Commitments, Contingencies And Other Matters	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2012
Commitments, Contingencies And Other Matters [Abstract]
Commitments, Contingencies And Other Matters	Note 16 - Commitments, Contingencies and Other Matters: Legal Proceedings Unless otherwise indicated in the details provided below, we cannot predict with certainty the outcome or the effects of the litigations described below. The outcome of these litigations could include substantial damages, the imposition of substantial fines, penalties, and injunctive or administrative remedies; however, unless otherwise indicated below, at this time we are not able to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with these legal proceedings. From time to time, we may settle or otherwise resolve these matters on terms and conditions that we believe are in the best interests of the Company. Resolution of any or all claims, investigations, and legal proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material effect on our results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. Corporate Litigation We and certain of our former executive officers have been named as defendants in consolidated class action lawsuits filed on behalf of purchasers of our common stock between July 23, 2001 and July 5, 2006. The lawsuits followed our July 5, 2006 announcement regarding the restatement of certain of our financial statements and allege that we and certain members of our then management engaged in violations of the Exchange Act, by issuing false and misleading statements concerning our financial condition and results of operations. The consolidated class actions are pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On July 23, 2008, co-lead plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. On September 30, 2009, the Court granted a motion to dismiss all claims as against Kenneth Sawyer but denied the motion as to the Company, Dennis O'Connor, and Scott Tarriff. The co-lead plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class. After class discovery, both co-lead plaintiffs withdrew and a new lead plaintiff, Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement fund (LAMPERS) and its counsel, Berman DeValerio, were substituted in as lead plaintiff and new lead counsel. LAMPERS have filed a motion for class certification which, after additional class discovery, has been fully briefed, but no argument date has been set. We and Messrs. O'Connor and Tarriff have answered the amended complaint and intend to vigorously defend the consolidated class action. Patent Related Matters On April 28, 2006, CIMA Labs, Inc. and Schwarz Pharma, Inc. filed separate lawsuits against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. CIMA and Schwarz Pharma each have alleged that we infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,024,981 (the "'981 patent") and 6,221,392 (the "'392 patent") by submitting a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of alprazolam orally disintegrating tablets. CIMA owns the '981 and '392 patents and Schwarz Pharma is CIMA's exclusive licensee. The two lawsuits were consolidated on January 29, 2007. In response to the lawsuit, we have answered and counterclaimed denying CIMA's and Schwarz Pharma's infringement allegations, asserting that the '981 and '392 patents are not infringed and are invalid and/or unenforceable. On July 10, 2008, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") rejected all claims pending in both the '392 and '981 patents. On September 28, 2009, the USPTO Board of Appeals affirmed the Examiner's rejection of all claims in the '981 patent, and on March 24, 2011, the USPTO Board of Appeals affirmed the rejections pending for both patents and added new grounds for rejection of the '981 patent. On June 24, 2011, the plaintiffs re-opened prosecution on both patents at the USPTO. We intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit and pursue our counterclaims. We entered into a licensing agreement with developer Paddock Laboratories, Inc. to market testosterone 1% gel, a generic version of Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s product Androgel^®. As a result of the filing of an ANDA, Unimed and Laboratories Besins Iscovesco ("Besins"), co-assignees of the patent-in-suit, filed a lawsuit on August 22, 2003 against Paddock in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia alleging patent infringement. On September 13, 2006, we acquired from Paddock all rights to the ANDA for the testosterone 1% gel, and the litigation was resolved by a settlement and license agreement that terminated all on-going litigation and permits us to launch the generic version of the product no earlier than August 31, 2015, and no later than February 28, 2016, assuring our ability to market a generic version of Androgel^®well before the expiration of the patents at issue. On March 7, 2007, we were issued a Civil Investigative Demand seeking information and documents in connection with the 2006 court-approved settlement of the patent dispute. On January 30, 2009, the Bureau of Competition for the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging violations of antitrust laws stemming from our court-approved settlement in the Paddock litigation, and several distributors and retailers followed suit with a number of private plaintiffs' complaints beginning in February 2009. On April 9, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted our motion to transfer the FTC lawsuit and the private plaintiffs' complaints to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On February 23, 2010, the District Court granted our motion to dismiss the FTC's claims and granted in part and denied in part our motion to dismiss the claims of the private plaintiffs. On June 10, 2010, the FTC appealed the District Court's dismissal of the FTC's claims to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. On April 25, 2012, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the FTC's claims. On January 20, 2012, we filed a motion for summary judgment in our lawsuit against the private plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia seeking to have their claims of sham litigation dismissed. We believe we have complied with all applicable laws in connection with the court-approved settlement and intend to continue to vigorously defend these actions. On November 10, 2011, Celgene and Novartis filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, and Alkermes plc (formerly Elan) filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware the following day. The complaint in the Delaware case alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,228,398 and 6,730,325 because we submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and 35 mg dexmethylphenidate hydrochloride extended release capsules. The complaint in the New Jersey case alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,908,850; 6,355,656; 6,528,530; 5,837,284; 6,635,284; and 7,431,944 because we submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, and 40 mg dexmethylphenidate extended release capsules. We intend to vigorously defend and expeditiously resolve these lawsuits. On September 13, 2007, Santarus, Inc. and The Curators of the University of Missouri ("Missouri") filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,699,885; 6,489,346; and 6,645,988 because we submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 