Annual Report

 

Part I

 

 

 

Cardiovascular products , including:

 

 

Animal health products , including:

 

 

Other pharmaceuticals , including:

 

 

Marketing

 

We sell most of our products worldwide. We adapt our marketing methods and product emphasis in various countries to meet local needs.

Pharmaceuticals − United States

 

In the United States, we distribute pharmaceutical products principally through independent wholesale distributors, with some sales directly to pharmacies. Our marketing policy is designed to assure that products and relevant medical information are immediately available to physicians, pharmacies, hospitals, public and private payers, and appropriate health care professionals throughout the country. Three wholesale distributors in the United States − AmerisourceBergen Corporation, Cardinal Health, Inc., and McKesson Corporation − each accounted for between 12 and 16 percent of our worldwide consolidated net sales in 2008. No other distributor accounted for more than 10 percent of consolidated net sales. We also sell pharmaceutical products directly to the United States government and other manufacturers, but those sales are not material.

 

We promote our major pharmaceutical products in the United States through sales representatives who call upon physicians and other health care professionals. We advertise in medical and drug journals, distribute literature and samples of certain products to physicians, and exhibit at medical meetings. In addition, we advertise certain products directly to consumers in the United States and we maintain web sites with information about all our major products. Divisions of our sales force are assigned to therapeutic areas, such as neuroscience, diabetes, osteoporosis, and oncology. We supplement our employee sales force with contract sales organizations as appropriate to leverage our own resources and the strengths of our partners in various markets.

 

Large purchasers of pharmaceuticals, such as managed-care groups, government agencies, and long-term care institutions, account for a significant portion of total pharmaceutical purchases in the United States. We maintain special business groups to service wholesalers, managed-care organizations, government and long-term care institutions, hospitals, and certain retail pharmacies. In response to competitive pressures, we have entered into arrangements with a number of these organizations providing for discounts or rebates on one or more Lilly products.

 

Pharmaceuticals − Outside the United States

 

Outside the United States, we promote our pharmaceutical products primarily through sales representatives. While the products marketed vary from country to country, neuroscience products constitute the largest single group in total sales. Distribution patterns vary from country to country. In most countries, we maintain our own sales organizations. In some countries, however, we market our products through independent distributors.

 

Pharmaceutical Marketing Collaborations

 

We market certain of our significant products in collaboration with other pharmaceutical companies:

 

 

Animal Health Products

 

Our Elanco animal health business unit employs field salespeople throughout the United States to market animal health products. Elanco also has an extensive sales force outside the United States. Elanco sells its products primarily to wholesale distributors.

 

Competition

 

Our pharmaceutical products compete with products manufactured by many other companies in highly competitive markets throughout the world. Our animal health products compete on a worldwide basis with products of animal health care companies as well as pharmaceutical, chemical, and other companies that operate animal health divisions or subsidiaries.

 

Important competitive factors include product efficacy, safety, and ease of use, price and demonstrated cost-effectiveness, marketing effectiveness, service, and research and development of new products and processes. If competitors introduce new products or delivery systems with therapeutic or cost advantages, our products can be subject to progressive price reductions, decreased volume of sales, or both. Most new products that we introduce must compete with other products already on the market or products that are later developed by competitors. Manufacturers of generic pharmaceuticals invest far less in research and development than research-based pharmaceutical companies and therefore can price their products significantly lower than branded products. Accordingly, when a branded pharmaceutical loses its market exclusivity, it normally faces intense price competition from generic forms of the product. In many countries outside the United States, patent protection is weak or nonexistent and we must compete with generic versions of our products. Increasingly, to obtain favorable reimbursement and formulary positioning with government payers, managed care and pharmacy benefits management organizations, we must demonstrate that our products offer not only medical benefits but also cost advantages as compared with other forms of care.

 

We believe our long-term competitive position depends upon our success in discovering and developing (either alone or in collaboration with others) innovative, cost-effective products that serve unmet medical needs, together with our ability to continuously improve the productivity of our discovery, development, manufacturing, marketing and support operations in a highly competitive environment. There can be no assurance that our research and development efforts will result in commercially successful products or that our products or processes will not become uncompetitive from time to time as a result of products or processes developed by our competitors.

 

Patents, Trademarks, and Other Intellectual Property Rights

 

Overview

 

Intellectual property protection is, in the aggregate, material to our ability to successfully commercialize our life sciences innovations. We own, have applied for, or are licensed under, a large number of patents, both in the United States and in other countries, relating to products, product uses, formulations, and manufacturing processes. There is no assurance that the patents we are seeking will be granted or that the patents we have been granted would be found valid and enforceable if challenged. Moreover, patents relating to particular products, uses, formulations, or processes do not preclude other manufacturers from employing alternative processes or from marketing alternative products or formulations that might successfully compete with our patented products. In addition, from time to time, competitors or other third parties assert claims that our activities infringe patents or other intellectual property rights held by them, or allege a third-party right of ownership in our existing intellectual property.

 

Outside the United States, the adequacy and effectiveness of intellectual property protection for pharmaceuticals varies widely. Under the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Agreement (TRIPs) administered by the World Trade Organization (WTO), over 140 countries have now agreed to provide non-discriminatory protection for most pharmaceutical inventions and to assure that adequate and effective rights are available to all patent owners. Because of TRIPs transition provisions, dispute resolution mechanisms, and substantive

limitations, it is still too soon to assess when and how much, if at all, we will benefit commercially from these changes.

 

When a product patent expires, the patent holder often loses effective market exclusivity for the product. This can result in a severe and rapid decline in sales of the formerly patented product, particularly in the United States. However, in some cases the innovator company may achieve exclusivity beyond the expiry of the product patent through manufacturing trade secrets, later-expiring patents on methods of use or formulations, or data-based exclusivity that may be available under pharmaceutical regulatory laws.

 

Some of our products, including Erbitux, Forteo, ReoPro, and Xigris, are biological products, or biologics. Additionally, many of the potential products in our research pipeline are biologics. Currently, generic versions of biologics cannot be approved under U.S. law. Competitors seeking approval of biologics must file their own safety and efficacy data, and address the challenges of biologics manufacturing, which involves more complex and costly processes than those of traditional pharmaceutical operations. However, the law could change in the future to allow generic biologics. Even in the absence of new legislation, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is taking steps toward allowing generic versions of certain biologics.

 

Our Intellectual Property Portfolio

 

We consider intellectual property protection for certain products, processes, and uses − particularly those products discussed below − to be important to our operations. For many of our products, in addition to the compound patent we hold other patents on manufacturing processes, formulations, or uses that may extend exclusivity beyond the expiration of the product patent.

 

The most relevant U.S. patent protection, together with expected expiration, for our major marketed products is as follows:

 

 

Worldwide, we sell all of our major products under trademarks that we consider in the aggregate to be important to our operations. Trademark protection varies throughout the world, with protection continuing in some countries as long as the mark is used, and in other countries as long as it is registered. Registrations are normally for fixed but renewable terms.

 

Patent Licenses

 

Most of our important products were discovered in our own laboratories and are not subject to significant license agreements. Two of our larger products, Cialis and Alimta, are subject to patent assignments or licenses granted to us by others.

 

 

 

Patent Challenges

 

In the United States, the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly known as “Hatch-Waxman,” made a complex set of changes to both patent and new-drug-approval laws. Before Hatch-Waxman, no drug could be approved without providing the FDA complete safety and efficacy studies, i.e. , a complete New Drug Application (NDA). Hatch-Waxman authorizes the FDA to approve generic versions of innovative pharmaceuticals (other than biologics) without such information by filing an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA). In an ANDA, the generic manufacturer must demonstrate only “bioequivalence” between the generic version and the NDA-approved drug − not safety and efficacy.

 

Absent a patent challenge, the FDA cannot approve an ANDA until after the innovator’s patents expire. However, after the innovator has marketed its product for four years, a generic manufacturer may file an ANDA alleging that one or more of the patents listed in the innovator’s NDA are invalid or not infringed. This allegation is commonly known as a “Paragraph IV certification.” The innovator must then file suit against the generic manufacturer to protect its patents. The FDA is then prohibited from approving the generic company’s application for a 30- to 42-month period (which can be shortened or extended by the trial court judge hearing the patent challenge). If one or more of the NDA-listed patents are challenged, the first filer of a Paragraph IV certification may be entitled to a 180-day period of market exclusivity over all other generic manufacturers.

 

In recent years, generic manufacturers have used Paragraph IV certifications extensively to challenge patents on a wide array of innovative pharmaceuticals, and we expect this trend to continue. In addition, generic companies have shown an increasing willingness to launch “at risk,” i.e., after receiving ANDA approval but before final resolution of their patent challenge. We are currently in litigation with numerous generic manufacturers arising from their Paragraph IV certifications on Alimta, Cymbalta, Evista, Gemzar, and Strattera. For more information on these, see Part II, Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis − Legal and Regulatory Matters.”

 

Outside the United States, the legal doctrines and processes by which pharmaceutical patents can be challenged vary widely. In recent years, we have experienced an increase in patent challenges from generic manufacturers in many countries outside the United States, and we expect this trend to continue. For more information on significant patent challenges outside the United States, see Part II, Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis − Legal and Regulatory Matters.”

 

Government Regulation

 

Regulation of Our Operations

 

Our operations are regulated extensively by numerous national, state and local agencies. The lengthy process of laboratory and clinical testing, data analysis, manufacturing development, and regulatory review necessary for required governmental approvals is extremely costly and can significantly delay product introductions in a given market. Promotion, marketing, manufacturing, and distribution of pharmaceutical and animal health products are extensively regulated in all major world markets. We are required to conduct extensive post-marketing surveillance of the safety of the products we sell. In addition, our operations are subject to complex

federal, state, local, and foreign laws and regulations concerning the environment, occupational health and safety, and privacy. The laws and regulations affecting the manufacture and sale of current products and the discovery, development and introduction of new products will continue to require substantial scientific and technical effort, time, and expense and significant capital investment.

 

Of particular importance is the FDA in the United States. Pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the FDA has jurisdiction over all of our products and administers requirements covering the testing, safety, effectiveness, manufacturing, quality control, distribution, labeling, marketing, advertising, dissemination of information and post-marketing surveillance of our pharmaceutical products. The FDA, along with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), also regulates our animal health products. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency also regulates some animal health products. In 2007, Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act (FDAAA) of 2007, which imposes additional requirements for drug development and commercialization and provides the FDA with further authorities and resources, particularly in the area of drug safety.

