Legal Proceedings	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2020
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	NOTE 16 - LEGAL PROCEEDINGS PENNSAID 2% On November 13, 2014, the Company received a Paragraph IV Patent Certification from Watson Laboratories, Inc., now known as Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. (“Actavis UT”), advising that Actavis UT had filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) with the FDA for a generic version of PENNSAID 2%. On December 23, 2014, June 30, 2015, August 11, 2015 and September 17, 2015, the Company filed four separate suits against Actavis UT and Actavis plc (collectively “Actavis”), in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, with each of the suits seeking an injunction to prevent approval of the ANDA. The lawsuits alleged that Actavis has infringed nine of the Company’s patents covering PENNSAID 2% by filing an ANDA seeking approval from the FDA to market a generic version of PENNSAID 2% prior to the expiration of certain of the Company’s patents listed in the FDA’s Orange Book (the “Orange Book”). These four suits were consolidated into a single suit. On October 27, 2015 and on February 5, 2016, the Company filed two additional suits against Actavis, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, for patent infringement of three additional Company patents covering PENNSAID 2%. On August 17, 2016, the District Court issued a Markman opinion holding certain of the asserted claims of seven of the Company’s patents covering PENNSAID 2% invalid as indefinite. On March 16, 2017, the Court granted Actavis’ motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of the asserted claims of three of the Company’s patents covering PENNSAID 2%. In view of the Markman and summary judgment decisions, a bench trial was held from March 21, 2017 through March 30, 2017, regarding a claim of one of the Company’s patents covering PENNSAID 2%. On May 14, 2017, the Court issued its opinion upholding the validity of claim of the patent, which Actavis had previously admitted its proposed generic diclofenac sodium topical solution product would infringe. Actavis filed its Notice of Appeal on June 16, 2017. The Company also filed its Notice of Appeal of the District Court’s rulings on certain claims of the Company’s patents covering PENNSAID 2%. On October 10, 2019, the Federal Circuit Court affirmed the District Court’s judgment of validity of U.S Patent No. 9,066,913 (the “‘913 patent”), and its finding that the Actavis generic product would infringe the ‘913 patent. The Federal Circuit also affirmed the District Court’s summary judgment finding that certain patents are invalid for indefiniteness and would not be infringed. The Company filed a Petition for Rehearing, asking the Federal Circuit to reconsider the latter order invalidating certain patents. On August 18, 2016, the Company filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Actavis for patent infringement of four of the Company’s newly issued patents covering PENNSAID 2%. All four of such patents are listed in the Orange Book. This litigation is currently stayed by agreement of the parties. The Company received from Actavis a Paragraph IV Patent Certification notice, dated September 27, 2016, against an additional newly issued patent covering PENNSAID 2%, advising that Actavis had filed an ANDA with the FDA for a generic version of PENNSAID 2%. The subject patent is listed in the Orange Book. DUEXIS On May 29, 2018, the Company received notice from Alkem Laboratories, Inc. (“Alkem”) that it had filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking approval of a generic version of DUEXIS. The ANDA contained a Paragraph IV Patent Certification alleging that the patents covering DUEXIS are invalid and/or will not be infringed by Alkem’s manufacture, use or sale of the medicine for which the ANDA was submitted. The Company filed suit in the United States District Court of Delaware against Alkem on July 9, 2018, seeking an injunction to prevent the approval of Alkem’s ANDA and/or to prevent Alkem from selling a generic version of DUEXIS. The litigation is scheduled for a bench trial beginning on September 14, 2020. VIMOVO Currently, patent litigation is pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit against Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Inc. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. (collectively, “Dr. Reddy’s”) which seeks to market VIMOVO prior to the expiration of certain of the Company’s patents listed in the Orange Book. Settlements have been reached with four other generic companies: (i) Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited (formerly known as Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc., which itself was formerly known as Watson Laboratories, Inc. – Florida) and Actavis Pharma, Inc. (collectively, “Actavis Pharma”), (ii) Lupin Limited and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., (iii) Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Mylan Laboratories Limited, and Mylan Inc. (collectively, “Mylan”), and (iv) Ajanta Pharma Ltd. and Ajanta Pharma USA Inc. (collectively, “Ajanta”). Under the settlement agreements, the license entry date was August 1, 2024; however, the entry date under all four licenses was accelerated and the licenses became effective upon Dr. Reddy’s launch of its generic version of VIMOVO on February 27, 2020, as described below. The VIMOVO cases were filed on April 21, 2011, July 25, 2011, October 28, 2011, January 4, 2013, May 10, 2013, June 28, 2013, October 23, 2013, May 13, 2015 and November 24, 2015 and collectively include allegations of infringement of certain of the Company’s patents covering VIMOVO. The District Court consolidated all of the cases pending against the generic companies into two separate cases for purposes of discovery. The District Court entered final judgment for one of the consolidated cases on July 21, 2017, upholding the validity of U.S. Patent No. 6,926,907 (the “‘907 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 8,557,285 (the “‘285 patent”), and finding the generic products would infringe one or both of the two patents. Both sides appealed the District Court’s judgment to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On May 15, 2019, the Federal Circuit reversed the District Court’s judgment in favor of the Company, and entered judgment that the ‘285 and ‘907 patents are invalid for lack of a sufficient written description. On July 30, 2019, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Company’s request for a rehearing of the Court’s invalidity ruling against the ‘285 and ‘907 patents for VIMOVO coordinated-release tablets. As a result, the District Court entered judgment invalidating the ‘285 and ‘907 patents in September 2019. On February 18, 2020, the FDA granted final approval for Dr. Reddy’s generic version of VIMOVO. On February 27, 2020, Dr. Reddy’s launched its generic version of VIMOVO in the United States, and the Company now faces generic competition with respect to VIMOVO. The Company continues to assert claims of infringement against Dr. Reddy’s based on U.S. Patent No. 8,858,996 (the “‘996 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 9,161,920 (the “‘920 patent”) in the District Court. On November 19, 2018, the District Court granted Dr. Reddy’s and Mylan’s summary judgment ruling that U.S Patent Numbers 9,220,698 and 9,393,208 are invalid, and on January 21, 2019, it entered final judgment against the ‘698, ‘208, and U.S. Patent Number 8,945,621. On February 21, 2019, the Company appealed the adverse judgments on the ‘208 and ‘698 patents to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. On December 4, 2017, Mylan filed a Petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) against the ‘208 patent. The Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) instituted an IPR proceeding on Mylan’s Petition on June 14, 2018. On July 2, 2018, Dr. Reddy’s filed a motion seeking to join Mylan’s ‘208 IPR. On April 1, 2019, the PTAB granted Dr. Reddy’s request to join the Mylan ‘208 IPR. On September 6, 2019, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision invalidating the ‘208 patent on the basis of obviousness. On November 18, 2019, the Company filed an appeal with the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals to review the PTAB’s ruling invalidating the ‘208 patent. On August 20, 2019, the Company received notice from Ajanta that it had filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking approval of a generic version of VIMOVO. The ANDA contained a Paragraph IV Patent Certification alleging that the patents covering VIMOVO are invalid and/or will not be infringed by Ajanta’s manufacture, use or sale of the medicine for which the ANDA was submitted. The Company filed suit in the United States District Court of New Jersey against Ajanta on September 30, 2019, seeking an injunction to prevent the approval of Ajanta’s ANDA and/or to prevent Ajanta from selling a generic version of VIMOVO. Ajanta and the Company settled and dismissed the litigation on March 9, 2020.

