Legal and U.S. Regulatory Proceedings	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal and U.S. Regulatory Proceedings	Legal and U.S. Regulatory Proceedings On March 2, 2001, the Company became aware of environmental contamination resulting from an unknown heating oil leak at its former manufacturing facility. The Company immediately notified the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJ DEP”) and the local authorities, and hired a contractor to assess the exposure and required clean up. The total estimated costs for the clean-up and remediation is $889,000, of which approximately $122,000 remains accrued as of December 31, 2016. Based on information provided to the Company from its environmental consultant and what is known to date, the Company believes the reserve is sufficient for the remaining remediation of the environmental contamination. There is a possibility, however, that the remediation costs may exceed the Company’s estimates. The restricted cash, included in other assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheet of $122,000 as of December 31, 2016 and $124,000 as of December 31, 2015 represents a restricted escrow account set up on the requirement of the NJ DEP for the soil remediation work. These funds will be released to the Company upon the NJ DEP’s approval when the remediation is completed. On December 19, 2013, the Company filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Mallinckrodt LLC, Mallinckrodt, Inc. and Nuvo Research Inc., collectively refer to as Mallinckrodt, seeking a declaration of non-infringement of United States Patent Nos. 8,217,078 and 8,546,450 so that the Company can bring our generic diclofenac sodium topical solution 1.5% to market at the earliest possible date under applicable statutory and FDA regulatory provisions. On January 10, 2014, Mallinckrodt filed an answer and counterclaim alleging that the Company infringed the patents at issue. On June 26, 2014, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with Mallinckrodt, pursuant to which Mallinckrodt granted us a non-exclusive license to launch the Company’s diclofenac sodium topical solution 1.5% product on March 28, 2015. There was no material impact on the Company’s financial statements as a result of the settlement. We received approval to sell the diclofenac sodium topical solution 1.5% from the FDA in July 2015. On May 21, 2015, Horizon Pharma Ireland Limited, HZNP Limited and Horizon Pharma USA, Inc. (collectively, “Horizon”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company alleging infringement of certain United States patents based upon our submission to the FDA of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) seeking FDA approval to market diclofenac topical solution 2% w/w before the expiration of the patents asserted in the complaint. On June 30, 2015, August 11, 2015, September 17, 2015, October 27, 2015 and February 5, 2016, Horizon filed additional complaints in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company alleging infringement of other of its United States patents in relation to the Company’s submission of the same ANDA. On July 21, 2015, September 11, 2015, October 6, 2015, October 21, 2015 and December 17, 2015, and March 17, 2016 the Company filed answers, affirmative defenses and counterclaims with respect to the complaints filed by Horizon. In those filings, the Company asserted that the patents alleged to be infringed in the complaints filed by Horizon are invalid and not infringed by us. On April 27, 2016, Horizon and the Company filed a stipulation of dismissal to dismiss the cases. The court entered an order dismissing the cases on May 2, 2016. On May 9, 2016, Horizon and the Company entered into a settlement agreement. Under the settlement agreement, the Company obtained a license to market diclofenac topical solution 2% no later than January 10, 2029 or earlier in certain circumstances, including the resolution by settlement or court decision of other third party litigation involving diclofenac topical solution 2% or the market entry by other third party generic versions of diclofenac topical solution 2%. At this time, the Company cannot estimate if or when any of those earlier events might occur. No consideration was exchanged as part of the settlement. The Company has not recorded accruals related to this case and has not yet received final approval. On December 4, 2015, Galderma Laboratories, L.P. and Galderma S.A. (collectively, “Galderma”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas against the Company alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 6,106,848 based upon the Company’s submission to the FDA of an ANDA seeking FDA approval to market clobetasol propionate lotion 0.05% before the expiration patent asserted in the complaint. On January 5, 2016, Galderma and the Company entered into a Settlement and License Agreement the terms of which are confidential. On January 22, 2016, the case was dismissed with prejudice. From December 20, 2016 to January 26, 2017, eight putative class action antitrust lawsuits have been filed against Teligent Inc. along with co-defendants including Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., Perrigo New York Inc., Fougera Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Sandoz, Inc. The actions are currently pending in the District of New Jersey and Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and a consolidation motion is currently pending before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. The class plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide or state classes consisting of persons who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of generic econazole from any of the defendants from June 1, 2014 (or later in some complaints) until the time the defendants’ allegedly unlawful conduct ceased or will cease. The plaintiffs allege a conspiracy to fix prices for generic econazole, in violation of federal antitrust laws or state antitrust, consumer protection, and other laws. Plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged price overcharges for generic econazole during the alleged period of conspiracy, and the indirect purchaser class plaintiffs seek injunctive relief against Teligent. All of these cases are in their initial stages. The parties are negotiating briefing schedules for motions to dismiss, which will be filed after the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation determines an appropriate forum. Due to the early stage of these cases, we are unable to form a judgment at this time as to whether an unfavorable outcome is either probable or remote or to provide an estimate of the amount or range of potential loss. We believe these cases are without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend against these claims.