20 mg and 40 mg omeprazole/sodium bicarbonate capsules. On December 20, 2007, Santarus and Missouri filed a second lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of the patents because we submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 20 mg and 40 mg omeprazole/sodium bicarbonate powders for oral suspension. On March 4, 2008, the cases pertaining to our ANDAs for omeprazole capsules and omeprazole oral suspension were consolidated for all purposes. The District Court conducted a bench trial from July 13-17, 2009, and found for Santarus only on the issue of infringement, while not rendering an opinion on the issues of invalidity and unenforceability. On April 14, 2010, the District Court ruled in our favor, finding that plaintiffs' patents were invalid as being obvious and without adequate written description. On May 17, 2010, Santarus filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, appealing the District Court's decision of invalidity of the plaintiffs' patents. On May 27, 2010, we filed our notice of cross-appeal to the Court of Appeals, appealing the District Court's decision of enforceability of plaintiffs' patents. On July 1, 2010, we launched our generic Omeprazole/Sodium Bicarbonate product. Oral argument for the appeal was held on May 2, 2011. We will continue to vigorously defend the appeal. On September 20, 2010, Schering-Plough HealthCare Products, Santarus, Inc., and the Curators of the University of Missouri filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,699,885; 6,489,346; 6,645,988; and 7,399,772 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of a 20mg/1100 mg omeprazole/sodium bicarbonate capsule, a version of Schering-Plough's Zegerid OTC^®. We have previously received a decision of invalidity with respect to all of these patents in our case against Santarus and Missouri with respect to the prescription version of this product, which decision is presently on appeal. On November 9, 2010, we entered into a stipulation with the plaintiffs to stay litigation on the OTC product pending the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the prescription product appeal, and the parties have agreed to be bound by such decision for purposes of the OTC product litigation. We intend to pursue our appeal and defend this action vigorously. On December 11, 2007, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, AstraZeneca UK Ltd., IPR Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Shionogi Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges patent infringement because we submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 5 mg, 10 mg, 20 mg and 40 mg rosuvastatin calcium tablets. On June 29, 2010, after an eight day bench trial, the District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and against us, stating that the plaintiffs' patents were infringed, and not invalid or unenforceable. On August 11, 2010, we appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. An oral hearing was conducted October 5, 2011, and we await the decision of the Court of Appeals. On December 15, 2010, the District Court granted our motion to dismiss a second case brought by AstraZeneca, in which AstraZeneca had asserted that we infringed its rosuvastatin process patents, which decision AstraZeneca appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on January 14, 2011. On February 9, 2012, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Delaware District Court's dismissal of plaintiffs' claims in the second action. We intend to defend both actions vigorously. On November 14, 2008, Pozen, Inc. filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,060,499; 6,586,458; and 7,332,183, because we submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 500 mg/85 mg naproxen sodium/sumatriptan succinate oral tablets. We joined GlaxoSmithKline ("GSK") as a counterclaim defendant in this litigation. On April 28, 2009, GSK was dismissed from the case, but will be bound by the Court's decision and will be required to produce witnesses and materials during discovery. A four day bench trial was held from October 12-15, 2010. On April 14, 2011, the Court granted a preliminary injunction to Pozen that prohibits us from launching our generic naproxen/sumatriptan product before the issuance of a final decision in the case. On August 5, 2011, the Court ruled in favor of Pozen and against us on infringement, validity, and enforceability. We filed our appeal brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on August 31, 2011, and our reply brief on January 20, 2012. Oral argument for the appeal is scheduled for May 10, 2012. We intend to vigorously pursue our appeal. On April 29, 2009, Pronova BioPharma ASA filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,502,077 and 5,656,667 because we submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of omega-3-acid ethyl esters oral capsules. A bench trial took place from March 29, 2011 to April 7, 2011. On September 29, 2011, we filed our final reply brief with the Court. We intend to continue to defend this action vigorously and pursue our defenses and counterclaims against Pronova. During the pendency of this action, on June 8, 2010, a new patent, U.S. 7,732,488, which was later listed in the Orange Book, was issued to Pronova, and Pronova filed a second case, asserting claims of the '488 patent and two other patents not listed in the Orange Book. On July 25, 2011, a stipulation was submitted to the court dismissing the second case without prejudice. On August 5, 2010, Warner Chilcott and Medeva Pharma filed a lawsuit against us and our partner EMET Pharmaceuticals in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,541,170 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of a 400 mg delayed-release oral tablet of mesalamine. On March 29, 2011, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to dismiss our counterclaim for declaratory judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,541,171. Our appeal of this decision was docketed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 20, 2011. A Markman hearing was held on October 18, 2011. An oral hearing was conducted on January 12, 2012, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision on January 27, 2012. We intend to defend this action vigorously and pursue all of our defenses and counterclaims against Warner Chilcott and Medeva Pharma. On October 4, 2010, UCB Manufacturing, Inc. filed a verified complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Middlesex, naming us, our development partner Tris Pharma, and Tris Pharma's head of research and development, Yu-Hsing Tu. The complaint alleges that Tris and Tu misappropriated UCB's trade secrets and, by their actions, breached contracts and agreements to which UCB, Tris, and Tu were bound. The complaint further alleges unfair competition against Tris, Tu, and us relating to the parties' manufacture and marketing of generic Tussionex^®. On October 6, 2010, the Court denied UCB's petition for a temporary restraining order against us and Tris and set a schedule for discovery during which UCB must substantiate its claims. On December 23, 2010, the Court denied UCB's motion for a preliminary injunction, ruling that UCB's alleged trade secrets were known to the public and not misappropriated. On June 2, 2011, the Court granted Tris's motion for summary judgment dismissing UCB's claims, and UCB appealed the Court's order on June 22, 2011. We