Legal Proceedings	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	Legal Proceedings Commercial Litigation In Re: Taxotere (Docetaxel) On February 1, 2017, the Company was named as a defendant, among various other manufacturers, in several product liability suits that are consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana as part of MDL 2740 (Civil Action No 2:16 md-2740). The claims are for personal injuries allegedly arising out of the use of docetaxel. In March 2017, the Company reached agreements in principle with the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in this matter to voluntarily dismiss the Company from all of the law suits in which it was named and from the master complaint. The Company is in the process of working with the other parties in this matter to have it removed from the Multidistrict litigation entirely. As part of the agreement, in the event a case is brought in the future with facts that justify the Company’s inclusion, the plaintiffs reserved the right to include the Company in such matter. The plaintiffs have filed several additional lawsuits since the parties’ agreement in principle to dismiss, and the Company is in the process of working with plaintiffs to explore the possibility of dismissing those lawsuits. The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses to these cases and maintains product liability insurance against such cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if successful, or if our indemnification arrangements or insurance do not provide sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Medicines Company v. Eagle On February 2, 2016, The Medicines Company (“MDCO”) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company, SciDose LLC and TherDose Pharma Pvt. Ltd. (collectively the “Defendants”) relating to the Defendants’ work on a novel ready-to-use bivalirudin injection product (“EP-6101”). MDCO amended that complaint in April of 2016. The suit cites the May 7, 2008 License and Development Agreement (the “LDA”) between the Defendants and MDCO, which was terminated by the Company on September 17, 2013. In the lawsuit, MDCO alleges that the Company violated the terms of the LDA by, inter alia, developing EP-6101, and that EP-6101 infringes two patents that are jointly-owned by the Company and MDCO and violates an exclusive license that MDCO claims survived the termination of the LDA. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment in October 2016, which was denied on March 15, 2017. The Company continues to dispute the allegations made by MDCO and believes it has meritorious defenses to all of MDCO’s claims. Fact discovery is ongoing and closes in December 2017, with expert discovery closing in April 2018. Based on recent events, the Company has filed a motion seeking to have the case dismissed from federal court based on the Court lacking subject matter jurisdiction. That motion is pending. Moreover, the Company filed a motion to stay any further discovery pending a determination of its motion to dismiss. Bauer v. Eagle On May 31, 2016, a federal securities class-action lawsuit (captioned Bauer v. Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-cv-03091-JLL-JAD) was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and the Company’s Chief Executive Officer. On August 1, 2016, plaintiffs Blake Bauer, Brent Kawamura and Guarang Patel (the "EGRX Investors Group"), filed a motion requesting the Court to appoint the EGRX Investors Group as lead plaintiff and Kirby McInerney LLP as lead counsel. The motion was granted on September 9, 2016. On October 31, 2016, the EGRX Investors Group filed an amended class action complaint (the “Amended Complaint”) against the defendants, seeking compensatory damages and an award of costs and expenses, including attorneys’ and experts’ fees. The Amended Complaint alleged that defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, as amended, by making false and/or misleading statements about, among other things: (a) EP-6101, (b) the Company’s expectations regarding the NDA submitted for EP-6101, and (c) the Company’s business prospects. On December 16, 2016, defendants’ filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs opposed that motion on January 30, 2017. Defendants’ filed their reply on March 1, 2017. On May 19, 2017, the Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the Amended Complaint without prejudice. On June 1, 2017, the Court entered an order granting plaintiffs until July 3, 2017 to file an amended complaint. Plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint on or before July 3, 2017 and, therefore, on August 2, 2017, the Court entered an order dismissing the case with prejudice and directing the clerk to close the case. On August 31, 2017, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, indicating their intent to appeal from the Court’s May 19, 2017 and August 2, 2017 orders. On October 4, 2017, plaintiffs-appellants filed a motion to withdraw their appeal and, on October 5, 2017, the Court of Appeals issued an order dismissing the appeal without costs to either party. Eagle v. Burwell On April 27, 2016, the Company filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the FDA and other federal defendants seeking an order requiring the FDA to grant us orphan drug exclusivity for Bendeka for the treatment of CLL and indolent B-cell NHL. The Company believes Bendeka is entitled to orphan drug exclusivity as a matter of law, and that the FDA’s decision violates federal law and is inconsistent with the holding of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Depomed Inc. