Legal Proceedings	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	NOTE 14 – LEGAL PROCEEDINGS On February 15, 2012, the Company received a Paragraph IV Patent Certification from Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. advising that Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. had filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) with the FDA for a generic version of DUEXIS, containing 800 mg of ibuprofen and 26.6 mg of famotidine. In March 2012, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. and Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. (collectively, “Par”) for filing an ANDA against DUEXIS and seeking an injunction to prevent the approval of Par’s ANDA and/or prevent Par from selling a generic version of DUEXIS. In January 2013, the Company filed a second suit against Par in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware claiming patent infringement of additional patents that have been issued for DUEXIS and seeking an injunction to prevent the approval of Par’s ANDA and/or prevent Par from selling a generic version of DUEXIS. On August 21, 2013, the Company entered into a settlement agreement (“Par settlement agreement”) and license agreement (“Par license agreement”) with Par relating to its patent infringement litigation. The Par settlement agreement provides for a full settlement and release by both the Company and Par of all claims that were or could have been asserted in the litigation and that arise out of the specific patent issues that were the subject of the litigation, including all resulting damages or other remedies. Under the Par license agreement, the Company granted Par a non-exclusive license (that is only royalty-bearing in some circumstances) to manufacture and commercialize Par’s generic version of DUEXIS in the United States after the generic entry date and to take steps necessary to develop inventory of, and obtain regulatory approval for, but not commercialize, Par’s generic version of DUEXIS prior to the generic entry date (collectively, the “License”). The License covers all patents owned or controlled by the Company during the term of the Par license agreement that would, absent the License, be infringed by the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, or importation of Par’s generic version of DUEXIS in the United States. Unless terminated sooner pursuant to the terms of the Par license agreement, the License will continue until the last to expire of the licensed patents and/or applicable periods of regulatory exclusivity. Under the Par license agreement, the generic entry date is January 1, 2023; however, Par may be able to enter the market earlier in certain circumstances. Such events relate to the resolution of potential future third party DUEXIS patent litigation, the entry of other third party generic versions of DUEXIS or certain specific changes in DUEXIS market conditions. Only in the event that Par enters the DUEXIS market due to the specified changes in DUEXIS market conditions will the License become royalty-bearing, with the royalty obligations ceasing upon the occurrence of one of the other events that would have allowed Par to enter the DUEXIS market. Under the Par license agreement, the Company also agreed not to sue or assert any claim against Par for infringement of any patent or patent application owned or controlled by the Company during the term of the Par license agreement based on the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, or importation of Par’s generic version of DUEXIS in the United States. The Par license agreement may be terminated by the Company if Par commits a material breach of the agreement that is not cured or curable within 30 days after the Company provides notice of the breach. The Company may also terminate the Par license agreement immediately if Par or any of its affiliates initiate certain challenges to the validity or enforceability of any of the licensed patents or their foreign equivalents. In addition, the Par license agreement will terminate automatically upon termination of the Par settlement agreement. On July 15, 2013, the Company received a Paragraph IV Patent Certification from Watson Laboratories, Inc.—Florida, known as Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. (“Watson”), advising that Watson had filed an ANDA with the FDA for a generic version of RAYOS, containing up to 5 mg of prednisone. Watson has not advised the Company as to the timing or status of the FDA’s review of its filing. On August 26, 2013, the Company, together with Jagotec, filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Watson, Actavis Pharma, Inc., Andrx Corp., and Actavis, Inc. (collectively “WLF”) seeking an injunction to prevent the approval of the ANDA. The lawsuit alleges that WLF has infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,488,960, 6,677,326, 8,168,218, 8,309,124 and 8,394,407 by filing an ANDA seeking approval from the FDA to market generic versions of RAYOS containing 1 mg, 2 mg and 5 mg of prednisone prior to the expiration of the patents. The subject patents are listed in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, commonly known as the Orange Book. The commencement of the patent infringement lawsuit stays, or bars, FDA approval of WLF’s ANDA for 30 months or until an earlier district court decision that the subject patents are not infringed or are invalid. The Company and Jagotec have granted WLF a covenant not to sue with respect to US Patent Nos. 6,677,326 and 8,168,218, respectively, and accordingly these patents have been dismissed from the lawsuit. The Markman claim construction hearing took place on October 16, 2014. The Court has not yet set a trial date for the WLF action. On September 12, 2013, the Company received a Paragraph IV Patent Certification from Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. advising that Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. had filed an ANDA with the FDA for a generic version of RAYOS, containing up to 5 mg of prednisone. On October 22, 2013, the Company, together with Jagotec, filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Par seeking an injunction to prevent the approval of the ANDA. The lawsuit alleged that Par had infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,488,960, 6,677,326, 8,168,218, 8,309,124 and 8,394,407 by filing an ANDA seeking approval from the FDA to market generic versions of RAYOS prior to the expiration of the patents. The subject patents are listed in the FDA’s Orange Book. On November 20, 2013, the Company was notified by counsel for Par that Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. had elected to withdraw its ANDA with the FDA for a generic version of RAYOS containing 2 mg and 5 mg of prednisone. On December 5, 2013, the Company entered into a Stipulation of Dismissal with Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. whereby Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. agreed to withdraw its application to market a generic version of RAYOS. Currently, patent litigation is pending in the District of New Jersey against four generic companies intending to market VIMOVO before the expiration of patents listed in the Orange Book. These cases are in the District of New Jersey and have been consolidated for discovery purposes. They are collectively known as the VIMOVO cases, and involve the following sets of defendants: (i) Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Inc. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. (collectively, Dr. Reddy’s); (ii) Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc. (collectively, Lupin); (iii) Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Mylan Laboratories Limited, and Mylan Inc. (collectively, Mylan); and (iv) Watson Laboratories, Inc.—Florida, known as Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. and Actavis Pharma, Inc. (collectively, Actavis). Patent litigation in the District of New Jersey against a fifth generic company, Anchen Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Anchen”), was dismissed after Anchen recertified under Paragraph III. The Company understands that Dr. Reddy’s has entered into a settlement with AstraZeneca with respect to patent rights directed to Nexium for the commercialization of VIMOVO, and that according to the settlement agreement, Dr. Reddy’s is now able to commercialize VIMOVO under AstraZeneca’s Nexium patent rights. The settlement agreement, however, has no effect on the Pozen VIMOVO patents, which are still the subject of patent litigations. As part of the Company’s acquisition of the U.S. rights to VIMOVO, the Company has taken over and is responsible for the patent litigations that include the Pozen patents licensed to the Company under the Pozen license agreement. The VIMOVO cases were filed on April 21, 2011, July 25, 2011, October 28, 2011, January 4, 2013, May 10, 2013, June 28, 2013 and October 23, 2013 and collectively include allegations of infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,926,907 and 8,557,285. The Company understands the cases arise from Paragraph IV Notice Letters providing notice of the filing of an ANDA with the FDA seeking regulatory approval to market a generic version of VIMOVO before the expiration of the patents-in-suit. The Company understands the Dr. Reddy’s notice letters were dated March 11, 2011 and November 20, 2012; the Lupin notice letters were dated June 10, 2011 and March 12, 2014; the Mylan notice letter was dated May 16, 2013; the Actavis notice letters were dated March 29, 2013 and November 5, 2013; and the Anchen notice letter was dated September 16, 2011. The court has issued a claims construction order and has set a pretrial schedule but has not yet set a trial date.

