Legal and Other Proceedings	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2017
Legal Proceedings [Abstract]
Legal and Other Proceedings	Legal and Other Proceedings The Company expenses legal costs when incurred. The Company recognizes loss contingency provisions for probable losses when management is able to reasonably estimate the loss. When the estimated loss lies within a range, the Company records a loss contingency provision based on its best estimate of the probable loss. If no particular amount within that range is a better estimate than any other amount, the minimum amount is recorded. Estimates of losses may be developed before the ultimate loss is known, and are therefore refined each accounting period as additional information becomes known. An outcome that deviates from the Company’s estimate may result in an additional expense or release in a future accounting period. As of December 31, 2017, provision for litigation losses, insurance claims and other disputes totaled $76.2 million (December 31, 2016: $415.0 million). The Company’s principal pending legal and other proceedings are disclosed below. The outcomes of these proceedings are not always predictable and can be affected by various factors. For those legal and other proceedings for which it is considered at least reasonably possible that a loss has been incurred, the Company discloses the possible loss or range of possible loss in excess of the recorded loss contingency provision, if any, where such excess is both material and estimable. MYDAYIS On October 12, 2017, Shire was notified that Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. had submitted an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) to the FDA seeking permission to market a generic version of MYDAYIS. Within the requisite 45-day period, Shire filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Actavis Laboratories, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (collectively the “Teva entities”). No dates for a Markman hearing or trial have been set. Petitions to institute inter partes reviews (IPRs) against US Patent numbers 8,846,100 and 9,173,857 were filed by KVK Tech. Both of these patents are listed in the Orange Book as covering MYDAYIS and are among the patents-in-suit in the infringement action brought against the Teva entities as noted above. A decision on whether to institute the IPRs is expected on or before July 10, 2018. If one or both IPRs are instituted, a decision on the merits is expected on or before July 10, 2019. LIALDA In May 2010, Shire was notified that Zydus Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Zydus) had submitted an ANDA under the Hatch-Waxman Act seeking permission to market a generic version of LIALDA. Within the requisite 45-day period, Shire filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Zydus and Cadila Healthcare Limited, doing business as Zydus Cadila. A Markman hearing took place on January 29, 2015 and a Markman ruling was issued on July 28, 2015. A trial took place between March 28, 2016 and April 1, 2016. On September 16, 2016 the court issued its ruling finding that the proposed generic product would not infringe the asserted claims. Shire appealed the ruling to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). On May 9, 2017, the CAFC affirmed the ruling of the district court. Zydus’ ANDA has been approved and the generic product is now available in the U.S. In February 2012, Shire was notified that Osmotica Pharmaceutical Corporation (Osmotica) had submitted an ANDA under the Hatch-Waxman Act seeking permission to market a generic version of LIALDA. Within the requisite 45-day period, Shire filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Osmotica. A Markman hearing took place on August 22, 2013 and a Markman ruling was issued on September 25, 2014. The court issued an Order on February 27, 2015 in which all dates in the scheduling order were stayed. Osmotica’s ANDA was withdrawn as of March 31, 2017 and the case was dismissed. In March 2012, Shire was notified that Watson Laboratories Inc.-Florida had submitted an ANDA under the Hatch-Waxman Act seeking permission to market a generic version of LIALDA. Within the requisite 45-day period, Shire filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Watson Laboratories Inc.-Florida and Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Watson Pharma, Inc. and Watson Laboratories, Inc. (collectively, “Watson”) were subsequently added as defendants. A trial took place in April 2013 and on May 9, 2013 the trial court issued a decision finding that the proposed generic product infringes the patent-in-suit and that the patent is not invalid. Watson appealed the trial court’s ruling to the CAFC and a hearing took place on December 2, 2013. The ruling of the CAFC was issued on March 28, 2014 overruling the trial court on the interpretation of two claim terms and remanding the case for further proceedings. Shire petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari which was granted on January 26, 2015. The Supreme Court also vacated the CAFC decision and remanded the case to the CAFC for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Teva v. Sandoz. On June 3, 2015, the CAFC