intend to vigorously defend the lawsuit and any appeal by plaintiffs. On March 25, 2011, Elan Corporation, PLC filed a lawsuit against us and our development partners, IntelliPharmaceutics Corp. and IntelliPharmaCeutics Ltd. (collectively "IPC") in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, and Celgene Corporation and Novartis filed a lawsuit against IPC in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint in the Delaware case alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,228,398 and 6,730,325 because we submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 30 mg dexmethylphenidate hydrochloride extended release capsules. The complaint in the New Jersey case alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,228,398; 6,730,325; 5,908,850; 6,355,656; 6,528,530; 5,837,284; and 6,635,284 because we submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 30 mg dexmethylphenidate extended release capsules. We intend to vigorously defend and expeditiously resolve these lawsuits. On May 27, 2011, Elan Corporation, PLC filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, and Celgene Corporation and Novartis filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint in the Delaware case alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,228,398 and 6,730,325 because we submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 40 mg dexmethylphenidate hydrochloride extended release capsules. The complaint in the New Jersey case alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,228,398; 6,730,325; 5,908,850; 6,355,656; 6,528,530; 5,837,284; and 6,635,284 because we submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 40 mg dexmethylphenidate extended release capsules. We intend to vigorously defend and expeditiously resolve these lawsuits. On August 10, 2011, Avanir Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,659,282 and RE38,155 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of oral capsules of 20 mg dextromethorphan hydrobromide and 10 mg quinidine sulfate. We filed our answer on September 6, 2011, and our case was consolidated with those for the other defendants, Actavis, Impax, and Wockhardt, on September 26, 2011. The Court has scheduled a Markman hearing for October 5, 2012, and a 10-day bench trial for September 9, 2013. On February 2, 2011, Somaxon Pharmaceuticals filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,211,229 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of oral tablets of 3 mg equivalent and 6 mg equivalent doxepin hydrochloride. We filed our answer on February 23, 2011. Our case has been consolidated in the same Court with those of the other defendants who filed ANDAs on this product. The Court has scheduled fact discovery to end on April 6, 2012; expert discovery to end on August 17, 2012; the end of Markman briefing for October 12, 2012; and a trial date of December 10, 2012. We intend to defend this action vigorously. On September 1, 2011, we, along with EDT Pharma Holdings Ltd. (now known as Alkermes Pharma Ireland Limited) (Elan), filed a complaint against TWi Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and another complaint against TWi on September 2, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In both complaints, Elan and we allege infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,101,576 (expiration April 22, 2024) in view of the notice letter we received from TWi stating that TWi had filed an ANDA, accompanied by a Paragraph IV certification, seeking approval for a generic version of Megace® ES. We are at present aware of no other generic filers. On November 15, 2011, the Court scheduled the end of fact discovery for September 1, 2012; the end of expert discovery for December 15, 2012; and a 5-7 day bench trial for October 7, 2013. We intend to prosecute this infringement case vigorously. On April 8, 2010, AstraZeneca filed a lawsuit against Anchen Incorporated (now a subsidiary of Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,948,437 for submitting an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of extended-release oral tablets of 150, 200, 300, and 400 mg quetiapine. A Markman hearing was conducted on November 30, 2010 and a bench trial was held from October 3-19, 2011. On March 29, 2012, the court ruled in favor of AstraZeneca on invalidity and infringement, enjoining final approval for any generic defendant until May 28, 2017. On June 10, 2010, Genzyme Corporation filed a lawsuit against Anchen in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,602,116, and 6,903,083 for submitting an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of oral capsules of 0.5, 1, and 2.5 mcg doxercalciferol. A bench trial was conducted from November 14-18, 2011. We are awaiting a decision and will continue to defend this action vigorously. On June 14, 2010, Abbott Laboratories and Fournier Laboratories Ireland Ltd. filed a lawsuit against Anchen in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,259,186 for submitting an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of delayed-release oral capsules of EQ 45 and EQ 135 mg choline fenofibrate. On April 18, 2012, the Court entered a stipulation and dismissal of the case. On January 12, 2011, GlaxoSmithKline, LLC filed a lawsuit against Anchen in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,565,467 for submitting an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of an oral capsule of 0.5 mg dutasteride and an oral capsule of 0.5/0.4 mg dutasteride/tamsulosin. On November 30, 2011, the court confirmed that the bench trial for this case is set for October 22, 2012. We will continue to defend this action vigorously. On February 23, 2011, Takeda Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd., Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc., Takeda Pharmaceuticals, LLC, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. filed suit against Handa Pharmaceuticals, LLC in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,462,058; 6,664,276; 6,939,971; 7,285,668; and 7,790,755 for submitting an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 30 mg and 60 mg dexlansoprazole delayed-release capsules. On March 12, 2012, we acquired this ANDA under an exclusive acquisition and license agreement, which requires us to manage and fund the on-going patent litigation. On April 11, 2012, the court issued a claim construction opinion that largely adopted the constructions proposed by plaintiffs. A trial is scheduled for June 3, 2013. We intend to vigorously defend this action. On September 9, 2011, Flamel Technologies, S.A. filed a lawsuit against Anchen in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,022,562 for submitting an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of extended-release oral capsules of 10, 20, 40, and 80 mg carvedilol. The complaint was served on us on January 12, 2012, and we filed our answer on January 30, 2012. We will defend this action vigorously. On October 28, 2011, Astra Zeneca, Pozen, Inc., and KBI-E Inc., filed a lawsuit against Anchen in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,926,907; 6,369,085; 7,411,070; and 7,745,466 for submitting an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of delayed-release oral tablets of 375/20 and 500/20 mg naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium. We filed our answer on December 12, 2011. We will continue to defend this action vigorously. On March 28, 2012, Horizon