Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	12. Commitments and Contingencies 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 being 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 2018, each of the parties to the proceeding 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 “’893 Patent”). 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 hydrochlorothiazide 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 Pharma AG (“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. 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. Lease Guarantee In connection with the spin-off (the “Spin-Off”) by the Company of Facet Biotech Corporation (“Facet”), the Company entered into amendments to the leases for the Company’s former facilities in Redwood City, California, under which Facet was added as a co-tenant, and a Co-Tenancy Agreement, under which Facet agreed to indemnify us for all matters related to the leases attributable to the period after the Spin-Off date. As of March 31, 2018, the total lease payments for the duration of the guarantee, which runs through December 2021, are approximately $42.3 million. In April 2010, Abbott Laboratories acquired Facet and later renamed the entity AbbVie Biotherapeutics, Inc. (“AbbVie”). If AbbVie were to default under its lease obligations, the Company could be held liable by the landlord as a co-tenant and, thus, the Company has in substance guaranteed the payments under the lease agreements for the Redwood City facilities. The Company prepared a discounted, probability weighted cash flow analysis to calculate the estimated fair value of the lease guarantee as of the Spin-Off. The Company was required to make assumptions regarding the probability of Facet’s default on the lease payment, the likelihood of a sublease being executed and the times at which these events could occur. These assumptions are based on information that the Company received from real estate brokers and the then-current economic conditions, as well as expectations of future economic conditions. The fair value of this lease guarantee was charged to additional paid-in capital upon the Spin-Off and any future adjustments to the carrying value of the obligation will also be recorded in additional paid-in capital. The Company has recorded a liability of $10.7 million on its Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of March 31, 2018 and December 31, 2017, related to this guarantee. In future periods, the Company may adjust this liability for any changes in the ultimate outcome of this matter that are both probable and estimable. Irrevocable Letters of Credit On June 30, 2016, the Company purchased a $75.0 million certificate of deposit, which is designated as cash collateral for the $75.0 million letter of credit issued on July 1, 2016 with respect to the first anniversary payment under the Noden Purchase Agreement (as defined in Note 19 below). In addition, the Company provided an irrevocable and unconditional guarantee to Novartis, to pay up to $14.0 million of the remaining amount of the first anniversary payment not covered by the letter of credit. The Company concluded that both guarantees are contingent obligations and shall be accounted for in accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies. Further, it was concluded that both guarantees do not meet the conditions to be accrued at March 31, 2018. On July 3, 2017, the first anniversary payment of $89.0 million was paid pursuant to the Noden Purchase Agreement and the $14.0 million guarantee expired. Purchase Obligations In connection with the Noden Transaction, Noden entered into an unconditional purchase obligation with Novartis to acquire all local finished goods inventory in certain countries upon transfer of the applicable marketing authorization rights in such country. The purchase is payable within 60 days after the transfer of the marketing authorization rights. The agreement does not specify minimum quantities but details pricing terms. In addition, Noden and Novartis entered into a supply agreement pursuant to which Novartis will manufacture and supply to Noden a finished form of the Noden Products and bulk drug form of the Noden Products for specified periods of time prior to the transfer of manufacturing responsibilities for the Noden Products to another manufacturer. The supply agreement may be terminated by either party for material breach that remains uncured for a specified time period. The supply agreement commits the Company to a minimum purchase obligation of approximately $75.4 million and $105.8 million over the next twelve and thirty-six months, respectively. The Company expects that Noden will meet this requirement. LENSAR and Coherent, Inc. entered into an Original Equipment Manufacturer agreement pursuant to which Coherent, Inc. will manufacture and supply to LENSAR Staccato Lasers by March 31, 2019. The supply agreement commits LENSAR to a minimum purchase obligation of approximately $1.1 million over the next twelve months. The Company expects that LENSAR will meet this requirement. For more information about the LENSAR transaction, see Note 19. Escrow Receivable On September 21, 2017, the Company entered into the kaléo Note Sale Agreement, pursuant to which the Company sold its entire interest in the kaléo Note. Pursuant to the kaléo Note Sale Agreement, the purchaser paid to the Company an amount equal to 100% of the then outstanding principal, a premium of 1% of such amount and accrued interest under the kaléo Notes, for an aggregate cash purchase price of $141.7 million. Pursuant to the terms of the kaléo Note Sale Agreement, $1.4 million of the aggregate purchase price was deposited into an escrow account as a potential payment against certain contingencies, which expires on the 18th month anniversary of the closing date. Upon the expiration of escrow period, the escrow agent is required to release remaining funds to the Company. The Company does not expect there to be any claims by the purchaser under the escrow agreement. However, in the event that such a claim is made, and if successful, the amount of such a claim up to $1.4 million would be released from the escrow account to the purchaser, which amount would be reduced from the amount released to the Company at the end of the 18-month escrow period. As of March 31, 2018, the Company is not aware of any claims by the purchaser that would reduce the escrow receivable.