reaffirmed their previous decision to reverse the District Court’s claims construction and remanded the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. A trial was held on January 25-27, 2016. A ruling was issued on March 28, 2016 upholding the validity of the patent and finding that Watson’s proposed ANDA product infringes the patent-in-suit. Watson appealed the ruling to the CAFC and oral argument took place on October 5, 2016. The CAFC issued a ruling on February 10, 2017 reversing the trial court’s ruling of infringement and remanding the case to the lower court for entry of a ruling of non-infringement. On May 18, 2017, the lower court entered judgment of non-infringement. In April 2012, Shire was notified that Mylan had submitted an ANDA under the Hatch-Waxman Act seeking permission to market a generic version of LIALDA. Within the requisite 45-day period, Shire filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida against Mylan. A Markman hearing took place on December 22, 2014. A Markman ruling was issued on March 23, 2015. Following a four-day bench trial in September 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the court handed down a ruling that Mylan’s proposed generic version of LIALDA infringes claims 1 and 3 of the Orange Book listed patent for LIALDA. In connection with this finding of infringement, the court also entered an injunction prohibiting Mylan from making, using, selling, offering for sale and/or importing their proposed ANDA product before the expiration of the patent (June 8, 2020) and requiring that the approval date for their ANDA be on or after the expiration of the patent. On June 14, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted Mylan's Motion for Reconsideration and entered judgment of non-infringement. Shire filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit on July 7, 2017. No date for oral argument has been set. In March 2015, Shire was notified that Amneal had submitted an ANDA under the Hatch-Waxman Act seeking permission to market a generic version of LIALDA. Within the requisite 45 day period, Shire filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Amneal, Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC and Amneal Pharmaceuticals Co. India Pvt. Ltd. A Markman hearing took place on July 25, 2016. A Markman ruling was issued on August 2, 2016. No trial date has been set. In September 2015, Shire was notified that Lupin Ltd. had submitted an ANDA under the Hatch-Waxman Act seeking permission to market a generic version of LIALDA. Within the requisite 45 day period, Shire filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against Lupin Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc., Lupin Inc. and Lupin Atlantis Holdings SA. A Markman hearing originally scheduled to take place on November 10, 2016, was cancelled and has not yet been rescheduled. No trial date has been set. VANCOCIN On April 6, 2012, ViroPharma Incorporated (ViroPharma) received a notification that the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was conducting an investigation into whether ViroPharma had engaged in unfair methods of competition with respect to VANCOCIN which Shire acquired in January 2014. Following the divestiture of VANCOCIN in August 2014, Shire retained certain liabilities including any potential liabilities related to the VANCOCIN citizen petition. On August 3, 2012, and September 8, 2014, ViroPharma and Shire respectively received Civil Investigative Demands from the FTC requesting additional information related to this matter. Shire has fully cooperated with the FTC’s investigation. On February 7, 2017, the FTC filed a Complaint against Shire alleging that ViroPharma engaged in conduct in violation of U.S. antitrust laws arising from a citizen petition ViroPharma filed in 2006 related to Food & Drug Administration’s policy for evaluating bioequivalence for generic versions of VANCOCIN. The complaint seeks equitable relief, including an injunction and disgorgement. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on April 10, 2017. At this time, Shire is unable to predict the outcome or duration of this case. ELAPRASE On September 24, 2014, Shire’s Brazilian affiliate, Shire Farmaceutica Brasil Ltda, was served with a lawsuit brought by the State of Sao Paulo and in which the Brazilian Public Attorney’s office has intervened alleging that Shire is obligated to provide certain medical care including ELAPRASE for an indefinite period at no cost to patients who participated in ELAPRASE clinical trials in Brazil, and seeking recoupment to the Brazilian government for amounts paid on behalf of these patients to date, and moral damages associated with these claims. On May 6, 2016, the trial court judge ruled on the case and dismissed all the claims under the class action, which was appealed. On February 20, 2017, the Court of Appeals in Sao Paulo issued the final decision on merit in favor of Shire and dismissed all the claims under the class action. On July 12, 2017, the Public Prosecutor filed an appeal addressed to the Supreme Court. During the last quarter of 2017, the State of Sao Paulo filed appeals addressed to the Superior Court of Justice and to the Supreme Court.

