Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2016
Loss Contingency, Information about Litigation Matters [Abstract]
Contingencies [Text Block]	Note 10: 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 regimen patents, alleging that those patents are invalid, not infringed, or both. We believe our Alimta vitamin regimen patents are valid and enforceable against these generic manufacturers. 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 for the product in the relevant market. U.S. Patent Litigation and Administrative Proceedings We are engaged in various U.S. patent litigation matters involving Alimta brought pursuant to procedures set out in the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (the Hatch-Waxman Act). More than ten Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) seeking approval to market generic versions of Alimta prior to the expiration of our vitamin regimen patent (expiring in 2021 plus pediatric exclusivity expiring in 2022) have been filed by a number of companies, including Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc. (Teva) and APP Pharmaceuticals, LLC (APP). These companies have also alleged 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 and two other defendants seeking rulings that the U.S. vitamin regimen patent is valid and infringed (the Teva/APP litigation). Teva and APP stipulated to infringement of our vitamin 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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that dealt with issues of liability related to infringement (Akamai v. Limelight Networks ). Thus, the sole issue before the district court was to determine patent validity. Trial occurred in August 2013. In March 2014, the court ruled that the asserted claims of the vitamin regimen patent are valid. In June 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Akamai decision, and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana held a hearing on the issue of infringement in May 2015. In September 2015, the district court ruled that the vitamin regimen patent would be infringed by the generic challengers' proposed products. Teva and APP appealed all of the district court’s substantive decisions. A decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is expected in late 2016. From 2012 through 2016, we filed similar lawsuits against other ANDA defendants seeking a ruling that our patents are valid and infringed. Some of these cases have been stayed pending the outcome of the Teva/APP litigation, and these parties have agreed to be bound by the outcome of the Teva/APP litigation. In February 2016, we filed a lawsuit alleging infringement against Dr. Reddy's Laboratories in response to its recently filed ANDA. In 2015, Neptune Generics, LLC and Sandoz Inc. each submitted petitions to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), seeking inter partes review (IPR) of our vitamin regimen patent. The USPTO is expected to decide whether to institute an IPR by mid-2016. If an IPR is instituted, the final written decision on the merits would be issued by the USPTO by mid-2017. European Patent Litigation and Administrative Proceedings Generic manufacturers filed an opposition to the European Patent Office's (EPO) decision to grant us a vitamin regimen patent. The Opposition Division of the EPO upheld the patent and the generic manufacturers lodged an appeal. In October 2015 the generic manufacturers withdrew the appeal. As a result, the original EPO decision upholding the patent is now final. In addition, in the United Kingdom (U.K.), Actavis Group ehf and other Actavis companies (collectively, Actavis) filed litigation asking for a declaratory judgment that commercialization of certain salt forms of pemetrexed (the active ingredient in Alimta) diluted in saline would not infringe the vitamin regimen patents in the U.K., Italy, France, and Spain. In May 2014, the trial court ruled that the vitamin regimen patents for Alimta would not be infringed by commercialization of alternative salt forms of pemetrexed, after expiration of the compound patents in December 2015. We appealed, and in June 2015, the U.K. Court of Appeal reversed the trial court, ruling that the Alimta vitamin regimen patent would be indirectly infringed by commercialization of Actavis' products as proposed prior to the patent's expiration in June 2021, and reversed the trial court's decision granting declarations of noninfringement over the Alimta vitamin regimen patents in those countries. In February 2016, the U.K. Supreme Court granted our and Actavis' requests for permission to appeal different aspects of the judgment. In parallel proceedings, Actavis returned to the lower court seeking a declaration of non-infringement for a different proposed product. In February 2016, the trial court ruled that Actavis’ commercialization of this product would not infringe the patent in the U.K., Italy, France, and Spain. We intend to appeal this ruling. We commenced separate infringement proceedings against certain Actavis companies in Germany. Following a trial, in April 2014, the German trial court ruled in our favor. The defendants appealed, and after a hearing in March 2015, the appellate court overturned the trial court and ruled that our vitamin regimen patent in Germany would not be infringed by a dipotassium salt form of pemetrexed. In January 2016, the German Federal Supreme Court granted our request to appeal this matter. A hearing is scheduled for mid-2016. In separate proceedings, in December 2015 we applied for and obtained a preliminary injunction against Hexal AG (Hexal), which had stated its intention to launch a generic disodium salt product in Germany. Hexal has appealed the grant of the preliminary injunction and has separately filed a challenge to the validity of our vitamin regimen patent before the German courts. Also, in April 2016, we obtained a preliminary injunction from the German court against ratiopharm GmbH (Ratiopharm), a subsidiary of Teva, which stated its intention to launch another proposed pemetrexed product. Ratiopharm has appealed the grant of the preliminary injunction. We are aware that at least one generic pemetrexed product has launched in a major European market. Japanese Administrative Proceedings Three separate demands for invalidation of our two vitamin regimen patents, involving several companies, have been filed with the Japanese Patent Office (JPO). In November 2015, the JPO issued written decisions in the invalidation trial initiated by Sawai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (Sawai), and joined by three other companies, upholding both vitamin regimen patents. These patents provide intellectual property protection for Alimta until June 2021. Three companies, including Sawai, have filed appeals. The remaining invalidation trials initiated by the other parties are currently suspended. Notwithstanding our patents, generic versions of Alimta were approved in Japan in February 2016. We filed for preliminary injunctions against three generic competitors which received approval. We withdrew the requests for injunctions once those competitors agreed not to proceed to pricing approval. We do not anticipate generic competitors to proceed to launch prior to the completion of the Sawai invalidation trial. Effient Patent Litigation and Administrative Proceedings We, along with Daiichi Sankyo, Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., and Ube Industries (Ube) are engaged in U.S. patent litigation involving Effient brought pursuant to procedures set out in the Hatch-Waxman Act. More than ten different companies have submitted ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of Effient prior to the expiration of Daiichi Sankyo’s and Ube’s patents (expiring in 2023) covering methods of using Effient with aspirin, and alleging the patents are invalid. One of these ANDAs also alleges that the compound patent for Effient (expiring in April 2017) is invalid. Beginning in March 2014, we filed lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against these companies, seeking a ruling that the patents are valid and infringed. These cases have been consolidated. Four generic companies have agreed to be bound by the outcome of the consolidated case. In 2015, several generic pharmaceutical companies filed petitions with the USPTO, requesting IPR of the method patents. In September 2015, the USPTO granted the generic pharmaceutical companies' request and scheduled review in mid-2016. In light of these petitions, the district court in the consolidated lawsuit stayed the case with respect to all parties. We believe the Effient patents are valid and enforceable against these generic manufacturers. 