Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	8. Commitments and Contingencies In the ordinary course of our business, we enter into agreements with third parties, such as business partners, clinical sites and suppliers, that include usual and customary indemnification provisions. We generally reciprocally agree to indemnify, hold harmless and reimburse indemnified parties for losses suffered or incurred with respect to products or product candidates, use of such products or other actions taken or omitted by the parties. The maximum potential amount of future payments we could be required to make under these indemnification provisions is frequently not limited. We have not incurred material costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to these provisions. As a result, the estimated fair value of liabilities relating to indemnification provisions is minimal. We have no liabilities recorded for these provisions as of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014. Progenics is a party to a proceeding brought by a former employee complaining that the Company violated the anti-retaliation provisions of the federal Sarbanes-Oxley law by terminating the former employee in mid-2008. In July 2013, the federal District Court hearing the case issued an order denying our motion for summary judgment dismissing the former employee's complaint. The case went to trial in July 2015 and the jury awarded the former employee approximately $1.66 million in compensatory damages (held in escrow by the District Court as restricted cash and recorded in other current assets) primarily consisting of salary the former employee would have received during the period from his termination to the date of the verdict. We have accrued an amount in connection with this matter which we believe is probable and estimable. Certain ancillary matters in the case, including the former employee's claims for additional compensation, pre-judgment interest and the awarding of attorneys' fees, remain subject to dispute. Given that there are matters yet to be decided and an estimate of the additional exposure, if any, have yet to be determined there is a reasonable possibility that additional losses may be incurred. The Company has moved for a new trial or, in the alternative, for remittitur and continues to assess the verdict and its options in the case, including a potential appeal. In July 2015, Progenics was named as a defendant in a complaint brought by Lonza Sales AG (Lonza) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware arising from a multi-product license agreement entered into by Progenics and Lonza in April 2010. The complaint alleges that Progenics breached the multi-product license agreement and misappropriated trade secrets in connection with Progenics' sale of certain assets relating to the PRO 140 product to a third party, and seeks unspecified damages and injunctive relief. On November 3, 2015, the District Court of Delaware denied Progenics' motion to dismiss the case. Progenics intends to vigorously defend against this action. At this time, we do not believe losses, if any, would have a material effect on the results of operations or financial position taken as a whole. On October 7, 2015 Progenics, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Salix") (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.) and Wyeth LLC received notification of a Paragraph IV certification for certain patents for RELISTOR® (methylnaltrexone bromide) subcutaneous injection, which are listed in the FDA's Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, or the Orange Book. The certification resulted from the filing by Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) with the FDA, challenging such patents for RELISTOR subcutaneous injection and seeking to obtain approval to market a generic version of RELISTOR subcutaneous injection before some or all of these patents expire. In accordance with the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act (commonly referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Act), Progenics and Salix have 45 days after effective notice of the Paragraph IV certification to file suit against the ANDA filer in order to obtain an automatic stay of FDA approval of the ANDA until the earlier of (i) 30 months from receipt of the notice or (ii) a District Court decision finding that the identified patents are invalid, unenforceable or not infringed. On October 28, 2015, Progenics, Salix, Wyeth LLC and Pfizer received a second notification of a Paragraph IV certification with respect to the same patents for RELISTOR subcutaneous injection from Actavis LLC as a result of Actavis LLC's filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) with the FDA, challenging these patents and seeking to obtain approval to market a generic version of RELISTOR subcutaneous injection before some or all of these patents expire. In addition to the above described ANDA notification, in October 2015 Progenics also received notices of opposition to three European patents relating to methylnaltrexone. The oppositions were filed separately by each of Actavis Group PTC ehf. and Fresenius Kabi Deutschland GmbH. Pursuant to the RELISTOR license agreement between Progenics and Salix, Salix has the first right to enforce the intellectual property rights at issue and is responsible for the costs of such enforcement. Progenics and Salix are cooperating to assess both the ANDA notification and the European oppositions and intend to vigorously enforce RELISTOR intellectual property rights. The Company and its affiliates are or may be from time to time involved in various other disputes, governmental and/or regulatory inspections, inquires, investigations and proceedings that could result in litigation, and other litigation matters that arise from time to time. The process of resolving matters through litigation or other means is inherently uncertain and it is possible that an unfavorable resolution of these matters will adversely affect the Company, its results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

8. Commitments and Contingencies

In the ordinary course of our business, we enter into agreements with third parties, such as business partners, clinical sites and suppliers, that include usual and customary indemnification provisions. We generally reciprocally agree to indemnify, hold harmless and reimburse indemnified parties for losses suffered or incurred with respect to products or product candidates, use of such products or other actions taken or omitted by the parties. The maximum potential amount of future payments we could be required to make under these indemnification provisions is frequently not limited. We have not incurred material costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to these provisions. As a result, the estimated fair value of liabilities relating to indemnification provisions is minimal. We have no liabilities recorded for these provisions as of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014.