Legal and Other Proceedings

The Company expenses legal costs when incurred.

The Company recognizes loss contingency provisions for probable losses when management is able to reasonably estimate the loss. When the estimated loss lies within a range, the Company records a loss contingency provision based on its best estimate of the probable loss. If no particular amount within that range is a better estimate than any other amount, the minimum amount is recorded. Estimates of losses may be developed before the ultimate loss is known, and are therefore refined each accounting period as additional information becomes known. An outcome that deviates from the Company’s estimate may result in an additional expense or release in a future accounting period. As of December 31, 2017, provision for litigation losses, insurance claims and other disputes totaled $76.2 million (December 31, 2016: $415.0 million).

The Company’s principal pending legal and other proceedings are disclosed below. The outcomes of these proceedings are not always predictable and can be affected by various factors. For those legal and other proceedings for which it is considered at least reasonably possible that a loss has been incurred, the Company discloses the possible loss or range of possible loss in excess of the recorded loss contingency provision, if any, where such excess is both material and estimable.

MYDAYIS

On October 12, 2017, Shire was notified that Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. had submitted an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) to the FDA seeking permission to market a generic version of MYDAYIS. Within the requisite 45-day period, Shire filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Actavis Laboratories, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (collectively the “Teva entities”). No dates for a Markman hearing or trial have been set.

Petitions to institute inter partes reviews (IPRs) against US Patent numbers 8,846,100 and 9,173,857 were filed by KVK Tech. Both of these patents are listed in the Orange Book as covering MYDAYIS and are among the patents-in-suit in the infringement action brought against the Teva entities as noted above. A decision on whether to institute the IPRs is expected on or before July 10, 2018. If one or both IPRs are instituted, a decision on the merits is expected on or before July 10, 2019.

LIALDA

In May 2010, Shire was notified that Zydus Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Zydus) had submitted an ANDA under the Hatch-Waxman Act seeking permission to market a generic version of LIALDA. Within the requisite 45-day period, Shire filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Zydus and Cadila Healthcare Limited, doing business as Zydus Cadila. A Markman hearing took place on January 29, 2015 and a Markman ruling was issued on July 28, 2015. A trial took place between March 28, 2016 and April 1, 2016. On September 16, 2016 the court issued its ruling finding that the proposed generic product would not infringe the asserted claims. Shire appealed the ruling to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). On May 9, 2017, the CAFC affirmed the ruling of the district court. Zydus’ ANDA has been approved and the generic product is now available in the U.S.

In February 2012, Shire was notified that Osmotica Pharmaceutical Corporation (Osmotica) had submitted an ANDA under the Hatch-Waxman Act seeking permission to market a generic version of LIALDA. Within the requisite 45-day period, Shire filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Osmotica. A Markman hearing took place on August 22, 2013 and a Markman ruling was issued on September 25, 2014. The court issued an Order on February 27, 2015 in which all dates in the scheduling order were stayed. Osmotica’s ANDA was withdrawn as of March 31, 2017 and the case was dismissed.

In March 2012, Shire was notified that Watson Laboratories Inc.-Florida had submitted an ANDA under the Hatch-Waxman Act seeking permission to market a generic version of LIALDA. Within the requisite 45-day period, Shire filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Watson Laboratories Inc.-Florida and Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Watson Pharma, Inc. and Watson Laboratories, Inc. (collectively, “Watson”) were subsequently added as defendants. A trial took place in April 2013 and on May 9, 2013 the trial court issued a decision finding that the proposed generic product infringes the patent-in-suit and that the patent is not invalid. Watson appealed the trial court’s ruling to the CAFC and a hearing took place on December 2, 2013. The ruling of the CAFC was issued on March 28, 2014 overruling the trial court on the interpretation of two claim terms and remanding the case for further proceedings. Shire petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari which was granted on January 26, 2015. The Supreme Court also vacated the CAFC decision and remanded the case to the CAFC for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Teva v. Sandoz. On June 3, 2015, the CAFC reaffirmed their previous decision to reverse the District Court’s claims construction and remanded the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. A trial was held on January 25-27, 2016. A ruling was issued on March 28, 2016 upholding the validity of the patent and finding that Watson’s proposed ANDA product infringes the patent-in-suit. Watson appealed the ruling to the CAFC and oral argument took place on October 5, 2016. The CAFC issued a ruling on February 10, 2017 reversing the trial court’s ruling of infringement and remanding the case to the lower court for entry of a ruling of non-infringement. On May 18, 2017, the lower court entered judgment of non-infringement.

