Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2013
Contingencies [Abstract]
Contingencies	11. Contingencies: In March 2012, the Company and Janssen, its licensor for Bystolic, brought actions for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,545,040 (the '040 patent) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against several companies who have notified them that they have filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) with the FDA seeking to obtain approval to market generic versions of Bystolic before the '040 patent expires on December 21, 2021. These lawsuits triggered an automatic stay of approval of the applicable ANDAs until June 17, 2015 (unless a court issues an adverse decision sooner). Janssen is no longer a party to these lawsuits following the Company's agreement to buy out Janssen's interests in Bystolic. On June 12, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized the Delaware and Illinois actions in the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Elaine E. Bucklo for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings captioned "In re Nebivolol ('040) Patent Litigation." Fact discovery was closed on June 8, 2013, and expert discovery is scheduled to be completed by November 22, 2013. A claim construction hearing scheduled for July 26, 2013 was adjourned. No trial dates have been set. The Company has entered into settlement agreements with five of the six defendant groups in such patent infringement litigation: Hetero Labs Ltd and Hetero USA Inc. (October 2012); Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd and Torrent Pharma Inc. (November 2012); Alkem Laboratories Ltd. and Indchemie Health Specialties Pvt. Ltd. (November 2012); Glenmark Generics Inc., USA, Glenmark Generics Ltd. and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd (December 2012); and Amerigen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Amerigen Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. (July 2013) (collectively, the "Settling Defendants"). Under the terms of the settlement agreements, and subject to review of the settlement terms by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, the Company will provide a license to each of the Settling Defendants that will permit them to launch their respective generic versions of Bystolic as of the date that is the later of (a) three calendar months prior to the expiration of the '040 patent, including any extensions and/or pediatric exclusivities or (b) the date that each Settling Defendant receives final FDA approval of its ANDA, or earlier in certain circumstances. The Company also agreed to reimburse certain of the Settling Defendants' legal costs in connection with the patent litigation, which were not material. These settlement agreements do not settle the Company's patent infringement litigations against Actavis, Inc., and related companies and subsidiaries thereof, which is also part of In re Nebivolol ('040) Patent Litigation. In October 2012, Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (FPI) was named as a defendant, along with The Peer Group, Inc. (TPG), in a putative class action brought by the St. Louis Heart Center (SLHC) under the caption "St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. v. Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and The Peer Group, Inc." The action is now pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. On May 17, 2013, SLHC filed a Fourth Amended Complaint, alleging that Forest and TPG violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (TCPA), on behalf of a proposed class that includes all persons who, from four years prior to the filing of the action, were sent telephone facsimile messages of material advertising the commercial availability of any property, goods, or services by or on behalf of defendants, which did not display an opt-out notice compliant with a certain regulation promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The Complaint seeks $500 for each alleged violation of the TCPA, treble damages if the Court finds the violations to be willful, knowing or intentional, interest, and injunctive and other relief. On May 21, 2013, in Nack v. Walburg, a separate case in which FPI is not a party, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that the district court in that case lacked jurisdiction to determine the validity of this FCC regulation and that the defendant in that case could only challenge the validity of this regulation through an administrative petition submitted directly to the FCC, a decision that would then be appealable to the appropriate court of appeals. On June 27, 2013, FPI filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling with the FCC requesting that the FCC find that (1) the faxes at issue in the action complied, or substantially complied with the FCC regulation, and thus did not violate it, or (2) the FCC regulation was not properly promulgated under the TCPA. On July 17, 2013, the district court granted our motion to stay the action pending the administrative proceeding initiated by Forest's FCC Petition, including any appeal therefrom. The Company believes that there is no merit to SLHC's claims and intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit. The Company is also subject to various legal proceedings that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of its business. Litigation is subject to many factors which are difficult to predict and there can be no assurance that the Company will not incur material costs in the resolution of these matters.

11. Contingencies:

In March 2012, the Company and Janssen, its licensor for Bystolic, brought actions for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,545,040 (the '040 patent) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against several companies who have notified them that they have filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) with the FDA seeking to obtain approval to market generic versions of Bystolic before the '040 patent expires on December 21, 2021. These lawsuits triggered an automatic stay of approval of the applicable ANDAs until June 17, 2015 (unless a court issues an adverse decision sooner). Janssen is no longer a party to these lawsuits following the Company's agreement to buy out Janssen's interests in Bystolic. On June 12, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized the Delaware and Illinois actions in the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Elaine E. Bucklo for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings captioned "In re Nebivolol ('040) Patent Litigation." Fact discovery was closed on June 8, 2013, and expert discovery is scheduled to be completed by November 22, 2013. A claim construction hearing scheduled for July 26, 2013 was adjourned. No trial dates have been set.

The Company has entered into settlement agreements with five of the six defendant groups in such patent infringement litigation: Hetero Labs Ltd and Hetero USA Inc. (October 2012); Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd and Torrent Pharma Inc. (November 2012); Alkem Laboratories Ltd. and Indchemie Health Specialties Pvt. Ltd. (November 2012); Glenmark Generics Inc., USA, Glenmark Generics Ltd. and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd (December 2012); and Amerigen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Amerigen Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. (July 2013) (collectively, the "Settling Defendants"). Under the terms of the settlement agreements, and subject to review of the settlement terms by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, the Company will provide a license to each of the Settling Defendants that will permit them to launch their respective generic versions of Bystolic as of the date that is the later of (a) three calendar months prior to the expiration of the '040 patent, including any extensions and/or pediatric exclusivities or (b) the date that each Settling Defendant receives final FDA approval of its ANDA, or earlier in certain circumstances. The Company also agreed to reimburse certain of the Settling Defendants' legal costs in connection with the patent litigation, which were not material. These settlement agreements do not settle the Company's patent infringement litigations against Actavis, Inc., and related companies and subsidiaries thereof, which is also part of In re Nebivolol ('040) Patent Litigation.

In October 2012, Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (FPI) was named as a defendant, along with The Peer Group, Inc. (TPG), in a putative class action brought by the St. Louis Heart Center (SLHC) under the caption "St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. v. Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and The Peer Group, Inc." The action is now pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. On May 17, 2013, SLHC filed a Fourth Amended Complaint, alleging that Forest and TPG violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (TCPA), on behalf of a proposed class that includes all persons who, from four years prior to the filing of the action, were sent telephone facsimile messages of material advertising the commercial availability of any property, goods, or services by or on behalf of defendants, which did not display an opt-out notice compliant with a certain regulation promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The Complaint seeks $500 for each alleged violation of the TCPA, treble damages if the Court finds the violations to be willful, knowing or intentional, interest, and injunctive and other relief. On May 21, 2013, in Nack v. Walburg, a separate case in which FPI is not a party, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that the district court in that case lacked jurisdiction to determine the validity of this FCC regulation and that the defendant in that case could only challenge the validity of this regulation through an administrative petition submitted directly to the FCC, a decision that would then be appealable to the appropriate court of appeals. On June 27, 2013, FPI filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling with the FCC requesting that the FCC find that (1) the faxes at issue in the action complied, or substantially complied with the FCC regulation, and thus did not violate it, or (2) the FCC regulation was not properly promulgated under the TCPA. On July 17, 2013, the district court granted our motion to stay the action pending the administrative proceeding initiated by Forest's FCC Petition, including any appeal therefrom. The Company believes that there is no merit to SLHC's claims and intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit.

The Company is also subject to various legal proceedings that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of its business. Litigation is subject to many factors which are difficult to predict and there can be no assurance that the Company will not incur material costs in the resolution of these matters.