 

The FDA extensively regulates all aspects of manufacturing quality under its current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) regulations. In recent years, we have made, and we continue to make, substantial investments of capital and operating expenses to implement comprehensive, company-wide improvements in our manufacturing, product and process development, and quality operations to ensure sustained cGMP compliance. However, in the event we fail to adhere to cGMP requirements in the future, we could be subject to interruptions in production, fines and penalties, and delays in new product approvals.

 

Outside the United States, our products and operations are subject to similar regulatory requirements, notably by the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) in the European Union and the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (MHLW) in Japan. Specific regulatory requirements vary from country to country.

 

The marketing, promotional, and pricing practices of pharmaceutical manufacturers, as well as the manner in which manufacturers interact with purchasers and prescribers, are subject to various other federal and state laws, including the federal anti-kickback statute and the False Claims Act and state laws governing kickbacks, false claims, unfair trade practices, and consumer protection. These laws are administered by, among others, the Department of Justice, the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, the Federal Trade Commission, the Office of Personnel Management and state attorneys general. Over the past several years, the FDA, the Department of Justice, and many of these other agencies have increased their enforcement activities with respect to pharmaceutical companies and increased the inter-agency coordination of enforcement activities. Over this period, several claims brought by these agencies against Lilly and other companies under these and other laws have resulted in corporate criminal sanctions and very substantial civil settlements. See Part I, Item 3, “Legal Proceedings,” and Part II, Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis − Legal and Regulatory Matters,” for information about currently pending and recently resolved marketing and promotional practices investigations involving Lilly, including information regarding a Corporate Integrity Agreement entered into by Lilly in connection with the resolution of a U.S. federal marketing practices investigation and certain related state investigations involving Zyprexa.

 

It is possible that we could become subject to additional administrative and legal proceedings and actions, which could include claims for civil penalties (including treble damages under the False Claims Act), criminal sanctions, and administrative remedies, including exclusion from federal health care programs. It is possible that an adverse outcome in pending or future actions could have a material adverse impact on our consolidated results of operations, liquidity, and financial position.

 

Regulations Affecting Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement

 

In the United States, we are required to provide rebates to state governments on their purchases of certain of our products under state Medicaid programs. Other cost containment measures have been adopted or proposed by federal, state, and local government entities that provide or pay for health care. In most international markets, we operate in an environment of government-mandated cost containment programs, which may include price controls, reference pricing, discounts and rebates, restrictions on physician prescription levels, restrictions on reimbursement, compulsory licenses, health economic assessments, and generic substitution.

In the U.S., the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA), took effect in 2006, providing a prescription drug benefit for seniors under the Medicare program, known as Medicare Part D. Pricing to manufacturers for drugs covered by the program is currently established through competitive negotiations between the manufacturers and private payers. However, various measures have been proposed that would allow or require the federal government to negotiate Medicare Part D drug prices directly with manufacturers. In addition, various proposals have been introduced that would increase the rebates we pay to the government. See Part II, Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis − Executive Overview − Legal, Regulatory, and Other Matters,” for more discussion of MMA and other federal healthcare cost containment measures. At the state level, budget pressures are causing various states to impose cost-control measures such as higher rebates and more restrictive formularies.

 

International operations are also generally subject to extensive price and market regulations, and there are many proposals for additional cost-containment measures, including proposals that would directly or indirectly impose additional price controls, limit access to or reimbursement for our products, or reduce the value of our intellectual property protection.

 

We cannot predict the extent to which our business may be affected by these or other potential future legislative or regulatory developments. However, we expect that pressures on pharmaceutical pricing will become more severe.

 

Research and Development

 

Our commitment to research and development dates back more than 100 years. Our research and development activities are responsible for the discovery and development of most of the products we offer today. We invest heavily in research and development because we believe it is critical to our long-term competitiveness. At the end of 2008, we employed approximately 8,600 people in pharmaceutical and animal health research and development activities, including a substantial number of physicians, scientists holding graduate or postgraduate degrees, and highly skilled technical personnel. Our research and development expenses were $3.13 billion in 2006, $3.49 billion in 2007, and $3.84 billion in 2008.

 

Our pharmaceutical research and development focuses on four therapeutic categories: central nervous system and related diseases; endocrine diseases, including diabetes, obesity and musculoskeletal disorders; cancer; and cardiovascular diseases. However, we remain opportunistic, selectively pursuing promising leads in other therapeutic areas. We are actively engaged in a strong biotechnology research program including therapeutic proteins, antibodies and antisense oligonucleotides as well as genomics (the development of therapeutics through identification of disease-causing genes and their cellular function), biomarkers, and targeted therapeutics. In addition to discovering and developing new chemical entities, we look for ways to expand the value of existing products through new uses, formulations and therapeutic approaches that can provide additional benefits to patients. We also conduct research in animal health, including animal nutrition and physiology, control of parasites, and veterinary medicine (both food and companion animal).

 

To supplement our internal efforts, we collaborate with others, including educational institutions and research-based pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, and we contract with others for the performance of research in their facilities. We use the services of physicians, hospitals, medical schools, and other research organizations worldwide to conduct clinical trials to establish the safety and effectiveness of our products. We actively seek out investments in external research and technologies that hold the promise to complement and strengthen our own research efforts. These investments can take many forms, including licensing arrangements, co-development and co-marketing agreements, co-promotion arrangements, joint ventures, and acquisitions.

 

Drug development is time-consuming, expensive, and risky. On average, only one out of many thousands of chemical compounds discovered by researchers proves to be both medically effective and safe enough to become an approved medicine. The process from discovery to regulatory approval can take 12 to 15 years or longer. Drug candidates can fail at any stage of the process, and even late-stage drug candidates sometimes fail to receive regulatory approval or commercial success. Even after approval and launch of a product, we expend considerable resources on post-marketing surveillance and clinical studies. We believe our investments in research, both internally and in collaboration with others, have been rewarded by the number of new

compounds and new indications for existing compounds that we have in all stages of development. Among our new investigational compounds in the later stages of development are potential therapies for acute coronary syndromes, diabetes, osteoporosis, and cancer. Further, we are studying many other drug candidates in the earlier stages of development, including compounds targeting cancers, diabetes, obesity, musculoskeletal disorders, lipid abnormalities, Alzheimer’s disease, schizophrenia, multiple sclerosis, depression, sleep disorders, pain and migraine, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), alcoholism, and autoimmune disorders including rheumatoid arthritis. At present we have approximately 60 drug candidates across all stages of clinical development. We are also developing new uses and formulations for many of these compounds as well as our currently marketed products, such as Alimta, Byetta, Cialis, Cymbalta, Erbitux, Forteo, Gemzar, and Zyprexa.

 

Raw Materials and Product Supply

 

Most of the principal materials we use in our manufacturing operations are available from more than one source. We obtain certain raw materials principally from only one source. In addition, Byetta is manufactured by third-party suppliers to Amylin. In the event one of these suppliers was unable to provide the materials or product, we generally have sufficient inventory to supply the market until an alternative source of supply can be implemented. However, in the event of an extended failure of a supplier, it is possible that we could experience an interruption in supply until we established new sources or, in some cases, implemented alternative processes.

 

Our primary bulk manufacturing occurs at three sites in Indiana as well as locations in Ireland, Puerto Rico, and the United Kingdom. Finishing operations, including labeling and packaging, take place at a number of sites throughout the world.

 

We seek to design and operate our manufacturing facilities and maintain inventory in a way that will allow us to meet all expected product demand while maintaining flexibility to reallocate manufacturing capacity to improve efficiency and respond to changes in supply and demand. However, pharmaceutical production processes are complex, highly regulated, and vary widely from product to product. Shifting or adding manufacturing capacity can be a very lengthy process requiring significant capital expenditures and regulatory approvals. Accordingly, if we were to experience extended plant shutdowns or extraordinary unplanned increases in demand, we could experience an interruption in supply of certain products or product shortages until production could be resumed or expanded.

 

Quality Assurance

 

Our success depends in great measure upon customer confidence in the quality of our products and in the integrity of the data that support their safety and effectiveness. Product quality arises from a total commitment to quality in all parts of our operations, including research and development, purchasing, facilities planning, manufacturing, and distribution. We have implemented quality-assurance procedures relating to the quality and integrity of scientific information and production processes.

 

Control of production processes involves rigid specifications for ingredients, equipment, facilities, manufacturing methods, packaging materials, and labeling. We perform tests at various stages of production processes and on the final product to assure that the product meets all regulatory requirements and our standards. These tests may involve chemical and physical chemical analyses, microbiological testing, testing in animals, or a combination. Additional assurance of quality is provided by a corporate quality-assurance group that monitors existing pharmaceutical and animal health manufacturing procedures and systems in the parent company, subsidiaries and affiliates, and third-party suppliers.

Executive Officers of the Company

 

The following table sets forth certain information regarding our executive officers. All executive officers except Mr. Azar have been employed by the Company in executive positions during the last five years.

 

The term of office for each executive officer expires on the date of the annual meeting of the Board of Directors, to be held on April 20, 2009, or on the date his or her successor is chosen and qualified. No director or executive officer of the Company has a “family relationship” with any other director or executive officer of the Company, as that term is defined for purposes of this disclosure requirement. There is no understanding between any executive officer and any other person pursuant to which the executive officer was selected.

 

 

Employees

 

At the end of 2008, we employed approximately 40,500 people, including approximately 19,600 employees outside the United States. A substantial number of our employees have long records of continuous service.

 

Financial Information Relating to Business Segments and Classes of Products

 

You can find financial information relating to our business segments and classes of products in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K, “Segment Information.” That information is incorporated here by reference.

 

The relative contribution of any particular product to our consolidated net sales changes from year to year. This is due to several factors, including the introduction of new products by us and by other manufacturers and the introduction of generic pharmaceuticals upon patent expirations. In addition, margins vary for our different products due to various factors, including differences in the cost to manufacture and market the products, the value of the products to the marketplace, and government restrictions on pricing and reimbursement. Our major product sales are generally not seasonal.

 

Financial Information Relating to Foreign and Domestic Operations

 

You can find financial information relating to foreign and domestic operations in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K, “Segment Information.” That information is incorporated here by reference.

