Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Commitments Our long-term contractual obligations include commitments and estimated purchase obligations entered into in the normal course of business. These include commitments related to our facility leases, purchases of inventory and other purchases related to our products, debt obligations, and other purchase obligations. Purchase Commitments In connection with our acquisition of CBR, we have certain minimum purchase commitments associated with an agreement entered into by CBR prior to our acquisition. This agreement expires in December 2018, with the remaining amount of minimum purchase commitments totaling $4.6 million as of March 31, 2017. Contingencies Legal Proceedings We accrue a liability for legal contingencies when we believe that it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and that we can reasonably estimate the amount of the loss. We review these accruals and adjust them to reflect ongoing negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel and other relevant information. To the extent new information is obtained and our views on the probable outcomes of claims, suits, assessments, investigations or legal proceedings change, changes in our accrued liabilities would be recorded in the period in which such determination is made. For certain matters referenced below, the liability is not probable or the amount cannot be reasonably estimated and, therefore, accruals have not been made. In addition, in accordance with the relevant authoritative guidance, for any matters in which the likelihood of material loss is at least reasonably possible, we will provide disclosure of the possible loss or range of loss. If a reasonable estimate cannot be made, however, we will provide disclosure to that effect. We expense legal costs as they are incurred. Sandoz Patent Infringement Lawsuit On February 5, 2016, we received a Paragraph IV certification notice letter regarding an Abbreviated New Drug Application submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”) by Sandoz Inc. (“Sandoz”) requesting approval to engage in commercial manufacture, use and sale of a generic version of ferumoxytol. A generic version of Feraheme can be marketed only with the approval of the FDA of the respective application for such generic version. The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, as amended, (the “Hatch-Waxman Act”), requires an ANDA applicant whose proposed drug is a generic version of a previously-approved drug listed in the FDA publication, “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” also known as the “Orange Book,” to certify to any patents listed in the Orange Book for the previously-approved drug and, in the case of a Paragraph IV certification, to notify the owner of the approved application and the relevant patent-holder. The Paragraph IV certification notice is required to contain a detailed factual and legal statement explaining the basis for the applicant’s opinion that the proposed product does not infringe the subject patents, that such patents are invalid or unenforceable, or both. If a patent infringement suit is filed within 45 days of receipt of the Paragraph IV notice, a so-called 30-month stay is triggered that generally prevents the FDA from approving the ANDA until the expiration of the 30-month stay period, conclusion of the litigation in the generic applicant’s favor, or expiration of the patent, whichever is earlier. In its notice letter, Sandoz claims that our ferumoxytol patents are invalid, unenforceable and/or not infringed by Sandoz’s manufacture, use, sale or offer for sale of the generic version. In March 2016, we initiated a patent infringement suit alleging that Sandoz’s ANDA filing itself constituted an act of infringement and that if it is approved, the manufacture, use, offer for sale, sale or importation of Sandoz’s ferumoxytol products would infringe our patents. By the filing of this complaint, we believe the 30 month stay was triggered and that Sandoz is prohibited from marketing its ferumoxytol product, even if it receives conditional approval from the FDA until the earliest of 30 months from the date of receipt of the notice of certification by the patent owner or NDA holder, the conclusion of litigation in the generic’s favor, or expiration of the patent(s). If the litigation is resolved in favor of the applicant or the challenged patent expires during the 30 month stay period, the stay is