Legal and U.S. Regulatory Proceedings

On March 2, 2001, the Company became aware of environmental contamination resulting from an unknown heating oil leak at its former manufacturing facility. The Company immediately notified the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJ DEP”) and the local authorities, and hired a contractor to assess the exposure and required clean up. The total estimated costs for the clean-up and remediation is $889,000, of which approximately $122,000 remains accrued as of December 31, 2016. Based on information provided to the Company from its environmental consultant and what is known to date, the Company believes the reserve is sufficient for the remaining remediation of the environmental contamination. There is a possibility, however, that the remediation costs may exceed the Company’s estimates.

The restricted cash, included in other assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheet of $122,000 as of December 31, 2016 and $124,000 as of December 31, 2015 represents a restricted escrow account set up on the requirement of the NJ DEP for the soil remediation work. These funds will be released to the Company upon the NJ DEP’s approval when the remediation is completed.

On December 19, 2013, the Company filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Mallinckrodt LLC, Mallinckrodt, Inc. and Nuvo Research Inc., collectively refer to as Mallinckrodt, seeking a declaration of non-infringement of United States Patent Nos. 8,217,078 and 8,546,450 so that the Company can bring our generic diclofenac sodium topical solution 1.5% to market at the earliest possible date under applicable statutory and FDA regulatory provisions. On January 10, 2014, Mallinckrodt filed an answer and counterclaim alleging that the Company infringed the patents at issue. On June 26, 2014, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with Mallinckrodt, pursuant to which Mallinckrodt granted us a non-exclusive license to launch the Company’s diclofenac sodium topical solution 1.5% product on March 28, 2015. There was no material impact on the Company’s financial statements as a result of the settlement. We received approval to sell the diclofenac sodium topical solution 1.5% from the FDA in July 2015.

On May 21, 2015, Horizon Pharma Ireland Limited, HZNP Limited and Horizon Pharma USA, Inc. (collectively, “Horizon”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company alleging infringement of certain United States patents based upon our submission to the FDA of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) seeking FDA approval to market diclofenac topical solution 2% w/w before the expiration of the patents asserted in the complaint. On June 30, 2015, August 11, 2015, September 17, 2015, October 27, 2015 and February 5, 2016, Horizon filed additional complaints in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company alleging infringement of other of its United States patents in relation to the Company’s submission of the same ANDA. On July 21, 2015, September 11, 2015, October 6, 2015, October 21, 2015 and December 17, 2015, and March 17, 2016 the Company filed answers, affirmative defenses and counterclaims with respect to the complaints filed by Horizon. In those filings, the Company asserted that the patents alleged to be infringed in the complaints filed by Horizon are invalid and not infringed by us. On April 27, 2016, Horizon and the Company filed a stipulation of dismissal to dismiss the cases. The court entered an order dismissing the cases on May 2, 2016. On May 9, 2016, Horizon and the Company entered into a settlement agreement. Under the settlement agreement, the Company obtained a license to market diclofenac topical solution 2% no later than January 10, 2029 or earlier in certain circumstances, including the resolution by settlement or court decision of other third party litigation involving diclofenac topical solution 2% or the market entry by other third party generic versions of diclofenac topical solution 2%. At this time, the Company cannot estimate if or when any of those earlier events might occur. No consideration was exchanged as part of the settlement. The Company has not recorded accruals related to this case and has not yet received final approval.

On December 4, 2015, Galderma Laboratories, L.P. and Galderma S.A. (collectively, “Galderma”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas against the Company alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 6,106,848 based upon the Company’s submission to the FDA of an ANDA seeking FDA approval to market clobetasol propionate lotion 0.05% before the expiration patent asserted in the complaint. On January 5, 2016, Galderma and the Company entered into a Settlement and License Agreement the terms of which are confidential. On January 22, 2016, the case was dismissed with prejudice.

From December 20, 2016 to January 26, 2017, eight putative class action antitrust lawsuits have been filed against Teligent Inc. along with co-defendants including Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., Perrigo New York Inc., Fougera Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Sandoz, Inc. The actions are currently pending in the District of New Jersey and Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and a consolidation motion is currently pending before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

The class plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide or state classes consisting of persons who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of generic econazole from any of the defendants from June 1, 2014 (or later in some complaints) until the time the defendants’ allegedly unlawful conduct ceased or will cease.

The plaintiffs allege a conspiracy to fix prices for generic econazole, in violation of federal antitrust laws or state antitrust, consumer protection, and other laws. Plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged price overcharges for generic econazole during the alleged period of conspiracy, and the indirect purchaser class plaintiffs seek injunctive relief against Teligent.

All of these cases are in their initial stages. The parties are negotiating briefing schedules for motions to dismiss, which will be filed after the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation determines an appropriate forum. Due to the early stage of these cases, we are unable to form a judgment at this time as to whether an unfavorable outcome is either probable or remote or to provide an estimate of the amount or range of potential loss. We believe these cases are without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend against these claims.