Legal Proceedings	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2017
Legal Proceedings [Abstract]
Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]	23. Legal Proceedings PDL BioPharma, Inc. v Merck Sharp & Dohme, Corp. On January 22, 2016, the Company filed a complaint against Merck Sharp & Dohme, Corp (“Merck”) for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. In the complaint, the Company alleged that manufacture and sales of certain of Merck’s Keytruda product infringed one or more claims of the Company’s U.S. Patent No. 5,693,761 (the “761 Patent”). The Company requested judgment that Merck infringed the 761 Patent, an award of damages due to the infringement, a finding that such infringement was willful and deliberate and trebling of damages therefore, and a declaration that the case is exceptional and warrants an award of attorney’s fees and costs. On April 21, 2017, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with Merck to resolve the patent infringement lawsuit between the parties pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey related to Merck’s Keytruda humanized antibody product. Under the terms of the agreement, Merck paid the Company a one time, lump-sum payment of $19.5 million, and the Company granted Merck a fully paid-up, royalty free, non-exclusive license to certain of the Company’s rights to issued patents in the United States and elsewhere, covering the humanization of antibodies (the “Queen et al. patent”) for use in connection with Keytruda as well as a covenant not to sue Merck for any royalties regarding Keytruda. In addition, the parties agreed to dismiss all claims in the relevant legal proceedings. Wellstat Litigation On September 4, 2015, the Company filed in the Supreme Court of New York a motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint which requested that the court enter judgment against Wellstat Diagnostics Guarantors for the total amount due on the Wellstat Diagnostics debt, plus all costs and expenses including lawyers’ fees incurred by the Company in enforcement of the related guarantees. On July 29, 2016, the court issued its Memorandum of Decision granting the Company’s motion for summary judgment and denying the Wellstat Diagnostics Guarantors’ cross-motion for summary judgment seeking a determination that they were no longer liable under the guarantees. The Supreme Court of New York held that the Wellstat Diagnostics Guarantors are liable for all “Obligations” owed by Wellstat Diagnostics to the Company. It did not set a specific dollar amount due, but ordered that a judicial hearing officer or special referee be designated to determine the amount of the Obligations owing, and awarded the Company its attorneys’ fees and costs in an amount to be determined. On July 29, 2016, the Wellstat Diagnostics Guarantors filed a notice of appeal from the Memorandum of Decision to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York. On February 14, 2017, the Appellate Division reversed the summary judgment decision of the Supreme Court in the Company’s favor, but affirmed the denial of the Wellstat Guarantors’ cross-motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division determined that the action was inappropriate for summary judgment pursuant to New York Civil Practice Law & Rules section 3213 on procedural grounds, but specifically made no determination regarding whether the Company was entitled to a judgment on the merits. Pursuant to this decision, the action has been remanded to the Supreme Court for further proceedings on the merits. The proceeding is conducted as a plenary proceeding, with both parties having the opportunity to take discovery and file dispositive motions in accordance with New York civil procedure. Noden Pharma DAC v Anchen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al On June 12, 2017, Noden Pharma DAC filed a complaint against Anchen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Anchen”) and