson and Zydus, and their related companies, seeking a ruling that the patents are valid and infringed. We filed similar lawsuits in the same court against Apotex (April 2014), Panacea (June 2014), and FTUG (July 2014). In October 2014, the court consolidated the pending cases. The lawsuits against Aurobindo, Hetero, and FTUG have been stayed, and the parties have agreed to be bound by the outcome of the consolidated litigation.

We believe the Effient patents are valid and enforceable against these generic manufacturers and we expect to prevail in these proceedings. However, it is not possible to determine the outcome of the proceedings, and accordingly, we can provide no assurance that we will prevail. We expect a loss of exclusivity for Effient would result in a rapid and severe decline in future revenues for the product in the relevant market.

Actos^® Product Liability Litigation

We are named along with Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd., and Takeda affiliates (collectively, Takeda) as a defendant in approximately 5,275 product liability cases in the U.S. related to the diabetes medication Actos, which we co-promoted with Takeda in the U.S. from 1999 until September 2006. In general, plaintiffs in these actions allege that Actos caused or contributed to their bladder cancer. Almost all of the active cases have been consolidated in federal multi-district litigation in the Western District of Louisiana or are pending in a coordinated state court proceeding in California or a coordinated state court proceeding in Illinois. We believe these lawsuits are without merit, and we and Takeda are prepared to defend against them vigorously.

In April 2014, a jury in the Western District of Louisiana found in favor of the plaintiffs in the case of Terrence Allen, et al. v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals, et al., no. 6:12-md-00064. In September 2014, judgment was entered awarding $1.3 million in compensatory damages to plaintiffs (allocated 75 percent to Takeda and 25 percent to us) and punitive damages of $6.00 billion against Takeda and $3.00 billion against us. In October 2014, the judge issued an order substantially reducing the amount of punitive damages awarded to approximately $28 million against Takeda and approximately $9 million against us. We continue to believe the evidence did not support plaintiffs’ claims and strongly disagree with the verdict. We and Takeda intend to vigorously challenge this outcome through all available legal means. We and Takeda have appealed this judgment and plaintiffs have filed a cross-appeal objecting to the reduction in punitive damages.

Our agreement with Takeda calls for Takeda to defend and indemnify us against our losses and expenses with respect to the U.S. product liability litigation and other related expenses in accordance with the terms of the agreement. After the jury reached its verdict in Allen, Takeda notified us that it was reserving its right to challenge its obligations to defend and indemnify us with respect to the Allen case. We believe we are entitled to full indemnification of our losses and expenses in Allen and all other U.S. cases; however, there can be no guarantee we will ultimately be successful in obtaining full indemnification.

We are also named along with Takeda as a defendant in three purported product liability class actions in Canada related to Actos, including one in Ontario (Casseres et al. v. Takeda Pharmaceutical North America, Inc., et al.), one in Quebec (Whyte et al. v. Eli Lilly et al.), and one in Alberta (Epp v. Takeda Canada et al.). We promoted Actos in Canada until 2009. We believe these claims are without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously.

Byetta Product Liability Litigation

We are named as a defendant in approximately 415 Byetta product liability lawsuits involving approximately 920 plaintiffs. Approximately 95 of these lawsuits, covering about 540 plaintiffs, are filed in California state court and coordinated in a Los Angeles Superior Court. Approximately 310 lawsuits, covering about 350 plaintiffs, are filed in federal court, the majority of which are coordinated in a multi-district litigation in the Southern District of California. The remaining approximately 10 lawsuits, representing about 30 plaintiffs, are in various state courts. Approximately 350 of the lawsuits, involving approximately 540 plaintiffs, contain allegations that Byetta caused or contributed to the plaintiffs' cancer (primarily pancreatic cancer or thyroid cancer). We are aware of approximately 395 additional claimants who have not yet filed suit. The majority of these additional claims allege damages for pancreatitis. We believe these lawsuits and claims are without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously.

Prozac^® Product Liability Litigation

We are named as a defendant in approximately 10 U.S. lawsuits primarily related to allegations that the antidepressant Prozac caused or contributed to birth defects in the children of women who ingested the drug during pregnancy. We are aware of approximately 470 additional claims related to birth defects, which have not yet been filed. We believe these lawsuits and claims are without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously.

Brazil–Employee Litigation

Our subsidiary in Brazil, Eli Lilly do Brasil (Lilly Brasil), is named in a lawsuit brought by the Labor Attorney for 15th Region in the Labor Court of Paulinia, State of Sao Paulo, Brazil, alleging possible harm to employees and former employees caused by exposure to heavy metals at a former Lilly manufacturing facility in Cosmopolis, Brazil, operated by the company between 1977 and 2003. The plaintiffs allege that some employees at the facility were exposed to benzene and heavy metals; however, Lilly Brasil maintains that these alleged contaminants were never used in the facility. In May 2014, the labor court judge ruled against Lilly Brasil. The judge's ruling orders Lilly Brasil to undertake several actions of unspecified financial impact, including paying lifetime medical insurance for the employees and contractors who worked at the Cosmopolis facility more than six months during the affected years and their children born during and after this period. While we cannot currently estimate the range of reasonably possible financial losses that could arise in the event we do not ultimately prevail in the litigation, the judge has estimated the total financial impact of the ruling to be approximately 1.0 billion Brazilian real (approximately $375 million as of December 31, 2014) plus interest. We strongly disagree with the decision and filed an appeal in May 2014. We are also named in approximately 30 lawsuits filed in the same court by individual former employees making similar claims. We believe these lawsuits are without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously.

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 in the future. Due to a very restrictive market for product liability insurance, we are self-insured for product liability losses for all our currently marketed products.