Commitments and contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and contingencies	10. Commitments and contingencies: Litigation Related To ONSOLIS^® In March 2012, the Company announced that the New Jersey Federal Court granted a stay of further litigation in the patent infringement lawsuit previously filed by MonoSol Rx, LLC (“MonoSol”) against the Company and its ONSOLIS^® commercial partners. The court ordered that the case would be stayed pending resolution by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) of reexamination proceedings and follows the recent rejection by the USPTO of all claims in all three patents asserted by MonoSol against the Company and its commercial partners for ONSOLIS^®. On March 26, 2014, the Company participated in an oral hearing for the appeal, in which both parties presented arguments before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (“PTAB”). On April 17, 2014 the PTAB issued a Decision on Appeal affirming the Examiner’s rejection (and confirming the invalidity) of all the claims of the ’588 Patent. MonoSol did not request a rehearing by the May 17, 2014 due date for making such a request and did not appeal the Decision to the Federal Court of Appeals by the June 17, 2014 due date for making such an appeal. Therefore, the Company expects the USPTO to issue a Certificate of Reexamination cancelling the ‘588 Patent claims, which should happen before the end of 2014. Importantly, in the case of MonoSol’s ’588 Patent, at the conclusion of the reexamination proceedings (and its appeals process), on April 17, 2014, the PTAB issued a Decision on Appeal affirming the Examiner’s rejection (and confirming the invalidity) of all the claims of the ’588 Patent. MonoSol did not request a rehearing by the May 17, 2014 due date for making such a request and did not further appeal the Decision to the Federal Court of Appeals by the June 17, 2014 due date for making such an appeal. Subsequently, on August 5, 2014, the USPTO issued a Certificate of Reexamination cancelling the ‘588 Patent claims. Based on the Company’s original assertion that its proprietary manufacturing process for ONSOLIS^® does not infringe on patents held by MonoSol, and the denial and subsequent narrowing of the claims on the two reissued patents MonoSol has asserted against the Company while the third has had all claims rejected by the USPTO, the Company remains very confident in its original stated position regarding this matter. Thus far, the Company has proven that the “original” ’292 and ’891 patents in light of their reissuance with fewer and narrower claims were indeed invalid and the third and final patent, the ’588 patent, was invalid as well with all its claims cancelled. Given the outcomes of the ‘292, ‘891 and ‘588 reexamination proceedings, the possibility exists that the stay on the case could be lifted. If this occurs, the Company will continue to defend this case vigorously and seek a dismissal, but ultimately, the Company anticipates that MonoSol’s claims against the Company will be rejected. Litigation Related To BUNAVAIL^TM On October 29, 2013, Reckitt Benckiser, Inc. RB Pharmaceuticals Limited, and MonoSol RX, LLC (collectively, the “RB Plaintiffs”) filed an action against the Company relating to the Company’s BUNAVAIL™ product in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina for alleged patent infringement. BUNAVAIL™ is a proposed treatment for opioid dependence. The RB Plaintiffs claim that the formulation for BUNAVAIL™, which has never been disclosed publicly, infringes its patent (United States Patent No. 8,475,832). The Company strongly refutes as without merit the RB Plaintiffs’ assertion of patent infringement and will vigorously defend the lawsuit. On January 31, 2014, the Company filed in Court a motion for stay pending the outcome of the inter partes review proceedings. The Court scheduled a hearing on the motion to dismiss and motion to stay had been scheduled for April 25, 2014. At the Court hearing, both the RB Plaintiffs and the Company had the opportunity to present arguments to the Court on the pending motions. On May 21, 2014 the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss. In doing so, the Court dismissed the case in its entirety. The RB Plaintiffs did not appeal the Court Decision by the June 21, 2014 due date and therefore, the dismissal will stand and the RB Plaintiffs lose the ability to challenge the Court Decision in the future. The possibility exists, however, that the RB Plaintiffs could file another suit alleging infringement of the ‘832 Patent. If this occurs, based on the Company’s original position that its BUNAVAIL™ product does not infringe the ‘832 Patent, the Company would defend the case vigorously (as the Company has done so previously), and the Company anticipates that such claims against the Company ultimately would be rejected. On September 20, 2014, based upon the Company’s position and belief that its BUNAVAIL™ product does not infringe any patents owned by the RB Plaintiffs, the Company proactively filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, requesting the Court to make a determination that the Company’s BUNAVAIL™ product does not infringe the RB Plaintiffs’ ‘832 Patent, US Patent No. 7,897,080 (‘080 Patent) and US Patent No. 8,652,378 (‘378 Patent). With the DJ Action, there is an automatic stay in proceedings. The RB Plaintiffs may request that the stay be lifted, but they have the burden of showing that the stay should be lifted. For the ‘832 Patent, the January 15, 2014 IPR was instituted and all challenged claims were rejected for both anticipation and obviousness. For the ‘080 Patent, all claims remain rejected in an inter partes reexamination and the reexamination is currently in the appeals process, with the oral hearing scheduled for November 5, 2014. For the ‘378 Patent, an IPR was filed on June 1, 2014. As in prior litigation proceedings, the Company believes these IPR and the reexamination filings will provide support for maintaining the stay until the IPR and reexamination proceedings conclude. On September 22, 2014, the RB Plaintiffs filed an action against the Company (and its commercial partner) relating to the Company’s BUNAVAIL™ product in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey for alleged patent infringement. The RB Plaintiffs claim that BUNAVAIL™, whose formulation and manufacturing processes have never been disclosed publicly, infringes its patent (U.S. Patent No. 8,765,167) (‘167 Patent). As with prior actions by the RB Plaintiffs, the Company believes this is another anticompetitive attempt by the RB Plaintiffs to distract the Company’s efforts from commercializing BUNAVAIL™. The Company strongly refutes as without merit the RB Plaintiffs’ assertion of patent infringement and will vigorously defend the lawsuit. In this regard, on October 28, 2014, the Company recently filed multiple IPR requests on the ’167 Patent demonstrating that certain claims of such patent were anticipated by or obvious in the light of prior art references, including prior art references not previously considered by the USPTO, and thus, invalid.