To date, our overall operations abroad have not been significantly deterred by local restrictions on the transfer of funds from branches and subsidiaries located abroad, including the availability of dollar exchange. We cannot predict what effect these restrictions or the other risks inherent in foreign operations, including possible nationalization, might have on our future operations or what other restrictions may be imposed in the future. In addition, changing currency values can either favorably or unfavorably affect our financial position and results of operations. We actively manage foreign exchange risk through various hedging techniques including the use of foreign currency contracts.

 

Available Information on Our Web Site

 

We make available through our company web site, free of charge, our company filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file them with, or furnish them to, the SEC. The reports we make available include our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, proxy statements, registration statements, and any amendments to those documents. The company web site link to our SEC filings is http://investor.lilly.com/edgar.cfm .

 

In addition, the Corporate Governance portion of our web site includes our corporate governance guidelines, board and committee information (including committee charters), and our articles of incorporation and by-laws. The link to our corporate governance information is http://investor.lilly.com/corp-gov.cfm .

 

We will provide paper copies of our SEC filings and corporate governance documents free of charge upon request to the company’s secretary at the address listed on the front of this Form 10-K.

 

 

 

Intellectual property protection varies throughout the world and is subject to change over time. In the U.S., the Hatch-Waxman Act provides generic companies powerful incentives to seek to invalidate our patents; as a result, we expect that our U.S. patents on major products will be routinely challenged, and there can be no assurance that our patents will be upheld. See Item 1, “Business − Patents, Trademarks, and Other Intellectual Property Protection,” for more details. We are increasingly facing generic manufacturer challenges to our patents outside the U.S. as well. In addition, competitors or other third parties may claim that our activities infringe patents or other intellectual property rights held by them. If successful, such claims could result in our being unable to market a product in a particular territory or being required to pay damages for past infringement or royalties on future sales.

 

 

 

 

 

We undertake no duty to update forward-looking statements.

 

 

 

 

 

That information is incorporated into this Item by reference.

 

Other Patent Litigation

 

Strattera:   Actavis Elizabeth LLC (Actavis), Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc., USA (Glenmark), Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (Sun), Sandoz Inc. (Sandoz), Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Mylan), Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Teva), Apotex Inc. (Apotex), Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. (Aurobindo), Synthon Laboratories, Inc. (Synthon), and Zydus Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc. (Zydus) each submitted an ANDA seeking permission to market generic versions of Strattera prior to the expiration of our relevant U.S. patent (expiring in 2017), and alleging that this patent is invalid. We filed a lawsuit against Actavis in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in August 2007, and added Glenmark, Sun, Sandoz, Mylan, Teva, Apotex, Aurobindo, Synthon, and Zydus as defendants in September 2007. In December 2007, Zydus agreed to entry of a consent judgment in which Zydus conceded the validity and enforceability of the patent and agreed to a permanent injunction. In June 2008, Glenmark agreed to entry of a permanent injunction, enjoining it from selling a generic product prior to the expiration of the U.S. patent. Also in June 2008, Synthon notified us that it has withdrawn its ANDA and agreed to a stipulated dismissal of all outstanding claims. For the remaining defendants, trial is anticipated as early as December 2009.

 

Evista:   In June 2005, Dr. Alan Schreiber filed a lawsuit against us in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania raising a number of claims, including patent infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, and seeking a declaration for inventorship of Lilly’s Evista method-of-use patents. After the original lawsuit was filed, the University of Pennsylvania was added as a plaintiff. This matter was settled in December 2008. The settlement did not have a material impact on our consolidated results of operations, liquidity, or financial position.

 

Cialis:   In July 2005, Vanderbilt University filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court in Delaware against ICOS Corporation seeking to add three of its scientists as co-inventors on the Cialis compound and method-of-use patents. In January 2009, the district court judge ruled in our favor, declining to add any of these scientists as an inventor on either patent. The plaintiff may appeal this ruling. We believe these claims are without legal merit and expect to prevail in any appeal of this litigation; however, it is not possible to determine the outcome. An unfavorable final outcome could have a material adverse impact on our consolidated results of operations, liquidity, and financial position.

 

In October 2002, Pfizer Inc. was issued a method-of-use patent in the United States and commenced a lawsuit in the United States District Court in Delaware against us, Lilly ICOS LLC, and ICOS Corporation (both now subsidiaries of Lilly) alleging that the marketing of Cialis for erectile dysfunction infringed this patent. This litigation has been stayed pending the outcome of a reexamination of the patent by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The Office has now made a final rejection of the relevant patent claims which Pfizer is appealing. We believe Pfizer’s claims are without merit and expect to prevail. However, it is not possible to determine the outcome of this litigation.

 

Other Product Liability Litigation

 

We are currently a defendant in a variety of product liability lawsuits in the United States involving primarily Zyprexa, diethylstilbestrol (“DES”) and thimerosal.

 

In approximately 50 U.S. actions involving approximately 75 claimants, plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of children or grandchildren of women who were prescribed DES during pregnancy.

 

We have been named as a defendant in approximately 210 actions in the U.S., involving approximately 285 claimants, brought in various state courts and federal district courts on behalf of children with autism or other

neurological disorders who received childhood vaccines (manufactured by other companies) that contained thimerosal, a generic preservative used in certain vaccines in the U.S. beginning in the 1930s. We purchased patents and conducted research pertaining to thimerosal in the 1920s. We have been named in the suits even though we discontinued manufacturing the raw material in 1974 and discontinued selling it in the United States to vaccine manufacturers in 1992. The lawsuits typically name the vaccine manufacturers as well as Lilly and other distributors of thimerosal, and allege that the children’s exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines caused their autism or other neurological disorders. We strongly deny any liability in these cases. There is no credible scientific evidence establishing a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism or other neurological disorders. In addition, we believe the majority of the cases should not be prosecuted in the courts in which they have been brought because the underlying claims are subject to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. Implemented in 1988, the Act established a mandatory, federally administered no-fault claims process for individuals who allege that they were harmed by the administration of childhood vaccines. Under the Act, claims must first be brought before the U.S. Court of Claims for an award determination under the compensation guidelines established pursuant to the Act. Claimants who are unsatisfied with their awards under the Act may reject the award and seek traditional judicial remedies.

 

Other Marketing Practices Investigations

 

In November 2008, we received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General in coordination with the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of New York seeking production of a wide range of documents and information relating to reimbursement of Alimta. We are cooperating in this investigation.

 

In February 2006, we reached a settlement of an investigation by the Office of Consumer Litigation, Department of Justice, related to our marketing and promotional practices and physician communications with respect to Evista. As part of the settlement, we agreed to plead guilty to one misdemeanor violation of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The plea was for the off-label promotion of Evista during 1998. The government did not charge the company with any unlawful intent, nor do we acknowledge any such intent. In connection with the overall settlement, we paid a total of $36.0 million. In addition, as part of the settlement, a civil consent decree requires us to continue to have a compliance program and to undertake a set of defined corporate integrity obligations related to Evista for five years.

 

In August 2003, we received notice that the staff of the SEC is conducting an investigation into the compliance by Polish subsidiaries of certain pharmaceutical companies, including Lilly, with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977. The staff has issued subpoenas to us requesting production of documents related to the investigation. In connection with that matter, staffs of the SEC and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have asked us to voluntarily provide additional information related to certain activities of Lilly affiliates in a number of other countries. We are cooperating with the SEC and the DOJ in this investigation.

 

Shareholder Derivative Litigation

 

In 2007, the company received two demands from shareholders that the board of directors cause the company to take legal action against current and former directors and others for allegedly causing damage to the company through improper marketing of Evista, Prozac, and Zyprexa. In accordance with procedures established under the Indiana Business Corporation Law (Ind. Code § 23-1-32), the board has appointed a committee of independent persons to consider the demands and determine what action, if any, the company should take in response. Since January 2008, we have been served with seven shareholder derivative lawsuits: Lambrecht, et al. v. Taurel, et al. , filed January 17, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana; Staehr et al. v. Eli Lilly and Company et al., filed March 27, 2008, in Marion County Superior Court in Indianapolis, Indiana; Waldman et al., v. Eli Lilly and Company et al. , filed February 11, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York; Solomon v. Eli Lilly and Company et al. , filed March 27, 2008, in Marion County Superior Court in Indianapolis, Indiana; Robbins v. Taurel, et al. , filed April 9, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York; City of Taylor General Employees Retirement System v. Taurel, et al. , filed April 15, 2008, in the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of New York; and Zemprelli v. Taurel, et al ., filed June 24, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. Two of these lawsuits were filed by the shareholders who served the demands described above. All seven lawsuits are nominally filed on behalf of the company, against various current and former directors and officers and allege that the named officers and directors harmed the company through the improper marketing of Zyprexa, and in certain suits, Evista and Prozac. The Zemprelli suit also claims that certain defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. We believe these lawsuits are without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously.

 

Employee Litigation

 

In April 2006, three former employees and one current employee filed a putative class action against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana ( Welch, et al. v. Eli Lilly and Company , filed April 20, 2006) alleging racial discrimination. Plaintiffs have since amended their complaint twice, adding to the lawsuit a total of 154 individual plaintiffs as well as the national and local chapters of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Under the current schedule, the plaintiffs are to file their class certification motion in March 2009. We believe this lawsuit is without merit and are prepared to defend against it vigorously.

 

We have also been named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York ( Schaefer-LaRose, et al ., filed November 14, 2006) claiming that our pharmaceutical sales representatives should have been categorized as “non-exempt” rather than “exempt” employees, and claiming that the company owes them back wages for overtime worked, as well as penalties, interest, and attorneys fees. Other pharmaceutical industry participants face identical lawsuits. The case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana in August 2007. In February 2008, the Indianapolis court conditionally certified a nationwide opt-in collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act of all current and former employees who served as a Lilly pharmaceutical sales representative at any time from November 2003 to the present. As of the close of the opt-in period, fewer than 400 of the over 7,500 potential plaintiffs elected to participate in the lawsuit. We believe this lawsuit is without merit and are prepared to defend against it vigorously.

 

We have been named in a lawsuit brought by the Labor Attorney for 15 ^th  Region in the Labor Court of Paulinia, State of Sao Paulo, alleging possible harm to employees and former employees caused by exposure to heavy metals. We have also been named in approximately 50 lawsuits filed in the same court by individual former employees making similar claims. We believe these lawsuits are without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously.

