Legal Proceedings	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2021
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	NOTE 16 - LEGAL PROCEEDINGS PENNSAID 2% On August 18, 2016, the Company filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. and Actavis plc for patent infringement of four of the Company’s newly issued patents covering PENNSAID 2%. All four of such patents are listed in the FDA’s Orange Book. On March 3, 2021, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of all remaining litigation involving PENNSAID 2% and the District Court entered an order of dismissal without prejudice. DUEXIS On May 29, 2018, the Company received notice from Alkem Laboratories, Inc. (“Alkem”) that it had filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) with the FDA seeking approval of a generic version of DUEXIS. The ANDA contained a Paragraph IV Patent Certification alleging that the patents covering DUEXIS are invalid and/or will not be infringed by Alkem’s manufacture, use or sale of the medicine for which the ANDA was submitted. The Company filed suit in the United States District Court of Delaware against Alkem on July 9, 2018, seeking an injunction to prevent the approval of Alkem’s ANDA and/or to prevent Alkem from selling a generic version of DUEXIS. The litigation went to trial on September 14, 2020. On November 30, 2020, the District Court issued an adverse judgment against the Company, invalidating U.S Patent No. 8,607,033 and finding that Alkem’s generic product would not infringe the ‘033 patent. And following an adverse claim construction ruling, the District Court entered a judgment that the Alkem generic product would not infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,607,451, subject to the Company’s right to appeal the District Court’s claim construction ruling. On December 23, 2020, the Company initiated an appeal of the adverse judgments on the ‘033 and ‘451 patents with the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. On September 26, 2018, the Company received notice from Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva USA”) that it had filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking approval of a generic version of DUEXIS. The ANDA contained a Paragraph IV Patent Certification alleging that the patents covering DUEXIS are invalid and/or will not be infringed by Teva USA’s manufacture, use or sale of the medicine for which the ANDA was submitted. The Company filed suit in the United States District Court of New Jersey against Teva USA on July 2, 2020, seeking to prevent Teva USA from selling a generic version of DUEXIS. The parties are currently engaged in discovery. The court has not yet set a trial date. VIMOVO On February 18, 2020, the FDA granted final approval for Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Inc. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. (collectively, “Dr. Reddy’s”) generic version of VIMOVO. On February 27, 2020, Dr. Reddy’s launched its generic version of VIMOVO in the United States, and the Company now faces generic competition with respect to VIMOVO. The Company continues to assert claims of infringement against Dr. Reddy’s based on U.S. Patent No. 8,858,996 and U.S. Patent No. 9,161,920 in the District Court for the District of New Jersey. On November 19, 2018, the District Court granted Dr. Reddy’s summary judgment ruling that U.S Patent Numbers 9,220,698 and 9,393,208 are invalid, and on January 21, 2019, it entered final judgment against the ‘698 and ‘208 patents and U.S. Patent Number 8,945,621. On February 21, 2019, the Company appealed the adverse judgments on the ‘208 and ‘698 patents to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. On January 6, 2021, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court judgments invalidating the ‘208 and ‘698 patents. PROCYSBI On June 27, 2020, the Company received notice from Lupin Limited (“Lupin”) that it had filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking approval of a generic version of PROCYSBI. The ANDA contained a Paragraph IV Patent Certification alleging that the patents covering PROCYSBI are invalid and/or will not be infringed by Lupin’s manufacture, use or sale of the medicine for which the ANDA was submitted. The Company filed suit in the United States District Court of New Jersey against Lupin on August 11, 2020, seeking to prevent Lupin from selling a generic version of PROCYSBI.

Legal Proceedings

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2021

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

NOTE 16 - LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

PENNSAID 2%

On August 18, 2016, the Company filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. and Actavis plc for patent infringement of four of the Company’s newly issued patents covering PENNSAID 2%. All four of such patents are listed in the FDA’s Orange Book. On March 3, 2021, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of all remaining litigation involving PENNSAID 2% and the District Court entered an order of dismissal without prejudice.

DUEXIS

On May 29, 2018, the Company received notice from Alkem Laboratories, Inc. (“Alkem”) that it had filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) with the FDA seeking approval of a generic version of DUEXIS. The ANDA contained a Paragraph IV Patent Certification alleging that the patents covering DUEXIS are invalid and/or will not be infringed by Alkem’s manufacture, use or sale of the medicine for which the ANDA was submitted. The Company filed suit in the United States District Court of Delaware against Alkem on July 9, 2018, seeking an injunction to prevent the approval of Alkem’s ANDA and/or to prevent Alkem from selling a generic version of DUEXIS. The litigation went to trial on September 14, 2020. On November 30, 2020, the District Court issued an adverse judgment against the Company, invalidating U.S Patent No. 8,607,033 and finding that Alkem’s generic product would not infringe the ‘033 patent. And following an adverse claim construction ruling, the District Court entered a judgment that the Alkem generic product would not infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,607,451, subject to the Company’s right to appeal the District Court’s claim construction ruling. On December 23, 2020, the Company initiated an appeal of the adverse judgments on the ‘033 and ‘451 patents with the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.

On September 26, 2018, the Company received notice from Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva USA”) that it had filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking approval of a generic version of DUEXIS. The ANDA contained a Paragraph IV Patent Certification alleging that the patents covering DUEXIS are invalid and/or will not be infringed by Teva USA’s manufacture, use or sale of the medicine for which the ANDA was submitted. The Company filed suit in the United States District Court of New Jersey against Teva USA on July 2, 2020, seeking to prevent Teva USA from selling a generic version of DUEXIS. The parties are currently engaged in discovery. The court has not yet set a trial date.

VIMOVO

On February 18, 2020, the FDA granted final approval for Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Inc. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. (collectively, “Dr. Reddy’s”) generic version of VIMOVO. On February 27, 2020, Dr. Reddy’s launched its generic version of VIMOVO in the United States, and the Company now faces generic competition with respect to VIMOVO. The Company continues to assert claims of infringement against Dr. Reddy’s based on U.S. Patent No. 8,858,996 and U.S. Patent No. 9,161,920 in the District Court for the District of New Jersey.

On November 19, 2018, the District Court granted Dr. Reddy’s summary judgment ruling that U.S Patent Numbers 9,220,698 and 9,393,208 are invalid, and on January 21, 2019, it entered final judgment against the ‘698 and ‘208 patents and U.S. Patent Number 8,945,621. On February 21, 2019, the Company appealed the adverse judgments on the ‘208 and ‘698 patents to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. On January 6, 2021, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court judgments invalidating the ‘208 and ‘698 patents.

PROCYSBI

On June 27, 2020, the Company received notice from Lupin Limited (“Lupin”) that it had filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking approval of a generic version of PROCYSBI. The ANDA contained a Paragraph IV Patent Certification alleging that the patents covering PROCYSBI are invalid and/or will not be infringed by Lupin’s manufacture, use or sale of the medicine for which the ANDA was submitted. The Company filed suit in the United States District Court of New Jersey against Lupin on August 11, 2020, seeking to prevent Lupin from selling a generic version of PROCYSBI.