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 have been named along with Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd., and Takeda affiliates (collectively, Takeda) as a defendant in approximately 6,500 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 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 (MDL) 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. In April 2015, Takeda announced they will pay approximately $2.4 billion to resolve the vast majority of the U.S. product liability lawsuits involving Actos, including the case of Allen, et al. v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals, et al., no. 6:12-md-00064, in which a judgment of approximately $28 million was entered against Takeda and a judgment of approximately $9 million was entered against us. In September 2015, Takeda announced that more than 96 percent of eligible claimants have opted into the resolution program that was announced in April 2015. As a result of the resolution program, the Allen case has been fully resolved. Accordingly, the appeals filed by Allen, Takeda, and us in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit have been dismissed with prejudice. Although most U.S. product liability lawsuits involving Actos are included in the resolution program, there may be additional cases pending against Takeda and us following its completion. Our agreement with Takeda calls for Takeda to defend and indemnify us against our losses and expenses with respect to the 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. We believe we are entitled to full indemnification of our losses and expenses in the 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 four purported product liability class actions in Canada related to Actos, including two in Ontario (Casseres et al. v. Takeda Pharmaceutical North America, Inc., et al. and Carrier et al. v. Eli Lilly 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 lawsuits are without merit, and we and Takeda are prepared to defend against them vigorously. Byetta^® Product Liability Litigation We are named as a defendant in approximately 525 Byetta product liability lawsuits in the U.S. involving approximately 1,055 plaintiffs. Approximately 115 of these lawsuits, covering about 630 plaintiffs, are filed in California state court and coordinated in a Los Angeles Superior Court. Approximately 405 lawsuits, covering about 410 plaintiffs, are filed in federal court, the majority of which are coordinated in a multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The remaining approximately five lawsuits, representing about 10 plaintiffs, are in various state courts. Approximately 460 of the lawsuits, involving approximately 710 plaintiffs, contain allegations that Byetta caused or contributed to the plaintiffs' cancer (primarily pancreatic cancer or thyroid cancer). The federal and state trial courts granted summary judgment in favor of us and co-defendants on the claims alleging pancreatic cancer; those rulings are being appealed by the plaintiffs. We are aware of approximately 10 additional claimants who have not yet filed suit. These additional claims allege damages for pancreatic cancer or thyroid cancer. We believe these lawsuits and claims are without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously. Cymbalta^® Product Liability Litigation In October 2012, we were named as a defendant in a purported class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Saavedra et al v. Eli Lilly and Company) involving Cymbalta. The plaintiffs, purporting to represent a class of all persons within the U.S. who purchased and/or paid for Cymbalta, asserted claims under the consumer protection statutes of four states, California, Massachusetts, Missouri, and New York, and sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief for various alleged economic injuries arising from discontinuing treatment with Cymbalta. In December 2014, the district court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Plaintiffs filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit requesting permission to file an interlocutory appeal of the denial of class certification, which was denied. Plaintiffs filed a second motion for certification under the consumer protection acts of New York and Massachusetts. The district court denied that motion for class certification in July 2015. The district court dismissed the suit and plaintiffs are appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Additionally, we are named in approximately 140 lawsuits involving approximately 1,450 plaintiffs filed in various federal and state courts alleging injuries arising from discontinuation of treatment with Cymbalta. Counsel for plaintiffs in the federal court proceedings filed a petition seeking to have then-filed cases and an unspecified number of future cases coordinated into a federal MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. In December 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) denied the plaintiffs' petition for creation of an MDL. Plaintiffs’ counsel subsequently filed a second petition seeking MDL consolidation, which petition was denied by the JPML in October 2015. There have been approximately 40 individual and multi-plaintiff cases filed in California state court. Most of those cases have been centralized in a California Judicial Counsel Coordination Proceeding pending in Los Angeles. The first individual product liability cases were tried in August 2015 and resulted in defense verdicts against four plaintiffs. The plaintiff in one of those cases is appealing the verdict. The other plaintiffs in those cases will not be appealing the judgment. 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 385 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 Limitada (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. We cannot currently estimate the range of reasonably possible financial losses that could arise if 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 $280 million as of March 31, 2016) 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 labor courts 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 10: 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 regimen patents, alleging that those patents are invalid, not infringed, or both. We believe our Alimta vitamin regimen patents are valid and enforceable against these generic manufacturers. 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 for the product in the relevant market.