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The parties have filed all substantive motions and pleadings and anticipate either a schedule for oral argument or a disposition from the court in 2017. Eagle v. Eli Lilly On August 24, 2017, the Company filed an antitrust complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Eli Lilly and Company (“Lilly”), Case No. 2:17-CV-06415. The complaint alleges that Lilly engaged in anticompetitive conduct which restrained competition by delaying and blocking the Company’s launch of a competing pemetrexed injection product (to compete with Lilly’s Alimta). Lilly has accepted service and answered the complaint on October 27, 2017. Lily also filed a motion to transfer this case to Delaware on October 27, 2017. Eagle filed a motion to oppose such transfer on November 6, 2017. No other dates or proceedings have been scheduled at this time. The Company believes it has valid claims against Lilly and the right to seek injunctive relief and damages. However, litigation is inherently uncertain, and the Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. Patent Litigation Eli Lilly and Company. v. Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc.(Pemetrexed) On August 14, 2017, Lilly filed suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana (the “Indiana Suit”). Lilly alleged patent infringement based on the filing of the Company’s 505(b)(2) NDA seeking approval to manufacture and sell the Company’s PEMFEXY^TM (Pemetrexed Injection), 25 mg/mL, 500 mg vials ("Eagle’s Pemfexy Product"). Eagle’s Pemfexy Product, if finally approved by FDA, will be a branded alternative to Alimta^®, which is indicated (in combination with cisplatin) (a) for the treatment of patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma, or (b) for the initial treatment of locally advanced or metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer. Alimta^® also is indicated as a single-agent for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer after prior chemotherapy. Alimta^® also is indicated for maintenance treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer whose disease has not progressed after four cycles of platinum-based first-line chemotherapy. On September 8, 2017, Eagle moved to dismiss the Indiana Suit for improper venue. On September 11, 2017, Lilly voluntarily dismissed the Indiana Suit. It then filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging similar patent infringement claims (the “Delaware Suit”). Eagle answered and filed various counterclaims in the Delaware Suit on October 3, 2017. Lilly answered Eagle’s counterclaims on October 24, 2017. The case is pending and the Court has ordered a scheduling conference on December 11, 2017. Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. v. Slayback Pharma Limited Liability Company; Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. v. Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp.; Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC - (BENDEKA^®) BENDEKA^®, which contains bendamustine hydrochloride, is an alkylating drug that is indicated for the treatment of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, as well as for the treatment of patients with indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma that has progressed during or within six months of treatment with rituximab or a rituximab-containing regimen. Three companies - Slayback Pharma Limited Liability Company (“Slayback”), Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (“Apotex”), and Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC (“Fresenius”) - have filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications (“ANDA’s”) referencing BENDEKA^® that include challenges to one or more of the BENDEKA^® Orange Book-listed patents. The Company, Cephalon, Inc. and/or Teva Pharmaceuticals International GMBH (together the “Patentees”), filed separate suits against Slayback, Apotex and Fresenius in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on August 16, 2017, August 18, 2017, and August 24, 2017, respectively. The Patentees allege infringement of the challenged patents, namely U.S. Patent No. 8,791,270 against Slayback, and of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,609,707, 8,791,270, 9,000,021, 9,034,908, 9,144,568, 9,265,831, 9,572,796, 9,572,797, 9,572,887, 9,579,384, 9,597,397, 9,597,398, 9,597,399 against Fresenius and Apotex. Slayback and Fresenius answered the complaints and filed various counterclaims on September 29, 2017 and September 15, 2017, respectively. The Patentees answered Slayback’s counterclaims on October 20, 2017, and Fresenius’ counterclaims on October 6, 2017. Apotex has not yet answered the Patentees’ complaint against it. All three cases are pending. The FDA is stayed from approving Slayback’s, Apotex’s and Fresenius’ ANDA’s until the earlier of (1) January 6, 2020, January 7, 2020, and January 14, 2020 respectively (the “30-month stay dates”); and (2) a court decision that each of the challenged patents is not infringed, invalid or unenforceable. The 30-month stay dates may be shortened or lengthened if either party to the action fails to reasonably cooperate in expediting the action.