12. Commitments and Contingencies

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 being 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 2018, each of the parties to the proceeding 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 “’893 Patent”). 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 hydrochlorothiazide 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 Pharma AG (“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.

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.

Lease Guarantee

In connection with the spin-off (the “Spin-Off”) by the Company of Facet Biotech Corporation (“Facet”), the Company entered into amendments to the leases for the Company’s former facilities in Redwood City, California, under which Facet was added as a co-tenant, and a Co-Tenancy Agreement, under which Facet agreed to indemnify us for all matters related to the leases attributable to the period after the Spin-Off date. As of March 31, 2018, the total lease payments for the duration of the guarantee, which runs through December 2021, are approximately $42.3 million. In April 2010, Abbott Laboratories acquired Facet and later renamed the entity AbbVie Biotherapeutics, Inc. (“AbbVie”). If AbbVie were to default under its lease obligations, the Company could be held liable by the landlord as a co-tenant and, thus, the Company has in substance guaranteed the payments under the lease agreements for the Redwood City facilities.

The Company prepared a discounted, probability weighted cash flow analysis to calculate the estimated fair value of the lease guarantee as of the Spin-Off. The Company was required to make assumptions regarding the probability of Facet’s default on the lease payment, the likelihood of a sublease being executed and the times at which these events could occur. These assumptions are based on information that the Company received from real estate brokers and the then-current economic conditions, as well as expectations of future economic conditions. The fair value of this lease guarantee was charged to additional paid-in capital upon the Spin-Off and any future adjustments to the carrying value of the obligation will also be recorded in additional paid-in capital.

The Company has recorded a liability of $10.7 million on its Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of March 31, 2018 and December 31, 2017, related to this guarantee. In future periods, the Company may adjust this liability for any changes in the ultimate outcome of this matter that are both probable and estimable.

Irrevocable Letters of Credit

On June 30, 2016, the Company purchased a $75.0 million certificate of deposit, which is designated as cash collateral for the $75.0 million letter of credit issued on July 1, 2016 with respect to the first anniversary payment under the Noden Purchase Agreement (as defined in Note 19 below). In addition, the Company provided an irrevocable and unconditional guarantee to Novartis, to pay up to $14.0 million of the remaining amount of the first anniversary payment not covered by the letter of credit. The Company concluded that both guarantees are contingent obligations and shall be accounted for in accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies. Further, it was concluded that both guarantees do not meet the conditions to be accrued at March 31, 2018. On July 3, 2017, the first anniversary payment of $89.0 million was paid pursuant to the Noden Purchase Agreement and the $14.0 million guarantee expired.

Purchase Obligations

In connection with the Noden Transaction, Noden entered into an unconditional purchase obligation with Novartis to acquire all local finished goods inventory in certain countries upon transfer of the applicable marketing authorization rights in such country. The purchase is payable within 60 days after the transfer of the marketing authorization rights. The agreement does not specify minimum quantities but details pricing terms.

In addition, Noden and Novartis entered into a supply agreement pursuant to which Novartis will manufacture and supply to Noden a finished form of the Noden Products and bulk drug form of the Noden Products for specified periods of time prior to the transfer of manufacturing responsibilities for the Noden Products to another manufacturer. The supply agreement may be terminated by either party for material breach that remains uncured for a specified time period. The supply agreement commits the Company to a minimum purchase obligation of approximately $75.4 million and $105.8 million over the next twelve and thirty-six months, respectively. The Company expects that Noden will meet this requirement.

LENSAR and Coherent, Inc. entered into an Original Equipment Manufacturer agreement pursuant to which Coherent, Inc. will manufacture and supply to LENSAR Staccato Lasers by March 31, 2019. The supply agreement commits LENSAR to a minimum purchase obligation of approximately $1.1 million over the next twelve months. The Company expects that LENSAR will meet this requirement. For more information about the LENSAR transaction, see Note 19.

Escrow Receivable

On September 21, 2017, the Company entered into the kaléo Note Sale Agreement, pursuant to which the Company sold its entire interest in the kaléo Note.

Pursuant to the kaléo Note Sale Agreement, the purchaser paid to the Company an amount equal to 100% of the then outstanding principal, a premium of 1% of such amount and accrued interest under the kaléo Notes, for an aggregate cash purchase price of $141.7 million.

Pursuant to the terms of the kaléo Note Sale Agreement, $1.4 million of the aggregate purchase price was deposited into an escrow account as a potential payment against certain contingencies, which expires on the 18th month anniversary of the closing date. Upon the expiration of escrow period, the escrow agent is required to release remaining funds to the Company.

The Company does not expect there to be any claims by the purchaser under the escrow agreement. However, in the event that such a claim is made, and if successful, the amount of such a claim up to $1.4 million would be released from the escrow account to the purchaser, which amount would be reduced from the amount released to the Company at the end of the 18-month escrow period. As of March 31, 2018, the Company is not aware of any claims by the purchaser that would reduce the escrow receivable.