Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies	K. Commitments and 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 the 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. A purported class action complaint was originally filed on March 18, 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, entitled Silverstrand Investments et. al. v. AMAG Pharm., Inc., et. al., Civil Action No. 1:10-CV-10470-NMG, and was amended on September 15, 2010 and on December 17, 2010. The second amended complaint, or SAC, filed on December 17, 2010 alleged that we and our former President and Chief Executive Officer, former Chief Financial Officer, the then members of our Board, and certain underwriters in our January 2010 offering of common stock violated certain federal securities laws, specifically Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and that our former President and Chief Executive Officer and former Chief Financial Officer violated Section 15 of such Act, respectively, by making certain alleged false and misleading statements and omissions in a registration statement filed in January 2010. The plaintiffs sought unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our common stock pursuant to our common stock offering on or about January 21, 2010. On August 11, 2011, the District Court issued an Opinion and Order dismissing the SAC in its entirety for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. A separate Order of Dismissal was filed on August 15, 2011. On September 14, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, or the Court of Appeals. After briefing was completed by all parties, the Court of Appeals heard oral argument on May 11, 2012. On February 4, 2013, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the District Court’s Opinion and Order, and remanded the case to the District Court. On February 19, 2013, we filed a Petition for Panel Hearing Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc, asking the Court of Appeals to reconsider its decision. On March 15, 2013, the Court of Appeals denied this petition. On March 22, 2013, we filed a Motion to Stay the Mandate remanding the case to the District Court pending review of the Court of Appeals’ February 4, 2013 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court of Appeals granted this Motion to Stay the Mandate on April 8, 2013, and any petition for writ of certiorari must be filed by June 13, 2013. We are currently unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate the range of potential loss associated with this matter, if any, and have therefore not recorded any potential estimated liability as we do not believe that such a liability is probable nor do we believe that a range of loss is currently estimable. In July 2010, Sandoz GmbH, or Sandoz, filed with the European Patent Office, or the EPO, an opposition to our previously issued patent which covers ferumoxytol in the EU. In October 2012, at an oral hearing, the Opposition Division of the EPO revoked our European ferumoxytol patent. In December 2012, our notice of appeal was recorded with the EPO, which suspended the revocation of our patent. We will continue to defend the validity of this patent throughout the appeals process, which we expect to take two to three years. However, in the event that we do not experience a successful outcome from the appeals process, under EU regulations ferumoxytol would still be entitled to eight years of data protection and ten years of market exclusivity from the date of approval, which we believe would create barriers to entry for any generic version of ferumoxytol into the EU market until sometime between 2020 and 2022. This decision had no impact on our revenues for the three months ended March 31, 2013. However, any future unfavorable outcome in this matter could negatively affect the magnitude and timing of future revenues, including royalties and milestone payments we may receive from Takeda pursuant to our collaboration agreement with Takeda. We do not expect to incur any related liability regardless of the outcome of the appeal and therefore have not recorded any liability as of March 31, 2013. We continue to believe the patent is valid and intend to vigorously appeal the decision. We may periodically become subject to other legal proceedings and claims arising in connection with ongoing business activities, including claims or disputes related to product liability matters or 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, 2013. We expense legal costs as they are incurred.

K. Commitments and 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 the 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.

A purported class action complaint was originally filed on March 18, 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, entitled Silverstrand Investments et. al. v. AMAG Pharm., Inc., et. al., Civil Action No. 1:10-CV-10470-NMG, and was amended on September 15, 2010 and on December 17, 2010. The second amended complaint, or SAC, filed on December 17, 2010 alleged that we and our former President and Chief Executive Officer, former Chief Financial Officer, the then members of our Board, and certain underwriters in our January 2010 offering of common stock violated certain federal securities laws, specifically Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and that our former President and Chief Executive Officer and former Chief Financial Officer violated Section 15 of such Act, respectively, by making certain alleged false and misleading statements and omissions in a registration statement filed in January 2010. The plaintiffs sought unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our common stock pursuant to our common stock offering on or about January 21, 2010. On August 11, 2011, the District Court issued an Opinion and Order dismissing the SAC in its entirety for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. A separate Order of Dismissal was filed on August 15, 2011. On September 14, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, or the Court of Appeals. After briefing was completed by all parties, the Court of Appeals heard oral argument on May 11, 2012. On February 4, 2013, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the District Court’s Opinion and Order, and remanded the case to the District Court. On February 19, 2013, we filed a Petition for Panel Hearing Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc, asking the Court of Appeals to reconsider its decision. On March 15, 2013, the Court of Appeals denied this petition. On March 22, 2013, we filed a Motion to Stay the Mandate remanding the case to the District Court pending review of the Court of Appeals’ February 4, 2013 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court of Appeals granted this Motion to Stay the Mandate on April 8, 2013, and any petition for writ of certiorari must be filed by June 13, 2013. We are currently unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate the range of potential loss associated with this matter, if any, and have therefore not recorded any potential estimated liability as we do not believe that such a liability is probable nor do we believe that a range of loss is currently estimable.

In July 2010, Sandoz GmbH, or Sandoz, filed with the European Patent Office, or the EPO, an opposition to our previously issued patent which covers ferumoxytol in the EU. In October 2012, at an oral hearing, the Opposition Division of the EPO revoked our European ferumoxytol patent. In December 2012, our notice of appeal was recorded with the EPO, which suspended the revocation of our patent. We will continue to defend the validity of this patent throughout the appeals process, which we expect to take two to three years. However, in the event that we do not experience a successful outcome from the appeals process, under EU regulations ferumoxytol would still be entitled to eight years of data protection and ten years of market exclusivity from the date of approval, which we believe would create barriers to entry for any generic version of ferumoxytol into the EU market until sometime between 2020 and 2022. This decision had no impact on our revenues for the three months ended March 31, 2013. However, any future unfavorable outcome in this matter could negatively affect the magnitude and timing of future revenues, including royalties and milestone payments we may receive from Takeda pursuant to our collaboration agreement with Takeda. We do not expect to incur any related liability regardless of the outcome of the appeal and therefore have not recorded any liability as of March 31, 2013. We continue to believe the patent is valid and intend to vigorously appeal the decision.

We may periodically become subject to other legal proceedings and claims arising in connection with ongoing business activities, including claims or disputes related to product liability matters or 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, 2013. We expense legal costs as they are incurred.