In April 2012, Shire was notified that Mylan had submitted an ANDA under the Hatch-Waxman Act seeking permission to market a generic version of LIALDA. Within the requisite 45-day period, Shire filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida against Mylan. A Markman hearing took place on December 22, 2014. A Markman ruling was issued on March 23, 2015. Following a four-day bench trial in September 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the court handed down a ruling that Mylan’s proposed generic version of LIALDA infringes claims 1 and 3 of the Orange Book listed patent for LIALDA. In connection with this finding of infringement, the court also entered an injunction prohibiting Mylan from making, using, selling, offering for sale and/or importing their proposed ANDA product before the expiration of the patent (June 8, 2020) and requiring that the approval date for their ANDA be on or after the expiration of the patent. On June 14, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted Mylan's Motion for Reconsideration and entered judgment of non-infringement. Shire filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit on July 7, 2017. No date for oral argument has been set.

In March 2015, Shire was notified that Amneal had submitted an ANDA under the Hatch-Waxman Act seeking permission to market a generic version of LIALDA. Within the requisite 45 day period, Shire filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Amneal, Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC and Amneal Pharmaceuticals Co. India Pvt. Ltd. A Markman hearing took place on July 25, 2016. A Markman ruling was issued on August 2, 2016. No trial date has been set.

In September 2015, Shire was notified that Lupin Ltd. had submitted an ANDA under the Hatch-Waxman Act seeking permission to market a generic version of LIALDA. Within the requisite 45 day period, Shire filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against Lupin Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc., Lupin Inc. and Lupin Atlantis Holdings SA. A Markman hearing originally scheduled to take place on November 10, 2016, was cancelled and has not yet been rescheduled. No trial date has been set.

VANCOCIN

On April 6, 2012, ViroPharma Incorporated (ViroPharma) received a notification that the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was conducting an investigation into whether ViroPharma had engaged in unfair methods of competition with respect to VANCOCIN which Shire acquired in January 2014. Following the divestiture of VANCOCIN in August 2014, Shire retained certain liabilities including any potential liabilities related to the VANCOCIN citizen petition.

On August 3, 2012, and September 8, 2014, ViroPharma and Shire respectively received Civil Investigative Demands from the FTC requesting additional information related to this matter. Shire has fully cooperated with the FTC’s investigation.

On February 7, 2017, the FTC filed a Complaint against Shire alleging that ViroPharma engaged in conduct in violation of U.S. antitrust laws arising from a citizen petition ViroPharma filed in 2006 related to Food & Drug Administration’s policy for evaluating bioequivalence for generic versions of VANCOCIN. The complaint seeks equitable relief, including an injunction and disgorgement. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on April 10, 2017.

At this time, Shire is unable to predict the outcome or duration of this case.

ELAPRASE

On September 24, 2014, Shire’s Brazilian affiliate, Shire Farmaceutica Brasil Ltda, was served with a lawsuit brought by the State of Sao Paulo and in which the Brazilian Public Attorney’s office has intervened alleging that Shire is obligated to provide certain medical care including ELAPRASE for an indefinite period at no cost to patients who participated in ELAPRASE clinical trials in Brazil, and seeking recoupment to the Brazilian government for amounts paid on behalf of these patients to date, and moral damages associated with these claims.

On May 6, 2016, the trial court judge ruled on the case and dismissed all the claims under the class action, which was appealed. On February 20, 2017, the Court of Appeals in Sao Paulo issued the final decision on merit in favor of Shire and dismissed all the claims under the class action. On July 12, 2017, the Public Prosecutor filed an appeal addressed to the Supreme Court. During the last quarter of 2017, the State of Sao Paulo filed appeals addressed to the Superior Court of Justice and to the Supreme Court.