U.S. Patent Litigation and Administrative Proceedings

We are engaged in various U.S. patent litigation matters involving Alimta brought pursuant to procedures set out in the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (the Hatch-Waxman Act). More than ten Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) seeking approval to market generic versions of Alimta prior to the expiration of our vitamin regimen patent (expiring in 2021 plus pediatric exclusivity expiring in 2022) have been filed by a number of companies, including Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc. (Teva) and APP Pharmaceuticals, LLC (APP). These companies have also alleged 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 and two other defendants seeking rulings that the U.S. vitamin regimen patent is valid and infringed (the Teva/APP litigation). Teva and APP stipulated to infringement of our vitamin 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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that dealt with issues of liability related to infringement (Akamai v. Limelight Networks ). Thus, the sole issue before the district court was to determine patent validity.

Trial occurred in August 2013. In March 2014, the court ruled that the asserted claims of the vitamin regimen patent are valid. In June 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Akamai decision, and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana held a hearing on the issue of infringement in May 2015. In September 2015, the district court ruled that the vitamin regimen patent would be infringed by the generic challengers' proposed products. Teva and APP appealed all of the district court’s substantive decisions. A decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is expected in late 2016.

From 2012 through 2016, we filed similar lawsuits against other ANDA defendants seeking a ruling that our patents are valid and infringed. Some of these cases have been stayed pending the outcome of the Teva/APP litigation, and these parties have agreed to be bound by the outcome of the Teva/APP litigation. In February 2016, we filed a lawsuit alleging infringement against Dr. Reddy's Laboratories in response to its recently filed ANDA.

In 2015, Neptune Generics, LLC and Sandoz Inc. each submitted petitions to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), seeking inter partes review (IPR) of our vitamin regimen patent. The USPTO is expected to decide whether to institute an IPR by mid-2016. If an IPR is instituted, the final written decision on the merits would be issued by the USPTO by mid-2017.

