Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	12. Commitments and contingencies: The Company is involved from time to time in routine legal matters incidental to our business. Based upon available information, the Company believes that the resolution of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on its condensed consolidated financial position or results of operations. Except as discussed below, the Company is not the subject of any pending legal proceedings and, to the knowledge of management, no proceedings are presently contemplated against the Company by any federal, state or local governmental agency. *Indivior (formerly RB Pharmaceuticals Ltd.) and Aquestive Therapeutics (formerly MonoSol Rx)* *Litigation related to BUNAVAIL^®* On September 22, 2014, Reckitt Benckiser, Inc., RB Pharmaceuticals Limited, and Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. (“Aquestive”) (collectively, the “RB Plaintiffs”) the RB Plaintiffs filed an action against the Company (and the Company’s 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 (the “‘167 Patent”). The Company believes this is an anticompetitive attempt by the RB Plaintiffs to distract the Company’s efforts from commercializing BUNAVAIL^®. On December 12, 2014, the Company filed a motion to transfer the case from New Jersey to North Carolina and a motion to dismiss the case against its commercial partner. The Court issued an opinion on July 21, 2015 granting the Company’s motion to transfer the venue to the United States District for the Eastern District of North Carolina (“EDNC”) but denying the Company’s motion to dismiss the case against the Company’s commercial partner as moot. The Company has also filed a Joint Motion to Stay the case in the EDNC at the end of April 2016, which was granted by the court on May 5, 2016. Thus, the case is now stayed until a final resolution of the ‘167 Patent inter partes review (“IPR”) in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). In a related matter, on October 28, 2014, the Company filed multiple IPR petitions on certain claims of the ‘167 Patent. The USPTO instituted three of the four IPR petitions. The PTAB upheld the claims and denied collateral estoppel applied to the PTAB decisions in March 2016. The Company appealed to Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The USPTO intervened with respect to whether collateral estoppel applied to the PTAB. On June 19, 2018, the Company filed a motion to remand the case for further consideration by the PTAB in view of intervening authority. On July 31, 2018, the Federal Circuit vacated the decisions, and remanded the ‘167 Patent IPRs for further consideration on the merits. *Litigation related to BELBUCA^®* On January 13, 2017, Aquestive filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging BELBUCA^® infringes the ‘167 Patent. In lieu of answering the complaint, the Company filed motions to dismiss the complaint and, in the alternative, to transfer the case to the EDNC. On July 25, 2017, the New Jersey Court administratively terminated the case pending the parties submission of a joint stipulation of transfer because the District of New Jersey was an inappropriate venue. This case was later transferred to the Delaware District Court. On October 31, 2017, the Company filed motions to dismiss the complaint and, in the alternative, to transfer the case to the EDNC. On October 16, 2018, denying the motion to dismiss as moot, the Delaware District Court granted the Company’s motion to transfer the case to the EDNC. The case is now pending in the EDNC. The Company strongly refutes as without merit Aquestive’s assertion of patent infringement and will vigorously defend the lawsuit. *Teva Pharmaceuticals USA (formerly Actavis)* The Company received notices regarding Paragraph IV certifications from Teva on November 8, 2016, November 10, 2016, and December 22, 2016, seeking to find invalid two Orange Book listed patents relating specifically to BELBUCA^®. The Paragraph IV certifications related to three ANDAs filed by Teva with the FDA for a generic formulation of BELBUCA^®. The patents subject to Teva’s certification were U.S. Patent No. 7,579,019 (the “‘019 Patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 8,147,866 (the “‘866 Patent”). Under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, after receipt of a valid Paragraph IV notice, the Company brought a patent infringement suit in federal district court against Teva USA within 45 days from the date of receipt of the certification notice. The Company filed complaints in Delaware against Teva on December 22, 2016 and February 3, 2017, thus the Company was entitled to receive a 30 month stay on the FDA’s ability to give final approval to any proposed products that reference BELBUCA^®^. The 30-month stay was expected to preempt any final approval by the FDA on Teva’s ANDA Nos. 209704 and 209772 until at least May of 2019 and for Teva’s ANDA No. 209807 until at least June of 2019. In February 2018, the Company announced that it had entered into a settlement agreement with Teva that resolved the Company’s BELBUCA^® patent litigation against Teva pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. As part of the settlement agreement, which is subject to review by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice, the Company has granted Teva a non-exclusive license (for which the Company will receive no current or future payments) that permits Teva to first begin selling the generic version of the Company’s BELBUCA^® product in the U.S. on January 23, 2027 or earlier under certain circumstances (including, for example, upon (i) the delisting of the patents-in-suit from the U.S. FDA Orange Book, (ii) the granting of a license by us to a third party to launch another generic form of BELBUCA^® at a date prior to January 23, 2027, or (iii) the occurrence of certain conditions regarding BELBUCA^® market share). *Alvogen* On September 7, 2018, the Company filed a complaint for patent infringement in Delaware against Alvogen Pb Research & Development LLC, Alvogen Malta Operations Ltd., Alvogen Pine Brook LLC, Alvogen, Incorporated, and Alvogen Group, Incorporated (collectively, “Alvogen”), asserting that Alvogen infringes the Company’s Orange Book listed patents for BELBUCA^®, including U.S. Patent Nos. 8,147,866 and 9,655,843, both expiring in July of 2027, and U.S. Patent No. 9,901,539, expiring in December of 2032. This complaint follows receipt by the Company on July 30, 2018 of a Paragraph IV Patent Certification from Alvogen stating that Alvogen had filed an ANDA with the FDA for a generic version of BELBUCA^® Buccal Film (75 mcg, 150 mcg, 300 mcg, 450 mcg, 600 mcg, 750 mcg and 900 mcg). Because the Company initiated a patent infringement suit to defend the patents identified in the Paragraph IV notice within 45 days after receipt of the Paragraph IV Certification, the FDA is prevented from approving the ANDA until the earlier of 30 months or a decision in the case that each of the patents is not infringed or invalid. Alvogen’s notice letter also does not provide any information on the timing or approval status of its ANDA. In its Paragraph IV Certification, Alvogen does not contest infringement of at least several independent claims of each of the ’866, ’843, and ’539 patents. Rather, Alvogen advances only invalidly arguments for these independent claims. The Company believes that it will be able to prevail on its claims of infringement of these patents, particularly as Alvogen does not contest infringement of certain claims of each patent. Additionally, as the Company has done in the past, it intends to vigorously defend its intellectual property against assertions of invalidity. Each of the three patents carry a presumption of validity, which can only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence. *2018 Arkansas Opioid Litigation* On March 15, 2018, the State of Arkansas, and certain counties and cities in that State, filed an action in the Circuit Court of Arkansas, Crittenden County against multiple manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and prescribers of opioid analgesics, including our Company. The Company was served with the complaint on April 27, 2018. The complaint specifically alleged that the Company licensed its branded fentanyl buccal soluble film ONSOLIS^®to Collegium Pharmaceutical Inc. (“Collegium”), and Collegium is also named as a defendant in the lawsuit. ONSOLIS^® is not presently sold in the United States and the license agreement with Collegium was terminated prior to Collegium launching ONSOLIS^® in the United States. Therefore, on June 28, 2018, the Company moved to dismiss the case against them and on July 6, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a notice to voluntarily dismiss the Company from the Arkansas case, without prejudice.