Progenics is a party to a proceeding brought by a former employee complaining that the Company violated the anti-retaliation provisions of the federal Sarbanes-Oxley law by terminating the former employee in mid-2008. In July 2013, the federal District Court hearing the case issued an order denying our motion for summary judgment dismissing the former employee's complaint. The case went to trial in July 2015 and the jury awarded the former employee approximately $1.66 million in compensatory damages (held in escrow by the District Court as restricted cash and recorded in other current assets) primarily consisting of salary the former employee would have received during the period from his termination to the date of the verdict. We have accrued an amount in connection with this matter which we believe is probable and estimable. Certain ancillary matters in the case, including the former employee's claims for additional compensation, pre-judgment interest and the awarding of attorneys' fees, remain subject to dispute. Given that there are matters yet to be decided and an estimate of the additional exposure, if any, have yet to be determined there is a reasonable possibility that additional losses may be incurred. The Company has moved for a new trial or, in the alternative, for remittitur and continues to assess the verdict and its options in the case, including a potential appeal.

In July 2015, Progenics was named as a defendant in a complaint brought by Lonza Sales AG (Lonza) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware arising from a multi-product license agreement entered into by Progenics and Lonza in April 2010. The complaint alleges that Progenics breached the multi-product license agreement and misappropriated trade secrets in connection with Progenics' sale of certain assets relating to the PRO 140 product to a third party, and seeks unspecified damages and injunctive relief. On November 3, 2015, the District Court of Delaware denied Progenics' motion to dismiss the case. Progenics intends to vigorously defend against this action. At this time, we do not believe losses, if any, would have a material effect on the results of operations or financial position taken as a whole.

On October 7, 2015 Progenics, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Salix") (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.) and Wyeth LLC received notification of a Paragraph IV certification for certain patents for RELISTOR® (methylnaltrexone bromide) subcutaneous injection, which are listed in the FDA's Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, or the Orange Book. The certification resulted from the filing by Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) with the FDA, challenging such patents for RELISTOR subcutaneous injection and seeking to obtain approval to market a generic version of RELISTOR subcutaneous injection before some or all of these patents expire.

In accordance with the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act (commonly referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Act), Progenics and Salix have 45 days after effective notice of the Paragraph IV certification to file suit against the ANDA filer in order to obtain an automatic stay of FDA approval of the ANDA until the earlier of (i) 30 months from receipt of the notice or (ii) a District Court decision finding that the identified patents are invalid, unenforceable or not infringed.

On October 28, 2015, Progenics, Salix, Wyeth LLC and Pfizer received a second notification of a Paragraph IV certification with respect to the same patents for RELISTOR subcutaneous injection from Actavis LLC as a result of Actavis LLC's filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) with the FDA, challenging these patents and seeking to obtain approval to market a generic version of RELISTOR subcutaneous injection before some or all of these patents expire.

In addition to the above described ANDA notification, in October 2015 Progenics also received notices of opposition to three European patents relating to methylnaltrexone. The oppositions were filed separately by each of Actavis Group PTC ehf. and Fresenius Kabi Deutschland GmbH.

Pursuant to the RELISTOR license agreement between Progenics and Salix, Salix has the first right to enforce the intellectual property rights at issue and is responsible for the costs of such enforcement. Progenics and Salix are cooperating to assess both the ANDA notification and the European oppositions and intend to vigorously enforce RELISTOR intellectual property rights.

The Company and its affiliates are or may be from time to time involved in various other disputes, governmental and/or regulatory inspections, inquires, investigations and proceedings that could result in litigation, and other litigation matters that arise from time to time. The process of resolving matters through litigation or other means is inherently uncertain and it is possible that an unfavorable resolution of these matters will adversely affect the Company, its results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.