Legal Proceedings

Commercial Litigation

In Re: Taxotere (Docetaxel)

On February 1, 2017, the Company was named as a defendant, among various other manufacturers, in several product liability suits that are consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana as part of MDL 2740 (Civil Action No 2:16 md-2740). The claims are for personal injuries allegedly arising out of the use of docetaxel.

In March 2017, the Company reached agreements in principle with the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in this matter to voluntarily dismiss the Company from all of the law suits in which it was named and from the master complaint. The Company is in the process of working with the other parties in this matter to have it removed from the Multidistrict litigation entirely. As part of the agreement, in the event a case is brought in the future with facts that justify the Company’s inclusion, the plaintiffs reserved the right to include the Company in such matter. The plaintiffs have filed several additional lawsuits since the parties’ agreement in principle to dismiss, and the Company is in the process of working with plaintiffs to explore the possibility of dismissing those lawsuits. The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses to these cases and maintains product liability insurance against such cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if successful, or if our indemnification arrangements or insurance do not provide sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Medicines Company v. Eagle

On February 2, 2016, The Medicines Company (“MDCO”) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company, SciDose LLC and TherDose Pharma Pvt. Ltd. (collectively the “Defendants”) relating to the Defendants’ work on a novel ready-to-use bivalirudin injection product (“EP-6101”). MDCO amended that complaint in April of 2016. The suit cites the May 7, 2008 License and Development Agreement (the “LDA”) between the Defendants and MDCO, which was terminated by the Company on September 17, 2013. In the lawsuit, MDCO alleges that the Company violated the terms of the LDA by, inter alia, developing EP-6101, and that EP-6101 infringes two patents that are jointly-owned by the Company and MDCO and violates an exclusive license that MDCO claims survived the termination of the LDA. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment in October 2016, which was denied on March 15, 2017. The Company continues to dispute the allegations made by MDCO and believes it has meritorious defenses to all of MDCO’s claims. Fact discovery is ongoing and closes in December 2017, with expert discovery closing in April 2018. Based on recent events, the Company has filed a motion seeking to have the case dismissed from federal court based on the Court lacking subject matter jurisdiction. That motion is pending. Moreover, the Company filed a motion to stay any further discovery pending a determination of its motion to dismiss.

Bauer v. Eagle

On May 31, 2016, a federal securities class-action lawsuit (captioned Bauer v. Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-cv-03091-JLL-JAD) was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and the Company’s Chief Executive Officer. On August 1, 2016, plaintiffs Blake Bauer, Brent Kawamura and Guarang Patel (the "EGRX Investors Group"), filed a motion requesting the Court to appoint the EGRX Investors Group as lead plaintiff and Kirby McInerney LLP as lead counsel. The motion was granted on September 9, 2016. On October 31, 2016, the EGRX Investors Group filed an amended class action complaint (the “Amended Complaint”) against the defendants, seeking compensatory damages and an award of costs and expenses, including attorneys’ and experts’ fees. The Amended Complaint alleged that defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, as amended, by making false and/or misleading statements about, among other things: (a) EP-6101, (b) the Company’s expectations regarding the NDA submitted for EP-6101, and (c) the Company’s business prospects. On December 16, 2016, defendants’ filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs opposed that motion on January 30, 2017. Defendants’ filed their reply on March 1, 2017. On May 19, 2017, the Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the Amended Complaint without prejudice. On June 1, 2017, the Court entered an order granting plaintiffs until July 3, 2017 to file an amended complaint. Plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint on or before July 3, 2017 and, therefore, on August 2, 2017, the Court entered an order dismissing the case with prejudice and directing the clerk to close the case. On August 31, 2017, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, indicating their intent to appeal from the Court’s May 19, 2017 and August 2, 2017 orders. On October 4, 2017, plaintiffs-appellants filed a motion to withdraw their appeal and, on October 5, 2017, the Court of Appeals issued an order dismissing the appeal without costs to either party.

Eagle v. Burwell

On April 27, 2016, the Company filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the FDA and other federal defendants seeking an order requiring the FDA to grant us orphan drug exclusivity for Bendeka for the treatment of CLL and indolent B-cell NHL. The Company believes Bendeka is entitled to orphan drug exclusivity as a matter of law, and that the FDA’s decision violates federal law and is inconsistent with the holding of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Depomed Inc. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The parties have filed all substantive motions and pleadings and anticipate either a schedule for oral argument or a disposition from the court in 2017.