Pharma Inc. and Horizon Pharma USA Inc. filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,067,033 for submitting an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of oral tablets of 26.6/800 mg famotidine/ibuprofen. We intend to defend this action vigorously. On April 4, 2012, AR Holding Company, Inc. filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,619,004; 7,601,758; 7,820,681; 7,915,269; 7,964,647; 7,964,648; 7,981,938; 8,093,296; 8,093,297; and 8,097,655 for submitting an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of oral tablets of 0.6 mg colchicine. We intend to defend this action vigorously. On April 10, 2012, Depomed Inc. filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,340,375; 6,488,962; 6,635,280; 6,723,340; 7,438,927; and 7,731,989 for submitting an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of oral tablets of 300 and 600 mg gabapentin. We intend to defend this action vigorously. On July 20, 2011, Nautilus Neurosciences, Inc. and APR Applied Pharma Research SA, filed a lawsuit against Edict Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (now "Par Formulations Pvt. Ltd.") in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,974,595; 7,482,377; and 7,759,394 for submitting an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of diclofenac potassium for oral solution 50 mg. We intend to defend this action vigorously. Industry Related Matters Beginning in September 2003, we, along with numerous other pharmaceutical companies, have been named as a defendant in actions brought by the Attorneys General of Illinois, Kansas, and Louisiana, as well as a state law qui tam action brought on behalf of the state of Wisconsin by Peggy Lautenschlager and Bauer & Bach, LLC, alleging generally that the defendants defrauded the state Medicaid systems by purportedly reporting "Average Wholesale Prices" ("AWP") and/or "Wholesale Acquisition Costs" that exceeded the actual selling price of the defendants' prescription drugs. These cases generally seek some combination of actual damages, and/or double damages, treble damages, compensatory damages, statutory damages, civil penalties, disgorgement of excessive profits, restitution, disbursements, counsel fees and costs, litigation expenses, investigative costs, injunctive relief, punitive damages, imposition of a constructive trust, accounting of profits or gains derived through the alleged conduct, expert fees, interest and other relief that the court deems proper. To date, we have settled the lawsuits brought by the states of Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas, as well as the federal qui tam action brought on behalf of the United States by the pharmacy Ven-A-Care of the Florida Keys, Inc. On June 2, 2011, we reached a settlement in principle to resolve claims brought by the city of New York, New York Counties and the state of Iowa under respective state law for $23,000 thousand. On October 18, 2011, we reached an agreement in principle to settle the Oklahoma suit for $884 thousand. We have accrued a $37,800 thousand reserve under the caption "Accrued legal settlements" on our consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2012, in connection with the June 2, 2011 settlement in principle and the remaining AWP actions. In the Utah suit and the state law qui tam brought on behalf of the state of Wisconsin, the time for responding to the complaint has not yet elapsed. In each of the remaining matters, we have either moved to dismiss the complaints or answered the complaints denying liability. We will continue to defend or explore settlement opportunities in other jurisdictions as we feel are in our best interest under the circumstances presented in those jurisdictions. However, we can give no assurance that we will be able to settle the remaining actions on terms that we deem reasonable, or that such settlements or adverse judgments, if entered, will not exceed the amount of the reserve. The Attorneys General of Florida, Indiana and Virginia and the United States Office of Personnel Management (the "USOPM") have issued subpoenas, and the Attorneys General of Michigan, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah have issued civil investigative demands, to us. The demands generally request documents and information pertaining to allegations that certain of our sales and marketing practices caused pharmacies to substitute ranitidine capsules for ranitidine tablets, fluoxetine tablets for fluoxetine capsules, and two 7.5 mg buspirone tablets for one 15 mg buspirone tablet, under circumstances in which some state Medicaid programs at various times reimbursed the new dosage form at a higher rate than the dosage form being substituted. We have provided documents in response to these subpoenas to the respective Attorneys General and the USOPM. The aforementioned subpoenas and civil investigative demands culminated in the federal and state law qui tam action brought on behalf of the United States and several states by Bernard Lisitza. The complaint was unsealed on August 30, 2011. The United States intervened in this action on July 8, 2011 and filed a separate complaint on September 9, 2011, alleging claims for violations of the Federal False Claims Act and common law fraud. The states of Michigan and Indiana have also intervened as to claims arising under their respective state false claims acts, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment. We intend to vigorously defend these lawsuits. We have also been named a defendant in a putative federal class action brought by the United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund ("UFCW") under the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act alleging the same general conduct as set forth in the preceding paragraph. We filed a motion to dismiss the complaint brought by UFCW on March 26, 2012. We intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit. Department of Justice Matter On March 19, 2009, we were served with a subpoena by the Department of Justice requesting documents related to Strativa's marketing of Megace^® ES. The subpoena indicated that the Department of Justice is currently investigating promotional practices in the sales and marketing of Megace^® ES. We have cooperated with the Department of Justice in this inquiry and will continue to do so. Investigations of this type often result in settlements, including monetary amounts based on an agreed upon percentage of sales of the product at issue in the investigation. We accrued $45,000 thousand in the first quarter of 2012 as management's best estimate of potential loss related to a potential global settlement in this matter, pending the finalization of definitive settlement terms. Declaratory Judgment On October 14, 2011, we filed a declaratory complaint and a motion for preliminary injunction in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking to preserve our First Amendment right to provide truthful information to physicians and other healthcare providers about the FDA-approved, on-label use of Megace^® ES. Other We are, from time to time, a party to certain other litigations, including product liability litigations. We believe that these litigations are part of the ordinary course of our business and that their ultimate resolution will not have a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. We intend to defend or, in cases where we are the plaintiff, to prosecute these litigations vigorously.

