Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies	N.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 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 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 and 15, 2011, respectively, the District Court issued an Opinion and Order dismissing the SAC with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 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. 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 Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, which was denied on March 15, 2013. On March 22, 2013, we filed a Motion to Stay the Mandate remanding the case to the District Court pending review by the U.S. Supreme Court of the Court of Appeals’ February 4, 2013 decision. The Court of Appeals granted the Motion to Stay the Mandate on April 8, 2013. On June 13, 2013, we filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, or the Petition, with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Court of Appeal’s decision and to have that decision overturned. On October 7, 2013 the U.S. Supreme Court denied our Petition, resulting in the case’s return to the District Court for further proceedings relative to the SAC’s surviving claims. On November 6, 2013, we filed a renewed Motion to Dismiss the SAC’s surviving claims. On December 6, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition to our Motion to Dismiss and we filed a reply brief in support of our Motion on December 27, 2013. On April 7, 2014, the District Court denied our renewed Motion to Dismiss. On May 7, 2014, the parties filed a joint status report with the District Court in advance of a status conference held on May 14, 2014. All defendants filed answers and affirmative defenses to the pending complaint on May 19, 2014. On June 6, 2014, the parties requested the District Court to stay the proceedings, which the Court allowed on June 9, 2014. Subsequently, the District Court set August 15, 2014 as the date by which all associated motion papers and other documents are to be filed. 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 a previously issued patent which covers ferumoxytol in EU jurisdictions. In October 2012, at an oral hearing, the Opposition Division of the EPO revoked this patent. In December 2012, our notice of appeal of that decision was recorded with the EPO, which also suspended the revocation of our patent. On May 13, 2013, we filed a statement of grounds of appeal and on September 27, 2013, Sandoz filed a response to that statement. We filed a reply to that response on March 17, 2014. 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 six months ended June 30, 2014. 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 June 30, 2014. 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 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 at June 30, 2014. We expense legal costs as they are incurred.

N.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 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 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 and 15, 2011, respectively, the District Court issued an Opinion and Order dismissing the SAC with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 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. 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 Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, which was denied on March 15, 2013. On March 22, 2013, we filed a Motion to Stay the Mandate remanding the case to the District Court pending review by the U.S. Supreme Court of the Court of Appeals’ February 4, 2013 decision. The Court of Appeals granted the Motion to Stay the Mandate on April 8, 2013. On June 13, 2013, we filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, or the Petition, with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Court of Appeal’s decision and to have that decision overturned. On October 7, 2013 the U.S. Supreme Court denied our Petition, resulting in the case’s return to the District Court for further proceedings relative to the SAC’s surviving claims. On November 6, 2013, we filed a renewed Motion to Dismiss the SAC’s surviving claims. On December 6, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition to our Motion to Dismiss and we filed a reply brief in support of our Motion on December 27, 2013. On April 7, 2014, the District Court denied our renewed Motion to Dismiss. On May 7, 2014, the parties filed a joint status report with the District Court in advance of a status conference held on May 14, 2014. All defendants filed answers and affirmative defenses to the pending complaint on May 19, 2014. On June 6, 2014, the parties requested the District Court to stay the proceedings, which the Court allowed on June 9, 2014. Subsequently, the District Court set August 15, 2014 as the date by which all associated motion papers and other documents are to be filed. 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 a previously issued patent which covers ferumoxytol in EU jurisdictions. In October 2012, at an oral hearing, the Opposition Division of the EPO revoked this patent. In December 2012, our notice of appeal of that decision was recorded with the EPO, which also suspended the revocation of our patent. On May 13, 2013, we filed a statement of grounds of appeal and on September 27, 2013, Sandoz filed a response to that statement. We filed a reply to that response on March 17, 2014. 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 six months ended June 30, 2014. 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 June 30, 2014. 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 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 at June 30, 2014. We expense legal costs as they are incurred.