12. Commitments and contingencies:

The Company is involved from time to time in routine legal matters incidental to our business. Based upon available information, the Company believes that the resolution of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on its condensed consolidated financial position or results of operations. Except as discussed below, the Company is not the subject of any pending legal proceedings and, to the knowledge of management, no proceedings are presently contemplated against the Company by any federal, state or local governmental agency.

Indivior (formerly RB Pharmaceuticals Ltd.) and Aquestive Therapeutics (formerly MonoSol Rx)

Litigation related to BUNAVAIL^®

On September 22, 2014, Reckitt Benckiser, Inc., RB Pharmaceuticals Limited, and Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. (“Aquestive”) (collectively, the “RB Plaintiffs”) the RB Plaintiffs filed an action against the Company (and the Company’s 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 (the “‘167 Patent”). The Company believes this is an anticompetitive attempt by the RB Plaintiffs to distract the Company’s efforts from commercializing BUNAVAIL^®. On December 12, 2014, the Company filed a motion to transfer the case from New Jersey to North Carolina and a motion to dismiss the case against its commercial partner. The Court issued an opinion on July 21, 2015 granting the Company’s motion to transfer the venue to the United States District for the Eastern District of North Carolina (“EDNC”) but denying the Company’s motion to dismiss the case against the Company’s commercial partner as moot. The Company has also filed a Joint Motion to Stay the case in the EDNC at the end of April 2016, which was granted by the court on May 5, 2016. Thus, the case is now stayed until a final resolution of the ‘167 Patent inter partes review (“IPR”) in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).

In a related matter, on October 28, 2014, the Company filed multiple IPR petitions on certain claims of the ‘167 Patent. The USPTO instituted three of the four IPR petitions. The PTAB upheld the claims and denied collateral estoppel applied to the PTAB decisions in March 2016. The Company appealed to Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The USPTO intervened with respect to whether collateral estoppel applied to the PTAB. On June 19, 2018, the Company filed a motion to remand the case for further consideration by the PTAB in view of intervening authority. On July 31, 2018, the Federal Circuit vacated the decisions, and remanded the ‘167 Patent IPRs for further consideration on the merits.

