Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2025
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 fraud, 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 self-insured for litigation liability losses for all our currently and previously marketed products. Patent Matters 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 October 2023, Teva appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appeal is pending. 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 it to undertake several remedial and compensatory actions, including health coverage for a class of individuals and certain of their children. The trial court's ruling included a liquidated award of 300 million Brazilian reais, which, when adjusted for inflation, is approximately 1.49 billion Brazilian reais (approximately $273 million as of June 30, 2025). In July 2018, the appeals court generally affirmed the trial court's ruling. Lilly Brasil has appealed to the superior labor court (TST). In July 2019, at the LPA's request, the trial court ordered a freeze of Lilly Brasil’s immovable property in the amount of 500 million Brazilian reais, which was reduced on Lilly's appeal and, when adjusted for inflation, is approximately 154 million Brazilian reais (approximately $28 million as of June 30, 2025). Both parties have appealed this order to the TST. The trial court is currently assessing the status of Lilly Brasil's compliance with the obligations as to the land, and an inspection in the industrial plant occurred in October 2023. Former Employee Litigation Various former employees have filed related claims against Lilly Brasil in the trial court. These lawsuits are at various stages in the litigation process. 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 Services 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 a declaratory judgment that the defendants violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the U.S. Constitution, a preliminary injunction enjoining implementation of the ADR process and application of the advisory opinion, 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 received a civil investigative subpoena in February 2021 from the Office of the Attorney General for the State of Vermont relating to the sale of pharmaceutical products to Vermont covered entities under the 340B program. We are cooperating with the subpoena. We have been named in various ADR petitions, filed in 2021, 2023, 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 (Sanofi), Novo Nordisk Inc. (Novo Nordisk), and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP (AstraZeneca), 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. In September 2022, the court dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim but allowed the plaintiffs to move for leave to file a second amended complaint. In January 2024, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend and dismissed the case. In August 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. 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. In the first-filed case, a putative consumer class action, we and the plaintiffs reached a proposed settlement in May 2023. In January 2024, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. We and the plaintiffs subsequently terminated our proposed settlement and stipulated that the court's ruling denying class certification applied to Lilly. The MDL court has issued various case management orders, including but not limited to orders establishing separate tracks for state attorney general claims (State AG Track), putative class actions (Class Action Track), and non-class suits by self-funded payers (Self-Funded Payer Track). 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. In April 2025, the Michigan Supreme Court granted the state's application for leave to appeal and ordered oral argument. Lilly has entered into settlement agreements with two states to resolve allegations relating to insulin pricing. In particular, in February 2024, after discovery, Lilly entered into a non-monetary settlement with the Minnesota attorney general's office that resolved a lawsuit filed by Minnesota in 2018; and Lilly entered into a similar non-monetary settlement with the New York attorney general’s office in May 2023. 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 or civil investigative demands from the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, and the Colorado, Indiana, Louisiana, Oregon, Texas, Vermont and Washington attorney general offices, as well as information requests from the California, Florida, Hawaii, Mississippi, New Mexico, Nevada, and Washington D.C. attorney general offices. 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 alleges 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. Lilly has appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and the appeal remains pending. 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. In June 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied our appeal of the class certification order. In July 2025, Takeda and Lilly filed a petition for rehearing en banc. Mounjaro, Trulicity, and Zepbound Product Liability Litigation Since August 2023, various plaintiffs have filed lawsuits against us, Novo Nordisk A/S (Novo), and other related Novo entities, alleging injuries following purported use of incretin medicines, including Mounjaro, Trulicity, and Zepbound. The complaints assert a variety of claims and generally seek damages, medical monitoring, and/or other relief. Most of these lawsuits have been coordinated or consolidated for pretrial proceedings in a federal MDL pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. There are also cases pending in various state courts. In addition to the cases in the United States, there are two class action petitions in Israel. Branchburg Manufacturing Facility In May 2021, we received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice requesting the production of certain documents relating to our manufacturing site in Branchburg, New Jersey. We have cooperated with the subpoena. Puerto Rico Tax Matter In May 2013, the Municipality of Carolina in Puerto Rico (Municipality) filed a lawsuit against us alleging noncompliance with respect to a contract with the Municipality and seeking a declaratory judgment. In June 2019, the Court of First Instance (CFI) granted summary judgment in our favor, dismissing the Municipality's complaint in its entirety. In December 2020, the Puerto Rico Appellate Court (AP) reversed and remanded the case to the CFI for trial on the merits. In June 2025, after the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, the CFI dismissed the case with prejudice and vacated the CFI's June 2019 judgment. 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 based on allegations about certain patient support programs related to our products Humalog, Humulin, and Forteo. The lawsuit seeks to recover the value of payments by the Texas Medicaid Program for these products, as well as civil penalties and other relief. The action has been stayed since 2020. 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 that requires different payments based on various litigation outcomes as determined on appeal. The settlement agreement is not an admission of liability or fault and is 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. Lilly's appeal remains pending. The remaining amount payable under the agreement, if any, should not have a material impact on our financial position, liquidity or results of operations.