European Patent Litigation and Administrative Proceedings

Generic manufacturers filed an opposition to the European Patent Office's (EPO) decision to grant us a vitamin regimen patent. The Opposition Division of the EPO upheld the patent and the generic manufacturers lodged an appeal. In October 2015 the generic manufacturers withdrew the appeal. As a result, the original EPO decision upholding the patent is now final.

In addition, in the United Kingdom (U.K.), Actavis Group ehf and other Actavis companies (collectively, Actavis) filed litigation asking for a declaratory judgment that commercialization of certain salt forms of pemetrexed (the active ingredient in Alimta) diluted in saline would not infringe the vitamin regimen patents in the U.K., Italy, France, and Spain. In May 2014, the trial court ruled that the vitamin regimen patents for Alimta would not be infringed by commercialization of alternative salt forms of pemetrexed, after expiration of the compound patents in December 2015. We appealed, and in June 2015, the U.K. Court of Appeal reversed the trial court, ruling that the Alimta vitamin regimen patent would be indirectly infringed by commercialization of Actavis' products as proposed prior to the patent's expiration in June 2021, and reversed the trial court's decision granting declarations of noninfringement over the Alimta vitamin regimen patents in those countries. In February 2016, the U.K. Supreme Court granted our and Actavis' requests for permission to appeal different aspects of the judgment.

In parallel proceedings, Actavis returned to the lower court seeking a declaration of non-infringement for a different proposed product. In February 2016, the trial court ruled that Actavis’ commercialization of this product would not infringe the patent in the U.K., Italy, France, and Spain. We intend to appeal this ruling.

We commenced separate infringement proceedings against certain Actavis companies in Germany. Following a trial, in April 2014, the German trial court ruled in our favor. The defendants appealed, and after a hearing in March 2015, the appellate court overturned the trial court and ruled that our vitamin regimen patent in Germany would not be infringed by a dipotassium salt form of pemetrexed. In January 2016, the German Federal Supreme Court granted our request to appeal this matter. A hearing is scheduled for mid-2016.

In separate proceedings, in December 2015 we applied for and obtained a preliminary injunction against Hexal AG (Hexal), which had stated its intention to launch a generic disodium salt product in Germany. Hexal has appealed the grant of the preliminary injunction and has separately filed a challenge to the validity of our vitamin regimen patent before the German courts. Also, in April 2016, we obtained a preliminary injunction from the German court against ratiopharm GmbH (Ratiopharm), a subsidiary of Teva, which stated its intention to launch another proposed pemetrexed product. Ratiopharm has appealed the grant of the preliminary injunction.

We are aware that at least one generic pemetrexed product has launched in a major European market.

Japanese Administrative Proceedings

Three separate demands for invalidation of our two vitamin regimen patents, involving several companies, have been filed with the Japanese Patent Office (JPO). In November 2015, the JPO issued written decisions in the invalidation trial initiated by Sawai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (Sawai), and joined by three other companies, upholding both vitamin regimen patents. These patents provide intellectual property protection for Alimta until June 2021. Three companies, including Sawai, have filed appeals. The remaining invalidation trials initiated by the other parties are currently suspended.

Notwithstanding our patents, generic versions of Alimta were approved in Japan in February 2016. We filed for preliminary injunctions against three generic competitors which received approval. We withdrew the requests for injunctions once those competitors agreed not to proceed to pricing approval. We do not anticipate generic competitors to proceed to launch prior to the completion of the Sawai invalidation trial.

Effient Patent Litigation and Administrative Proceedings

We, along with Daiichi Sankyo, Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., and Ube Industries (Ube) are engaged in U.S. patent litigation involving Effient brought pursuant to procedures set out in the Hatch-Waxman Act. More than ten different companies have submitted ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of Effient prior to the expiration of Daiichi Sankyo’s and Ube’s patents (expiring in 2023) covering methods of using Effient with aspirin, and alleging the patents are invalid. One of these ANDAs also alleges that the compound patent for Effient (expiring in April 2017) is invalid.

Beginning in March 2014, we filed lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against these companies, seeking a ruling that the patents are valid and infringed. These cases have been consolidated. Four generic companies have agreed to be bound by the outcome of the consolidated case.

In 2015, several generic pharmaceutical companies filed petitions with the USPTO, requesting IPR of the method patents. In September 2015, the USPTO granted the generic pharmaceutical companies' request and scheduled review in mid-2016. In light of these petitions, the district court in the consolidated lawsuit stayed the case with respect to all parties.