lifted and the FDA may thereafter approve the application based on the applicable standards for approval. On May 2, 2016, Sandoz filed a response to our patent infringement suit and the trial is scheduled for March 12, 2018. Any future unfavorable outcome in this matter could negatively affect the magnitude and timing of future Feraheme revenues. We intend to vigorously enforce our intellectual property rights relating to ferumoxytol. Other On July 20, 2015, the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”) notified us that it was conducting an investigation into whether Lumara Health or its predecessor engaged in unfair methods of competition with respect to Makena or any hydroxyprogesterone caproate product. The FTC noted in its letter that the existence of the investigation does not indicate that the FTC has concluded that Lumara Health or its predecessor has violated the law and we believe that our contracts and practices comply with relevant law and policy, including the federal Drug Quality and Security Act (the “DQSA”), which was enacted in November 2013, and public statements from and enforcement actions by the FDA regarding its implementation of the DQSA. In August 2015, we provided the FTC with a response that provided a brief overview of the DQSA for context, including: (a) how the statute outlined that large-scale compounding of products that are copies or near-copies of FDA-approved drugs (like Makena) is not in the interests of public safety; (b) our belief that the DQSA has had a significant impact on the compounding of hydroxyprogesterone caproate; and (c) how our contracts with former compounders allow those compounders to continue to serve physicians and patients with respect to supplying medically necessary alternative/altered forms of hydroxyprogesterone caproate. We believe we have fully cooperated with the FTC and that our August 2015 was comprehensive and thorough. We have had no further communications to or from the FTC on this matter since our August 2015 response. On or about April 6, 2016, we received Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons in a case entitled Plumbers’ Local Union No. 690 Health Plan v. Actavis Group et. al. (“Plumbers’ Union”), which was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, First Judicial District of Pennsylvania and, after removal to federal court, is now pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Civ. Action No. 16-65-AB). Thereafter, we were also made aware of a related complaint entitled Delaware Valley Health Care Coalition v. Actavis Group et. al. (“Delaware Valley”), which was filed with the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, First Judicial District of Pennsylvania District Court of Pennsylvania (Case ID: 160200806). The complaints name K-V Pharmaceutical Company (“KV”) (Lumara Health’s predecessor company), certain of its successor entities, subsidiaries and affiliate entities (the “Subsidiaries”), along with a number of other pharmaceutical companies. We acquired Lumara Health in November 2014, a year after KV emerged from bankruptcy protection, at which time it, along with its then existing subsidiaries, became our wholly-owned subsidiary. We have not been served with process or waived service of summons in either case. The actions are being brought alleging unfair and deceptive trade practices with regard to certain pricing practices that allegedly resulted in certain payers overpaying for certain of KV’s generic products. On July 21, 2016, the Plaintiff in the Plumbers’ Union case dismissed KV with prejudice to refiling and on October 6, 2016, all claims against the Subsidiaries were dismissed without prejudice. We are in discussions with Plaintiff’s counsel to similarly dismiss all claims in the Delaware Valley case. Because the Delaware Valley case is in the earliest stages and we have not been served with process in this case, we are currently unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate the range of potential loss associated with this matter, if any. We may periodically become subject to other legal proceedings and claims arising in connection with ongoing business activities, including claims or disputes related to patents that have been issued or that are pending in the field of research on which we are focused. Other than the above actions, we are not aware of any material claims against us as of March 31, 2017.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Commitments

