Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies We are and may become involved in various lawsuits, claims, government investigations and other legal proceedings that arise from time to time in the course of our business, including patent, environmental, commercial, contractual, licensing, employment, health and safety, consumer protection, pricing, access, consumer, sales and marketing, product liability, insurance, antitrust, securities, and regulatory compliance matters, among others. Such matters may involve inquiries from or disputes with various types of parties, including governments, regulatory agencies, competitors, customers, suppliers, service providers, licensees, employees, or shareholders, among others. We cannot predict the final outcome of these proceedings, and while we intend to vigorously prosecute or defend our position as appropriate, there can be no assurance that we will be successful or obtain any requested relief. Matters often develop over a long period of time and expectations can change as a result of new findings, rulings, appeals, settlements, legal or regulatory changes, or other factors. From time to time we may discontinue or settle and compromise matters as appropriate in our best interest. Legal proceedings that we believe are significant or could become significant or material are described below. For proceedings in which we are named as defendants, unless otherwise noted, we cannot reasonably estimate the maximum potential exposure or the range of possible loss in excess of amounts accrued; 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 any related estimated insurance recoverables are reflected on a gross basis as liabilities and assets, respectively, on our consolidated balance sheets. We accrue for estimated exposures to the extent they are both probable and reasonably estimable based on the then available information. We accrue for certain unfiled product liability claims to the extent we can formulate a reasonable estimate of their exposure. We estimate these exposures based primarily on historical claims experience and data regarding product usage. Legal defense costs expected to be incurred in connection with significant 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 predominantly self-insured for litigation liability losses for all our currently and previously marketed products. Patent Matters In the course of our business, we are subject to actions and proceedings by third parties that seek to challenge, invalidate, or circumvent our patents and patent applications relating to our products, product candidates, and technologies, including the matter described below. Emgality Patent Litigation In September 2018, Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (collectively, Teva) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging that Lilly's launch and continued sales of Emgality infringed various claims in three Teva patents. In November 2022, following a trial, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Teva. In September 2023, the trial court overruled the jury verdict, found all asserted claims invalid, and entered judgment in Lilly's favor. In April 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion reversing the trial court's finding that the patents are invalid and remanding to the district court, and we recognized a charge related to the matter during the three months ended March 31, 2026. We are assessing next steps. Environmental Matters Superfund Matters 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. Brazil Litigation – Cosmopolis Facility Labor Attorney Litigation In March 2008, the state Labor Public Attorney (LPA) filed a public civil action against Eli Lilly do Brasil Limitada (Lilly Brasil) in the Labor Court of Paulinia, State of Sao Paulo, alleging harm to employees and former employees from 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 several remedial and compensatory actions, including health coverage for a class of individuals and certain of their children, and imposing a liquidated award. In December 2025, the superior labor court (TST) significantly reduced the liquidated award. Further appeals are possible. In July 2019, at the LPA's request, the trial court ordered a freeze of certain of Lilly Brasil's immovable property, which amount was reduced on Lilly's appeal. Both parties have appealed to the TST. The trial court is continuing to assess the status of Lilly Brasil's compliance with the obligations as to the land. Pricing Matters 340B Litigation and Investigations In January 2021, we filed a lawsuit 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 Service Administration (HRSA), and the Administrator of HRSA. The lawsuit challenges HHS's December 2020 advisory opinion that the 340B program requires drug manufacturers to deliver discounts to all contract pharmacies, as well as HHS's December 2020 administrative dispute resolution (ADR) regulations. It seeks declaratory, injunctive, and other related relief. In March 2021, the court preliminarily enjoined the government's use of the ADR process as to us. In May 2021, we amended the complaint to add claims related to a May 2021 letter from HRSA asserting that Lilly's contract pharmacy policy violated the 340B statute. In October 2021, the court granted in part and denied in part the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. Both parties appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The appeal remains pending. We have been named in various ADR petitions, filed between 2021 and 2024, seeking declaratory, injunctive, and/or monetary relief related to the 340B program. In light of the preliminary injunction order described above, these petitions are being held in abeyance as to us. In July 2021, Mosaic Health, Inc. filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York against us, Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC, Novo Nordisk Inc., and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, alleging antitrust and unjust enrichment claims related to the defendants' 340B programs. In October 2021, an amended complaint added Central Virginia Health Services, Inc. as a plaintiff. After the district court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed. We filed a petition seeking U.S. Supreme Court review in March 2026. This matter is ongoing. We have multiple other challenges against HHS and related parties related to interpretations and actions under the 340B program. Insulin Pricing Litigation Since 2017, various plaintiffs, including consumers, states and state attorneys general, counties, municipalities, Native American tribes, school districts, wholesalers, third-party payers, and others, have filed lawsuits, including putative class actions, against us, other