Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 9. Commitments and Contingencies We are or may be from time to time involved in various other disputes, governmental and/or regulatory inspections, inquiries, 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 us, our results of operations, financial condition, and cash flows. In each of the matters described in this filing or in Note 10. Commitments and Contingencies to our consolidated financial statements in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015, plaintiffs seek an award of a not-yet-quantified amount of damages or an amount that is not material. In addition, a number of the matters pending against us are at very early stages of the legal process (which in complex proceedings of the sort faced by us often extend for several years). As a result, none of the matters described in this filing, except for the former employee litigation, have progressed sufficiently through discovery and/or development of important factual information and legal issues to enable us to estimate a range of possible loss, if any, or such amounts are not material. While it is not possible to accurately predict or determine the eventual outcomes of these items, an adverse determination in one or more of these items currently pending could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial position, or cash flows. Former Employee Litigation We are a party to a proceeding brought by a former employee on November 2, 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, complaining that we had violated the anti-retaliation provisions of the Federal Sarbanes-Oxley law by terminating the former employee. The former employee seeks reinstatement of his employment, compensatory damages, and certain costs and fees associated with the litigation. 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, on July 31, 2015, the jury awarded the former employee approximately $1.66 million in compensatory damages (held in escrow by the District Court and recorded as restricted cash in other current assets on our condensed consolidated balance sheet) 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 (inclusive of the $1.66 million held in escrow). 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, has yet to be determined, there is a reasonable possibility that additional losses may be incurred. We have moved for a new trial or, in the alternative, for remittitur and continue to assess the verdict and our options in the case, including a potential appeal. Abbreviated New Drug Application Litigations On October 7, 2015, Progenics, Valeant, and Wyeth LLC (Valeant's predecessor as licensee of RELISTOR) received notification of a Paragraph IV certification for certain patents for RELISTOR 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. On October 28, 2015, Progenics, Valeant, and Wyeth LLC 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 ANDA with the FDA, also 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 accordance with the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act (commonly referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Act), we and Valeant timely commenced litigation against each of these ANDA filers 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. In addition to the aforementioned ANDA notifications, in October 2015, we 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. Each of the ANDA litigation proceedings is in its early stages and we and Valeant continue to cooperate closely to vigorously defend and enforce RELISTOR intellectual property rights. Pursuant to the RELISTOR license agreement between us and Valeant, Valeant has the first right to enforce the intellectual property rights at issue and is responsible for the costs of such enforcement.

Note 9. Commitments and Contingencies

We are or may be from time to time involved in various other disputes, governmental and/or regulatory inspections, inquiries, 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 us, our results of operations, financial condition, and cash flows.

In each of the matters described in this filing or in Note 10. Commitments and Contingencies to our consolidated financial statements in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015, plaintiffs seek an award of a not-yet-quantified amount of damages or an amount that is not material. In addition, a number of the matters pending against us are at very early stages of the legal process (which in complex proceedings of the sort faced by us often extend for several years). As a result, none of the matters described in this filing, except for the former employee litigation, have progressed sufficiently through discovery and/or development of important factual information and legal issues to enable us to estimate a range of possible loss, if any, or such amounts are not material. While it is not possible to accurately predict or determine the eventual outcomes of these items, an adverse determination in one or more of these items currently pending could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.

Former Employee Litigation

We are a party to a proceeding brought by a former employee on November 2, 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, complaining that we had violated the anti-retaliation provisions of the Federal Sarbanes-Oxley law by terminating the former employee. The former employee seeks reinstatement of his employment, compensatory damages, and certain costs and fees associated with the litigation. 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, on July 31, 2015, the jury awarded the former employee approximately $1.66 million in compensatory damages (held in escrow by the District Court and recorded as restricted cash in other current assets on our condensed consolidated balance sheet) 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 (inclusive of the $1.66 million held in escrow). 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, has yet to be determined, there is a reasonable possibility that additional losses may be incurred. We have moved for a new trial or, in the alternative, for remittitur and continue to assess the verdict and our options in the case, including a potential appeal.

Abbreviated New Drug Application Litigations

On October 7, 2015, Progenics, Valeant, and Wyeth LLC (Valeant's predecessor as licensee of RELISTOR) received notification of a Paragraph IV certification for certain patents for RELISTOR 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.

On October 28, 2015, Progenics, Valeant, and Wyeth LLC 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 ANDA with the FDA, also 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 accordance with the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act (commonly referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Act), we and Valeant timely commenced litigation against each of these ANDA filers 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.

In addition to the aforementioned ANDA notifications, in October 2015, we 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.

Each of the ANDA litigation proceedings is in its early stages and we and Valeant continue to cooperate closely to vigorously defend and enforce RELISTOR intellectual property rights. Pursuant to the RELISTOR license agreement between us and Valeant, Valeant has the first right to enforce the intellectual property rights at issue and is responsible for the costs of such enforcement.