Legal Proceedings

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2020

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

NOTE 16 - LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

PENNSAID 2%

On November 13, 2014, the Company received a Paragraph IV Patent Certification from Watson Laboratories, Inc., now known as Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. (“Actavis UT”), advising that Actavis UT had filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) with the FDA for a generic version of PENNSAID 2%. On December 23, 2014, June 30, 2015, August 11, 2015 and September 17, 2015, the Company filed four separate suits against Actavis UT and Actavis plc (collectively “Actavis”), in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, with each of the suits seeking an injunction to prevent approval of the ANDA. The lawsuits alleged that Actavis has infringed nine of the Company’s patents covering PENNSAID 2% by filing an ANDA seeking approval from the FDA to market a generic version of PENNSAID 2% prior to the expiration of certain of the Company’s patents listed in the FDA’s Orange Book (the “Orange Book”). These four suits were consolidated into a single suit. On October 27, 2015 and on February 5, 2016, the Company filed two additional suits against Actavis, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, for patent infringement of three additional Company patents covering PENNSAID 2%.

On August 17, 2016, the District Court issued a Markman opinion holding certain of the asserted claims of seven of the Company’s patents covering PENNSAID 2% invalid as indefinite. On March 16, 2017, the Court granted Actavis’ motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of the asserted claims of three of the Company’s patents covering PENNSAID 2%. In view of the Markman and summary judgment decisions, a bench trial was held from March 21, 2017 through March 30, 2017, regarding a claim of one of the Company’s patents covering PENNSAID 2%. On May 14, 2017, the Court issued its opinion upholding the validity of claim of the patent, which Actavis had previously admitted its proposed generic diclofenac sodium topical solution product would infringe. Actavis filed its Notice of Appeal on June 16, 2017. The Company also filed its Notice of Appeal of the District Court’s rulings on certain claims of the Company’s patents covering PENNSAID 2%. On October 10, 2019, the Federal Circuit Court affirmed the District Court’s judgment of validity of U.S Patent No. 9,066,913 (the “‘913 patent”), and its finding that the Actavis generic product would infringe the ‘913 patent. The Federal Circuit also affirmed the District Court’s summary judgment finding that certain patents are invalid for indefiniteness and would not be infringed. The Company filed a Petition for Rehearing, asking the Federal Circuit to reconsider the latter order invalidating certain patents.