manufacturers, pharmacy benefit managers, and others, relating to the pricing of insulin medications, and in some cases other diabetes medications, and rebates paid by manufacturers to pharmacy benefit managers. The complaints in the various lawsuits assert a variety of claims, including among others consumer protection, unfair or deceptive trade practices, fraud, false advertising, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, racketeering, antitrust, and unfair competition claims. Most cases have been coordinated or consolidated for pretrial proceedings in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The lawsuits are at various stages in the litigation process. The MDL court has issued various case management and other orders, including but not limited to orders establishing separate tracks for state attorney general claims, putative class actions, and non-class suits by self-funded payers; orders dismissing certain claims; and an order setting a constructive notice date of January 14, 2021 for statute of limitations purposes. 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), along with a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that the state 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, however, the parties entered into a stipulation providing that the state will not issue any civil investigative subpoena to us under the MCPA until the declaratory judgment action is resolved, and 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. The state's appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court remains pending. Lilly entered into settlement agreements with New York and Minnesota to resolve allegations relating to insulin pricing in 2023 and 2024, respectively. These agreements involved no monetary payments and no admission of wrongdoing or liability. Insulin and Other Pricing Investigations We have been subject to various investigations and received subpoenas, civil investigative demands, information requests, interrogatories, and other inquiries from various governmental entities related to pricing issues, including the pricing and sale of insulin medications, and in some instances certain other diabetes medications, and/or calculations of average manufacturer price and best price. These include subpoenas, civil investigative demands, or information requests from the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, and attorneys general from various states and the District of Columbia. To the extent the foregoing governmental entities have not filed lawsuits, we are cooperating with the various investigations, subpoenas, and inquiries. Average Manufacturer Price Litigation In November 2014, a relator filed a qui tam action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against us and Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. The relator's complaint alleged that the defendants should have treated certain credits from distributors as retroactive price increases and included such increases in calculating average manufacturer prices. In August 2022, following a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the relator. In September 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed, and we recognized a charge related to the matter. In December 2025, the Seventh Circuit denied our petition for rehearing en banc. In March 2026, we filed a petition seeking U.S. Supreme Court review. Other Matters Actos Litigation We, along with Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd. and Takeda affiliates (collectively, Takeda), are named in a third-party payer class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs allege that bladder cancer risk was concealed from them and claim that as a result they and a proposed class of third-party payers are entitled to recover money paid for Actos prescriptions. Our agreement with Takeda calls for Takeda to defend and indemnify us against 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 May 2023, the district court granted class certification. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit subsequently affirmed, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied our petition for certiorari. The matter is ongoing. Mounjaro, Trulicity, and Zepbound Product Liability Litigation Since August 2023, various plaintiffs have filed lawsuits against us, Novo Nordisk A/S, and other related entities, alleging various injuries following purported use of incretin medicines, including Mounjaro, Trulicity, and Zepbound. The complaints assert a variety of claims and generally seek damages and/or other relief. Most of these lawsuits in the United States have been coordinated or consolidated for pretrial proceedings in two federal MDLs: one focused on alleged gastrointestinal injuries, and the other relating to claims of non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION). Both MDLs are pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. There are also similar proceedings pending in Delaware, Indiana, and New Jersey state courts. In addition to the cases in the United States, there are two class action petitions in Israel and two class action petitions in Canada alleging various injuries and claims. Health Choice Alliance In October 2019, a relator filed a qui tam lawsuit against us in Texas state court asserting claims under the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act (TMFPA) based on allegations about certain patient support programs related to three of our products. The relator sought to recover the value of payments by the Texas Medicaid Program for these products, as well as civil penalties and other relief. In August 2025, the relator purported to dismiss the first lawsuit and filed a second lawsuit in a different Texas state court adding the State of Texas as a party and expanding claims under the TMFPA to fifteen of our products. We are opposing the relator's purported dismissal of the first lawsuit. Research Corporation Technologies, Inc. In April 2016, Research Corporation Technologies, Inc. (RCT) filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona asserting damages claims 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. In July 2024, we reached a confidential agreement with RCT providing for different payments based on various litigation outcomes as determined on appeal. The settlement agreement was not an admission of liability or fault and was subject to conditions. Pursuant to the agreement, the court entered final judgment, Lilly filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and Lilly made an initial payment under the agreement. In February 2026, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the case with instructions to enter summary judgment for Lilly. Under the settlement agreement, Lilly owes no further payments to RCT.

