Legal Matters	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Matters	Legal Matters From time to time, the Company is a party to legal proceedings in the course of the Company's business. Costs associated with the Company's involvement in legal proceedings are expensed as incurred. The outcome of any such proceedings, regardless of the merits, is inherently uncertain. If the Company were unable to prevail in any such proceedings, its consolidated financial position, results of operations, and future cash flows may be materially impacted. Proceedings Relating to '287 Patent, '163 Patent, and '018 Patent The Company is a party to patent infringement litigation initiated by the Company involving its European Patent No. 1,360,287 (the "'287 Patent"), its European Patent No. 2,264,163 (the "'163 Patent"), and its U.S. Patent No. 8,502,018 (the "'018 Patent"). Each of these patents concerns genetically engineered mice capable of producing chimeric antibodies that are part human and part mouse. Chimeric antibody sequences can be used to produce high-affinity fully human monoclonal antibodies. In these proceedings, the Company claims infringement of several claims of the '287 Patent, the '163 Patent, and the '018 Patent (as applicable), and seeks, among other types of relief, an injunction and an account of profits in connection with the defendants' infringing acts, which may include, among other things, the making, use, keeping, sale, or offer for sale of genetically engineered mice (or certain cells from which they are derived) that infringe one or more claims of the '287 Patent, the '163 Patent, and the '018 Patent (as applicable). At this time, the Company is not able to predict the outcome of, or estimate possible gain or a range of possible loss, if any, related to, these proceedings. Proceedings Relating to Praluent (alirocumab) Injection As described in greater detail below, the Company is currently a party to patent infringement actions initiated by Amgen Inc. against the Company and Sanofi (and/or the Company's and Sanofi's respective affiliated entities) in a number of jurisdictions relating to Praluent, which the Company is jointly developing and commercializing with Sanofi. In the United States, Amgen has asserted a number of U.S. patents, which were subsequently narrowed to U.S. Patent Nos. 8,829,165 (the "'165 Patent") and 8,859,741 (the "'741 Patent"), and seeks a permanent injunction to prevent the Company and the Sanofi defendants from manufacturing, using, offering to sell, or selling within the United States (as well as importing into the United States) (collectively, "Commercializing") Praluent. Amgen also seeks a judgment of patent infringement of the asserted patents, monetary damages (together with interest), costs and expenses of the lawsuits, and attorneys' fees. A jury trial in this litigation was held in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware from March 8 to March 16, 2016. During the course of the trial, the court ruled as a matter of law in favor of Amgen that the asserted patent claims were not obvious, and in favor of the Company and the Sanofi defendants that there was no willful infringement of the asserted patent claims by the Company or the Sanofi defendants. On March 16, 2016, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Amgen, finding that the asserted claims of the '165 and '741 Patents were not invalid based on either a lack of written description or a lack of enablement. On January 3, 2017, the court issued a final opinion and judgment, denying the Company and the Sanofi defendants' motions for new trial and judgment as a matter of law. The court also denied as moot Amgen's motion to strike the Company and the Sanofi defendants' request to obtain a judgment as a matter of law, which allows the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to address the Company and the Sanofi defendants' patent invalidity arguments on appeal. On January 12, 2017, the Company and the Sanofi defendants filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On January 18, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ordered an expedited briefing schedule of the appeal on the merits, pursuant to which the briefing is scheduled to be completed no later than March 31, 2017. On January 31, 2017, Amgen filed a motion with the United States District Court for the District of Delaware to amend the court's final judgment to include an award of supplemental damages (including interest) and enhancement of such damages following the resolution of the appeal. On March 23 and March 24, 2016, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware held a permanent injunction hearing to determine whether Regeneron and the Sanofi defendants should be prohibited from Commercializing Praluent in the United States. On January 5, 2017, the court granted the permanent injunction but delayed its imposition for 30 days (subsequently extended to 45 days) from the date of grant (i.e., until February 21, 2017). On January 13, 2017, the Company and the Sanofi defendants filed an emergency motion for stay of the permanent injunction pending appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; and, on February 8, 2017, the court granted the stay pending appeal. On July 25, 2016, Amgen filed a lawsuit against Regeneron, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., Sanofi-Synthelabo Limited, Aventis Pharma Limited, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., and Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH in the English High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court, in London, seeking a declaration of infringement of Amgen's European Patent No. 2,215,124 (the "'124 Patent"), which pertains to PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies, by Praluent. The lawsuit also seeks a permanent injunction, damages, an accounting of profits, and costs and interest. On February 8, 2017, the court temporarily stayed this litigation on terms mutually agreed by the parties. Also on July 25, 2016, Amgen filed a lawsuit for infringement of the '124 Patent against Regeneron, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., and Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH in the Regional Court of Düsseldorf, Germany, seeking