Note 16 - Commitments, Contingencies and Other Matters:

Legal Proceedings

Unless otherwise indicated in the details provided below, we cannot predict with certainty the outcome or the effects of the litigations described below. The outcome of these litigations could include substantial damages, the imposition of substantial fines, penalties, and injunctive or administrative remedies; however, unless otherwise indicated below, at this time we are not able to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with these legal proceedings. From time to time, we may settle or otherwise resolve these matters on terms and conditions that we believe are in the best interests of the Company. Resolution of any or all claims, investigations, and legal proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material effect on our results of operations, cash flows or financial condition.

Corporate Litigation

We and certain of our former executive officers have been named as defendants in consolidated class action lawsuits filed on behalf of purchasers of our common stock between July 23, 2001 and July 5, 2006. The lawsuits followed our July 5, 2006 announcement regarding the restatement of certain of our financial statements and allege that we and certain members of our then management engaged in violations of the Exchange Act, by issuing false and misleading statements concerning our financial condition and results of operations. The consolidated class actions are pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On July 23, 2008, co-lead plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. On September 30, 2009, the Court granted a motion to dismiss all claims as against Kenneth Sawyer but denied the motion as to the Company, Dennis O'Connor, and Scott Tarriff. The co-lead plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class. After class discovery, both co-lead plaintiffs withdrew and a new lead plaintiff, Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement fund (LAMPERS) and its counsel, Berman DeValerio, were substituted in as lead plaintiff and new lead counsel. LAMPERS have filed a motion for class certification which, after additional class discovery, has been fully briefed, but no argument date has been set. We and Messrs. O'Connor and Tarriff have answered the amended complaint and intend to vigorously defend the consolidated class action.

Patent Related Matters

On April 28, 2006, CIMA Labs, Inc. and Schwarz Pharma, Inc. filed separate lawsuits against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. CIMA and Schwarz Pharma each have alleged that we infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,024,981 (the "'981 patent") and 6,221,392 (the "'392 patent") by submitting a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of alprazolam orally disintegrating tablets. CIMA owns the '981 and '392 patents and Schwarz Pharma is CIMA's exclusive licensee. The two lawsuits were consolidated on January 29, 2007. In response to the lawsuit, we have answered and counterclaimed denying CIMA's and Schwarz Pharma's infringement allegations, asserting that the '981 and '392 patents are not infringed and are invalid and/or unenforceable. On July 10, 2008, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") rejected all claims pending in both the '392 and '981 patents. On September 28, 2009, the USPTO Board of Appeals affirmed the Examiner's rejection of all claims in the '981 patent, and on March 24, 2011, the USPTO Board of Appeals affirmed the rejections pending for both patents and added new grounds for rejection of the '981 patent. On June 24, 2011, the plaintiffs re-opened prosecution on both patents at the USPTO. We intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit and pursue our counterclaims.

We entered into a licensing agreement with developer Paddock Laboratories, Inc. to market testosterone 1% gel, a generic version of Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s product Androgel^®. As a result of the filing of an ANDA, Unimed and Laboratories Besins Iscovesco ("Besins"), co-assignees of the patent-in-suit, filed a lawsuit on August 22, 2003 against Paddock in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia alleging patent infringement. On September 13, 2006, we acquired from Paddock all rights to the ANDA for the testosterone 1% gel, and the litigation was resolved by a settlement and license agreement that terminated all on-going litigation and permits us to launch the generic version of the product no earlier than August 31, 2015, and no later than February 28, 2016, assuring our ability to market a generic version of Androgel^®well before the expiration of the patents at issue. On March 7, 2007, we were issued a Civil Investigative Demand seeking information and documents in connection with the 2006 court-approved settlement of the patent dispute. On January 30, 2009, the Bureau of Competition for the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging violations of antitrust laws stemming from our court-approved settlement in the Paddock litigation, and several distributors and retailers followed suit with a number of private plaintiffs' complaints beginning in February 2009. On April 9, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted our motion to transfer the FTC lawsuit and the private plaintiffs' complaints to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On February 23, 2010, the District Court granted our motion to dismiss the FTC's claims and granted in part and denied in part our motion to dismiss the claims of the private plaintiffs. On June 10, 2010, the FTC appealed the District Court's dismissal of the FTC's claims to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. On April 25, 2012, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the FTC's claims. On January 20, 2012, we filed a motion for summary judgment in our lawsuit against the private plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia seeking to have their claims of sham litigation dismissed. We believe we have complied with all applicable laws in connection with the court-approved settlement and intend to continue to vigorously defend these actions.

On November 10, 2011, Celgene and Novartis filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, and Alkermes plc (formerly Elan) filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware the following day. The complaint in the Delaware case alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,228,398 and 6,730,325 because we submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and 35 mg dexmethylphenidate hydrochloride extended release capsules. The complaint in the New Jersey case alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,908,850; 6,355,656; 6,528,530; 5,837,284; 6,635,284; and 7,431,944 because we submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, and 40 mg dexmethylphenidate extended release capsules. We intend to vigorously defend and expeditiously resolve these lawsuits.