We are and may become involved in various lawsuits, claims, government investigations and other legal proceedings that arise from time to time in the course of our business, including patent, environmental, commercial, contractual, licensing, employment, health and safety, consumer protection, pricing, access, consumer, sales and marketing, product liability, insurance, antitrust, securities, and regulatory compliance matters, among others. Such matters may involve inquiries from or disputes with various types of parties, including governments, regulatory agencies, competitors, customers, suppliers, service providers, licensees, employees, or shareholders, among others. We cannot predict the final outcome of these proceedings, and while we intend to vigorously prosecute or defend our position as appropriate, there can be no assurance that we will be successful or obtain any requested relief. Matters often develop over a long period of time and expectations can change as a result of new findings, rulings, appeals, settlements, legal or regulatory changes, or other factors. From time to time we may discontinue or settle and compromise matters as appropriate in our best interest.

Legal proceedings that we believe are significant or could become significant or material are described below. For proceedings in which we are named as defendants, unless otherwise noted, we cannot reasonably estimate the maximum potential exposure or the range of possible loss in excess of amounts accrued; 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 any related estimated insurance recoverables are reflected on a gross basis as liabilities and assets, respectively, on our consolidated balance sheets. We accrue for estimated exposures to the extent they are both probable and reasonably estimable based on the then available information. We accrue for certain unfiled product liability claims to the extent we can formulate a reasonable estimate of their exposure. We estimate these exposures based primarily on historical claims experience and data regarding product usage. Legal defense costs expected to be incurred in connection with significant 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 predominantly self-insured for litigation liability losses for all our currently and previously marketed products.

In the course of our business, we are subject to actions and proceedings by third parties that seek to challenge, invalidate, or circumvent our patents and patent applications relating to our products, product candidates, and technologies, including the matter described below.

In September 2018, Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (collectively, Teva) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging that Lilly's launch and continued sales of Emgality infringed various claims in three Teva patents. In November 2022, following a trial, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Teva. In September 2023, the trial court overruled the jury verdict, found all asserted claims invalid, and entered judgment in Lilly's favor. In April 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion reversing the trial court's finding that the patents are invalid and remanding to the district court, and we recognized a charge related to the matter during the three months ended March 31, 2026. We are assessing next steps.

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.

In March 2008, the state Labor Public Attorney (LPA) filed a public civil action against Eli Lilly do Brasil Limitada (Lilly Brasil) in the Labor Court of Paulinia, State of Sao Paulo, alleging harm to employees and former employees from 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 several remedial and compensatory actions, including health coverage for a class of individuals and certain of their children, and imposing a liquidated award. In December 2025, the superior labor court (TST) significantly reduced the liquidated award. Further appeals are possible.

In January 2021, we filed a lawsuit 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 Service Administration (HRSA), and the Administrator of HRSA. The lawsuit challenges HHS's December 2020 advisory opinion that the 340B program requires drug manufacturers to deliver discounts to all contract pharmacies, as well as HHS's December 2020 administrative dispute resolution (ADR) regulations. It seeks declaratory, injunctive, and other related relief. In March 2021, the court preliminarily enjoined the government's use of the ADR process as to us. In May 2021, we amended the complaint to add claims related to a May 2021 letter from HRSA asserting that Lilly's contract pharmacy policy violated the 340B statute. In October 2021, the court granted in part and denied in part the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. Both parties appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The appeal remains pending.

We have been named in various ADR petitions, filed between 2021 and 2024, seeking declaratory, injunctive, and/or monetary relief related to the 340B program. In light of the preliminary injunction order described above, these petitions are being held in abeyance as to us.

In July 2021, Mosaic Health, Inc. filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York against us, Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC, Novo Nordisk Inc., and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, alleging antitrust and unjust enrichment claims related to the defendants' 340B programs. In October 2021, an amended complaint added Central Virginia Health Services, Inc. as a plaintiff. After the district court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed. We filed a petition seeking U.S. Supreme Court review in March 2026. This matter is ongoing.

