Legal Matters	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Matters	Legal Matters Fanapt^®. In June 2014, the Company filed suit against Roxane Laboratories, Inc. (Roxane) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Delaware District Court). The suit sought an adjudication that Roxane has infringed one or more claims of the Company’s U.S. Patent No. 8,586,610 (‘610 Patent) by submitting to the FDA an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) for a generic version of Fanapt^® prior to the expiration of the ‘610 Patent in November 2027. In addition, pursuant to a settlement agreement with Novartis, the Company assumed Novartis’ patent infringement action against Roxane in the Delaware District Court. That suit alleges that Roxane has infringed one or more claims of U.S. Patent RE39198 (‘198 Patent), which is licensed exclusively to the Company, by filing an ANDA for a generic version of Fanapt^® prior to the expiration of the ‘198 Patent in November 2016. These two cases against Roxane were consolidated by agreement of the parties and were tried together in a five-day bench trial that concluded in March 2016. In August 2016, the Delaware District Court ruled that the Company is entitled to a permanent injunction against Roxane enjoining Roxane from infringing the ‘610 Patent, including the manufacture, use, sale, offer to sell, sale, distribution or importation of any generic iloperidone product described in the ‘610 Patent ANDA until the expiration of the ‘610 Patent in November 2027. If the Company obtains pediatric exclusivity, the injunction against Roxane would be extended until May 2028 under the Delaware District Court’s order. In September 2016, Roxane filed a notice of appeal with the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (Federal Circuit). In July 2017, Roxane, now a subsidiary of Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC (Hikma), petitioned the Federal Circuit to substitute Roxane with new defendants West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Limited and West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp. (each of which is a subsidiary of Hikma and both of which are referred to collectively herein as West-Ward). In April 2018, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Delaware District Court’s decision that West-Ward infringed the ‘610 Patent. In June 2018, West-Ward filed with the Federal Circuit a petition seeking rehearing en banc. The Federal Circuit invited the Company to respond to West-Ward’s petition; the Company's response was filed in July 2018. In August 2018, the Federal Circuit denied West-Ward’s petition for rehearing. In 2015, the Company filed six separate patent infringement lawsuits in the Delaware District Court against Roxane, Inventia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. (Inventia), Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Lupin), Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Taro Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. (Taro), and Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (Apotex, and collectively with Roxane, Inventia, Lupin and Taro, the Defendants). The lawsuits each seek an adjudication that the respective Defendants infringed one or more claims of the ‘610 Patent and/or the Company’s U.S. Patent No. 9,138,432 (‘432 Patent) by submitting to the FDA an ANDA for a generic version of Fanapt^® prior to the expiration of the ‘610 Patent in November 2027 or the ‘432 Patent in September 2025. The Defendants denied infringement and counterclaimed for declaratory judgment of invalidity and noninfringement of the ‘610 Patent and the ‘432 Patent. Certain Defendants have since entered into agreements resolving these lawsuits, as discussed below. The remaining matters have been stayed until the later of November 30, 2018 or 14 days after final disposition by the U.S. Supreme Court of any petition for a writ of certiorari filed by West-Ward. The Company entered into a confidential stipulation with each of Inventia and Lupin regarding any potential launch of Inventia’s and Lupin's generic ANDA products. Lupin filed counter claims for declaratory judgment of invalidity and noninfringement of seven of the Company’s method of treatment patents that are listed in the Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (Orange Book) related to Fanapt^® (such seven patents, the Method of Treatment Patents). The Company has not sued Lupin for infringing the Method of Treatment Patents. In October 2016, the Company and Lupin filed a Stipulation of Dismissal in the Delaware District Court pursuant to which Lupin’s counterclaims relating to the Method of Treatment Patents were dismissed without prejudice in recognition of an agreement reached between the parties by which the Company would not assert those patents against Lupin absent certain changes in Lupin’s proposed prescribing information for its iloperidone tablets. Taro and Apotex each entered into separate License Agreements (together, the License Agreements) resolving these lawsuits in October 2016 and December 2016, respectively. The License Agreements grant Taro and Apotex non-exclusive licenses to manufacture and commercialize a version of Fanapt^® in the U.S. effective November 2027, unless prior to that date the Company obtains pediatric exclusivity for Fanapt^®, in which case, the license will be effective May 2028. Taro and Apotex each may enter the market earlier under certain limited circumstances. The License Agreements, which are subject to review by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), provide for a full settlement and release of all claims that are the subject of the respective litigation with Taro and Apotex. In February 2016, Roxane filed suit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Ohio District Court). The suit sought a declaratory judgment of invalidity and noninfringement of the Method of Treatment Patents. In December 2016, the Ohio District Court dismissed Roxane’s suit without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction. In February 2016, Roxane filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) of the ‘432 Patent with the Patent Trials and Appeals Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In August 2016, the PTAB denied the request by Roxane to institute an IPR of the ‘432 Patent. In September 2016, Roxane filed a Petition for Rehearing with the PTAB. In November 2016, the PTAB denied Roxane’s Petition for Rehearing. HETLIOZ^®. In March 2018, the Company received a Paragraph IV certification notice letter from Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Teva) notifying the Company that Teva had submitted an ANDA for HETLIOZ^® to the FDA requesting approval to market, sell and use a generic version of the 20mg HETLIOZ^® capsules for Non-24-Hour-Sleep-Wake Disorder. In its notice letter, Teva alleges that the Company’s Orange Book listed U.S. Patent No. RE46,604, U.S. Patent No. 9,060,995, U.S. Patent 9,539,234, U.S. Patent 9,549,913, U.S. Patent 9,730,910 and U.S. Patent 9,885,241 (collectively, the Vanda Patents), which cover methods of using HETLIOZ^®, are invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by Teva’s manufacture, use or sale of the product described in its ANDA. The Company received similar notice letters in April 2018 from MSN Pharmaceuticals Inc. and MSN Laboratories Private Limited (together, MSN) and Apotex. In October 2018, the Company received an additional Paragraph IV certification notice letter from Teva concerning the ‘977 Patent, which expires in 2035. The composition and use of HETLIOZ^® are currently protected by eight patents that are listed in the FDA’s Orange Book. In April 2018, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Delaware District Court against Teva and in May 2018, the Company filed patent infringement lawsuits in the Delaware District Court against MSN and Apotex. The lawsuits seek an adjudication that Teva, MSN and Apotex have infringed one or more claims of the Vanda Patents by submitting to the FDA an ANDA for a generic version of HETLIOZ^® prior to the expiration of the latest to expire of the Vanda Patents in 2034. The relief requested by the Company in the lawsuits includes requests for permanent injunctions preventing Teva, MSN and Apotex from infringing the asserted claims of the Vanda Patents by engaging in the manufacture, use, offer to sell, sale, importation or distribution of generic versions of HETLIOZ^® before the last expiration date of the Vanda Patents. The lawsuits automatically preclude the FDA from approving the submitted ANDAs until the earlier of seven and one-half years after the January 2014 approval of the Company's application for New Chemical Entity Status or entry of a district court decision finding the Vanda Patents invalid, unenforceable or not infringed. In June 2018, Teva and MSN each answered the Company’s complaint, and counterclaimed for declarations that the Vanda Patents are invalid. In July 2018, the Company answered Teva and MSN's counterclaims, denying their allegations. A trial date for these lawsuits has been set for June 2020.