NOTE 14 – LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

On February 15, 2012, the Company received a Paragraph IV Patent Certification from Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. advising that Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. had filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) with the FDA for a generic version of DUEXIS, containing 800 mg of ibuprofen and 26.6 mg of famotidine. In March 2012, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. and Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. (collectively, “Par”) for filing an ANDA against DUEXIS and seeking an injunction to prevent the approval of Par’s ANDA and/or prevent Par from selling a generic version of DUEXIS. In January 2013, the Company filed a second suit against Par in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware claiming patent infringement of additional patents that have been issued for DUEXIS and seeking an injunction to prevent the approval of Par’s ANDA and/or prevent Par from selling a generic version of DUEXIS.

On August 21, 2013, the Company entered into a settlement agreement (“Par settlement agreement”) and license agreement (“Par license agreement”) with Par relating to its patent infringement litigation. The Par settlement agreement provides for a full settlement and release by both the Company and Par of all claims that were or could have been asserted in the litigation and that arise out of the specific patent issues that were the subject of the litigation, including all resulting damages or other remedies.

Under the Par license agreement, the Company granted Par a non-exclusive license (that is only royalty-bearing in some circumstances) to manufacture and commercialize Par’s generic version of DUEXIS in the United States after the generic entry date and to take steps necessary to develop inventory of, and obtain regulatory approval for, but not commercialize, Par’s generic version of DUEXIS prior to the generic entry date (collectively, the “License”). The License covers all patents owned or controlled by the Company during the term of the Par license agreement that would, absent the License, be infringed by the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, or importation of Par’s generic version of DUEXIS in the United States. Unless terminated sooner pursuant to the terms of the Par license agreement, the License will continue until the last to expire of the licensed patents and/or applicable periods of regulatory exclusivity.

Under the Par license agreement, the generic entry date is January 1, 2023; however, Par may be able to enter the market earlier in certain circumstances. Such events relate to the resolution of potential future third party DUEXIS patent litigation, the entry of other third party generic versions of DUEXIS or certain specific changes in DUEXIS market conditions. Only in the event that Par enters the DUEXIS market due to the specified changes in DUEXIS market conditions will the License become royalty-bearing, with the royalty obligations ceasing upon the occurrence of one of the other events that would have allowed Par to enter the DUEXIS market.

Under the Par license agreement, the Company also agreed not to sue or assert any claim against Par for infringement of any patent or patent application owned or controlled by the Company during the term of the Par license agreement based on the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, or importation of Par’s generic version of DUEXIS in the United States.