On September 13, 2007, Santarus, Inc. and The Curators of the University of Missouri ("Missouri") filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,699,885; 6,489,346; and 6,645,988 because we submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 20 mg and 40 mg omeprazole/sodium bicarbonate capsules. On December 20, 2007, Santarus and Missouri filed a second lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of the patents because we submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 20 mg and 40 mg omeprazole/sodium bicarbonate powders for oral suspension. On March 4, 2008, the cases pertaining to our ANDAs for omeprazole capsules and omeprazole oral suspension were consolidated for all purposes. The District Court conducted a bench trial from July 13-17, 2009, and found for Santarus only on the issue of infringement, while not rendering an opinion on the issues of invalidity and unenforceability. On April 14, 2010, the District Court ruled in our favor, finding that plaintiffs' patents were invalid as being obvious and without adequate written description. On May 17, 2010, Santarus filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, appealing the District Court's decision of invalidity of the plaintiffs' patents. On May 27, 2010, we filed our notice of cross-appeal to the Court of Appeals, appealing the District Court's decision of enforceability of plaintiffs' patents. On July 1, 2010, we launched our generic Omeprazole/Sodium Bicarbonate product. Oral argument for the appeal was held on May 2, 2011. We will continue to vigorously defend the appeal.

On September 20, 2010, Schering-Plough HealthCare Products, Santarus, Inc., and the Curators of the University of Missouri filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,699,885; 6,489,346; 6,645,988; and 7,399,772 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of a 20mg/1100 mg omeprazole/sodium bicarbonate capsule, a version of Schering-Plough's Zegerid OTC^®. We have previously received a decision of invalidity with respect to all of these patents in our case against Santarus and Missouri with respect to the prescription version of this product, which decision is presently on appeal. On November 9, 2010, we entered into a stipulation with the plaintiffs to stay litigation on the OTC product pending the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the prescription product appeal, and the parties have agreed to be bound by such decision for purposes of the OTC product litigation. We intend to pursue our appeal and defend this action vigorously.

On December 11, 2007, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, AstraZeneca UK Ltd., IPR Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Shionogi Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges patent infringement because we submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 5 mg, 10 mg, 20 mg and 40 mg rosuvastatin calcium tablets. On June 29, 2010, after an eight day bench trial, the District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and against us, stating that the plaintiffs' patents were infringed, and not invalid or unenforceable. On August 11, 2010, we appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. An oral hearing was conducted October 5, 2011, and we await the decision of the Court of Appeals. On December 15, 2010, the District Court granted our motion to dismiss a second case brought by AstraZeneca, in which AstraZeneca had asserted that we infringed its rosuvastatin process patents, which decision AstraZeneca appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on January 14, 2011. On February 9, 2012, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Delaware District Court's dismissal of plaintiffs' claims in the second action. We intend to defend both actions vigorously.

On November 14, 2008, Pozen, Inc. filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,060,499; 6,586,458; and 7,332,183, because we submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 500 mg/85 mg naproxen sodium/sumatriptan succinate oral tablets. We joined GlaxoSmithKline ("GSK") as a counterclaim defendant in this litigation. On April 28, 2009, GSK was dismissed from the case, but will be bound by the Court's decision and will be required to produce witnesses and materials during discovery. A four day bench trial was held from October 12-15, 2010. On April 14, 2011, the Court granted a preliminary injunction to Pozen that prohibits us from launching our generic naproxen/sumatriptan product before the issuance of a final decision in the case. On August 5, 2011, the Court ruled in favor of Pozen and against us on infringement, validity, and enforceability. We filed our appeal brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on August 31, 2011, and our reply brief on January 20, 2012. Oral argument for the appeal is scheduled for May 10, 2012. We intend to vigorously pursue our appeal.

On April 29, 2009, Pronova BioPharma ASA filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,502,077 and 5,656,667 because we submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of omega-3-acid ethyl esters oral capsules. A bench trial took place from March 29, 2011 to April 7, 2011. On September 29, 2011, we filed our final reply brief with the Court. We intend to continue to defend this action vigorously and pursue our defenses and counterclaims against Pronova. During the pendency of this action, on June 8, 2010, a new patent, U.S. 7,732,488, which was later listed in the Orange Book, was issued to Pronova, and Pronova filed a second case, asserting claims of the '488 patent and two other patents not listed in the Orange Book. On July 25, 2011, a stipulation was submitted to the court dismissing the second case without prejudice.

On August 5, 2010, Warner Chilcott and Medeva Pharma filed a lawsuit against us and our partner EMET Pharmaceuticals in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,541,170 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of a 400 mg delayed-release oral tablet of mesalamine. On March 29, 2011, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to dismiss our counterclaim for declaratory judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,541,171. Our appeal of this decision was docketed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 20, 2011. A Markman hearing was held on October 18, 2011. An oral hearing was conducted on January 12, 2012, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision on January 27, 2012. We intend to defend this action vigorously and pursue all of our defenses and counterclaims against Warner Chilcott and Medeva Pharma.

On October 4, 2010, UCB Manufacturing, Inc. filed a verified complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Middlesex, naming us, our development partner Tris Pharma, and Tris Pharma's head of research and development, Yu-Hsing Tu. The complaint alleges that Tris and Tu misappropriated UCB's trade secrets and, by their actions, breached contracts and agreements to which UCB, Tris, and Tu were bound. The complaint further alleges unfair competition against Tris, Tu, and us relating to the parties' manufacture and marketing of generic Tussionex^®. On October 6, 2010, the Court denied UCB's petition for a temporary restraining order against us and Tris and set a schedule for discovery during which UCB must substantiate its claims. On December 23, 2010, the Court denied UCB's motion for a preliminary injunction, ruling that UCB's alleged trade secrets were known to the public and not misappropriated. On June 2, 2011, the Court granted Tris's motion for summary judgment dismissing UCB's claims, and UCB appealed the Court's order on June 22, 2011. We intend to vigorously defend the lawsuit and any appeal by plaintiffs.