Since 2017, various plaintiffs, including consumers, states and state attorneys general, counties, municipalities, Native American tribes, school districts, wholesalers, third-party payers, and others, have filed lawsuits, including putative class actions, against us, other manufacturers, pharmacy benefit managers, and others, relating to the pricing of insulin medications, and in some cases other diabetes medications, and rebates paid by manufacturers to pharmacy benefit managers. The complaints in the various lawsuits assert a variety of claims, including among others consumer protection, unfair or deceptive trade practices, fraud, false advertising, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, racketeering, antitrust, and unfair competition claims. Most cases have been coordinated or consolidated for pretrial proceedings in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The lawsuits are at various stages in the litigation process.

The MDL court has issued various case management and other orders, including but not limited to orders establishing separate tracks for state attorney general claims, putative class actions, and non-class suits by self-funded payers; orders dismissing certain claims; and an order setting a constructive notice date of January 14, 2021 for statute of limitations purposes.

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), along with a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that the state 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, however, the parties entered into a stipulation providing that the state will not issue any civil investigative subpoena to us under the MCPA until the declaratory judgment action is resolved, and 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. The state's appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court remains pending.

Lilly entered into settlement agreements with New York and Minnesota to resolve allegations relating to insulin pricing in 2023 and 2024, respectively. These agreements involved no monetary payments and no admission of wrongdoing or liability.

We have been subject to various investigations and received subpoenas, civil investigative demands, information requests, interrogatories, and other inquiries from various governmental entities related to pricing issues, including the pricing and sale of insulin medications, and in some instances certain other diabetes medications, and/or calculations of average manufacturer price and best price. These include subpoenas, civil investigative demands, or information requests from the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, and attorneys general from various states and the District of Columbia.

In November 2014, a relator filed a qui tam action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against us and Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. The relator's complaint alleged that the defendants should have treated certain credits from distributors as retroactive price increases and included such increases in calculating average manufacturer prices. In August 2022, following a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the relator. In September 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed, and we recognized a charge related to the matter. In December 2025, the Seventh Circuit denied our petition for rehearing en banc. In March 2026, we filed a petition seeking U.S. Supreme Court review.

We, along with Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd. and Takeda affiliates (collectively, Takeda), are named in a third-party payer class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs allege that bladder cancer risk was concealed from them and claim that as a result they and a proposed class of third-party payers are entitled to recover money paid for Actos prescriptions. Our agreement with Takeda calls for Takeda to defend and indemnify us against 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 May 2023, the district court granted class certification. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit subsequently affirmed, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied our petition for certiorari. The matter is ongoing.

Since August 2023, various plaintiffs have filed lawsuits against us, Novo Nordisk A/S, and other related entities, alleging various injuries following purported use of incretin medicines, including Mounjaro, Trulicity, and Zepbound. The complaints assert a variety of claims and generally seek damages and/or other relief. Most of these lawsuits in the United States have been coordinated or consolidated for pretrial proceedings in two federal MDLs: one focused on alleged gastrointestinal injuries, and the other relating to claims of non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION). Both MDLs are pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. There are also similar proceedings pending in Delaware, Indiana, and New Jersey state courts. In addition to the cases in the United States, there are two class action petitions in Israel and two class action petitions in Canada alleging various injuries and claims.

In October 2019, a relator filed a qui tam lawsuit against us in Texas state court asserting claims under the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act (TMFPA) based on allegations about certain patient support programs related to three of our products. The relator sought to recover the value of payments by the Texas Medicaid Program for these products, as well as civil penalties and other relief. In August 2025, the relator purported to dismiss the first lawsuit and filed a second lawsuit in a different Texas state court adding the State of Texas as a party and expanding claims under the TMFPA to fifteen of our products. We are opposing the relator's purported dismissal of the first lawsuit.

In April 2016, Research Corporation Technologies, Inc. (RCT) filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona asserting damages claims 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. In July 2024, we reached a confidential agreement with RCT providing for different payments based on various litigation outcomes as determined on appeal. The settlement agreement was not an admission of liability or fault and was subject to conditions. Pursuant to the agreement, the court entered final judgment, Lilly filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and Lilly made an initial payment under the agreement. In February 2026, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the case with instructions to enter summary judgment for Lilly. Under the settlement agreement, Lilly owes no further payments to RCT.