Litigation	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2015
Litigation	16. Litigation On October 10, 2013, October 17, 2013, December 3, 2013 and December 6, 2013, purported shareholder class actions, styled Jimmy Wang v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., James L. Burch v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters’ Pension Fund v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al, and Nabil Elmachtoub v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al, respectively, were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the “District Court”), naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants. The lawsuits allege that the defendants made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact regarding clinical and safety data for Iclusig in its public disclosures during the period from December 12, 2011 through October 8, 2013 or October 17, 2013, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On January 9, 2014, the District Court consolidated the actions and appointed lead plaintiffs. On February 18, 2014, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint as contemplated by the order of the District Court. The amended complaint extends the class period for the Securities Exchange Act claims through October 30, 2013. In addition, plaintiffs allege that certain of the Company’s officers, directors and certain underwriters made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact regarding clinical and safety data for Iclusig in connection with the Company’s January 24, 2013 follow-on public offering of common stock in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees. On April 14, 2014, the defendants and the underwriters filed separate motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On June 10, 2014, the District Court heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss. On March 24, 2015, the District Court granted the defendants’ and the underwriters’ motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaint in these consolidated actions. On April 21, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an appeal of the District Court’s decision to grant the motions to dismiss with the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Briefing on the plaintiffs’ appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has been completed, and oral argument was held on February 3, 2016. On March 11, 2015, a product liability lawsuit, styled Thomas Montalbano, Jr. v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida naming the Company as defendant. The lawsuit alleges that the Company’s cancer medicine Iclusig was defective, dangerous and lacked adequate warnings when the plaintiff used it from July to August 2013. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages, punitive damages and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees. On May 18, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in this action. On July 31, 2015, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida heard oral argument on the Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint. On August 4, 2015, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss with respect to the plaintiff’s cause of action for punitive damages and denied the remainder of the Company’s motion to dismiss. In response, on August 7, 2015, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint asserts punitive damages as a remedy, in addition to seeking unspecified monetary damages and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees. The parties are currently engaged in discovery. The Company believes that these actions are without merit. At this time, the Company has not recorded a liability related to damages in connection with these matters because it believes that any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP. In addition, due to the early stages of the matters described above, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters. From time to time, the Company may be subject to various claims and legal proceedings. If the potential loss from any claim, asserted or unasserted, or legal proceedings is considered probable and the amount is reasonably estimated, the Company will accrue a liability for the estimated loss.

16. Litigation

On October 10, 2013, October 17, 2013, December 3, 2013 and December 6, 2013, purported shareholder class actions, styled Jimmy Wang v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., James L. Burch v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters’ Pension Fund v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al, and Nabil Elmachtoub v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al, respectively, were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the “District Court”), naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants. The lawsuits allege that the defendants made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact regarding clinical and safety data for Iclusig in its public disclosures during the period from December 12, 2011 through October 8, 2013 or October 17, 2013, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On January 9, 2014, the District Court consolidated the actions and appointed lead plaintiffs. On February 18, 2014, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint as contemplated by the order of the District Court. The amended complaint extends the class period for the Securities Exchange Act claims through October 30, 2013. In addition, plaintiffs allege that certain of the Company’s officers, directors and certain underwriters made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact regarding clinical and safety data for Iclusig in connection with the Company’s January 24, 2013 follow-on public offering of common stock in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees. On April 14, 2014, the defendants and the underwriters filed separate motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On June 10, 2014, the District Court heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss. On March 24, 2015, the District Court granted the defendants’ and the underwriters’ motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaint in these consolidated actions. On April 21, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an appeal of the District Court’s decision to grant the motions to dismiss with the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Briefing on the plaintiffs’ appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has been completed, and oral argument was held on February 3, 2016.

On March 11, 2015, a product liability lawsuit, styled Thomas Montalbano, Jr. v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida naming the Company as defendant. The lawsuit alleges that the Company’s cancer medicine Iclusig was defective, dangerous and lacked adequate warnings when the plaintiff used it from July to August 2013. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages, punitive damages and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees. On May 18, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in this action. On July 31, 2015, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida heard oral argument on the Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint. On August 4, 2015, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss with respect to the plaintiff’s cause of action for punitive damages and denied the remainder of the Company’s motion to dismiss. In response, on August 7, 2015, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint asserts punitive damages as a remedy, in addition to seeking unspecified monetary damages and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees. The parties are currently engaged in discovery.

The Company believes that these actions are without merit. At this time, the Company has not recorded a liability related to damages in connection with these matters because it believes that any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP. In addition, due to the early stages of the matters described above, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters.

From time to time, the Company may be subject to various claims and legal proceedings. If the potential loss from any claim, asserted or unasserted, or legal proceedings is considered probable and the amount is reasonably estimated, the Company will accrue a liability for the estimated loss.