| Contingencies | Contingencies We are involved in various lawsuits, claims, government investigations and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. These claims or proceedings can involve various types of parties, including governments, competitors, customers, suppliers, service providers, licensees, employees, or shareholders, among others. These matters may involve patent infringement, antitrust, securities, pricing, sales and marketing practices, environmental, commercial, contractual rights, licensing obligations, health and safety matters, consumer fraud, employment matters, product liability and insurance coverage, among others. The resolution of these matters often develops over a long period of time and expectations can change as a result of new findings, rulings, appeals or settlement arrangements. Legal proceedings that are significant or that we believe could become significant or material are described below. We believe the legal proceedings in which we are named as defendants are without merit and we are defending against them vigorously. 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 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, environmental liabilities, and the related estimated insurance recoverables are reflected on a gross basis as liabilities and assets, respectively, on our consolidated condensed balance sheets. With respect to the product liability claims currently asserted against us, we have accrued for our estimated exposures to the extent they are both probable and reasonably estimable based on the information available to us. We accrue for certain product liability claims incurred but not filed to the extent we can formulate a reasonable estimate of their costs. We estimate these expenses based primarily on historical claims experience and data regarding product usage. Legal defense costs expected to be incurred in connection with significant product 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 product liability insurance, we are self-insured for product liability losses for all our currently and previously marketed products. Patent Litigation Alimta Patent Litigation U.S. Patent Litigation Alimta (pemetrexed) is protected by a vitamin regimen patent until November 2021, plus pediatric exclusivity through May 2022. In August 2017, we filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against Apotex Inc. (Apotex) alleging infringement of Alimta's vitamin regimen patent for its application to market a pemetrexed product. In December 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted our motion for summary judgment of infringement, and in December 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that ruling. Apotex did not request reconsideration or a rehearing of that ruling and did not petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. This matter is now closed. In December 2019, we settled a lawsuit we filed against Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Eagle) in response to its application to market a product using an alternative form of pemetrexed. Per the settlement agreement, Eagle has a limited initial entry into the market with its product starting February 2022 (up to an approximate three-week supply) and subsequent unlimited entry starting April 2022. European Patent Litigation In Europe, Alimta (pemetrexed ) was protected by the vitamin regimen patent through June 2021. Despite the recent patent expiration, a number of legal proceedings that were initiated prior to expiration are ongoing . Emgality Patent Litigation In September 2018, we were named as a defendant in litigation filed by Teva Pharmaceuticals International GMBH and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (collectively, Teva) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking a ruling that various claims in nine different Teva patents would be infringed by our launch and continued sales of Emgality for the prevention of migraine in adults. Trial is expected in March 2022. In June 2021, we were named as a defendant in a second litigation filed by Teva in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking a ruling that two of Teva’s patents, which are directed toward use of the active ingredient in Emgality to treat refractory migraine, would be infringed by our continued sales of Emgality. Separately, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) granted our request to initiate an inter partes review (IPR) to reexamine the validity of the nine Teva patents asserted against us in the litigation. In February 2020, the USPTO ruled in our favor and found that the claims asserted against us in six of Teva's nine patents were invalid. In March 2020, the USPTO ruled against us on the remaining three Teva patents, finding that we failed to show that the remaining three patents were unpatentable based on the subset of invalidity arguments available in an IPR proceeding. In April 2020, we appealed the USPTO’s March 2020 ruling, and Teva appealed the USPTO’s February 2020 ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The IPR appeals will proceed in parallel with the district court litigation. Jardiance Patent Litigation In November 2018, Boehringer Ingelheim (BI), our partner in marketing and development of Jardiance, initiated U.S. patent litigation in the U.S. District Court of Delaware alleging infringement arising from submissions of Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDA) by a number of generic companies