Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2012
Loss Contingency, Information about Litigation Matters [Abstract]
Contingencies [Text Block]	Note 12: 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 U.S. patent litigation matters involving Alimta brought pursuant to procedures set out in the Hatch-Waxman Act (the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984). 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. In August 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the district court's judgment in our favor. Teva and APP have filed a petition for en banc review of the CAFC's panel decision. The CAFC has not yet ruled on the defendants' petition. 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. Trial in this case is scheduled to begin in August 2013. In January 2012 and April 2012, we filed similar lawsuits against Accord Healthcare Inc. and Apotex Inc., respectively. We believe the Hatch-Waxman challenges to the Alimta patents 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. Zyprexa^® Litigation We are a defendant in approximately 10 Zyprexa product liability lawsuits in the U.S. covering approximately 75 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. We are prepared to continue our vigorous defense of Zyprexa in all these lawsuits and claims. Byetta Litigation We have been named as a defendant in approximately 115 lawsuits involving approximately 500 plaintiffs, primarily seeking to recover damages for pancreatitis experienced by patients prescribed Byetta. We are aware of approximately 500 additional claimants who have not yet filed suit. Approximately 100 of these lawsuits, covering about 485 plaintiffs, are filed in California and coordinated in a Los Angeles Superior Court. We and Amylin are currently scheduled for trial in two separate single-plaintiff cases in the first half of 2013, the first of which is currently scheduled to begin in February. We believe these claims are without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously. Diethylstilbestrol Litigation In approximately 90 U.S. lawsuits against us involving approximately 90 claimants, plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of children or grandchildren of women who were prescribed diethylstilbestrol (DES) during pregnancy in the 1950s and 1960s. Approximately 80 of these claimants allege that they were indirectly exposed in utero to the medicine and later developed breast cancer as a consequence. Five cases involving five plaintiffs who developed breast cancer are scheduled for trial in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts in January 2013. We believe these claims 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. 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. The DES claims are covered by insurance, subject to deductibles and coverage limits. There is no assurance that we will be able to fully collect from our insurance carriers in the future.

Note 12: 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 U.S. patent litigation matters involving Alimta brought pursuant to procedures set out in the Hatch-Waxman Act (the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984). 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. In August 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the district court's judgment in our favor. Teva and APP have filed a petition for en banc review of the CAFC's panel decision. The CAFC has not yet ruled on the defendants' petition.

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. Trial in this case is scheduled to begin in August 2013. In January 2012 and April 2012, we filed similar lawsuits against Accord Healthcare Inc. and Apotex Inc., respectively.

We believe the Hatch-Waxman challenges to the Alimta patents 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.

Zyprexa^® Litigation

We are a defendant in approximately 10 Zyprexa product liability lawsuits in the U.S. covering approximately 75 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. We are prepared to continue our vigorous defense of Zyprexa in all these lawsuits and claims.

Byetta Litigation

We have been named as a defendant in approximately 115 lawsuits involving approximately 500 plaintiffs, primarily seeking to recover damages for pancreatitis experienced by patients prescribed Byetta. We are aware of approximately 500 additional claimants who have not yet filed suit. Approximately 100 of these lawsuits, covering about 485 plaintiffs, are filed in California and coordinated in a Los Angeles Superior Court. We and Amylin are currently scheduled for trial in two separate single-plaintiff cases in the first half of 2013, the first of which is currently scheduled to begin in February. We believe these claims are without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously.

Diethylstilbestrol Litigation

In approximately 90 U.S. lawsuits against us involving approximately 90 claimants, plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of children or grandchildren of women who were prescribed diethylstilbestrol (DES) during pregnancy in the 1950s and 1960s. Approximately 80 of these claimants allege that they were indirectly exposed in utero to the medicine and later developed breast cancer as a consequence. Five cases involving five plaintiffs who developed breast cancer are scheduled for trial in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts in January 2013. We believe these claims 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. 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. The DES claims are covered by insurance, subject to deductibles and coverage limits. There is no assurance that we will be able to fully collect from our insurance carriers in the future.