a permanent injunction, an accounting of marketing activities, a recall of Praluent and its removal from distribution channels, and damages. Oral hearing on this infringement lawsuit is currently scheduled for October 19, 2017. On September 26, 2016, Amgen filed a lawsuit for infringement of the '124 Patent in the Tribunal de grande instance in Paris, France against Regeneron, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., and Sanofi Winthrop Industrie. Amgen is seeking the prohibition of allegedly infringing activities with a €10,000 penalty per drug unit of Praluent produced in violation of the court order sought by Amgen; an appointment of an expert for the assessment of damages; disclosure of technical (including supply-chain) and accounting information to the expert and the court; provisional damages of €10.0 million (which would be awarded on an interim basis pending final determination); reimbursement of costs; publication of the ruling in three newspapers; and provisional enforcement of the decision to be issued, which would ensure enforcement of the decision (including any provisional damages) pending appeal. Amgen is not seeking a preliminary injunction in this proceeding at this time. At this time, the Company is not able to predict the outcome of, or estimate a range of possible loss, if any, related to these proceedings. Proceedings Relating to Patents Owned by Genentech and City of Hope On July 27, 2015, the Company and Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC ("Sanofi-Aventis") filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division) seeking a declaratory judgment of invalidity, as well as non-infringement by the manufacture, use, sale, offer of sale, or importation of Praluent, of U.S. Patent No. 7,923,221 (the "'221 Patent") jointly owned by Genentech, Inc. ("Genentech") and City of Hope relating to the production of recombinant antibodies by host cells. On the same day, the Company and Sanofi-Aventis initiated an inter partes review in the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") seeking a declaration of invalidity of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,331,415 (the "'415 Patent" and, together, with the "221 Patent", the "Cabilly Patents") jointly owned by Genentech and City of Hope relating to the production of recombinant antibodies by host cells. On February 5, 2016, the USPTO instituted an inter partes review of the validity of most of the patent claims of the '415 Patent for which review had been requested. On August 18, 2016, Regeneron and Sanofi-Aventis entered into a License and Settlement Agreement with Genentech and City of Hope that resolved all outstanding issues concerning the Cabilly Patents in the above-referenced litigation and inter partes review proceeding, resulting in a joint stipulation of dismissal being entered in the court and the USPTO. Under the agreement, Regeneron has been granted a license to the Cabilly Patents to make, use, and sell Praluent and all other antibody products under development at the time of the settlement. Proceedings Relating to Shareholder Derivative Claims On December 30, 2015, an alleged shareholder filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the New York Supreme Court, naming the current and certain former non-employee members of the Company's board of directors, the Chairman of the board of directors, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, and the Company's Chief Scientific Officer as defendants and Regeneron as a nominal defendant. The complaint asserts that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties and were unjustly enriched when they approved and/or received allegedly excessive compensation in 2013 and 2014. The complaint seeks damages in favor of the Company for the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment; changes to Regeneron's corporate governance and internal procedures; invalidation of the 2014 Incentive Plan with respect to the individual defendants' compensation and a shareholder vote regarding the individual defendants' equity compensation; equitable relief, including an equitable accounting with disgorgement; and award of the costs of the action, including attorneys' fees. On March 2, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the shareholder derivative complaint. On August 16, 2016, the court heard oral argument on defendants' motion to dismiss. On or about December 15, 2015, the Company received a shareholder litigation demand upon the Company's board of directors made by a purported Regeneron shareholder. The demand asserts that the current and certain former non-employee members of the board of directors and the Chairman of the board of directors excessively compensated themselves in 2013 and 2014. The demand requests that the board of directors investigate and bring legal action against these directors for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and corporate waste, and implement internal controls and systems designed to prohibit and prevent similar actions in the future. The Company's board of directors, working with outside counsel, investigated the allegations in the demand and the shareholder derivative complaint, and has determined to defer its decision on the demand until the court rules on the pending motion to dismiss the shareholder derivative complaint, as discussed above. At this time, the Company is not able to predict the outcome of, or estimate a range of possible loss, if any, relating to these matters. Department of Justice Investigation In January 2017, the Company received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts requesting documents relating to its support of 501(c)(3) organizations that provide financial assistance to patients; documents concerning its provision of financial assistance to patients with respect to products sold or developed by Regeneron (including EYLEA, Praluent, ARCALYST, and ZALTRAP); and certain other related documents and communications. The Company is cooperating with this investigation. The Company cannot predict the outcome or duration of these investigations or any other legal proceedings or any enforcement actions or other remedies that may be imposed on the Company arising out of these investigations.