seeking approval to market generic versions of Jardiance, Glyxambi, and Synjardy in accordance with the procedures set out in the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (the Hatch-Waxman Act). Particularly with respect to Jardiance, the generic companies' ANDAs seek approval to market generic versions of Jardiance prior to the expiration of the relevant patents, and allege that certain patents, including in some allegations the compound patent, are invalid or would not be infringed. We are not a party to this litigation. This litigation has been stayed. Taltz Patent Litigation In April 2021, we petitioned the High Court of Ireland to declare invalid the patent that Novartis Pharma AG (Novartis) purchased from Genentech, Inc. in 2020. Novartis responded by filing a claim against us alleging patent infringement related to our commercialization of Taltz and seeking damages for past infringement and an injunction against future infringement. This matter is ongoing. In April 2021 and June 2021, Novartis petitioned the Court of Rome Intellectual Property Division and the Commercial Court of Vienna, respectively, in preliminary injunction infringement proceedings against us related to our commercialization of Taltz. In June 2021, the Court of Rome Intellectual Property Division dismissed Novartis’ preliminary injunction action. Novartis has appealed the ruling and a hearing is scheduled in September 2021. Both matters are ongoing. Zyprexa Canada Patent Litigation Beginning in the mid-2000’s, several generic companies in Canada challenged the validity of our Zyprexa compound patent. In 2012, the Canadian Federal Court of Appeals denied our appeal of a lower court's decision that certain patent claims were invalid for lack of utility. In 2013, Apotex Inc. and Apotex Pharmachem Inc. (collectively, Apotex) brought claims against us in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice at Toronto for damages related to our enforcement of the Zyprexa compound patent under Canadian regulations governing patented drugs. Apotex seeks compensation based on novel legal theories under the Statute of Monopolies, Trade-Mark Act, and common law. In March 2021, the Ontario Superior Court granted our motion for summary judgement, thereby dismissing Apotex’s case. Apotex appealed that ruling to the Court of Appeal for Ontario in April 2021. Product Liability Litigation Actos® Product Liability We are named along with Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd. and Takeda affiliates (collectively, Takeda) as a defendant in four purported product liability class actions in Canada related to Actos, which we commercialized with Takeda in Canada until 2009, including one in Ontario filed December 2011 ( Casseres et al. v. Takeda Pharmaceutical North America, Inc., et al. ), one in Quebec filed July 2012 ( Whyte et al. v. Eli Lilly et al. ), one in Saskatchewan filed November 2017 ( Weiler v. Takeda Canada Inc. et al. ), and one in Alberta filed January 2013 ( Epp v. Takeda Canada Inc. et al. ). In general, plaintiffs in these actions alleged that Actos caused or contributed to their bladder cancer. An agreement to settle these actions became effective in May 2021, and the settlement claims administration process is ongoing. The lawsuits have been dismissed or discontinued. Byetta® Product Liability First initiated in March 2009, we are named as a defendant in approximately 570 Byetta product liability lawsuits in the U.S. involving approximately 805 plaintiffs. Approximately 55 of these lawsuits, covering about 285 plaintiffs, are filed in California state court and coordinated in a Los Angeles Superior Court. Approximately 515 of the lawsuits, covering about 515 plaintiffs, are filed in federal court, the majority of which are coordinated in a multi-district litigation (MDL) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Two lawsuits, representing approximately two plaintiffs, have also been filed in various state courts. Approximately 565 of the lawsuits, involving approximately 800 plaintiffs, contain allegations that Byetta caused or contributed to the plaintiffs' cancer (primarily pancreatic cancer or thyroid cancer); while six plaintiffs allege Byetta caused or contributed to pancreatitis. In addition, one case alleges that Byetta caused or contributed to ampullary cancer. The federal and state trial courts granted summary judgment in favor of us and our co-defendants on the claims alleging pancreatic cancer. The plaintiffs appealed those rulings. In November 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California's grant of summary judgment in the MDL based on that court's discovery rulings and remanded the cases back to the U.S. District Court for further proceedings. In March 2021, the U.S. District Court granted summary judgment for the defendants and in April 2021, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As of July 2021, a number of plaintiffs in the MDL have dismissed their lawsuits, but the majority of the MDL lawsuits currently remain ongoing. In the state court actions, in November 2018, the California Court of Appeal reversed the Los Angeles County Superior Court of California’s grant of summary judgment based on that court's discovery rulings and remanded for further proceedings. In April 2021, the Los Angeles County Superior Court of California granted summary judgment for the defendants. We are aware of approximately 20 additional claimants who have not yet filed suit. These additional