On August 18, 2016, the Company filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Actavis for patent infringement of four of the Company’s newly issued patents covering PENNSAID 2%. All four of such patents are listed in the Orange Book. This litigation is currently stayed by agreement of the parties. The Company received from Actavis a Paragraph IV Patent Certification notice, dated September 27, 2016, against an additional newly issued patent covering PENNSAID 2%, advising that Actavis had filed an ANDA with the FDA for a generic version of PENNSAID 2%. The subject patent is listed in the Orange Book.

DUEXIS

On May 29, 2018, the Company received notice from Alkem Laboratories, Inc. (“Alkem”) that it had filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking approval of a generic version of DUEXIS. The ANDA contained a Paragraph IV Patent Certification alleging that the patents covering DUEXIS are invalid and/or will not be infringed by Alkem’s manufacture, use or sale of the medicine for which the ANDA was submitted. The Company filed suit in the United States District Court of Delaware against Alkem on July 9, 2018, seeking an injunction to prevent the approval of Alkem’s ANDA and/or to prevent Alkem from selling a generic version of DUEXIS. The litigation is scheduled for a bench trial beginning on September 14, 2020.

VIMOVO

Currently, patent litigation is pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit against Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Inc. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. (collectively, “Dr. Reddy’s”) which seeks to market VIMOVO prior to the expiration of certain of the Company’s patents listed in the Orange Book. Settlements have been reached with four other generic companies: (i) Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited (formerly known as Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc., which itself was formerly known as Watson Laboratories, Inc. – Florida) and Actavis Pharma, Inc. (collectively, “Actavis Pharma”), (ii) Lupin Limited and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., (iii) Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Mylan Laboratories Limited, and Mylan Inc. (collectively, “Mylan”), and (iv) Ajanta Pharma Ltd. and Ajanta Pharma USA Inc. (collectively, “Ajanta”). Under the settlement agreements, the license entry date was August 1, 2024; however, the entry date under all four licenses was accelerated and the licenses became effective upon Dr. Reddy’s launch of its generic version of VIMOVO on February 27, 2020, as described below.

The VIMOVO cases were filed on April 21, 2011, July 25, 2011, October 28, 2011, January 4, 2013, May 10, 2013, June 28, 2013, October 23, 2013, May 13, 2015 and November 24, 2015 and collectively include allegations of infringement of certain of the Company’s patents covering VIMOVO.

The District Court consolidated all of the cases pending against the generic companies into two separate cases for purposes of discovery. The District Court entered final judgment for one of the consolidated cases on July 21, 2017, upholding the validity of U.S. Patent No. 6,926,907 (the “‘907 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 8,557,285 (the “‘285 patent”), and finding the generic products would infringe one or both of the two patents. Both sides appealed the District Court’s judgment to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On May 15, 2019, the Federal Circuit reversed the District Court’s judgment in favor of the Company, and entered judgment that the ‘285 and ‘907 patents are invalid for lack of a sufficient written description. On July 30, 2019, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Company’s request for a rehearing of the Court’s invalidity ruling against the ‘285 and ‘907 patents for VIMOVO coordinated-release tablets. As a result, the District Court entered judgment invalidating the ‘285 and ‘907 patents in September 2019. On February 18, 2020, the FDA granted final approval for Dr. Reddy’s generic version of VIMOVO. On February 27, 2020, Dr. Reddy’s launched its generic version of VIMOVO in the United States, and the Company now faces generic competition with respect to VIMOVO. The Company continues to assert claims of infringement against Dr. Reddy’s based on U.S. Patent No. 8,858,996 (the “‘996 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 9,161,920 (the “‘920 patent”) in the District Court.

On November 19, 2018, the District Court granted Dr. Reddy’s and Mylan’s summary judgment ruling that U.S Patent Numbers 9,220,698 and 9,393,208 are invalid, and on January 21, 2019, it entered final judgment against the ‘698, ‘208, and U.S. Patent Number 8,945,621. On February 21, 2019, the Company appealed the adverse judgments on the ‘208 and ‘698 patents to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.

On December 4, 2017, Mylan filed a Petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) against the ‘208 patent. The Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) instituted an IPR proceeding on Mylan’s Petition on June 14, 2018. On July 2, 2018, Dr. Reddy’s filed a motion seeking to join Mylan’s ‘208 IPR. On April 1, 2019, the PTAB granted Dr. Reddy’s request to join the Mylan ‘208 IPR. On September 6, 2019, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision invalidating the ‘208 patent on the basis of obviousness. On November 18, 2019, the Company filed an appeal with the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals to review the PTAB’s ruling invalidating the ‘208 patent.

On August 20, 2019, the Company received notice from Ajanta that it had filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking approval of a generic version of VIMOVO. The ANDA contained a Paragraph IV Patent Certification alleging that the patents covering VIMOVO are invalid and/or will not be infringed by Ajanta’s manufacture, use or sale of the medicine for which the ANDA was submitted. The Company filed suit in the United States District Court of New Jersey against Ajanta on September 30, 2019, seeking an injunction to prevent the approval of Ajanta’s ANDA and/or to prevent Ajanta from selling a generic version of VIMOVO. Ajanta and the Company settled and dismissed the litigation on March 9, 2020.