Par Pharmaceutical (“Par”) for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,617,595 based on their submission of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) seeking authorization from the FDA to market a generic version of Tekturna^® aliskiren hemifumarate tablets, 150 mg and 300 mg, in the United States. Noden Pharma DAC’s suit triggered a 30-month stay of FDA approval of that application under the Hatch Waxman Act. Par filed a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment that their proposed generic version of Tekturna HCT^® aliskiren hemifumarate hydrochlorothiazide tablets (150 mg eq. base/12.5 mg HCT, 150 mg eq. base/25 mg HCT, 300 mg eq. base/12.5 mg HCT, and 300 mg eq. base/25 mg HCT), described in a separate ANDA submitted by Par to FDA, alleging noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,618,172 (“the ‘172 Patent”), also owned by Noden Pharma DAC. This case is proceeding in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. In March of 2018, the Parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal of the defendants’ counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the ‘172 Patent. In the stipulation, Anchen and Par agreed that they will not seek, or otherwise join or assist in, any post-grant review, including inter partes review, of the ‘172 patent or U.S. Patent No. 9,023,893. The defendants further stipulated that they will not seek approval of Par’s ANDA or submit any other ANDA seeking approval to market aliskiren hemifumarate hydrochlorthiazide prior to the expiration of the ‘172 Patent in July of 2028. Both the ‘172 Patent and the ‘893 Patent are listed in the Orange Book for Tekturna HCT. Noden Pharma DAC intends to continue to take appropriate legal action to protect its intellectual property in Tekturna^® and Tekturna HCT^®. Noden Pharma DAC is aware that Novartis received Paragraph IV certifications from Par for Tekturna HCT and Anchen on December 31, 2013. Novartis did not file a responsive patent infringement suit related to these certifications. However, to Noden Pharma DAC’s knowledge, neither Par nor Anchen have in the meantime commercialized generic aliskiren products. Depomed, Inc. vs. Valeant Pharmaceuticals, Inc. On October 27, 2017, Valeant, Depomed and the Company entered into a settlement agreement (“Depomed Settlement Agreement”) to resolve all matters addressed in the lawsuit. Under the terms of the Depomed Settlement Agreement, the litigation will be dismissed, with prejudice, and Valeant will pay to Depomed a one-time, lump-sum payment of $13.0 million. In addition, Depomed and the Company released Valeant and its subsidiary from any and all claims against them as a result of the audit, Valeant’s obligation to pay additional royalties under the commercialization agreement and/or the litigation; and Valeant released Depomed and the Company against any and all claims against them as a result of the audit and/or the litigation. The settlement payment was transferred to the Company under the terms of the Depomed Royalty Agreement in November of 2017. Other Legal Proceedings From time to time, the Company is involved in lawsuits, arbitrations, claims, investigations and proceedings, consisting of intellectual property, commercial, employment and other matters, which arise in the ordinary course of business. The Company makes provisions for liabilities when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Such provisions are reviewed at least quarterly and adjusted to reflect the impact of settlement negotiations, judicial and administrative rulings, advice of legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to a particular case. Litigation is inherently unpredictable. If any unfavorable ruling were to occur in any specific period, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on the results of the Company’s operations of that period and on its cash flows and liquidity.