 

Other Matters

 

In October 2005, the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania advised that it is conducting an inquiry regarding certain rebate agreements we entered into with a pharmacy benefit manager covering Axid, Evista, Humalog, Humulin, Prozac, and Zyprexa. The inquiry includes a review of our Medicaid best price reporting related to the product sales covered by the rebate agreements. We are cooperating in this matter.

 

In October 2005, we received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s office for the District of Massachusetts for the production of documents relating to our business relationship with a long-term care pharmacy organization concerning Actos, Evista, Humalog, Humulin, and Zyprexa. We are cooperating in this matter.

 

Between 2003 and 2005, various municipalities in New York sued us and many other pharmaceutical manufacturers, claiming in general that as a result of alleged improprieties by the manufacturers in the calculation and reporting of average wholesale prices for purposes of Medicaid reimbursement, the municipalities overpaid their portion of the cost of pharmaceuticals. The suits seek monetary and other relief, including civil penalties and treble damages. Similar suits were filed against us and many other manufacturers by the States of Mississippi, Iowa, Utah, and Kansas. These suits are pending either in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts or in various state courts. All of these suits are in early stages or discovery is ongoing.

During 2004 we, along with several other pharmaceutical companies, were named in a consolidated lawsuit in California state court brought on behalf of consumers alleging that the conduct of pharmaceutical companies in preventing commercial importation of prescription drugs from outside the United States violated antitrust laws. The case sought restitution for alleged overpayments for pharmaceuticals and an injunction against the allegedly violative conduct. Summary judgment was granted to us and the other defendants. In July 2008, the California Court of Appeals affirmed that decision. The California Supreme Court has accepted plaintiff’s appeal, and we expect it to be heard later this year.

 

In July 2008, we received a request from the Civil Division of the United States Department of Justice requesting the production of documents related to nominal pricing. We are cooperating in this matter.

 

We previously received requests for information about Zyprexa from the offices of Representative Henry Waxman, former Chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and Senator Charles Grassley, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee. We also received a request from Representative Waxman’s office for information about drug pricing under Medicare Part D. We are cooperating with these requests.

 

Along with over 100 other pharmaceutical companies operating in Europe, we have received a questionnaire from the European Commission as part of its ongoing inquiry into whether pharmaceutical companies have improperly blocked or created artificial barriers to pharmaceutical innovation or market entry of medicines through the misuse of patent rights, settlement of patent claims, litigation, or other means. We are cooperating with this request.

 

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.

 

We are also a defendant in other litigation and investigations, including product liability, patent, employment, and premises liability litigation, of a character we regard as normal to our business.

 

 

The amounts presented in columns (a) and (b) above represent purchases of common stock related to employee stock option exercises. The amounts presented in columns (c) and (d) in the above table represent activity related to our $3.00 billion share repurchase program announced in March 2000. As of December 31, 2008, we have purchased $2.58 billion related to this program.

 

 

 

Asset Impairments and Related Restructuring and Other Special Charges (Notes 5 and 14)

 

 

Other (Note 12)

 

 

2007

 

Acquisitions (Note 3)

 

 

Asset Impairments and Related Restructuring and Other Special Charges (Notes 5 and 14)

 

 

Late-Stage Pipeline Developments and Business Development Activity

 

Our long-term success depends, to a great extent, on our ability to continue to discover and develop innovative pharmaceutical products and acquire or collaborate on compounds currently in development by other biotech-nology or pharmaceutical companies. There were a number of late-stage pipeline developments and business development transactions within the past year, including:

 

Pipeline

 

 

 

Business Development

 

 

Legal, Regulatory, and Other Matters

 

In March 2004, we were notified by the U.S. Attorney’s office for the EDPA that it had commenced an investigation relating to our U.S. marketing and promotional practices for Zyprexa, Prozac, and Prozac Weekly ^tm . In October 2008, we announced that we were in advanced discussions to resolve the ongoing investigations led by the EDPA, and we recorded a charge of $1.42 billion. In January 2009, we announced that the discussions had been successfully concluded, and that we settled the Zyprexa-related federal claims, as well as similar Medicaid-related claims of states which decide to participate in the settlement.

 

Beginning in August 2006, we received civil investigative demands or subpoenas from the attorneys general of a number of states under various state consumer protection laws seeking documents pertaining to Zyprexa. In

October 2008, we reached a settlement with 32 states and the District of Columbia, under which we paid $62.0 million.

 

In December 2008, the Federal Supreme Court (BGH) in Germany re-established our Zyprexa patent that had been declared invalid in 2007 by the German Federal Patent Court. As a result of this ruling, generic olanzapine has been withdrawn from the German market as of the beginning of 2009.

 

We continue to reach agreements with claimants’ attorneys involved in U.S. Zyprexa product liability litigation to settle claims against us relating to the medication. Approximately 120 claims remain.

 

In the third quarter of 2008, we initiated a strategic review of our Tippecanoe manufacturing facility in Lafayette, Indiana. Options being considered for this site include continuing operations with a revised site mission, exploring opportunities to sell the facility, and ceasing operations altogether. The review is expected to last six to twelve months. No final decisions have been made at this time; however, depending on the decision, we could record significant charges.

 

In the United States, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) continues to provide an effective prescription drug benefit under the Medicare program (known as Medicare Part D). Various measures have been discussed and/or passed in both the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate that would impose additional pricing pressures on our products, including proposals to legalize the importation of prescription drugs and either allow, or require, the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate drug prices within Medicare Part D directly with pharmaceutical manufacturers. Additionally, various proposals have been introduced that would increase the rebates we pay on sales to Medicaid patients or impose additional rebates on sales to patients who receive their medicines through Medicare Part D. Uncertainty exists surrounding the new administration and Congress and the impact any government decisions or programs will have on the pharmaceutical industry. In addition, many states are facing substantial budget difficulties due to the downturn in the economy and are expected to seek aggressive cuts or other offsets in healthcare spending. We expect pricing pressures at the federal and state levels to become more severe, which could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations.

 

International operations also are generally subject to extensive price and market regulations, and there are many proposals for additional cost-containment measures, including proposals that would directly or indirectly impose additional price controls or reduce the value of our intellectual property protection.

 

The following table summarizes our net sales activity in 2008 compared with 2007:

 

 

 

 

OPERATING RESULTS — 2008

 

Sales

 

Our worldwide sales for 2008 increased 9 percent, to $20.38 billion, driven primarily by growth of Cymbalta, Cialis, Alimta, Humalog, and Gemzar. Worldwide sales volume increased 5 percent, while foreign exchange rates contributed 3 percent, and selling prices contributed 2 percent. (Numbers do not add due to rounding.) Sales in the U.S. increased 8 percent, to $10.93 billion, driven primarily by increased sales of Cymbalta, Humalog, Cialis, and Alimta. Sales outside the U.S. increased 11 percent, to $9.44 billion, driven primarily by the sales growth of Alimta, Cialis, Cymbalta, and Humalog.

 

 

Zyprexa, our top-selling product, is a treatment for schizophrenia, acute mixed or manic episodes associated with bipolar I disorder, and bipolar maintenance. Zyprexa sales in the U.S. decreased 1 percent in 2008, driven by lower demand, partially offset by higher prices. Sales outside the U.S. decreased 1 percent, driven by decreased demand and to a lesser extent, lower prices, partially offset by the favorable impact of foreign exchange rates. Demand outside the U.S. was unfavorably impacted by generic competition in Germany and Canada. As noted previously, generic olanzapine has been withdrawn from the German market as of the beginning of 2009.

 

Sales of Cymbalta, a product for the treatment of major depressive disorder, diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain, generalized anxiety disorder, and fibromyalgia, increased 23 percent in the U.S., driven by increased demand and, to a lesser extent, higher prices. Sales outside the U.S. increased 66 percent, driven by increased demand and, to a lesser extent, the favorable impact of foreign exchange rates and higher prices. Higher demand outside the U.S. reflects increased demand in established markets as well as recent launches in new markets.

 

Sales of Humalog, our injectable human insulin analog for the treatment of diabetes, increased 14 percent in the U.S., driven by increased demand and higher prices. Sales outside the U.S. increased 24 percent, driven by increased demand and, to a lesser extent, the favorable impact of foreign exchange rates.

Sales of Gemzar, a product approved to fight various cancers, increased 10 percent in the U.S., driven by increased demand and higher prices. Sales outside the U.S. increased 7 percent, driven primarily by the favorable impact of foreign exchange rates and, to a lesser extent, increased demand, partially offset by lower prices. We will likely face increased generic competition in certain markets outside the U.S. in 2009.

 

Our sales of Cialis, a treatment for erectile dysfunction, increased 27 percent in the U.S., driven by increased demand and higher prices. Sales outside the U.S. increased 26 percent, driven by increased demand and, to a lesser extent, the favorable impact of foreign exchange rates and higher prices. Total worldwide sales of Cialis increased 19 percent to $1.44 billion in 2008 as compared to $1.22 billion in 2007. This includes $72.7 million of sales in the Lilly ICOS joint-venture territories for the 2007 period prior to the acquisition of ICOS.

 

Sales of Alimta, a treatment for various cancers, increased 25 percent in the U.S., driven by increased demand and, to a lesser extent, higher prices. Sales outside the U.S. increased 46 percent, driven by increased demand and, to a lesser extent, the favorable impact of foreign exchange rates.

 

Sales of Evista, a product for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and for risk reduction of invasive breast cancer in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis and postmenopausal women at high risk for invasive breast cancer, decreased 1 percent in the U.S., driven by decreased demand, partially offset by higher prices. Sales outside the U.S. decreased 2 percent, driven by lower demand and lower prices, partially offset by the favorable impact of foreign exchange rates. As described in Legal and Regulatory Matters, Evista is the subject of a Hatch-Waxman patent challenge by Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Teva), which has received tentative approval of its Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) from the FDA. Unless the current stay on Teva’s approved ANDA remains in force or Teva is preliminarily enjoined from markets if the stay is lifted, it is possible that Teva could choose to launch before the current action against Teva is concluded. Such a launch could have a material adverse impact on our future consolidated results of operations.

 

Sales of Humulin, an injectable human insulin for the treatment of diabetes, increased 4 percent in the U.S., driven by higher prices. Sales outside the U.S. increased 10 percent, driven by the favorable impact of foreign exchange rates and increased demand.

 

Sales of Forteo, an injectable treatment for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and men at high risk for fracture, decreased 1 percent in the U.S., driven by decreased demand, partially offset by higher prices. Sales outside the U.S. increased 34 percent, driven by increased demand and, to a lesser extent, the favorable impact of foreign exchange rates.