The Par license agreement may be terminated by the Company if Par commits a material breach of the agreement that is not cured or curable within 30 days after the Company provides notice of the breach. The Company may also terminate the Par license agreement immediately if Par or any of its affiliates initiate certain challenges to the validity or enforceability of any of the licensed patents or their foreign equivalents. In addition, the Par license agreement will terminate automatically upon termination of the Par settlement agreement.

On July 15, 2013, the Company received a Paragraph IV Patent Certification from Watson Laboratories, Inc.—Florida, known as Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. (“Watson”), advising that Watson had filed an ANDA with the FDA for a generic version of RAYOS, containing up to 5 mg of prednisone. Watson has not advised the Company as to the timing or status of the FDA’s review of its filing. On August 26, 2013, the Company, together with Jagotec, filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Watson, Actavis Pharma, Inc., Andrx Corp., and Actavis, Inc. (collectively “WLF”) seeking an injunction to prevent the approval of the ANDA. The lawsuit alleges that WLF has infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,488,960, 6,677,326, 8,168,218, 8,309,124 and 8,394,407 by filing an ANDA seeking approval from the FDA to market generic versions of RAYOS containing 1 mg, 2 mg and 5 mg of prednisone prior to the expiration of the patents. The subject patents are listed in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, commonly known as the Orange Book. The commencement of the patent infringement lawsuit stays, or bars, FDA approval of WLF’s ANDA for 30 months or until an earlier district court decision that the subject patents are not infringed or are invalid. The Company and Jagotec have granted WLF a covenant not to sue with respect to US Patent Nos. 6,677,326 and 8,168,218, respectively, and accordingly these patents have been dismissed from the lawsuit. The Markman claim construction hearing took place on October 16, 2014. The Court has not yet set a trial date for the WLF action.

On September 12, 2013, the Company received a Paragraph IV Patent Certification from Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. advising that Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. had filed an ANDA with the FDA for a generic version of RAYOS, containing up to 5 mg of prednisone. On October 22, 2013, the Company, together with Jagotec, filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Par seeking an injunction to prevent the approval of the ANDA. The lawsuit alleged that Par had infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,488,960, 6,677,326, 8,168,218, 8,309,124 and 8,394,407 by filing an ANDA seeking approval from the FDA to market generic versions of RAYOS prior to the expiration of the patents. The subject patents are listed in the FDA’s Orange Book. On November 20, 2013, the Company was notified by counsel for Par that Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. had elected to withdraw its ANDA with the FDA for a generic version of RAYOS containing 2 mg and 5 mg of prednisone. On December 5, 2013, the Company entered into a Stipulation of Dismissal with Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. whereby Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. agreed to withdraw its application to market a generic version of RAYOS.

Currently, patent litigation is pending in the District of New Jersey against four generic companies intending to market VIMOVO before the expiration of patents listed in the Orange Book. These cases are in the District of New Jersey and have been consolidated for discovery purposes. They are collectively known as the VIMOVO cases, and involve the following sets of defendants: (i) Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Inc. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. (collectively, Dr. Reddy’s); (ii) Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc. (collectively, Lupin); (iii) Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Mylan Laboratories Limited, and Mylan Inc. (collectively, Mylan); and (iv) Watson Laboratories, Inc.—Florida, known as Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. and Actavis Pharma, Inc. (collectively, Actavis). Patent litigation in the District of New Jersey against a fifth generic company, Anchen Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Anchen”), was dismissed after Anchen recertified under Paragraph III. The Company understands that Dr. Reddy’s has entered into a settlement with AstraZeneca with respect to patent rights directed to Nexium for the commercialization of VIMOVO, and that according to the settlement agreement, Dr. Reddy’s is now able to commercialize VIMOVO under AstraZeneca’s Nexium patent rights. The settlement agreement, however, has no effect on the Pozen VIMOVO patents, which are still the subject of patent litigations. As part of the Company’s acquisition of the U.S. rights to VIMOVO, the Company has taken over and is responsible for the patent litigations that include the Pozen patents licensed to the Company under the Pozen license agreement.

The VIMOVO cases were filed on April 21, 2011, July 25, 2011, October 28, 2011, January 4, 2013, May 10, 2013, June 28, 2013 and October 23, 2013 and collectively include allegations of infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,926,907 and 8,557,285. The Company understands the cases arise from Paragraph IV Notice Letters providing notice of the filing of an ANDA with the FDA seeking regulatory approval to market a generic version of VIMOVO before the expiration of the patents-in-suit. The Company understands the Dr. Reddy’s notice letters were dated March 11, 2011 and November 20, 2012; the Lupin notice letters were dated June 10, 2011 and March 12, 2014; the Mylan notice letter was dated May 16, 2013; the Actavis notice letters were dated March 29, 2013 and November 5, 2013; and the Anchen notice letter was dated September 16, 2011. The court has issued a claims construction order and has set a pretrial schedule but has not yet set a trial date.