Our long-term contractual obligations include commitments and estimated purchase obligations entered into in the normal course of business. These include commitments related to our facility leases, purchases of inventory and other purchases related to our products, debt obligations, and other purchase obligations.

Purchase Commitments

In connection with our acquisition of CBR, we have certain minimum purchase commitments associated with an agreement entered into by CBR prior to our acquisition. This agreement expires in December 2018, with the remaining amount of minimum purchase commitments totaling $4.6 million as of March 31, 2017.

Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

We accrue a liability for legal contingencies when we believe that it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and that we can reasonably estimate the amount of the loss. We review these accruals and adjust them to reflect ongoing negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel and other relevant information. To the extent new information is obtained and our views on the probable outcomes of claims, suits, assessments, investigations or legal proceedings change, changes in our accrued liabilities would be recorded in the period in which such determination is made. For certain matters referenced below, the liability is not probable or the amount cannot be reasonably estimated and, therefore, accruals have not been made. In addition, in accordance with the relevant authoritative guidance, for any matters in which the likelihood of material loss is at least reasonably possible, we will provide disclosure of the possible loss or range of loss. If a reasonable estimate cannot be made, however, we will provide disclosure to that effect. We expense legal costs as they are incurred.

Sandoz Patent Infringement Lawsuit

On February 5, 2016, we received a Paragraph IV certification notice letter regarding an Abbreviated New Drug Application submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”) by Sandoz Inc. (“Sandoz”) requesting approval to engage in commercial manufacture, use and sale of a generic version of ferumoxytol. A generic version of Feraheme can be marketed only with the approval of the FDA of the respective application for such generic version. The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, as amended, (the “Hatch-Waxman Act”), requires an ANDA applicant whose proposed drug is a generic version of a previously-approved drug listed in the FDA publication, “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” also known as the “Orange Book,” to certify to any patents listed in the Orange Book for the previously-approved drug and, in the case of a Paragraph IV certification, to notify the owner of the approved application and the relevant patent-holder. The Paragraph IV certification notice is required to contain a detailed factual and legal statement explaining the basis for the applicant’s opinion that the proposed product does not infringe the subject patents, that such patents are invalid or unenforceable, or both. If a patent infringement suit is filed within 45 days of receipt of the Paragraph IV notice, a so-called 30-month stay is triggered that generally prevents the FDA from approving the ANDA until the expiration of the 30-month stay period, conclusion of the litigation in the generic applicant’s favor, or expiration of the patent, whichever is earlier. In its notice letter, Sandoz claims that our ferumoxytol patents are invalid, unenforceable and/or not infringed by Sandoz’s manufacture, use, sale or offer for sale of the generic version. In March 2016, we initiated a patent infringement suit alleging that Sandoz’s ANDA filing itself constituted an act of infringement and that if it is approved, the manufacture, use, offer for sale, sale or importation of Sandoz’s ferumoxytol products would infringe our patents. By the filing of this complaint, we believe the 30 month stay was triggered and that Sandoz is prohibited from marketing its ferumoxytol product, even if it receives conditional approval from the FDA until the earliest of 30 months from the date of receipt of the notice of certification by the patent owner or NDA holder, the conclusion of litigation in the generic’s favor, or expiration of the patent(s). If the litigation is resolved in favor of the applicant or the challenged patent expires during the 30 month stay period, the stay is lifted and the FDA may thereafter approve the application based on the applicable standards for approval. On May 2, 2016, Sandoz filed a response to our patent infringement suit and the trial is scheduled for March 12, 2018. Any future unfavorable outcome in this matter could negatively affect the magnitude and timing of future Feraheme revenues. We intend to vigorously enforce our intellectual property rights relating to ferumoxytol.

Other

On July 20, 2015, the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”) notified us that it was conducting an investigation into whether Lumara Health or its predecessor engaged in unfair methods of competition with respect to Makena or any hydroxyprogesterone caproate product. The FTC noted in its letter that the existence of the investigation does not indicate that the FTC has concluded that Lumara Health or its predecessor has violated the law and we believe that our contracts and practices comply with relevant law and policy, including the federal Drug Quality and Security Act (the “DQSA”), which was enacted in November 2013, and public statements from and enforcement actions by the FDA regarding its implementation of the DQSA. In August 2015, we provided the FTC with a response that provided a brief overview of the DQSA for context, including: (a) how the statute outlined that large-scale compounding of products that are copies or near-copies of FDA-approved drugs (like Makena) is not in the interests of public safety; (b) our belief that the DQSA has had a significant impact on the compounding of hydroxyprogesterone caproate; and (c) how our contracts with former compounders allow those compounders to continue to serve physicians and patients with respect to supplying medically necessary alternative/altered forms of hydroxyprogesterone caproate. We believe we have fully cooperated with the FTC and that our August 2015 was comprehensive and thorough. We have had no further communications to or from the FTC on this matter since our August 2015 response.

On or about April 6, 2016, we received Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons in a case entitled Plumbers’ Local Union No. 690 Health Plan v. Actavis Group et. al. (“Plumbers’ Union”), which was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, First Judicial District of Pennsylvania and, after removal to federal court, is now pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Civ. Action No. 16-65-AB). Thereafter, we were also made aware of a related complaint entitled Delaware Valley Health Care Coalition v. Actavis Group et. al. (“Delaware Valley”), which was filed with the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, First Judicial District of Pennsylvania District Court of Pennsylvania (Case ID: 160200806). The complaints name K-V Pharmaceutical Company (“KV”) (Lumara Health’s predecessor company), certain of its successor entities, subsidiaries and affiliate entities (the “Subsidiaries”), along with a number of other pharmaceutical companies. We acquired Lumara Health in November 2014, a year after KV emerged from bankruptcy protection, at which time it, along with its then existing subsidiaries, became our wholly-owned subsidiary. We have not been served with process or waived service of summons in either case. The actions are being brought alleging unfair and deceptive trade practices with regard to certain pricing practices that allegedly resulted in certain payers overpaying for certain of KV’s generic products. On July 21, 2016, the Plaintiff in the Plumbers’ Union case dismissed KV with prejudice to refiling and on October 6, 2016, all claims against the Subsidiaries were dismissed without prejudice. We are in discussions with Plaintiff’s counsel to similarly dismiss all claims in the Delaware Valley case. Because the Delaware Valley case is in the earliest stages and we have not been served with process in this case, we are currently unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate the range of potential loss associated with this matter, if any.

We may periodically become subject to other legal proceedings and claims arising in connection with ongoing business activities, including claims or disputes related to patents that have been issued or that are pending in the field of research on which we are focused. Other than the above actions, we are not aware of any material claims against us as of March 31, 2017.