Legal Matters

From time to time, the Company is a party to legal proceedings in the course of the Company's business. Costs associated with the Company's involvement in legal proceedings are expensed as incurred. The outcome of any such proceedings, regardless of the merits, is inherently uncertain. If the Company were unable to prevail in any such proceedings, its consolidated financial position, results of operations, and future cash flows may be materially impacted.

Proceedings Relating to '287 Patent, '163 Patent, and '018 Patent

The Company is a party to patent infringement litigation initiated by the Company involving its European Patent No. 1,360,287 (the "'287 Patent"), its European Patent No. 2,264,163 (the "'163 Patent"), and its U.S. Patent No. 8,502,018 (the "'018 Patent"). Each of these patents concerns genetically engineered mice capable of producing chimeric antibodies that are part human and part mouse. Chimeric antibody sequences can be used to produce high-affinity fully human monoclonal antibodies. In these proceedings, the Company claims infringement of several claims of the '287 Patent, the '163 Patent, and the '018 Patent (as applicable), and seeks, among other types of relief, an injunction and an account of profits in connection with the defendants' infringing acts, which may include, among other things, the making, use, keeping, sale, or offer for sale of genetically engineered mice (or certain cells from which they are derived) that infringe one or more claims of the '287 Patent, the '163 Patent, and the '018 Patent (as applicable). At this time, the Company is not able to predict the outcome of, or estimate possible gain or a range of possible loss, if any, related to, these proceedings.

Proceedings Relating to Praluent (alirocumab) Injection

As described in greater detail below, the Company is currently a party to patent infringement actions initiated by Amgen Inc. against the Company and Sanofi (and/or the Company's and Sanofi's respective affiliated entities) in a number of jurisdictions relating to Praluent, which the Company is jointly developing and commercializing with Sanofi.

In the United States, Amgen has asserted a number of U.S. patents, which were subsequently narrowed to U.S. Patent Nos. 8,829,165 (the "'165 Patent") and 8,859,741 (the "'741 Patent"), and seeks a permanent injunction to prevent the Company and the Sanofi defendants from manufacturing, using, offering to sell, or selling within the United States (as well as importing into the United States) (collectively, "Commercializing") Praluent. Amgen also seeks a judgment of patent infringement of the asserted patents, monetary damages (together with interest), costs and expenses of the lawsuits, and attorneys' fees. A jury trial in this litigation was held in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware from March 8 to March 16, 2016. During the course of the trial, the court ruled as a matter of law in favor of Amgen that the asserted patent claims were not obvious, and in favor of the Company and the Sanofi defendants that there was no willful infringement of the asserted patent claims by the Company or the Sanofi defendants. On March 16, 2016, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Amgen, finding that the asserted claims of the '165 and '741 Patents were not invalid based on either a lack of written description or a lack of enablement. On January 3, 2017, the court issued a final opinion and judgment, denying the Company and the Sanofi defendants' motions for new trial and judgment as a matter of law. The court also denied as moot Amgen's motion to strike the Company and the Sanofi defendants' request to obtain a judgment as a matter of law, which allows the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to address the Company and the Sanofi defendants' patent invalidity arguments on appeal. On January 12, 2017, the Company and the Sanofi defendants filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On January 18, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ordered an expedited briefing schedule of the appeal on the merits, pursuant to which the briefing is scheduled to be completed no later than March 31, 2017. On January 31, 2017, Amgen filed a motion with the United States District Court for the District of Delaware to amend the court's final judgment to include an award of supplemental damages (including interest) and enhancement of such damages following the resolution of the appeal.

On March 23 and March 24, 2016, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware held a permanent injunction hearing to determine whether Regeneron and the Sanofi defendants should be prohibited from Commercializing Praluent in the United States. On January 5, 2017, the court granted the permanent injunction but delayed its imposition for 30 days (subsequently extended to 45 days) from the date of grant (i.e., until February 21, 2017). On January 13, 2017, the Company and the Sanofi defendants filed an emergency motion for stay of the permanent injunction pending appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; and, on February 8, 2017, the court granted the stay pending appeal.

On July 25, 2016, Amgen filed a lawsuit against Regeneron, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., Sanofi-Synthelabo Limited, Aventis Pharma Limited, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., and Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH in the English High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court, in London, seeking a declaration of infringement of Amgen's European Patent No. 2,215,124 (the "'124 Patent"), which pertains to PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies, by Praluent. The lawsuit also seeks a permanent injunction, damages, an accounting of profits, and costs and interest. On February 8, 2017, the court temporarily stayed this litigation on terms mutually agreed by the parties.

