Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 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. 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 party to actions and proceedings involving 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. In September 2026, the Federal Circuit denied our petition for rehearing en banc. Verzenio Hatch-Waxman Litigation In April 2026, Lilly received notice that Cipla Ltd. had filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) seeking approval for a generic version of Verzenio (abemaciclib) tablets before expiration of the compound patent listed in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Orange Book. In June 2026, Lilly filed a patent infringement action against Cipla Ltd. and its subsidiary Cipla USA Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Trial is scheduled for May 2028. Tirzepatide Hatch-Waxman Litigation In July 2026, Lilly received notice that multiple generic companies had filed ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of Mounjaro and/or Zepbound before the expiration of some or all of the patents listed for those products in the FDA’s Orange Book. In August 2026, we filed patent infringement actions against these companies in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Environmental Matters We are party to environmental proceedings and other matters, and are responsible under various federal, state and foreign laws, including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, commonly known as "Superfund," for certain costs of investigating and/or remediating environmental contingencies resulting from past activity at our current or former sites or waste disposal or reprocessing facilities operated by third parties. Pricing Matters 340B Litigation and Investigations Since 2021, we have been involved in litigation, administrative proceedings, and other inquiries related to the 340B program. Various state and 340B provider plaintiffs have filed lawsuits against us, and in some cases other manufacturers and third parties, relating to the 340B program, including our policies regarding contract pharmacies, submission of claims data, and our compliance with state laws purporting to regulate the 340B program. The complaints in these lawsuits assert a variety of claims, including antitrust, consumer protection, unfair or deceptive trade practices, unfair competition, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and violations of state statutes governing 340B pricing. The lawsuits are pending in various federal courts. The plaintiffs generally seek damages, civil penalties, and/or injunctive relief, and are at various stages in the litigation process. We are also involved in other ongoing litigation and inquiries related to the 340B program, including lawsuits Lilly has filed challenging aspects of 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. 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 the pricing and sale of our 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. Other Matters Actos Litigation We, along with Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd. and Takeda affiliates (collectively, Takeda), are named as defendants 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 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 October 2025, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which remains pending. 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 against Lilly in Indiana and other 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.

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.

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 party to actions and proceedings involving 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. In September 2026, the Federal Circuit denied our petition for rehearing en banc.

In April 2026, Lilly received notice that Cipla Ltd. had filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) seeking approval for a generic version of Verzenio (abemaciclib) tablets before expiration of the compound patent listed in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Orange Book. In June 2026, Lilly filed a patent infringement action against Cipla Ltd. and its subsidiary Cipla USA Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Trial is scheduled for May 2028.

In July 2026, Lilly received notice that multiple generic companies had filed ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of Mounjaro and/or Zepbound before the expiration of some or all of the patents listed for those products in the FDA’s Orange Book. In August 2026, we filed patent infringement actions against these companies in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

We are party to environmental proceedings and other matters, and are responsible under various federal, state and foreign laws, including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, commonly known as "Superfund," for certain costs of investigating and/or remediating environmental contingencies resulting from past activity at our current or former sites or waste disposal or reprocessing facilities operated by third parties.

Since 2021, we have been involved in litigation, administrative proceedings, and other inquiries related to the 340B program. Various state and 340B provider plaintiffs have filed lawsuits against us, and in some cases other manufacturers and third parties, relating to the 340B program, including our policies regarding contract pharmacies, submission of claims data, and our compliance with state laws purporting to regulate the 340B program. The complaints in these lawsuits assert a variety of claims, including antitrust, consumer protection, unfair or deceptive trade practices, unfair competition, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and violations of state statutes governing 340B pricing. The lawsuits are pending in various federal courts. The plaintiffs generally seek damages, civil penalties, and/or injunctive relief, and are at various stages in the litigation process. We are also involved in other ongoing litigation and inquiries related to the 340B program, including lawsuits Lilly has filed challenging aspects of the 340B program.

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.

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 the pricing and sale of our 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.

We, along with Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd. and Takeda affiliates (collectively, Takeda), are named as defendants 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 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 October 2025, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which remains pending.

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 against Lilly in Indiana and other 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.