Legal Matters

Fanapt^®. In June 2014, the Company filed suit against Roxane Laboratories, Inc. (Roxane) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Delaware District Court). The suit sought an adjudication that Roxane has infringed one or more claims of the Company’s U.S. Patent No. 8,586,610 (‘610 Patent) by submitting to the FDA an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) for a generic version of Fanapt^® prior to the expiration of the ‘610 Patent in November 2027. In addition, pursuant to a settlement agreement with Novartis, the Company assumed Novartis’ patent infringement action against Roxane in the Delaware District Court. That suit alleges that Roxane has infringed one or more claims of U.S. Patent RE39198 (‘198 Patent), which is licensed exclusively to the Company, by filing an ANDA for a generic version of Fanapt^® prior to the expiration of the ‘198 Patent in November 2016. These two cases against Roxane were consolidated by agreement of the parties and were tried together in a five-day bench trial that concluded in March 2016. In August 2016, the Delaware District Court ruled that the Company is entitled to a permanent injunction against Roxane enjoining Roxane from infringing the ‘610 Patent, including the manufacture, use, sale, offer to sell, sale, distribution or importation of any generic iloperidone product described in the ‘610 Patent ANDA until the expiration of the ‘610 Patent in November 2027. If the Company obtains pediatric exclusivity, the injunction against Roxane would be extended until May 2028 under the Delaware District Court’s order. In September 2016, Roxane filed a notice of appeal with the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (Federal Circuit). In July 2017, Roxane, now a subsidiary of Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC (Hikma), petitioned the Federal Circuit to substitute Roxane with new defendants West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Limited and West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp. (each of which is a subsidiary of Hikma and both of which are referred to collectively herein as West-Ward). In April 2018, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Delaware District Court’s decision that West-Ward infringed the ‘610 Patent. In June 2018, West-Ward filed with the Federal Circuit a petition seeking rehearing en banc. The Federal Circuit invited the Company to respond to West-Ward’s petition; the Company's response was filed in July 2018. In August 2018, the Federal Circuit denied West-Ward’s petition for rehearing.