 

Sales of Strattera, a treatment for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in children, adolescents, and adults, decreased 6 percent in the U.S., driven by decreased demand, partially offset by higher prices. Sales outside the U.S. increased 35 percent, driven primarily by increased demand.

 

Worldwide sales of Byetta, an injectable product for the treatment of type 2 diabetes that we market with Amylin, increased 16 percent to $751.4 million during 2008. We report as revenue our 50 percent share of Byetta’s gross margin in the U.S., 100 percent of Byetta sales outside the U.S., and our sales of Byetta pen delivery devices to Amylin. Our revenues increased 20 percent to $396.1 million in 2008.

 

Animal health product sales in the U.S. increased 12 percent, driven by the inclusion of U.S. Posilac sales since the date of acquisition. Sales outside the U.S. increased 8 percent, driven by increased demand and, to a lesser extent, the favorable impact of foreign exchange rates.

 

Gross Margin, Costs, and Expenses

 

The 2008 gross margin increased to 78.5 percent of sales compared with 77.2 percent for 2007. This increase was primarily due to the favorable impact of foreign exchange rates.

 

 

Marketing, selling, and administrative expenses increased 9 percent in 2008, to $6.63 billion. This increase was due to increased marketing and selling expenses, including prelaunch expenses for prasugrel and marketing costs associated with Cymbalta and Evista; the impact of foreign exchange rates; and increased litigation-related expenses. Investment in research and development increased 10 percent, to $3.84 billion, due to increased late-stage clinical trial and discovery research costs.

 

 

Acquired IPR&D charges related to the acquisitions of ImClone and SGX, as well as our in-licensing arrangements with BioMS and TransPharma, were $4.84 billion in 2008 as compared to $745.6 million in

2007. We recognized asset impairments, restructuring, and other special charges of $1.97 billion in 2008, as compared to $302.5 million in 2007. The 2008 charges were primarily associated with the resolution of Zyprexa investigations with the U.S. Attorney for the EDPA and multiple states. See Notes 3, 5 and 14 to the consolidated financial statements for additional information.

 

Other — net decreased $148.1 million, to a net expense of $26.1 million. This line item consists of interest expense, interest income, the after-tax operating results of the Lilly ICOS joint venture, and all other miscellaneous income and expense items.

 

 

We incurred tax expense of $764.3 million in 2008, despite having a loss before income taxes of $1.31 billion. Our net loss was driven by the $4.69 billion acquired IPR&D charge for ImClone and the $1.48 billion Zyprexa investigation settlements. The IPR&D charge was not tax deductible, and only a portion of the Zyprexa investigation settlements was deductible. In addition, we recorded tax expense associated with the ImClone acquisition, as well as a discrete income tax benefit of $210.3 million for the resolution of the IRS audit. The effective tax rate was 23.8 percent in 2007. See Note 12 to the consolidated financial statements for additional information.

 

OPERATING RESULTS — 2007

 

Financial Results

 

We achieved worldwide sales growth of 19 percent.  This growth was primarily driven by volume increases in a number of key products, with a significant portion of this increase in volume resulting from the acquisition of ICOS. Our additional investments in marketing and selling expenses in support of key products, primarily Cymbalta and the diabetes care products, contributed to this sales growth and enabled us to increase our investment in research and development 11 percent in 2007. While cost of sales and operating expenses in the aggregate grew at approximately the same rate as sales, other — net decreased and the effective tax rate increased. As a result, net income and earnings per share increased 11 percent, to $2.95 billion, or $2.71 per share, in 2007 as compared with $2.66 billion, or $2.45 per share, in 2006. Net income comparisons between 2007 and 2006 are affected by the impact of significant items that are reflected in our financial results. The significant items for 2007 are summarized in the Executive Overview. The 2006 items are summarized as follows (see Notes 5 and 14 to the consolidated financial statements for additional information):

 

 

Sales

 

Our worldwide sales for 2007 increased 19 percent, to $18.63 billion, driven primarily by the inclusion of Cialis since our January 29, 2007 acquisition of ICOS and sales growth of Cymbalta, Zyprexa, Alimta, Gemzar, and Humalog. Worldwide sales volume increased 12 percent, while selling prices and foreign

exchange rates each increased sales by 3 percent. (Numbers do not add due to rounding.) Sales in the U.S. increased 18 percent, to $10.15 billion, driven primarily by increased sales of Cymbalta, Zyprexa, Alimta, and Byetta, and the inclusion of Cialis. Sales outside the U.S. increased 20 percent, to $8.49 billion, driven primarily by the inclusion of Cialis, and sales growth of Zyprexa, Alimta, Gemzar, and Cymbalta.

 

The following table summarizes our net sales activity in 2007 compared with 2006:

 

 

 

NM — Not meaningful

 

 

Zyprexa sales in the U.S. increased 6 percent in 2007, driven by higher net selling prices, partially offset by lower demand. Sales outside the U.S. increased 12 percent, driven by the favorable impact of foreign exchange rates and increased demand.

 

Sales of Cymbalta increased 58 percent in the U.S., driven primarily by strong demand. Sales outside the U.S. increased 70 percent, driven by increased demand and the favorable impact of foreign exchange rates.

 

Sales of Gemzar increased 10 percent in the U.S., driven by higher prices and increased demand. Sales outside the U.S. increased 16 percent, driven by increased demand and the favorable impact of foreign exchange rates.

 

Sales of Humalog increased 9 percent in the U.S., driven by higher prices and increased demand. Sales outside the U.S. increased 20 percent, driven by increased demand and the favorable impact of foreign exchange rates, partially offset by declining prices.

 

Total worldwide sales of Cialis were $1.22 billion and $971.0 million during 2007 and 2006, respectively. This includes $72.7 million of sales in the Lilly ICOS joint-venture territories for the 2007 period prior to the acquisition of ICOS. Worldwide sales grew 25 percent in 2007. U.S. sales increased 20 percent in 2007, driven by increased demand and higher prices. Sales outside the U.S. increased 28 percent in 2007, driven by increased demand, the favorable impact of foreign exchange rates, and higher prices.

Sales of Evista increased 6 percent in the U.S., driven by higher prices. Sales outside the U.S. increased 1 percent, driven by the favorable impact of foreign exchange rates, partially offset by lower prices and lower demand.

 

Sales of Humulin decreased 1 percent in the U.S., driven by lower demand, partially offset by higher prices. Sales outside the U.S. increased 11 percent, driven by increased demand and the favorable impact of foreign exchange rates, partially offset by lower prices.

 

Sales of Alimta increased 28 percent in the U.S., driven by increased demand and, to a lesser extent, higher prices. Sales outside the U.S. increased 55 percent, driven by increased demand and, to a lesser extent, the favorable impact of foreign exchange rates.

 

Sales of Forteo increased 19 percent in the U.S., driven by higher net selling prices. U.S. sales growth benefited from access to medical coverage through the Medicare Part D program and decreased utilization of our U.S. patient assistance program and, to a lesser extent, increased demand. Sales outside the U.S. increased 21 percent, driven by increased demand and the favorable impact of foreign exchange rates.

 

Sales of Strattera decreased 9 percent in the U.S., as a result of decreased demand. Sales outside the U.S. increased 50 percent, driven by increased demand and the favorable impact of foreign exchange rates.

 

Our revenues from Actos decreased 46 percent in the U.S. Sales outside the U.S. increased 30 percent, driven primarily by increased demand and, to a lesser extent, the favorable impact of foreign exchange rates.

 

Worldwide sales of Byetta increased 51 percent to $650.2 million during 2007. Our revenues increased 51 percent to $330.7 million in 2007.

 

Animal health product sales in the U.S. increased 18 percent, driven by increased demand, the acquisition of Ivy Animal Health, and new companion-animal product launches. Sales outside the U.S. increased 10 percent, driven by the favorable impact of foreign exchange rates and increased demand.

 

Gross Margin, Costs, and Expenses

 

The 2007 gross margin decreased to 77.2 percent of sales compared with 77.4 percent for 2006. This decrease was primarily due to the expense resulting from the amortization of the intangible assets acquired in the ICOS acquisition, the unfavorable impact of foreign exchange rates, and production volumes growing at a slower rate than sales, offset partially by manufacturing expenses growing at a slower rate than sales.

 

Operating expenses (the aggregate of research and development and marketing, selling, and administrative expenses) increased 19 percent in 2007. Investment in research and development increased 11 percent, to $3.49 billion. In addition to the acquisition of ICOS, this increase was due to increases in discovery research and late-stage clinical trial costs. Marketing, selling, and administrative expenses increased 25 percent in 2007, to $6.10 billion. This increase was largely due to the impact of the ICOS acquisition, as well as increased marketing and selling expenses in support of key products, primarily Cymbalta and the diabetes care products, and the unfavorable impact of foreign exchange rates.

 

Acquired IPR&D charges were $745.6 million in 2007 and related to the acquisitions of ICOS, Hypnion, and Ivy, as well as our licensing arrangements with OSI, MacroGenics, and Glenmark. We incurred asset impairments, restructuring, and other special charges of $302.5 million in 2007 as compared to $945.2 million in 2006. See Notes 3, 5 and 14 to the consolidated financial statements for additional information.

 

Other — net decreased $115.8 million, to income of $122.0 million. This line item consists of interest expense, interest income, the after-tax operating results of the Lilly ICOS joint venture, and all other miscellaneous income and expense items.

 

 

 

We incurred tax expense of $923.8 million in 2007, resulting in an effective tax rate of 23.8 percent, compared with 22.1 percent for 2006. The effective tax rates for 2007 and 2006 were affected primarily by the nondeductible ICOS and Hypnion IPR&D charges of $594.6 million in 2007, and the product liability charges of $494.9 million in 2006. The tax effect of the product liability charge was less than our effective tax rate, as the tax benefit was calculated based upon existing tax laws in the countries in which we reasonably expect to deduct the charge. See Note 12 to the consolidated financial statements for additional information.

 

FINANCIAL CONDITION

 

As of December 31, 2008, cash, cash equivalents, and short-term investments totaled $5.93 billion compared with $4.83 billion at December 31, 2007. Cash flow from operations in 2008 of $7.30 billion and net proceeds from the issuance of debt of $4.41 billion exceeded the total of the net cash paid for corporate acquisitions of $6.08 billion, dividends paid of $2.06 billion, purchases of property and equipment of $947.2 million, and net purchases of noncurrent investments of $815.1 million.