claims allege damages for pancreatic cancer or thyroid cancer. Cialis Product Liability First initiated in August 2015, we are named as a defendant in approximately 350 Cialis product liability lawsuits in the U.S. These cases, many of which were originally filed in various federal courts, contain allegations that Cialis caused or contributed to the plaintiffs' cancer (melanoma). In December 2016, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) granted the plaintiffs' petition to have filed cases and an unspecified number of future cases coordinated into a federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alongside an existing coordinated proceeding involving Viagra®. The JPML ordered the transfer of the existing cases to the now-renamed MDL In re: Viagra (Sildenafil Citrate) and Cialis (Tadalafil) Products Liability Litigation . In April 2020, the MDL court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all of the claims brought against them by the plaintiffs. In May 2020, plaintiffs filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The plaintiffs’ appeal has been administratively closed until August 2021 pending completion of a procedure to resolve the claims in this litigation. Jardiance Product Liability First initiated in January 2019, we and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a subsidiary of BI, have been named as a defendant in approximately 95 product liability lawsuits in the U.S., mostly in Stamford Superior Court in Connecticut, alleging that Jardiance caused or contributed to plaintiffs’ Fournier’s gangrene. Our agreement with BI calls for BI to defend and indemnify us against any damages, costs, expenses, and certain other losses with respect to product liability claims in accordance with the terms of the agreement. Environmental Proceedings 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. Other Matters 340B Litigation and Investigations We are the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed in January 2021 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 the HHS's December 30, 2020 advisory opinion stating that drug manufacturers are required to deliver discounts under the 340B program to all contract pharmacies. We seek a declaratory judgment that the defendants violated the Administrative Procedures Act and the U.S. Constitution, a preliminary injunction enjoining implementation of the administrative dispute resolution process created by defendants and, with it, their application of the advisory opinion, and other related relief. In March 2021, the court entered an order preliminarily enjoining the government’s enforcement of the administrative dispute resolution process against Lilly. In May 2021, HRSA notified us that it determined that Lilly’s policy was contrary to the 340B statute. In response, in May 2021, we filed a motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order requesting that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana enjoin defendants from taking any action against us relating to the 340B drug pricing program until after the court issues a final judgment on the aforementioned litigation. In May 2021, the court denied our motion for a temporary restraining order but deferred resolution of our motion for preliminary injunction. In June 2021, the defendants withdrew the HHS December 30, 2020 advisory opinion. In July 2021, the court held oral argument on the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment, the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and our motion for preliminary injunction related to HRSA’s May 2021 enforcement letter. This matter is ongoing. In January 2021, we, along with other pharmaceutical manufacturers, were named as a defendant in a petition currently pending before the HHS Administrative Dispute Resolution Panel. Petitioner seeks declaratory and other injunctive relief related to the 340B program. As described above, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana has entered a preliminary injunction enjoining the government’s enforcement of this administrative dispute resolution process against us. In July 2021, we, along with Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC, Novo Nordisk Inc., and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, were named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York by Mosaic Health, Inc. alleging antitrust and unjust enrichment claims related to the defendants' 340B distribution programs. 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 this subpoena. Branchburg Manufacturing Facility In May 2021, we received a subpoena from the United States Department of Justice requesting the production of certain documents relating to our manufacturing site in Branchburg, New Jersey. We are cooperating with the subpoena. Brazil Litigation – Cosmopolis Facility Labor Attorney Litigation First initiated in 2008, our subsidiary in Brazil, Eli Lilly do Brasil Limitada (Lilly Brasil), is named in a lawsuit brought by the Labor Attorney for the 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 Brasil manufacturing facility in Cosmopolis, Brazil, operated by the company between 1977 and 2003. In May 2014, the labor court judge ruled against Lilly Brasil, ordering it to undertake several actions of unspecified financial impact, including paying lifetime health coverage 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 appealed this decision. In July 2018, the appeals court affirmed the labor court's