In 2015, the Company filed six separate patent infringement lawsuits in the Delaware District Court against Roxane, Inventia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. (Inventia), Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Lupin), Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Taro Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. (Taro), and Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (Apotex, and collectively with Roxane, Inventia, Lupin and Taro, the Defendants). The lawsuits each seek an adjudication that the respective Defendants infringed one or more claims of the ‘610 Patent and/or the Company’s U.S. Patent No. 9,138,432 (‘432 Patent) by submitting to the FDA an ANDA for a generic version of Fanapt^® prior to the expiration of the ‘610 Patent in November 2027 or the ‘432 Patent in September 2025. The Defendants denied infringement and counterclaimed for declaratory judgment of invalidity and noninfringement of the ‘610 Patent and the ‘432 Patent. Certain Defendants have since entered into agreements resolving these lawsuits, as discussed below. The remaining matters have been stayed until the later of November 30, 2018 or 14 days after final disposition by the U.S. Supreme Court of any petition for a writ of certiorari filed by West-Ward. The Company entered into a confidential stipulation with each of Inventia and Lupin regarding any potential launch of Inventia’s and Lupin's generic ANDA products.

Lupin filed counter claims for declaratory judgment of invalidity and noninfringement of seven of the Company’s method of treatment patents that are listed in the Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (Orange Book) related to Fanapt^® (such seven patents, the Method of Treatment Patents). The Company has not sued Lupin for infringing the Method of Treatment Patents. In October 2016, the Company and Lupin filed a Stipulation of Dismissal in the Delaware District Court pursuant to which Lupin’s counterclaims relating to the Method of Treatment Patents were dismissed without prejudice in recognition of an agreement reached between the parties by which the Company would not assert those patents against Lupin absent certain changes in Lupin’s proposed prescribing information for its iloperidone tablets.

Taro and Apotex each entered into separate License Agreements (together, the License Agreements) resolving these lawsuits in October 2016 and December 2016, respectively. The License Agreements grant Taro and Apotex non-exclusive licenses to manufacture and commercialize a version of Fanapt^® in the U.S. effective November 2027, unless prior to that date the Company obtains pediatric exclusivity for Fanapt^®, in which case, the license will be effective May 2028. Taro and Apotex each may enter the market earlier under certain limited circumstances. The License Agreements, which are subject to review by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), provide for a full settlement and release of all claims that are the subject of the respective litigation with Taro and Apotex.

In February 2016, Roxane filed suit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Ohio District Court). The suit sought a declaratory judgment of invalidity and noninfringement of the Method of Treatment Patents. In December 2016, the Ohio District Court dismissed Roxane’s suit without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction.

In February 2016, Roxane filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) of the ‘432 Patent with the Patent Trials and Appeals Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In August 2016, the PTAB denied the request by Roxane to institute an IPR of the ‘432 Patent. In September 2016, Roxane filed a Petition for Rehearing with the PTAB. In November 2016, the PTAB denied Roxane’s Petition for Rehearing.

HETLIOZ^®. In March 2018, the Company received a Paragraph IV certification notice letter from Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Teva) notifying the Company that Teva had submitted an ANDA for HETLIOZ^® to the FDA requesting approval to market, sell and use a generic version of the 20mg HETLIOZ^® capsules for Non-24-Hour-Sleep-Wake Disorder. In its notice letter, Teva alleges that the Company’s Orange Book listed U.S. Patent No. RE46,604, U.S. Patent No. 9,060,995, U.S. Patent 9,539,234, U.S. Patent 9,549,913, U.S. Patent 9,730,910 and U.S. Patent 9,885,241 (collectively, the Vanda Patents), which cover methods of using HETLIOZ^®, are invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by Teva’s manufacture, use or sale of the product described in its ANDA. The Company received similar notice letters in April 2018 from MSN Pharmaceuticals Inc. and MSN Laboratories Private Limited (together, MSN) and Apotex. In October 2018, the Company received an additional Paragraph IV certification notice letter from Teva concerning the ‘977 Patent, which expires in 2035. The composition and use of HETLIOZ^® are currently protected by eight patents that are listed in the FDA’s Orange Book.

In April 2018, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Delaware District Court against Teva and in May 2018, the Company filed patent infringement lawsuits in the Delaware District Court against MSN and Apotex. The lawsuits seek an adjudication that Teva, MSN and Apotex have infringed one or more claims of the Vanda Patents by submitting to the FDA an ANDA for a generic version of HETLIOZ^® prior to the expiration of the latest to expire of the Vanda Patents in 2034. The relief requested by the Company in the lawsuits includes requests for permanent injunctions preventing Teva, MSN and Apotex from infringing the asserted claims of the Vanda Patents by engaging in the manufacture, use, offer to sell, sale, importation or distribution of generic versions of HETLIOZ^® before the last expiration date of the Vanda Patents. The lawsuits automatically preclude the FDA from approving the submitted ANDAs until the earlier of seven and one-half years after the January 2014 approval of the Company's application for New Chemical Entity Status or entry of a district court decision finding the Vanda Patents invalid, unenforceable or not infringed. In June 2018, Teva and MSN each answered the Company’s complaint, and counterclaimed for declarations that the Vanda Patents are invalid. In July 2018, the Company answered Teva and MSN's counterclaims, denying their allegations. A trial date for these lawsuits has been set for June 2020.