 

Capital expenditures of $947.2 million during 2008 were $135.2 million less than in 2007. We expect 2009 capital expenditures to be approximately $1.1 billion as we invest in our biotechnology capabilities, continue to upgrade our manufacturing and research facilities to enhance productivity and quality systems, and invest in the long-term growth of our diabetes care products.

 

 

Total debt as of December 31, 2008 increased $5.45 billion, to $10.46 billion, reflecting the commercial paper we issued in November 2008 primarily to finance our acquisition of ImClone, offset by long-term debt repayments and paydown of commercial paper with cash and cash equivalents on hand. Our current debt ratings from Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s are at AA and A1, respectively.

 

Dividends of $1.88 per share were paid in 2008, an increase of 11 percent from 2007. In the fourth quarter of 2008, effective for the first-quarter dividend in 2009, the quarterly dividend was increased to $.49 per share (a 4.3 percent increase), resulting in an indicated annual rate for 2009 of $1.96 per share. The year 2008 was the

124th consecutive year in which we made dividend payments and the 41st consecutive year in which dividends have been increased.

 

 

In recent months, global economic conditions have deteriorated. Triggered by the liquidity crisis in the capital markets, the implications have become more widespread, resulting in higher unemployment and declines in real consumer spending. In addition, many financial institutions have tightened lines of credit, reducing funding available for near-term economic growth. Pharmaceutical consumption has traditionally been relatively unaffected by economic downturns; however, an extended downturn could lead to a decline in overall prescriptions corresponding with the growth of the uninsured and underinsured population in the U.S. In addition, both private and public health care payers are facing heightened fiscal challenges due to the economic slowdown and are taking aggressive steps to reduce the costs of care, including pressures for increased pharmaceutical discounts and rebates and efforts to drive greater use of generic drugs. We continue to monitor the potential near-term impact of prescription trends, the credit worthiness of our wholesalers and other customers and suppliers, the decline of health insurance coverage in the overall population, and the federal government’s involvement in the economic crisis.

 

We believe that cash generated from operations, along with available cash and cash equivalents, will be sufficient to fund our normal operating needs, including debt service, capital expenditures, costs associated with litigation and government investigations, and dividends in 2009. We believe that amounts accessible through existing commercial paper markets should be adequate to fund short-term borrowings. Our access to credit markets has not been adversely affected by the recent illiquidity in the market because of the high credit quality of our short- and long-term debt. In 2009, we intend to fund payments required in connection with the EDPA settlements, and to further reduce outstanding commercial paper with cash and cash equivalents on hand, cash generated from operations, and the issuance of longterm debt. We currently have $1.24 billion of unused committed bank credit facilities, $1.20 billion of which backs our commercial paper program. Additionally, in November 2008, we obtained a one-year short-term revolving credit facility in the amount of $4.00 billion as back-up, alternative financing. Various risks and uncertainties, including those discussed in the Financial Expectations for 2009 section, may affect our operating results and cash generated from operations.

 

In the normal course of business, our operations are exposed to fluctuations in interest rates and currency values. These fluctuations can vary the costs of financing, investing, and operating. We address a portion of these risks through a controlled program of risk management that includes the use of derivative financial instruments. The objective of controlling these risks is to limit the impact on earnings of fluctuations in interest and currency exchange rates. All derivative activities are for purposes other than trading.

 

Our primary interest rate risk exposure results from changes in short-term U.S. dollar interest rates. In an effort to manage interest rate exposures, we strive to achieve an acceptable balance between fixed and floating rate debt positions and may enter into interest rate derivatives to help maintain that balance. Based on our overall interest rate exposure at December 31, 2008 and 2007, including derivatives and other interest rate risk-sensitive instruments, a hypothetical 10 percent change in interest rates applied to the fair value of the instruments as of December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively, would have no material impact on earnings, cash flows, or fair values of interest rate risksensitive instruments over a one-year period.

 

Our foreign currency risk exposure results from fluctuating currency exchange rates, primarily the U.S. dollar against the euro and the Japanese yen, and the British pound against the euro. We face transactional currency exposures that arise when we enter into transactions, generally on an intercompany basis, denominated in currencies other than the local currency. We also face currency exposure that arises from translating the results of our global operations to the U.S. dollar at exchange rates that have fluctuated from the beginning of the period. We may use forward contracts and purchased options to manage our foreign currency exposures. Our policy outlines the minimum and maximum hedge coverage of such exposures. Gains and losses on these derivative positions offset, in part, the impact of currency fluctuations on the existing assets, liabilities, commitments, and anticipated revenues. Considering our derivative financial instruments outstanding at December 31, 2008 and 2007, a hypothetical 10 percent change in exchange rates (primarily against the U.S. dollar) as of December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively, would have no material impact on earnings, cash flows, or fair values of foreign currency rate risk-sensitive instruments over a one-year period. These calculations do not reflect the impact of the exchange gains or losses on the underlying positions that would be offset, in part, by the results of the derivative instruments.

 

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations

 

We have no off-balance sheet arrangements that have a material current effect or that are reasonably likely to have a material future effect on our financial condition, changes in financial condition, revenues or expenses,

results of operations, liquidity, capital expenditures, or capital resources. We acquire and collaborate on assets still in development and enter into research and development arrangements with third parties that often require milestone and royalty payments to the third party contingent upon the occurrence of certain future events linked to the success of the asset in development. Milestone payments may be required contingent upon the successful achievement of an important point in the development life cycle of the pharmaceutical product (e.g., approval of the product for marketing by the appropriate regulatory agency or upon the achievement of certain sales levels). If required by the arrangement, we may have to make royalty payments based upon a percentage of the sales of the pharmaceutical product in the event that regulatory approval for marketing is obtained. Because of the contingent nature of these payments, they are not included in the table of contractual obligations.

 

Individually, these arrangements are not material in any one annual reporting period. However, if milestones for multiple products covered by these arrangements would happen to be reached in the same reporting period, the aggregate charge to expense could be material to the results of operations in any one period. These arrangements often give us the discretion to unilaterally terminate development of the product, which would allow us to avoid making the contingent payments; however, we are unlikely to cease development if the compound successfully achieves clinical testing objectives. We also note that, from a business perspective, we view these payments as positive because they signify that the product is successfully moving through development and is now generating or is more likely to generate cash flows from sales of products.

 

Our current noncancelable contractual obligations that will require future cash payments are as follows (in millions):

 

 

 

 

 

 

The contractual obligations table is current as of December 31, 2008. We expect the amount of these obligations to change materially over time as new contracts are initiated and existing contracts are completed, terminated, or modified.

APPLICATION OF CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES

 

In preparing our financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), we must often make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues, expenses, and related disclosures. Some of those judgments can be subjective and complex, and consequently actual results could differ from those estimates. For any given individual estimate or assumption we make, it is possible that other people applying reasonable judgment to the same facts and circumstances could develop different estimates. We believe that, given current facts and circumstances, it is unlikely that applying any such other reasonable judgment would cause a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial position, or liquidity for the periods presented in this report. Our most critical accounting policies have been discussed with our audit committee and are described below.

 

Revenue Recognition and Sales Return, Rebate, and Discount Accruals

 

We recognize revenue from sales of products at the time title of goods passes to the buyer and the buyer assumes the risks and rewards of ownership. For more than 90 percent of our sales, this is at the time products are shipped to the customer, typically a wholesale distributor or a major retail chain. The remaining sales, which are outside the U.S., are recorded at the point of delivery. Provisions for returns, rebates, and discounts are established in the same period the related sales are recorded.

 

We regularly review the supply levels of our significant products sold to major wholesalers in the U.S. and in major markets outside the U.S., primarily by reviewing periodic inventory reports supplied by our major wholesalers and available prescription volume information for our products, or alternative approaches. We attempt to maintain wholesaler inventory levels at an average of approximately one month or less on a consistent basis across our product portfolio. Causes of unusual wholesaler buying patterns include actual or anticipated product supply issues, weather patterns, anticipated changes in the transportation network, redundant holiday stocking, and changes in wholesaler business operations. In the U.S., the current structure of our arrangements eliminates the incentive for speculative wholesaler buying and provides us improved data on inventory levels at our wholesalers. When we believe wholesaler purchasing patterns have caused an unusual increase or decrease in the sales of a major product compared with underlying demand, we disclose this in our product sales discussion if we believe the amount is material to the product sales trend; however, we are not always able to accurately quantify the amount of stocking or destocking. Wholesaler stocking and destocking activity historically has not caused any material changes in the rate of actual product returns.

 

We establish sales return accruals for anticipated product returns. We record the return amounts as a deduction to arrive at our net sales. Once the product is returned, it is destroyed. Consistent with SFAS 48, Revenue Recognition When Right of Return Exists, we estimate a reserve when the sales occur for future product returns related to those sales. This estimate is primarily based on historical return rates as well as specifically identified anticipated returns due to known business conditions and product expiry dates. Actual product returns have been approximately one percent of our net sales over the past three years and have not fluctuated significantly as a percent of sales.

 

We establish sales rebate and discount accruals in the same period as the related sales. The rebate and discount amounts are recorded as a deduction to arrive at our net sales. Sales rebates and discounts that require the use of judgment in the establishment of the accrual include Medicaid, managed care, Medicare, chargebacks, long-term-care, hospital, patient assistance programs, and various other government programs. We base these accruals primarily upon our historical rebate and discount payments made to our customer segment groups and the provisions of current rebate and discount contracts.

 

The largest of our sales rebate and discount amounts are rebates associated with sales covered by Medicaid. In determining the appropriate accrual amount, we consider our historical Medicaid rebate payments by product as a percentage of our historical sales as well as any significant changes in sales trends, an evaluation of the current Medicaid rebate laws and interpretations, the percentage of our products that are sold to Medicaid recipients, and our product pricing and current rebate and discount contracts. Although we accrue a liability for Medicaid rebates at the time we record the sale (when the product is shipped), the Medicaid rebate related

to that sale is typically paid up to six months later. Because of this time lag, in any particular period our rebate adjustments may incorporate revisions of accruals for several periods.

 

Most of our rebates outside the U.S. are contractual or legislatively mandated and are estimated and recognized in the same period as the related sales. In some large European countries, government rebates are based on the anticipated pharmaceutical budget deficit in the country. A best estimate of these rebates, updated as governmental authorities revise budgeted deficits, is recognized in the same period as the related sale. If our estimates are not reflective of the actual pharmaceutical budget deficit, we adjust our rebate reserves.