Litigation related to BELBUCA^®

On January 13, 2017, Aquestive filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging BELBUCA^® infringes the ‘167 Patent. In lieu of answering the complaint, the Company filed motions to dismiss the complaint and, in the alternative, to transfer the case to the EDNC. On July 25, 2017, the New Jersey Court administratively terminated the case pending the parties submission of a joint stipulation of transfer because the District of New Jersey was an inappropriate venue. This case was later transferred to the Delaware District Court. On October 31, 2017, the Company filed motions to dismiss the complaint and, in the alternative, to transfer the case to the EDNC. On October 16, 2018, denying the motion to dismiss as moot, the Delaware District Court granted the Company’s motion to transfer the case to the EDNC. The case is now pending in the EDNC. The Company strongly refutes as without merit Aquestive’s assertion of patent infringement and will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA (formerly Actavis)

The Company received notices regarding Paragraph IV certifications from Teva on November 8, 2016, November 10, 2016, and December 22, 2016, seeking to find invalid two Orange Book listed patents relating specifically to BELBUCA^®. The Paragraph IV certifications related to three ANDAs filed by Teva with the FDA for a generic formulation of BELBUCA^®. The patents subject to Teva’s certification were U.S. Patent No. 7,579,019 (the “‘019 Patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 8,147,866 (the “‘866 Patent”). Under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, after receipt of a valid Paragraph IV notice, the Company brought a patent infringement suit in federal district court against Teva USA within 45 days from the date of receipt of the certification notice. The Company filed complaints in Delaware against Teva on December 22, 2016 and February 3, 2017, thus the Company was entitled to receive a 30 month stay on the FDA’s ability to give final approval to any proposed products that reference BELBUCA^®^. The 30-month stay was expected to preempt any final approval by the FDA on Teva’s ANDA Nos. 209704 and 209772 until at least May of 2019 and for Teva’s ANDA No. 209807 until at least June of 2019.

In February 2018, the Company announced that it had entered into a settlement agreement with Teva that resolved the Company’s BELBUCA^® patent litigation against Teva pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. As part of the settlement

agreement, which is subject to review by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice, the Company has granted Teva a non-exclusive license (for which the Company will receive no current or future payments) that permits Teva to first begin selling the generic version of the Company’s BELBUCA^® product in the U.S. on January 23, 2027 or earlier under certain circumstances (including, for example, upon (i) the delisting of the patents-in-suit from the U.S. FDA Orange Book, (ii) the granting of a license by us to a third party to launch another generic form of BELBUCA^® at a date prior to January 23, 2027, or (iii) the occurrence of certain conditions regarding BELBUCA^® market share).

Alvogen

On September 7, 2018, the Company filed a complaint for patent infringement in Delaware against Alvogen Pb Research & Development LLC, Alvogen Malta Operations Ltd., Alvogen Pine Brook LLC, Alvogen, Incorporated, and Alvogen Group, Incorporated (collectively, “Alvogen”), asserting that Alvogen infringes the Company’s Orange Book listed patents for BELBUCA^®, including U.S. Patent Nos. 8,147,866 and 9,655,843, both expiring in July of 2027, and U.S. Patent No. 9,901,539, expiring in December of 2032. This complaint follows receipt by the Company on July 30, 2018 of a Paragraph IV Patent Certification from Alvogen stating that Alvogen had filed an ANDA with the FDA for a generic version of BELBUCA^® Buccal Film (75 mcg, 150 mcg, 300 mcg, 450 mcg, 600 mcg, 750 mcg and 900 mcg). Because the Company initiated a patent infringement suit to defend the patents identified in the Paragraph IV notice within 45 days after receipt of the Paragraph IV Certification, the FDA is prevented from approving the ANDA until the earlier of 30 months or a decision in the case that each of the patents is not infringed or invalid. Alvogen’s notice letter also does not provide any information on the timing or approval status of its ANDA.

In its Paragraph IV Certification, Alvogen does not contest infringement of at least several independent claims of each of the ’866, ’843, and ’539 patents. Rather, Alvogen advances only invalidly arguments for these independent claims. The Company believes that it will be able to prevail on its claims of infringement of these patents, particularly as Alvogen does not contest infringement of certain claims of each patent. Additionally, as the Company has done in the past, it intends to vigorously defend its intellectual property against assertions of invalidity. Each of the three patents carry a presumption of validity, which can only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence.

2018 Arkansas Opioid Litigation

On March 15, 2018, the State of Arkansas, and certain counties and cities in that State, filed an action in the Circuit Court of Arkansas, Crittenden County against multiple manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and prescribers of opioid analgesics, including our Company. The Company was served with the complaint on April 27, 2018. The complaint specifically alleged that the Company licensed its branded fentanyl buccal soluble film ONSOLIS^®to Collegium Pharmaceutical Inc. (“Collegium”), and Collegium is also named as a defendant in the lawsuit. ONSOLIS^® is not presently sold in the United States and the license agreement with Collegium was terminated prior to Collegium launching ONSOLIS^® in the United States. Therefore, on June 28, 2018, the Company moved to dismiss the case against them and on July 6, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a notice to voluntarily dismiss the Company from the Arkansas case, without prejudice.