Eagle v. Eli Lilly

On August 24, 2017, the Company filed an antitrust complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Eli Lilly and Company (“Lilly”), Case No. 2:17-CV-06415. The complaint alleges that Lilly engaged in anticompetitive conduct which restrained competition by delaying and blocking the Company’s launch of a competing pemetrexed injection product (to compete with Lilly’s Alimta). Lilly has accepted service and answered the complaint on October 27, 2017. Lily also filed a motion to transfer this case to Delaware on October 27, 2017. Eagle filed a motion to oppose such transfer on November 6, 2017. No other dates or proceedings have been scheduled at this time. The Company believes it has valid claims against Lilly and the right to seek injunctive relief and damages. However, litigation is inherently uncertain, and the Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation.

Patent Litigation

Eli Lilly and Company. v. Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc.(Pemetrexed)

On August 14, 2017, Lilly filed suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana (the “Indiana Suit”). Lilly alleged patent infringement based on the filing of the Company’s 505(b)(2) NDA seeking approval to manufacture and sell the Company’s PEMFEXY^TM (Pemetrexed Injection), 25 mg/mL, 500 mg vials ("Eagle’s Pemfexy Product"). Eagle’s Pemfexy Product, if finally approved by FDA, will be a branded alternative to Alimta^®, which is indicated (in combination with cisplatin) (a) for the treatment of patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma, or (b) for the initial treatment of locally advanced or metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer. Alimta^® also is indicated as a single-agent for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer after prior chemotherapy. Alimta^® also is indicated for maintenance treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer whose disease has not progressed after four cycles of platinum-based first-line chemotherapy.

On September 8, 2017, Eagle moved to dismiss the Indiana Suit for improper venue. On September 11, 2017, Lilly voluntarily dismissed the Indiana Suit. It then filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging similar patent infringement claims (the “Delaware Suit”). Eagle answered and filed various counterclaims in the Delaware Suit on October 3, 2017. Lilly answered Eagle’s counterclaims on October 24, 2017. The case is pending and the Court has ordered a scheduling conference on December 11, 2017.

Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. v. Slayback Pharma Limited Liability Company; Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. v. Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp.; Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC - (BENDEKA^®)

BENDEKA^®, which contains bendamustine hydrochloride, is an alkylating drug that is indicated for the treatment of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, as well as for the treatment of patients with indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma that has progressed during or within six months of treatment with rituximab or a rituximab-containing regimen. Three companies - Slayback Pharma Limited Liability Company (“Slayback”), Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (“Apotex”), and Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC (“Fresenius”) - have filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications (“ANDA’s”) referencing BENDEKA^® that include challenges to one or more of the BENDEKA^® Orange Book-listed patents.

The Company, Cephalon, Inc. and/or Teva Pharmaceuticals International GMBH (together the “Patentees”), filed separate suits against Slayback, Apotex and Fresenius in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on August 16, 2017, August 18, 2017, and August 24, 2017, respectively. The Patentees allege infringement of the challenged patents, namely U.S. Patent No. 8,791,270 against Slayback, and of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,609,707, 8,791,270, 9,000,021, 9,034,908, 9,144,568, 9,265,831, 9,572,796, 9,572,797, 9,572,887, 9,579,384, 9,597,397, 9,597,398, 9,597,399 against Fresenius and Apotex. Slayback and Fresenius answered the complaints and filed various counterclaims on September 29, 2017 and September 15, 2017, respectively. The Patentees answered Slayback’s counterclaims on October 20, 2017, and Fresenius’ counterclaims on October 6, 2017. Apotex has not yet answered the Patentees’ complaint against it. All three cases are pending.

The FDA is stayed from approving Slayback’s, Apotex’s and Fresenius’ ANDA’s until the earlier of (1) January 6, 2020, January 7, 2020, and January 14, 2020 respectively (the “30-month stay dates”); and (2) a court decision that each of the challenged patents is not infringed, invalid or unenforceable. The 30-month stay dates may be shortened or lengthened if either party to the action fails to reasonably cooperate in expediting the action.