10. Commitments and contingencies:

Litigation Related To ONSOLIS^®

In March 2012, the Company announced that the New Jersey Federal Court granted a stay of further litigation in the patent infringement lawsuit previously filed by MonoSol Rx, LLC (“MonoSol”) against the Company and its ONSOLIS^® commercial partners. The court ordered that the case would be stayed pending resolution by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) of reexamination proceedings and follows the recent rejection by the USPTO of all claims in all three patents asserted by MonoSol against the Company and its commercial partners for ONSOLIS^®.

On March 26, 2014, the Company participated in an oral hearing for the appeal, in which both parties presented arguments before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (“PTAB”). On April 17, 2014 the PTAB issued a Decision on Appeal affirming the Examiner’s rejection (and confirming the invalidity) of all the claims of the ’588 Patent. MonoSol did not request a rehearing by the May 17, 2014 due date for making such a request and did not appeal the Decision to the Federal Court of Appeals by the June 17, 2014 due date for making such an appeal. Therefore, the Company expects the USPTO to issue a Certificate of Reexamination cancelling the ‘588 Patent claims, which should happen before the end of 2014.

Importantly, in the case of MonoSol’s ’588 Patent, at the conclusion of the reexamination proceedings (and its appeals process), on April 17, 2014, the PTAB issued a Decision on Appeal affirming the Examiner’s rejection (and confirming the invalidity) of all the claims of the ’588 Patent. MonoSol did not request a rehearing by the May 17, 2014 due date for making such a request and did not further appeal the Decision to the Federal Court of Appeals by the June 17, 2014 due date for making such an appeal. Subsequently, on August 5, 2014, the USPTO issued a Certificate of Reexamination cancelling the ‘588 Patent claims.