We believe the Effient patents are valid and enforceable against these generic manufacturers. 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 have been named along with Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd., and Takeda affiliates (collectively, Takeda) as a defendant in approximately 6,500 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 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 (MDL) 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.

In April 2015, Takeda announced they will pay approximately $2.4 billion to resolve the vast majority of the U.S. product liability lawsuits involving Actos, including the case of Allen, et al. v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals, et al., no. 6:12-md-00064, in which a judgment of approximately $28 million was entered against Takeda and a judgment of approximately $9 million was entered against us. In September 2015, Takeda announced that more than 96 percent of eligible claimants have opted into the resolution program that was announced in April 2015. As a result of the resolution program, the Allen case has been fully resolved. Accordingly, the appeals filed by Allen, Takeda, and us in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit have been dismissed with prejudice.

Although most U.S. product liability lawsuits involving Actos are included in the resolution program, there may be additional cases pending against Takeda and us following its completion. Our agreement with Takeda calls for Takeda to defend and indemnify us against our losses and expenses with respect to the 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. We believe we are entitled to full indemnification of our losses and expenses in the 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 four purported product liability class actions in Canada related to Actos, including two in Ontario (Casseres et al. v. Takeda Pharmaceutical North America, Inc., et al. and Carrier et al. v. Eli Lilly 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 lawsuits are without merit, and we and Takeda are prepared to defend against them vigorously.

Byetta^® Product Liability Litigation

We are named as a defendant in approximately 525 Byetta product liability lawsuits in the U.S. involving approximately 1,055 plaintiffs. Approximately 115 of these lawsuits, covering about 630 plaintiffs, are filed in California state court and coordinated in a Los Angeles Superior Court. Approximately 405 lawsuits, covering about 410 plaintiffs, are filed in federal court, the majority of which are coordinated in a multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The remaining approximately five lawsuits, representing about 10 plaintiffs, are in various state courts. Approximately 460 of the lawsuits, involving approximately 710 plaintiffs, contain allegations that Byetta caused or contributed to the plaintiffs' cancer (primarily pancreatic cancer or thyroid cancer). The federal and state trial courts granted summary judgment in favor of us and co-defendants on the claims alleging pancreatic cancer; those rulings are being appealed by the plaintiffs. We are aware of approximately 10 additional claimants who have not yet filed suit. These additional claims allege damages for pancreatic cancer or thyroid cancer. We believe these lawsuits and claims are without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously.

Cymbalta^® Product Liability Litigation

In October 2012, we were named as a defendant in a purported class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Saavedra et al v. Eli Lilly and Company) involving Cymbalta. The plaintiffs, purporting to represent a class of all persons within the U.S. who purchased and/or paid for Cymbalta, asserted claims under the consumer protection statutes of four states, California, Massachusetts, Missouri, and New York, and sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief for various alleged economic injuries arising from discontinuing treatment with Cymbalta. In December 2014, the district court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Plaintiffs filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit requesting permission to file an interlocutory appeal of the denial of class certification, which was denied. Plaintiffs filed a second motion for certification under the consumer protection acts of New York and Massachusetts. The district court denied that motion for class certification in July 2015. The district court dismissed the suit and plaintiffs are appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Additionally, we are named in approximately 140 lawsuits involving approximately 1,450 plaintiffs filed in various federal and state courts alleging injuries arising from discontinuation of treatment with Cymbalta. Counsel for plaintiffs in the federal court proceedings filed a petition seeking to have then-filed cases and an unspecified number of future cases coordinated into a federal MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. In December 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) denied the plaintiffs' petition for creation of an MDL. Plaintiffs’ counsel subsequently filed a second petition seeking MDL consolidation, which petition was denied by the JPML in October 2015. There have been approximately 40 individual and multi-plaintiff cases filed in California state court. Most of those cases have been centralized in a California Judicial Counsel Coordination Proceeding pending in Los Angeles. The first individual product liability cases were tried in August 2015 and resulted in defense verdicts against four plaintiffs. The plaintiff in one of those cases is appealing the verdict. The other plaintiffs in those cases will not be appealing the judgment.

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 385 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 Limitada (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. We cannot currently estimate the range of reasonably possible financial losses that could arise if 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 $280 million as of March 31, 2016) 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 labor courts 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.