 

We believe that our accruals for sales returns, rebates, and discounts are reasonable and appropriate based on current facts and circumstances. Sales returns, federally mandated Medicaid rebate and state pharmaceutical assistance programs (Medicaid) and Medicare rebates reduced sales by $1.03 billion, $738.8 million, and $704.8 million in 2008, 2007, and 2006, respectively. A 5 percent change in the sales return, Medicaid, and Medicare rebate amounts we recognized in 2008 would lead to an approximate $52 million effect on our income before income taxes. As of December 31, 2008, our sales returns, Medicaid, and Medicare rebate liability was $618.5 million.

 

Our global rebate and discount liabilities are included in sales rebates and discounts on our consolidated balance sheet. Our global sales return liability is included in other current liabilities and other noncurrent liabilities on our consolidated balance sheet. Approximately 80 percent and 78 percent of our global sales return, rebate, and discount liability resulted from sales of our products in the U.S. as of December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively. The following represents a roll-forward of our most significant U.S. returns, rebate, and discount liability balances, including Medicaid (in millions):

 

 

 

 

Product Litigation Liabilities and Other Contingencies

 

Product litigation liabilities and other contingencies are, by their nature, uncertain and are based upon complex judgments and probabilities. The factors we consider in developing our product litigation liability reserves and other contingent liability amounts include the merits and jurisdiction of the litigation, the nature and the number of other similar current and past litigation cases, the nature of the product and the current assessment of the science subject to the litigation, and the likelihood of settlement and current state of settlement discussions, if any. In addition, 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. We accrue legal defense costs expected to be incurred in connection with significant product liability contingencies when probable and reasonably estimable.

 

We also consider the insurance coverage we have to diminish the exposure for periods covered by insurance. In assessing our insurance coverage, we consider the policy coverage limits and exclusions, the potential for denial of coverage by the insurance company, the financial condition of the insurers, and the possibility of and length of time for collection. In the past few years, we have experienced difficulties in obtaining product liability insurance due to a very restrictive insurance market. Therefore, for substantially all of our currently marketed products, we have been and expect that we will continue to be completely self-insured for future product liability losses. In addition, there is no assurance that we will be able to fully collect from our insurance carriers in the future.

The litigation accruals and environmental liabilities and the related estimated insurance recoverables have been reflected on a gross basis as liabilities and assets, respectively, on our consolidated balance sheets.

 

We believe that the accruals and related insurance recoveries we have established for product litigation liabilities and other contingencies are appropriate based on current facts and circumstances.

 

Pension and Retiree Medical Plan Assumptions

 

Pension benefit costs include assumptions for the discount rate, retirement age, and expected return on plan assets. Retiree medical plan costs include assumptions for the discount rate, retirement age, expected return on plan assets, and health-care-cost trend rates. These assumptions have a significant effect on the amounts reported. In addition to the analysis below, see Note 13 to the consolidated financial statements for additional information regarding our retirement benefits.

 

Periodically, we evaluate the discount rate and the expected return on plan assets in our defined benefit pension and retiree health benefit plans. In evaluating these assumptions, we consider many factors, including an evaluation of the discount rates, expected return on plan assets, and health-care-cost trend rates of other companies; our historical assumptions compared with actual results; an analysis of current market conditions and asset allocations (approximately 88 percent to 92 percent of which are growth investments); and the views of leading financial advisers and economists. We use an actuarially determined, company-specific yield curve to determine the discount rate. In evaluating our expected retirement age assumption, we consider the retirement ages of our past employees eligible for pension and medical benefits together with our expectations of future retirement ages.

 

We believe our pension and retiree medical plan assumptions are appropriate based upon the above factors. If the health-care-cost trend rates were to be increased by one percentage point each future year, the aggregate of the service cost and interest cost components of the 2008 annual expense would increase by approximately $27 million. A one-percentage-point decrease would lower the aggregate of the 2008 service cost and interest cost by approximately $21 million. If the 2008 discount rate for the U.S. defined benefit pension and retiree health benefit plans (U.S. plans) were to be changed by a quarter percentage point, income before income taxes would change by approximately $26 million. If the 2008 expected return on plan assets for U.S. plans were to be changed by a quarter percentage point, income before income taxes would change by approximately $17 million. If our assumption regarding the 2008 expected age of future retirees for U.S. plans were adjusted by one year, our income before income taxes would be affected by approximately $28 million. The U.S. plans represent approximately 83 percent of the total accumulated postretirement benefit obligation and approximately 84 percent of total plan assets at December 31, 2008.

 

Impairment of Long-Lived Assets

 

We review the carrying value of long-lived assets (both intangible and tangible) for potential impairment on a periodic basis and whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate the carrying value of an asset may not be recoverable. We determine impairment by comparing the projected undiscounted cash flows to be generated by the asset to its carrying value. If an impairment is identified, a loss is recorded equal to the excess of the asset’s net book value over its fair value, and the cost basis is adjusted. The estimated future cash flows, based on reasonable and supportable assumptions and projections, require management’s judgment. Actual results could vary from these estimates.

 

Income Taxes

 

We prepare and file tax returns based on our interpretation of tax laws and regulations and record estimates based on these judgments and interpretations. In the normal course of business, our tax returns are subject to examination by various taxing authorities, which may result in future tax, interest, and penalty assessments by these authorities. Inherent uncertainties exist in estimates of many tax positions due to changes in tax law resulting from legislation, regulation, and/or as concluded through the various jurisdictions’ tax court systems. We recognize the tax benefit from an uncertain tax position only if it is more likely than not that the tax position will be sustained on examination by the taxing authorities, based on the technical merits of the

position. The tax benefits recognized in the financial statements from such a position are measured based on the largest benefit that has a greater than 50 percent likelihood of being realized upon ultimate resolution. The amount of unrecognized tax benefits is adjusted for changes in facts and circumstances. For example, adjustments could result from significant amendments to existing tax law and the issuance of regulations or interpretations by the taxing authorities, new information obtained during a tax examination, or resolution of an examination. We believe that our estimates for uncertain tax positions are appropriate and sufficient to pay assessments that may result from examinations of our tax returns. We recognize both accrued interest and penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits in income tax expense.

 

We have recorded valuation allowances against certain of our deferred tax assets, primarily those that have been generated from net operating losses and tax credit carryforwards in certain taxing jurisdictions. In evaluating whether we would more likely than not recover these deferred tax assets, we have not assumed any future taxable income or tax planning strategies in the jurisdictions associated with these carryforwards where history does not support such an assumption. Implementation of tax planning strategies to recover these deferred tax assets or future income generation in these jurisdictions could lead to the reversal of these valuation allowances and a reduction of income tax expense.

 

We believe that our estimates for the uncertain tax positions and valuation allowances against the deferred tax assets are appropriate based on current facts and circumstances. A 5 percent change in the amount of the uncertain tax positions and the valuation allowance would result in a change in net income of approximately $43.2 million and $42.3 million, respectively.

 

FINANCIAL EXPECTATIONS FOR 2009

 

For the full year of 2009, we expect earnings per share to be in the range of $4.00 to $4.25. We expect volume growth in sales again in 2009, driven by Cymbalta, Alimta, Cialis, Humalog, and the anticipated launches of prasugrel, as well as by the Elanco animal health division. However, the negative impact of weaker foreign currencies, worldwide pricing pressures, and the impact of generic competition in certain markets for Gemzar are anticipated to partially offset these positive impacts. As a result, we expect mid-single digit sales growth. We expect gross margin as a percent of net sales to increase, driven by the strengthening dollar. This increase could be more pronounced in the first half of 2009. Marketing, selling, and administrative expenses are expected to show flat to low-single digit growth. Research and development expenses are projected to grow in the low-double digits. Other — net is expected to be a net loss of between $200 million and $250 million. Capital expenditures are expected to be approximately $1.1 billion, and we expect continued strong operating cash flow.

 

Actual results could differ materially and will depend on, among other things, the continuing growth of our currently marketed products; developments with competitive products; the timing and scope of regulatory approvals and the success of our new product launches; asset impairments, restructurings, and acquisitions of compounds under development resulting in acquired in-process research and development charges; foreign exchange rates and global macroeconomic conditions; changes in effective tax rates; wholesaler inventory changes; other regulatory developments, litigation, and government investigations; and the impact of governmental actions regarding pricing, importation, and reimbursement for pharmaceuticals. We undertake no duty to update these forward-looking statements.

 

LEGAL AND REGULATORY MATTERS

 

We are a party to various legal actions and government investigations. The most significant of these are described below. While it is not possible to determine the outcome of these matters, we believe that, except as specifically noted below, the resolution of all such matters will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or liquidity, but could possibly be material to our consolidated results of operations in any one accounting period.

Patent Litigation

 

We are engaged in the following patent litigation matters brought pursuant to procedures set out in the Hatch-Waxman Act (the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984):

 

 

We believe each of these Hatch-Waxman challenges is without merit and expect to prevail in this litigation. However, it is not possible to determine the outcome of this litigation, and accordingly, we can provide no assurance that we will prevail. An unfavorable outcome in any of these cases could have a material adverse impact on our future consolidated results of operations, liquidity, and financial position.

We have received challenges to Zyprexa patents in a number of countries outside the U.S.:

 

 

We are vigorously contesting the various legal challenges to our Zyprexa patents on a country-by-country basis. We cannot determine the outcome of this litigation. The availability of generic olanzapine in additional markets could have a material adverse impact on our consolidated results of operations.

 

Xigris and Evista: In June 2002, Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, and the President and Fellows of Harvard College in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts sued us, alleging that sales of two of our products, Xigris and Evista, were inducing the infringement of a patent related to the discovery of a natural cell signaling phenomenon in the human body, and seeking royalties on past and future sales of these products. On May 4, 2006, a jury in Boston issued an initial decision in the case that Xigris and Evista sales infringe the patent. The jury awarded the plaintiffs approximately $65 million in damages, calculated by applying a 2.3 percent royalty to all U.S. sales of Xigris and Evista from the date of issuance of the patent through the date of trial. In addition, a separate bench trial with the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts was held in August 2006, on our contention that the patent is unenforceable and impermissibly covers natural processes. In June 2005, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) commenced a reexamination of the patent, and in August 2007 took the position that the Ariad claims at issue are unpatentable, a position that Ariad continues to contest. In September 2007, the Court entered a final judgment indicating that Ariad’s claims are patentable, valid, and enforceable, and finding damages in the amount of $65 million plus a 2.3 percent royalty on net U.S. sales of Xigris and Evista since the time of the jury decision. However, the Court deferred the requirement to pay any damages until after all rights to appeal have been exhausted. We have appealed this

judgment. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments on the appeal on February 6, 2009. We believe that these allegations are without legal merit, that we will ultimately prevail on these issues, and therefore that the likelihood of any monetary damages is remote.