23. Legal Proceedings

PDL BioPharma, Inc. v Merck Sharp & Dohme, Corp.

On January 22, 2016, the Company filed a complaint against Merck Sharp & Dohme, Corp (“Merck”) for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. In the complaint, the Company alleged that manufacture and sales of certain of Merck’s Keytruda product infringed one or more claims of the Company’s U.S. Patent No. 5,693,761 (the “761 Patent”). The Company requested judgment that Merck infringed the 761 Patent, an award of damages due to the infringement, a finding that such infringement was willful and deliberate and trebling of damages therefore, and a declaration that the case is exceptional and warrants an award of attorney’s fees and costs.

On April 21, 2017, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with Merck to resolve the patent infringement lawsuit between the parties pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey related to Merck’s Keytruda humanized antibody product. Under the terms of the agreement, Merck paid the Company a one time, lump-sum payment of $19.5 million, and the Company granted Merck a fully paid-up, royalty free, non-exclusive license to certain of the Company’s rights to issued patents in the United States and elsewhere, covering the humanization of antibodies (the “Queen et al. patent”) for use in connection with Keytruda as well as a covenant not to sue Merck for any royalties regarding Keytruda. In addition, the parties agreed to dismiss all claims in the relevant legal proceedings.

Wellstat Litigation

On September 4, 2015, the Company filed in the Supreme Court of New York a motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint which requested that the court enter judgment against Wellstat Diagnostics Guarantors for the total amount due on the Wellstat Diagnostics debt, plus all costs and expenses including lawyers’ fees incurred by the Company in enforcement of the related guarantees. On July 29, 2016, the court issued its Memorandum of Decision granting the Company’s motion for summary judgment and denying the Wellstat Diagnostics Guarantors’ cross-motion for summary judgment seeking a determination that they were no longer liable under the guarantees. The Supreme Court of New York held that the Wellstat Diagnostics Guarantors are liable for all “Obligations” owed by Wellstat Diagnostics to the Company. It did not set a specific dollar amount due, but ordered that a judicial hearing officer or special referee be designated to determine the amount of the Obligations owing, and awarded the Company its attorneys’ fees and costs in an amount to be determined. On July 29, 2016, the Wellstat Diagnostics Guarantors filed a notice of appeal from the Memorandum of Decision to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York. On February 14, 2017, the Appellate Division reversed the summary judgment decision of the Supreme Court in the Company’s favor, but affirmed the denial of the Wellstat Guarantors’ cross-motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division determined that the action was inappropriate for summary judgment pursuant to New York Civil Practice Law & Rules section 3213 on procedural grounds, but specifically made no determination regarding whether the Company was entitled to a judgment on the merits. Pursuant to this decision, the action has been remanded to the Supreme Court for further proceedings on the merits. The proceeding is conducted as a plenary proceeding, with both parties having the opportunity to take discovery and file dispositive motions in accordance with New York civil procedure.

Noden Pharma DAC v Anchen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al

On June 12, 2017, Noden Pharma DAC filed a complaint against Anchen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Anchen”) and Par Pharmaceutical (“Par”) for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,617,595 based on their submission of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) seeking authorization from the FDA to market a generic version of Tekturna^® aliskiren hemifumarate tablets, 150 mg and 300 mg, in the United States. Noden Pharma DAC’s suit triggered a 30-month stay of FDA approval of that application under the Hatch Waxman Act. Par filed a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment that their proposed generic version of Tekturna HCT^® aliskiren hemifumarate hydrochlorothiazide tablets (150 mg eq. base/12.5 mg HCT, 150 mg eq. base/25 mg HCT, 300 mg eq. base/12.5 mg HCT, and 300 mg eq. base/25 mg HCT), described in a separate ANDA submitted by Par to FDA, alleging noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,618,172 (“the ‘172 Patent”), also owned by Noden Pharma DAC. This case is proceeding in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. In March of 2018, the Parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal of the defendants’ counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the ‘172 Patent. In the stipulation, Anchen and Par agreed that they will not seek, or otherwise join or assist in, any post-grant review, including inter partes review, of the ‘172 patent or U.S. Patent No. 9,023,893. The defendants further stipulated that they will not seek approval of Par’s ANDA or submit any other ANDA seeking approval to market aliskiren hemifumarate hydrochlorthiazide prior to the expiration of the ‘172 Patent in July of 2028. Both the ‘172 Patent and the ‘893 Patent are listed in the Orange Book for Tekturna HCT. Noden Pharma DAC intends to continue to take appropriate legal action to protect its intellectual property in Tekturna^® and Tekturna HCT^®.

Noden Pharma DAC is aware that Novartis received Paragraph IV certifications from Par for Tekturna HCT and Anchen on December 31, 2013. Novartis did not file a responsive patent infringement suit related to these certifications. However, to Noden Pharma DAC’s knowledge, neither Par nor Anchen have in the meantime commercialized generic aliskiren products.

Depomed, Inc. vs. Valeant Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

On October 27, 2017, Valeant, Depomed and the Company entered into a settlement agreement (“Depomed Settlement Agreement”) to resolve all matters addressed in the lawsuit. Under the terms of the Depomed Settlement Agreement, the litigation will be dismissed, with prejudice, and Valeant will pay to Depomed a one-time, lump-sum payment of $13.0 million. In addition, Depomed and the Company released Valeant and its subsidiary from any and all claims against them as a result of the audit, Valeant’s obligation to pay additional royalties under the commercialization agreement and/or the litigation; and Valeant released Depomed and the Company against any and all claims against them as a result of the audit and/or the litigation. The settlement payment was transferred to the Company under the terms of the Depomed Royalty Agreement in November of 2017.

Other Legal Proceedings

From time to time, the Company is involved in lawsuits, arbitrations, claims, investigations and proceedings, consisting of intellectual property, commercial, employment and other matters, which arise in the ordinary course of business. The Company makes provisions for liabilities when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Such provisions are reviewed at least quarterly and adjusted to reflect the impact of settlement negotiations, judicial and administrative rulings, advice of legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to a particular case. Litigation is inherently unpredictable. If any unfavorable ruling were to occur in any specific period, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on the results of the Company’s operations of that period and on its cash flows and liquidity.