ruling with a liquidated award of 300 million Brazilian real (for moral damages, donation of equipment, and creation of a foundation) which, adjusted for inflation and interest using the current Central Bank of Brazil's special system of clearance and custody rate (SELIC), is approximately 950 million Brazilian real (approximately $185 million as of June 30, 2021). The appeals court restricted the broad health coverage awarded by the labor court to health problems that claimants could show arose from exposure to the alleged contamination. In August 2019, Lilly Brasil filed an appeal to the superior labor court. In September 2019, the appeals court stayed a number of elements of its prior decision, including the obligation to provide health coverage for contractors, their children, and children of employees who worked at the Cosmopolis facility, pending the determination of Lilly Brasil’s appeal to the superior labor court. The cost of any such health coverage has not been determined. In June 2021, the appeals court published its decision on the admissibility of Lilly Brasil’s appeal, admitting the majority of the elements of the appeal to proceed; elements not proceeding are subject to an interlocutory appeal to the appeals court filed in June 2021. In June 2019, the Labor Attorney filed an application in the labor court for enforcement of the healthcare coverage granted by the appeals court in its July 2018 ruling and requested restrictions on Lilly Brasil’s assets in Brazil. In July 2019, the labor court issued a ruling requiring either a freeze of Lilly Brasil’s immovable property or, alternatively, a security deposit or lien of 500 million Brazilian real. Lilly Brasil filed a writ of mandamus challenging this ruling , but the court has stayed its decision on this writ and instead directed the parties to attend conciliation hearings, a process that concluded unsuccessfully in September 2020. Consequently, the partial stay of the proceedings relating to Lilly Brasil's application to appeal in the main proceedings has been lifted and in June 2021, the court reduced the security deposit or lien to 100 million Brazilian real from the 500 million Brazilian real referred to above . In addition, the Labor Attorney's application for preliminary enforcement of the July 2018 healthcare coverage ruling was granted. As the conciliation hearings have been unsuccessful, we have filed a brief to strike the Labor Attorney’s application to enforce the previous healthcare coverage. Lilly Brasil is currently awaiting a determination as to whether its application seeking leave to appeal to the superior labor court has been successful. Individual Former Employee Litigation We are also named in approximately 30 lawsuits filed in the same labor court by individual former employees making similar claims. These lawsuits are each at various stages in the litigation process, with judgments being handed down in approximately half of the lawsuits, nearly all of which are on appeal in the labor courts. China NDRC Antitrust Matter The competition authority in China has investigated our distributor pricing practices in China in connection with a broader inquiry into pharmaceutical industry pricing. We have cooperated with this investigation. Eastern District of Pennsylvania Pricing (Average Manufacturer Price) Inquiry In November 2014, we, along with another pharmaceutical manufacturer, are named as co-defendants in United States et al. ex rel. Streck v. Takeda Pharm. Am., Inc., et al. , which was filed in November 2014 and unsealed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The 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. Trial is scheduled for February 2022. Health Choice Alliance We are named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in June 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas seeking damages under the federal anti-kickback statute and state and federal false claims acts for certain patient support programs related to our products Humalog, Humulin, and Forteo. In September 2019, the U.S. District Court granted the U.S. Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss the relator’s second amended complaint. In January 2020, the relator appealed the District Court’s dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In July 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the lawsuit. We are also named as a defendant in two similar lawsuits filed in Texas and New Jersey state courts in October 2019 seeking damages under the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act and New Jersey Medicaid False Claims Act, respectively. In November 2020, the Texas state court action was stayed pending a final determination with respect to the aforementioned federal lawsuit. In April 2021, the New Jersey state court action was dismissed with prejudice and in June 2021, the relator filed a notice of appeal to the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court, appealing the state court’s decision. Pricing Litigation, Investigations, and Inquiries Litigation In December 2017, we, along with Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC (Sanofi) and Novo Nordisk, Inc. (Novo Nordisk) were named as defendants in a consolidated purported class action lawsuit, In re. Insulin Pricing Litigation , in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey relating to insulin pricing seeking damages under various state consumer protection laws and the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (federal