 

Government Investigations and Related Litigation

 

In March 2004, the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the EDPA advised us that it had commenced an investigation related to our U.S. marketing and promotional practices, including our communications with physicians and remuneration of physician consultants and advisors, with respect to Zyprexa, Prozac, and Prozac Weekly. In addition, the State Medicaid Fraud Control Units of more than 30 states coordinated with the EDPA in its investigation of any Medicaid-related claims relating to our marketing and promotion of Zyprexa. In January 2009, we announced that we reached resolution of this matter. As part of the resolution, we pled guilty to one misdemeanor violation of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and agreed to pay $615.0 million. The misdemeanor plea is for the off-label promotion of Zyprexa in elderly populations as treatment for dementia, including Alzheimer’s dementia, between September 1999 and March 2001. We have also entered into a settlement agreement resolving the federal civil claims, under which we will pay approximately $438.0 million, although we do not admit to the allegations. We have also agreed to settle the civil investigations brought by the State Medicaid Fraud Control Units of the states that have coordinated with the EDPA in its investigation, and will make available a maximum amount of approximately $362.0 million for payment to those states that agree to settle. The charge we recorded for this matter in the third quarter of $1.42 billion will be sufficient to cover these payments. Also, as part of the settlement, we have entered into a corporate integrity agreement with the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). This agreement will require us to maintain our compliance program and to undertake a set of defined corporate integrity obligations for five years. The agreement also provides for an independent third-party review organization to assess and report on the company’s systems, processes, policies, procedures and practices.

 

In June 2005, we received a subpoena from the Office of the Attorney General, Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, of the State of Florida, seeking production of documents relating to sales of Zyprexa and our marketing and promotional practices with respect to Zyprexa. In September 2006, we received a subpoena from the California Attorney General’s Office seeking production of documents related to our efforts to obtain and maintain Zyprexa’s status on California’s formulary, marketing and promotional practices with respect to Zyprexa, and remuneration of health care providers. We expect these matters to be resolved if Florida and California participate in the state component of the EDPA resolution.

 

Beginning in August 2006, we received civil investigative demands or subpoenas from the attorneys general of a number of states under various state consumer protection laws. Most of these requests became part of a multistate investigative effort coordinated by an executive committee of attorneys general. In October 2008, we reached a settlement with 32 states and the District of Columbia. While there is no finding that we have violated any provision of the state laws under which the investigations were conducted, we paid $62.0 million and agreed to undertake certain commitments regarding Zyprexa for a period of six years, through consent decrees filed in the settling states. The 32 states participating in the settlement are: Alabama, Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

 

Product Liability and Related Litigation

 

We have been named as a defendant in a large number of Zyprexa product liability lawsuits in the U.S. and have been notified of many other claims of individuals who have not filed suit. The lawsuits and unfiled claims (together the “claims”) allege a variety of injuries from the use of Zyprexa, with the majority alleging that the product caused or contributed to diabetes or high blood-glucose levels. The claims seek substantial compensatory and punitive damages and typically accuse us of inadequately testing for and warning about side effects of Zyprexa. Many of the claims also allege that we improperly promoted the drug. Almost all of the

federal lawsuits are part of a Multi-District Litigation (MDL) proceeding before The Honorable Jack Weinstein in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York (MDL No. 1596).

 

Since June 2005, we have entered into agreements with various claimants’ attorneys involved in U.S. Zyprexa product liability litigation to settle a substantial majority of the claims. The agreements cover a total of approximately 32,670 claimants, including a large number of previously filed lawsuits and other asserted claims. The two primary settlements were as follows:

 

 

The 2005 settlement totaling $700.0 million was paid during 2005. The January 2007 settlements were paid during 2007.

 

We are prepared to continue our vigorous defense of Zyprexa in all remaining claims. The U.S. Zyprexa product liability claims not subject to these agreements include approximately 105 lawsuits in the U.S. covering approximately 120 plaintiffs, of which about 80 cases covering about 90 plaintiffs are part of the MDL. No trials have been scheduled related to these claims.

 

In early 2005, we were served with four lawsuits seeking class action status in Canada on behalf of patients who took Zyprexa. One of these four lawsuits has been certified for residents of Quebec, and a second has been certified in Ontario and includes all Canadian residents except for residents of Quebec and British Columbia. The allegations in the Canadian actions are similar to those in the litigation pending in the U.S.

 

Since the beginning of 2005, we have recorded aggregate net pretax charges of $1.61 billion for Zyprexa product liability matters. The net charges, which take into account our actual insurance recoveries, covered the following:

 

 

In December 2004, we were served with two lawsuits brought in state court in Louisiana on behalf of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, alleging that Zyprexa caused or contributed to diabetes or high blood-glucose levels, and that we improperly promoted the drug. These cases have been removed to federal court and are now part of the MDL proceedings in the Eastern District of New York (EDNY). In these actions, the Department of Health and Hospitals seeks to recover the costs it paid for Zyprexa through Medicaid and other drug-benefit programs, as well as the costs the department alleges it has incurred and will incur to treat Zyprexa-related illnesses. We have been served with similar lawsuits filed by the states of Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Idaho, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, and West Virginia in the courts of the respective states. The Connecticut, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, and West Virginia cases are part of the MDL proceedings in the EDNY. The Alaska case was settled in March 2008 for a payment of $15.0 million, plus terms designed to ensure, subject to certain limitations and conditions, that Alaska is treated as favorably as certain other states that may settle with us in the future over similar claims. The following cases have been set for trial in 2009: Connecticut in the EDNY in June, Pennsylvania in November, and South Carolina in August, in their respective states.

 

In 2005, two lawsuits were filed in the EDNY purporting to be nationwide class actions on behalf of all consumers and third-party payors, excluding governmental entities, which have made or will make payments for their members or insured patients being prescribed Zyprexa. These actions have now been consolidated into a single lawsuit, which is brought under certain state consumer protection statutes, the federal civil RICO statute, and common law theories, seeking a refund of the cost of Zyprexa, treble damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. Two additional lawsuits were filed in the EDNY in 2006 on similar grounds. In September

2008, Judge Weinstein certified a class consisting of third-party payors, excluding governmental entities and individual consumers. We appealed the certification order, and Judge Weinstein’s order denying our motion for summary judgment, in September 2008. In 2007, The Pennsylvania Employees Trust Fund brought claims in state court in Pennsylvania as insurer of Pennsylvania state employees, who were prescribed Zyprexa on similar grounds as described in the New York cases. As with the product liability suits, these lawsuits allege that we inadequately tested for and warned about side effects of Zyprexa and improperly promoted the drug. The Pennsylvania case is set for trial in October 2009.

 

We cannot determine with certainty the additional number of lawsuits and claims that may be asserted. The ultimate resolution of Zyprexa product liability and related litigation could have a material adverse impact on our consolidated results of operations, liquidity, and financial position.

 

In addition, we have been named as a defendant in numerous other product liability lawsuits involving primarily diethylstilbestrol (DES) and thimerosal. The majority of these claims are covered by insurance, subject to deductibles and coverage limits.

 

Because of the nature of pharmaceutical products, it is possible that we could become subject to large numbers of product liability and related claims for other products in the future. In the past few years, we have experienced difficulties in obtaining product liability insurance due to a very restrictive insurance market. Therefore, for substantially all of our currently marketed products, we have been and expect that we will continue to be completely self-insured for future product liability losses. In addition, there is no assurance that we will be able to fully collect from our insurance carriers in the future.

 

PRIVATE SECURITIES LITIGATION REFORM ACT OF 1995 — A CAUTION CONCERNING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

 

Under the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, we caution investors that any forward-looking statements or projections made by us, including those made in this document, are based on management’s expectations at the time they are made, but they are subject to risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially from those projected. Economic, competitive, governmental, technological, legal, and other factors that may affect our operations and prospects are discussed earlier in this section and our most recent report on Forms 10-Q and 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. We undertake no duty to update forward-looking statements.

 

 

 

See notes to consolidated financial statements.

 

See notes to consolidated financial statements.

 

See notes to consolidated financial statements.

 

See notes to consolidated financial statements

 

 

 

The largest category of products is the neurosciences group, which includes Zyprexa, Cymbalta, Strattera, and Prozac. Endocrinology products consist primarily of Humalog, Humulin, Byetta, Actos, Evista, Forteo, and Humatrope. Oncology products consist primarily of Gemzar and Alimta. Cardiovascular products consist primarily of Cialis, ReoPro, and Xigris. Animal health products include Posilac, Tylan, Rumensin, Coban, and other products for livestock and poultry, and Comfortis and other products for companion animals. The other pharmaceuticals category includes anti-infectives, primarily Ceclor and Vancocin, and other miscellaneous pharmaceutical products and services.

 

Most of our pharmaceutical products are distributed through wholesalers that serve pharmacies, physicians and other health care professionals, and hospitals. In 2008, our three largest wholesalers each accounted for between 12 percent and 16 percent of consolidated net sales. Further, they each accounted for between 10 percent and 15 percent of accounts receivable as of December 31, 2008. Animal health products are sold primarily to wholesale distributors.

 

Our business segments are distinguished by the ultimate end user of the product: humans or animals. Performance is evaluated based on profit or loss from operations before income taxes. The accounting policies of the individual segments are substantially the same as those described in the summary of significant accounting policies in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements. Income before income taxes for the animal health business was approximately $192 million, $173 million, and $184 million in 2008, 2007, and 2006, respectively.

The assets of the animal health business are intermixed with those of the pharmaceutical products business. Long-lived assets disclosed above consist of property and equipment and certain sundry assets.

 

We are exposed to the risk of changes in social, political, and economic conditions inherent in foreign operations, and our results of operations and the value of our foreign assets are affected by fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates.

 

Our common stock is listed on the New York, London, and Swiss stock exchanges.