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 fraud, 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 self-insured for litigation liability losses for all our currently and previously marketed products.

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 October 2023, Teva appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appeal is pending.

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 it to undertake several remedial and compensatory actions, including health coverage for a class of individuals and certain of their children. The trial court's ruling included a liquidated award of 300 million Brazilian reais, which, when adjusted for inflation, is approximately 1.49 billion Brazilian reais (approximately $273 million as of June 30, 2025). In July 2018, the appeals court generally affirmed the trial court's ruling. Lilly Brasil has appealed to the superior labor court (TST).

In July 2019, at the LPA's request, the trial court ordered a freeze of Lilly Brasil’s immovable property in the amount of 500 million Brazilian reais, which was reduced on Lilly's appeal and, when adjusted for inflation, is approximately 154 million Brazilian reais (approximately $28 million as of June 30, 2025). Both parties have appealed this order to the TST.

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 Services 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 a declaratory judgment that the defendants violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the U.S. Constitution, a preliminary injunction enjoining implementation of the ADR process and application of the advisory opinion, 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 received a civil investigative subpoena in February 2021 from the Office of the Attorney General for the State of Vermont relating to the sale of pharmaceutical products to Vermont covered entities under the 340B program. We are cooperating with the subpoena.

We have been named in various ADR petitions, filed in 2021, 2023, 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 (Sanofi), Novo Nordisk Inc. (Novo Nordisk), and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP (AstraZeneca), 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. In September 2022, the court dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim but allowed the plaintiffs to move for leave to file a second amended complaint. In January 2024, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend and dismissed the case. In August 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.

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.

In the first-filed case, a putative consumer class action, we and the plaintiffs reached a proposed settlement in May 2023. In January 2024, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. We and the plaintiffs subsequently terminated our proposed settlement and stipulated that the court's ruling denying class certification applied to Lilly. The MDL court has issued various case management orders, including but not limited to orders establishing separate tracks for state attorney general claims (State AG Track), putative class actions (Class Action Track), and non-class suits by self-funded payers (Self-Funded Payer Track).

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. In April 2025, the Michigan Supreme Court granted the state's application for leave to appeal and ordered oral argument.

Lilly has entered into settlement agreements with two states to resolve allegations relating to insulin pricing. In particular, in February 2024, after discovery, Lilly entered into a non-monetary settlement with the Minnesota attorney general's office that resolved a lawsuit filed by Minnesota in 2018; and Lilly entered into a similar non-monetary settlement with the New York attorney general’s office in May 2023. 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 or civil investigative demands from the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, and the Colorado, Indiana, Louisiana, Oregon, Texas, Vermont and Washington attorney general offices, as well as information requests from the California, Florida, Hawaii, Mississippi, New Mexico, Nevada, and Washington D.C. attorney general offices.

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 alleges 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. Lilly has appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and the appeal remains pending.

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. In June 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied our appeal of the class certification order. In July 2025, Takeda and Lilly filed a petition for rehearing en banc.

Since August 2023, various plaintiffs have filed lawsuits against us, Novo Nordisk A/S (Novo), and other related Novo entities, alleging injuries following purported use of incretin medicines, including Mounjaro, Trulicity, and Zepbound. The complaints assert a variety of claims and generally seek damages, medical monitoring, and/or other relief. Most of these lawsuits have been coordinated or consolidated for pretrial proceedings in a federal MDL pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. There are also cases pending in various state courts. In addition to the cases in the United States, there are two class action petitions in Israel.

In May 2013, the Municipality of Carolina in Puerto Rico (Municipality) filed a lawsuit against us alleging noncompliance with respect to a contract with the Municipality and seeking a declaratory judgment. In June 2019, the Court of First Instance (CFI) granted summary judgment in our favor, dismissing the Municipality's complaint in its entirety. In December 2020, the Puerto Rico Appellate Court (AP) reversed and remanded the case to the CFI for trial on the merits. In June 2025, after the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, the CFI dismissed the case with prejudice and vacated the CFI's June 2019 judgment.

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 based on allegations about certain patient support programs related to our products Humalog, Humulin, and Forteo. The lawsuit seeks to recover the value of payments by the Texas Medicaid Program for these products, as well as civil penalties and other relief. The action has been stayed since 2020.

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 that requires different payments based on various litigation outcomes as determined on appeal. The settlement agreement is not an admission of liability or fault and is 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. Lilly's appeal remains pending. The remaining amount payable under the agreement, if any, should not have a material impact on our financial position, liquidity or results of operations.