Also on July 25, 2016, Amgen filed a lawsuit for infringement of the '124 Patent against Regeneron, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., and Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH in the Regional Court of Düsseldorf, Germany, seeking a permanent injunction, an accounting of marketing activities, a recall of Praluent and its removal from distribution channels, and damages. Oral hearing on this infringement lawsuit is currently scheduled for October 19, 2017.

On September 26, 2016, Amgen filed a lawsuit for infringement of the '124 Patent in the Tribunal de grande instance in Paris, France against Regeneron, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., and Sanofi Winthrop Industrie. Amgen is seeking the prohibition of allegedly infringing activities with a €10,000 penalty per drug unit of Praluent produced in violation of the court order sought by Amgen; an appointment of an expert for the assessment of damages; disclosure of technical (including supply-chain) and accounting information to the expert and the court; provisional damages of €10.0 million (which would be awarded on an interim basis pending final determination); reimbursement of costs; publication of the ruling in three newspapers; and provisional enforcement of the decision to be issued, which would ensure enforcement of the decision (including any provisional damages) pending appeal. Amgen is not seeking a preliminary injunction in this proceeding at this time.

At this time, the Company is not able to predict the outcome of, or estimate a range of possible loss, if any, related to these proceedings.

Proceedings Relating to Patents Owned by Genentech and City of Hope

On July 27, 2015, the Company and Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC ("Sanofi-Aventis") filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division) seeking a declaratory judgment of invalidity, as well as non-infringement by the manufacture, use, sale, offer of sale, or importation of Praluent, of U.S. Patent No. 7,923,221 (the "'221 Patent") jointly owned by Genentech, Inc. ("Genentech") and City of Hope relating to the production of recombinant antibodies by host cells. On the same day, the Company and Sanofi-Aventis initiated an inter partes review in the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") seeking a declaration of invalidity of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,331,415 (the "'415 Patent" and, together, with the "221 Patent", the "Cabilly Patents") jointly owned by Genentech and City of Hope relating to the production of recombinant antibodies by host cells. On February 5, 2016, the USPTO instituted an inter partes review of the validity of most of the patent claims of the '415 Patent for which review had been requested. On August 18, 2016, Regeneron and Sanofi-Aventis entered into a License and Settlement Agreement with Genentech and City of Hope that resolved all outstanding issues concerning the Cabilly Patents in the above-referenced litigation and inter partes review proceeding, resulting in a joint stipulation of dismissal being entered in the court and the USPTO. Under the agreement, Regeneron has been granted a license to the Cabilly Patents to make, use, and sell Praluent and all other antibody products under development at the time of the settlement.

Proceedings Relating to Shareholder Derivative Claims

On December 30, 2015, an alleged shareholder filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the New York Supreme Court, naming the current and certain former non-employee members of the Company's board of directors, the Chairman of the board of directors, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, and the Company's Chief Scientific Officer as defendants and Regeneron as a nominal defendant. The complaint asserts that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties and were unjustly enriched when they approved and/or received allegedly excessive compensation in 2013 and 2014. The complaint seeks damages in favor of the Company for the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment; changes to Regeneron's corporate governance and internal procedures; invalidation of the 2014 Incentive Plan with respect to the individual defendants' compensation and a shareholder vote regarding the individual defendants' equity compensation; equitable relief, including an equitable accounting with disgorgement; and award of the costs of the action, including attorneys' fees. On March 2, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the shareholder derivative complaint. On August 16, 2016, the court heard oral argument on defendants' motion to dismiss.

On or about December 15, 2015, the Company received a shareholder litigation demand upon the Company's board of directors made by a purported Regeneron shareholder. The demand asserts that the current and certain former non-employee members of the board of directors and the Chairman of the board of directors excessively compensated themselves in 2013 and 2014. The demand requests that the board of directors investigate and bring legal action against these directors for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and corporate waste, and implement internal controls and systems designed to prohibit and prevent similar actions in the future. The Company's board of directors, working with outside counsel, investigated the allegations in the demand and the shareholder derivative complaint, and has determined to defer its decision on the demand until the court rules on the pending motion to dismiss the shareholder derivative complaint, as discussed above.

At this time, the Company is not able to predict the outcome of, or estimate a range of possible loss, if any, relating to these matters.

Department of Justice Investigation

In January 2017, the Company received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts requesting documents relating to its support of 501(c)(3) organizations that provide financial assistance to patients; documents concerning its provision of financial assistance to patients with respect to products sold or developed by Regeneron (including EYLEA, Praluent, ARCALYST, and ZALTRAP); and certain other related documents and communications. The Company is cooperating with this investigation. The Company cannot predict the outcome or duration of these investigations or any other legal proceedings or any enforcement actions or other remedies that may be imposed on the Company arising out of these investigations.