On March 25, 2011, Elan Corporation, PLC filed a lawsuit against us and our development partners, IntelliPharmaceutics Corp. and IntelliPharmaCeutics Ltd. (collectively "IPC") in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, and Celgene Corporation and Novartis filed a lawsuit against IPC in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint in the Delaware case alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,228,398 and 6,730,325 because we submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 30 mg dexmethylphenidate hydrochloride extended release capsules. The complaint in the New Jersey case alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,228,398; 6,730,325; 5,908,850; 6,355,656; 6,528,530; 5,837,284; and 6,635,284 because we submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 30 mg dexmethylphenidate extended release capsules. We intend to vigorously defend and expeditiously resolve these lawsuits.

On May 27, 2011, Elan Corporation, PLC filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, and Celgene Corporation and Novartis filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint in the Delaware case alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,228,398 and 6,730,325 because we submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 40 mg dexmethylphenidate hydrochloride extended release capsules. The complaint in the New Jersey case alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,228,398; 6,730,325; 5,908,850; 6,355,656; 6,528,530; 5,837,284; and 6,635,284 because we submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 40 mg dexmethylphenidate extended release capsules. We intend to vigorously defend and expeditiously resolve these lawsuits.

On August 10, 2011, Avanir Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,659,282 and RE38,155 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of oral capsules of 20 mg dextromethorphan hydrobromide and 10 mg quinidine sulfate. We filed our answer on September 6, 2011, and our case was consolidated with those for the other defendants, Actavis, Impax, and Wockhardt, on September 26, 2011. The Court has scheduled a Markman hearing for October 5, 2012, and a 10-day bench trial for September 9, 2013.

On February 2, 2011, Somaxon Pharmaceuticals filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,211,229 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of oral tablets of 3 mg equivalent and 6 mg equivalent doxepin hydrochloride. We filed our answer on February 23, 2011. Our case has been consolidated in the same Court with those of the other defendants who filed ANDAs on this product. The Court has scheduled fact discovery to end on April 6, 2012; expert discovery to end on August 17, 2012; the end of Markman briefing for October 12, 2012; and a trial date of December 10, 2012. We intend to defend this action vigorously.

On September 1, 2011, we, along with EDT Pharma Holdings Ltd. (now known as Alkermes Pharma Ireland Limited) (Elan), filed a complaint against TWi Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and another complaint against TWi on September 2, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In both complaints, Elan and we allege infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,101,576 (expiration April 22, 2024) in view of the notice letter we received from TWi stating that TWi had filed an ANDA, accompanied by a Paragraph IV certification, seeking approval for a generic version of Megace® ES. We are at present aware of no other generic filers. On November 15, 2011, the Court scheduled the end of fact discovery for September 1, 2012; the end of expert discovery for December 15, 2012; and a 5-7 day bench trial for October 7, 2013. We intend to prosecute this infringement case vigorously.

On April 8, 2010, AstraZeneca filed a lawsuit against Anchen Incorporated (now a subsidiary of Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,948,437 for submitting an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of extended-release oral tablets of 150, 200, 300, and 400 mg quetiapine. A Markman hearing was conducted on November 30, 2010 and a bench trial was held from October 3-19, 2011. On March 29, 2012, the court ruled in favor of AstraZeneca on invalidity and infringement, enjoining final approval for any generic defendant until May 28, 2017.

On June 10, 2010, Genzyme Corporation filed a lawsuit against Anchen in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,602,116, and 6,903,083 for submitting an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of oral capsules of 0.5, 1, and 2.5 mcg doxercalciferol. A bench trial was conducted from November 14-18, 2011. We are awaiting a decision and will continue to defend this action vigorously.

On June 14, 2010, Abbott Laboratories and Fournier Laboratories Ireland Ltd. filed a lawsuit against Anchen in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,259,186 for submitting an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of delayed-release oral capsules of EQ 45 and EQ 135 mg choline fenofibrate. On April 18, 2012, the Court entered a stipulation and dismissal of the case.

On January 12, 2011, GlaxoSmithKline, LLC filed a lawsuit against Anchen in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,565,467 for submitting an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of an oral capsule of 0.5 mg dutasteride and an oral capsule of 0.5/0.4 mg dutasteride/tamsulosin. On November 30, 2011, the court confirmed that the bench trial for this case is set for October 22, 2012. We will continue to defend this action vigorously.

On February 23, 2011, Takeda Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd., Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc., Takeda Pharmaceuticals, LLC, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. filed suit against Handa Pharmaceuticals, LLC in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,462,058; 6,664,276; 6,939,971; 7,285,668; and 7,790,755 for submitting an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 30 mg and 60 mg dexlansoprazole delayed-release capsules. On March 12, 2012, we acquired this ANDA under an exclusive acquisition and license agreement, which requires us to manage and fund the on-going patent litigation. On April 11, 2012, the court issued a claim construction opinion that largely adopted the constructions proposed by plaintiffs. A trial is scheduled for June 3, 2013. We intend to vigorously defend this action.

On September 9, 2011, Flamel Technologies, S.A. filed a lawsuit against Anchen in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,022,562 for submitting an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of extended-release oral capsules of 10, 20, 40, and 80 mg carvedilol. The complaint was served on us on January 12, 2012, and we filed our answer on January 30, 2012. We will defend this action vigorously.

On October 28, 2011, Astra Zeneca, Pozen, Inc., and KBI-E Inc., filed a lawsuit against Anchen in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,926,907; 6,369,085; 7,411,070; and 7,745,466 for submitting an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of delayed-release oral tablets of 375/20 and 500/20 mg naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium. We filed our answer on December 12, 2011. We will continue to defend this action vigorously.