Based on the Company’s original assertion that its proprietary manufacturing process for ONSOLIS^® does not infringe on patents held by MonoSol, and the denial and subsequent narrowing of the claims on the two reissued patents MonoSol has asserted against the Company while the third has had all claims rejected by the USPTO, the Company remains very confident in its original stated position regarding this matter. Thus far, the Company has proven that the “original” ’292 and ’891 patents in light of their reissuance with fewer and narrower claims were indeed invalid and the third and final patent, the ’588 patent, was invalid as well with all its claims cancelled. Given the outcomes of the ‘292, ‘891 and ‘588 reexamination proceedings, the possibility exists that the stay on the case could be lifted. If this occurs, the Company will continue to defend this case vigorously and seek a dismissal, but ultimately, the Company anticipates that MonoSol’s claims against the Company will be rejected.

Litigation Related To BUNAVAIL^TM

On October 29, 2013, Reckitt Benckiser, Inc. RB Pharmaceuticals Limited, and MonoSol RX, LLC (collectively, the “RB Plaintiffs”) filed an action against the Company relating to the Company’s BUNAVAIL™ product in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina for alleged patent infringement. BUNAVAIL™ is a proposed treatment for opioid dependence. The RB Plaintiffs claim that the formulation for BUNAVAIL™, which has never been disclosed publicly, infringes its patent (United States Patent No. 8,475,832). The Company strongly refutes as without merit the RB Plaintiffs’ assertion of patent infringement and will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

On January 31, 2014, the Company filed in Court a motion for stay pending the outcome of the inter partes review proceedings. The Court scheduled a hearing on the motion to dismiss and motion to stay had been scheduled for April 25, 2014. At the Court hearing, both the RB Plaintiffs and the Company had the opportunity to present arguments to the Court on the pending motions.

On May 21, 2014 the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss. In doing so, the Court dismissed the case in its entirety. The RB Plaintiffs did not appeal the Court Decision by the June 21, 2014 due date and therefore, the dismissal will stand and the RB Plaintiffs lose the ability to challenge the Court Decision in the future. The possibility exists, however, that the RB Plaintiffs could file another suit alleging infringement of the ‘832 Patent. If this occurs, based on the Company’s original position that its BUNAVAIL™ product does not infringe the ‘832 Patent, the Company would defend the case vigorously (as the Company has done so previously), and the Company anticipates that such claims against the Company ultimately would be rejected.

On September 20, 2014, based upon the Company’s position and belief that its BUNAVAIL™ product does not infringe any patents owned by the RB Plaintiffs, the Company proactively filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, requesting the Court to make a determination that the Company’s BUNAVAIL™ product does not infringe the RB Plaintiffs’ ‘832 Patent, US Patent No. 7,897,080 (‘080 Patent) and US Patent No. 8,652,378 (‘378 Patent). With the DJ Action, there is an automatic stay in proceedings. The RB Plaintiffs may request that the stay be lifted, but they have the burden of showing that the stay should be lifted. For the ‘832 Patent, the January 15, 2014 IPR was instituted and all challenged claims were rejected for both anticipation and obviousness. For the ‘080 Patent, all claims remain rejected in an inter partes reexamination and the reexamination is currently in the appeals process, with the oral hearing scheduled for November 5, 2014. For the ‘378 Patent, an IPR was filed on June 1, 2014. As in prior litigation proceedings, the Company believes these IPR and the reexamination filings will provide support for maintaining the stay until the IPR and reexamination proceedings conclude.

On September 22, 2014, the RB Plaintiffs filed an action against the Company (and its commercial partner) relating to the Company’s BUNAVAIL™ product in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey for alleged patent infringement. The RB Plaintiffs claim that BUNAVAIL™, whose formulation and manufacturing processes have never been disclosed publicly, infringes its patent (U.S. Patent No. 8,765,167) (‘167 Patent). As with prior actions by the RB Plaintiffs, the Company believes this is another anticompetitive attempt by the RB Plaintiffs to distract the Company’s efforts from commercializing BUNAVAIL™. The Company strongly refutes as without merit the RB Plaintiffs’ assertion of patent infringement and will vigorously defend the lawsuit. In this regard, on October 28, 2014, the Company recently filed multiple IPR requests on the ’167 Patent demonstrating that certain claims of such patent were anticipated by or obvious in the light of prior art references, including prior art references not previously considered by the USPTO, and thus, invalid.