RICO Act). Separately, in February 2018, we, along with Sanofi and Novo Nordisk, were named as defendants in MSP Recovery Claims, Series, LLC et al. v. Sanofi Aventis U.S. LLC et al. , in the same court, seeking damages under various state consumer protection laws, common law fraud, unjust enrichment, and the federal RICO Act. In both In re. Insulin Pricing Litigation and the MSP Recovery Claims litigation, the court dismissed claims under the federal RICO Act and certain state laws. In April 2021, the plaintiffs in In re. Insulin Pricing Litigation amended their complaint to allege additional state law claims for civil conspiracy and violations of state RICO statutes. Also, filed in the same court in November 2020, we, along with Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, CVS, Express Scripts, and Optum, have been sued in a purported class action, FWK Holdings, LLC v. Novo Nordisk Inc., et al. , for alleged violations of the federal RICO Act as well as the New Jersey RICO Act and antitrust law. That same group of defendants, along with Medco Health and United Health Group, also have been sued in other purported class actions in the same court, Rochester Drug Co-Operative Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co. et al. and Value Drug Co. v. Eli Lilly & Co. et al. both initiated in March 2020, for alleged violations of the federal RICO Act. In September 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate FWK Holdings, LLC v. Novo Nordisk Inc., et al. , Rochester Drug Co-Operative Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co. et al. , and Value Drug Co. v. Eli Lilly & Co. et al. In July 2021, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed the three antitrust claims alleged by plaintiffs in the consolidated litigation and denied dismissal of the RICO claims. In October 2018, the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office initiated litigation against us, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk, State of Minnesota v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC et al., in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging unjust enrichment, violations of various Minnesota state consumer protection laws, and the federal RICO Act. In March 2021, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed with prejudice the Minnesota Attorney General’s federal RICO claims and false advertising claims under state law; the consumer fraud and other related state law claims remain ongoing. Additionally, in May 2019, the Kentucky Attorney General’s Office filed a complaint against us, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk, Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Novo Nordisk, Inc. et al. , in Kentucky state court, alleging violations of the Kentucky consumer protection law, false advertising, and unjust enrichment. In November 2019, Harris County in Texas initiated litigation against us, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Express Scripts, CVS, Optum, and Aetna, County of Harris Texas v. Eli Lilly & Co., et al. , in federal court in the Southern District of Texas alleging violations of the federal RICO Act, federal and state antitrust law, and the state deceptive trade practices-consumer protection act. Harris County also alleges common law claims such as fraud, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy. This lawsuit relates to our insulin products as well as Trulicity. In June 2021, the City of Miami, Florida initiated litigation against us, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, ESI, CVS/Caremark/Aetna, and Optum, asserting state law antitrust, common law fraud, money had and received, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy claims. In June 2021, the Mississippi Attorney General’s Office initiated litigation against us, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Evernorth/ESI, CVS/Caremark, and United/Optum in the Hinds County, Mississippi Chancery Court, alleging state law consumer protection, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy claims. Investigations, Subpoenas, and Inquiries We received a subpoena from the New York a nd Vermont Attorney General Offices and civil investigative demands from the Washington, New Mexico, and Colorado Attorney General Offices relating to the pricing and sale of our insulin products. The Offices of the Attorney General in Mississippi, Washington D.C., California, Florida, Hawaii, and Nevada have requested information relating to the pricing and sale of our insulin products. We also received interrogatories and a subpoena from the California Attorney General's Office regarding our competition in the long-acting insulin market, which was subsequently withdrawn in June 2021. We received two requests from the House of Representatives’ Committee on Energy and Commerce and a request from the Senate’s Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions seeking certain information related to the pricing of insulin products, among other issues. We also received requests from the House of Representatives’ Committee on Oversight and Reform and the Senate’s Committee on Finance, which seek detailed commercial information and business records. In January 2021, the Senate’s Committee on Finance released a report summarizing the findings of its investigation. We are cooperating with all of these aforementioned investigations, subpoenas, and inquiries. Research Corporation Technologies, Inc. |