On March 28, 2012, Horizon Pharma Inc. and Horizon Pharma USA Inc. filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,067,033 for submitting an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of oral tablets of 26.6/800 mg famotidine/ibuprofen. We intend to defend this action vigorously.

On April 4, 2012, AR Holding Company, Inc. filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,619,004; 7,601,758; 7,820,681; 7,915,269; 7,964,647; 7,964,648; 7,981,938; 8,093,296; 8,093,297; and 8,097,655 for submitting an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of oral tablets of 0.6 mg colchicine. We intend to defend this action vigorously.

On April 10, 2012, Depomed Inc. filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,340,375; 6,488,962; 6,635,280; 6,723,340; 7,438,927; and 7,731,989 for submitting an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of oral tablets of 300 and 600 mg gabapentin. We intend to defend this action vigorously.

On July 20, 2011, Nautilus Neurosciences, Inc. and APR Applied Pharma Research SA, filed a lawsuit against Edict Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (now "Par Formulations Pvt. Ltd.") in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,974,595; 7,482,377; and 7,759,394 for submitting an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of diclofenac potassium for oral solution 50 mg. We intend to defend this action vigorously.

Industry Related Matters

Beginning in September 2003, we, along with numerous other pharmaceutical companies, have been named as a defendant in actions brought by the Attorneys General of Illinois, Kansas, and Louisiana, as well as a state law qui tam action brought on behalf of the state of Wisconsin by Peggy Lautenschlager and Bauer & Bach, LLC, alleging generally that the defendants defrauded the state Medicaid systems by purportedly reporting "Average Wholesale Prices" ("AWP") and/or "Wholesale Acquisition Costs" that exceeded the actual selling price of the defendants' prescription drugs. These cases generally seek some combination of actual damages, and/or double damages, treble damages, compensatory damages, statutory damages, civil penalties, disgorgement of excessive profits, restitution, disbursements, counsel fees and costs, litigation expenses, investigative costs, injunctive relief, punitive damages, imposition of a constructive trust, accounting of profits or gains derived through the alleged conduct, expert fees, interest and other relief that the court deems proper. To date, we have settled the lawsuits brought by the states of Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas, as well as the federal qui tam action brought on behalf of the United States by the pharmacy Ven-A-Care of the Florida Keys, Inc. On June 2, 2011, we reached a settlement in principle to resolve claims brought by the city of New York, New York Counties and the state of Iowa under respective state law for $23,000 thousand. On October 18, 2011, we reached an agreement in principle to settle the Oklahoma suit for $884 thousand. We have accrued a $37,800 thousand reserve under the caption "Accrued legal settlements" on our consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2012, in connection with the June 2, 2011 settlement in principle and the remaining AWP actions. In the Utah suit and the state law qui tam brought on behalf of the state of Wisconsin, the time for responding to the complaint has not yet elapsed. In each of the remaining matters, we have either moved to dismiss the complaints or answered the complaints denying liability. We will continue to defend or explore settlement opportunities in other jurisdictions as we feel are in our best interest under the circumstances presented in those jurisdictions. However, we can give no assurance that we will be able to settle the remaining actions on terms that we deem reasonable, or that such settlements or adverse judgments, if entered, will not exceed the amount of the reserve.

The Attorneys General of Florida, Indiana and Virginia and the United States Office of Personnel Management (the "USOPM") have issued subpoenas, and the Attorneys General of Michigan, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah have issued civil investigative demands, to us. The demands generally request documents and information pertaining to allegations that certain of our sales and marketing practices caused pharmacies to substitute ranitidine capsules for ranitidine tablets, fluoxetine tablets for fluoxetine capsules, and two 7.5 mg buspirone tablets for one 15 mg buspirone tablet, under circumstances in which some state Medicaid programs at various times reimbursed the new dosage form at a higher rate than the dosage form being substituted. We have provided documents in response to these subpoenas to the respective Attorneys General and the USOPM. The aforementioned subpoenas and civil investigative demands culminated in the federal and state law qui tam action brought on behalf of the United States and several states by Bernard Lisitza. The complaint was unsealed on August 30, 2011. The United States intervened in this action on July 8, 2011 and filed a separate complaint on September 9, 2011, alleging claims for violations of the Federal False Claims Act and common law fraud. The states of Michigan and Indiana have also intervened as to claims arising under their respective state false claims acts, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment. We intend to vigorously defend these lawsuits.

We have also been named a defendant in a putative federal class action brought by the United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund ("UFCW") under the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act alleging the same general conduct as set forth in the preceding paragraph. We filed a motion to dismiss the complaint brought by UFCW on March 26, 2012. We intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit.

Department of Justice Matter

On March 19, 2009, we were served with a subpoena by the Department of Justice requesting documents related to Strativa's marketing of Megace^® ES. The subpoena indicated that the Department of Justice is currently investigating promotional practices in the sales and marketing of Megace^® ES. We have cooperated with the Department of Justice in this inquiry and will continue to do so. Investigations of this type often result in settlements, including monetary amounts based on an agreed upon percentage of sales of the product at issue in the investigation. We accrued $45,000 thousand in the first quarter of 2012 as management's best estimate of potential loss related to a potential global settlement in this matter, pending the finalization of definitive settlement terms.

Declaratory Judgment

On October 14, 2011, we filed a declaratory complaint and a motion for preliminary injunction in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking to preserve our First Amendment right to provide truthful information to physicians and other healthcare providers about the FDA-approved, on-label use of Megace^® ES.

Other

We are, from time to time, a party to certain other litigations, including product liability litigations. We believe that these litigations are part of the ordinary course of our business and that their ultimate resolution will not have a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. We intend to defend or, in cases where we are the plaintiff, to prosecute these litigations vigorously.