Note O - Legal Proceedings	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Legal Costs, Policy [Policy Text Block]	NOTE O - LEGAL PROCEEDINGS Fortical, our nasal calcitonin product for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis is covered by U.S. Patent No. 6,440,392 (the “Fortical Patent”). In June 2006, we received a Paragraph IV certification letter from Apotex Inc., a Canadian generic pharmaceutical manufacturer, alleging that this patent is invalid and therefore not infringed by Apotex’s nasal calcitonin product, which is the subject of an Apotex pending ANDA. On July 24, 2006, we and USL jointly filed a lawsuit against Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp., its U.S. subsidiary (together, “Apotex”), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for infringement of our Fortical Patent. Due to our filing of the above-mentioned lawsuit, the Hatch-Waxman Act provided for an automatic stay of FDA approval for Apotex’s ANDA of up to 30 months. In December 2008 this stay ended and we and Apotex entered a preliminary injunction enjoining Apotex from engaging in the commercial manufacture, use, marketing, distribution, selling, transportation or importation of any Fortical generic equivalent product in the United States. The preliminary injunction will remain in effect until the court renders a final decision on the validity and infringement of Unigene’s U.S. Patent. In obtaining the preliminary injunction, Unigene and USL were required to post a bond and, if we do not prevail in the lawsuit, Unigene would be responsible for paying $1,662,500 to Apotex under the injunction agreement. In August 2009, the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, confirmed the validity of Unigene’s patent and issued an order permanently enjoining Apotex from engaging in any activity that infringes the patent. The motion of the plaintiffs, Unigene and its licensee USL, for summary judgment in the case was granted. The Court upheld the validity of the Fortical Patent and entered a permanent injunction against Apotex. Apotex appealed this decision. In October 2009, the District Court vacated its order subject to reinstatement and asked the parties to identify any claims that remain in the case. As a result, Apotex’s appeal was deactivated. In July 2010, the Court ruled that no claims remain at issue and it reinstated its opinion and order of August 2009 in its entirety. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment was entered in favor of Unigene and USL. Apotex appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and a hearing was held on March 7, 2011. There is the usual litigation risk that we will not be successful in the appeal and potentially subsequent litigation if it is remanded. In the event that we do not prevail, then Apotex could be in a position to market its nasal calcitonin product if and when its pending ANDA receives FDA approval. This could have a material adverse impact on our results and financial position.

Note O - Legal Proceedings

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2011

NOTE O - LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Fortical, our nasal calcitonin product for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis is covered by U.S. Patent No. 6,440,392 (the “Fortical Patent”). In June 2006, we received a Paragraph IV certification letter from Apotex Inc., a Canadian generic pharmaceutical manufacturer, alleging that this patent is invalid and therefore not infringed by Apotex’s nasal calcitonin product, which is the subject of an Apotex pending ANDA. On July 24, 2006, we and USL jointly filed a lawsuit against Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp., its U.S. subsidiary (together, “Apotex”), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for infringement of our Fortical Patent. Due to our filing of the above-mentioned lawsuit, the Hatch-Waxman Act provided for an automatic stay of FDA approval for Apotex’s ANDA of up to 30 months. In December 2008 this stay ended and we and Apotex entered a preliminary injunction enjoining Apotex from engaging in the commercial manufacture, use, marketing, distribution, selling, transportation or importation of any Fortical generic equivalent product in the United States. The preliminary injunction will remain in effect until the court renders a final decision on the validity and infringement of Unigene’s U.S. Patent. In obtaining the preliminary injunction, Unigene and USL were required to post a bond and, if we do not prevail in the lawsuit, Unigene would be responsible for paying $1,662,500 to Apotex under the injunction agreement. In August 2009, the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, confirmed the validity of Unigene’s patent and issued an order permanently enjoining Apotex from engaging in any activity that infringes the patent. The motion of the plaintiffs, Unigene and its licensee USL, for summary judgment in the case was granted. The Court upheld the validity of the Fortical Patent and entered a permanent injunction against Apotex. Apotex appealed this decision. In October 2009, the District Court vacated its order subject to reinstatement and asked the parties to identify any claims that remain in the case. As a result, Apotex’s appeal was deactivated. In July 2010, the Court ruled that no claims remain at issue and it reinstated its opinion and order of August 2009 in its entirety. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment was entered in favor of Unigene and USL. Apotex appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and a hearing was held on March 7, 2011. There is the usual litigation risk that we will not be successful in the appeal and potentially subsequent litigation if it is remanded. In the event that we do not prevail, then Apotex could be in a position to market its nasal calcitonin product if and when its pending ANDA receives FDA approval. This could have a material adverse impact on our results and financial position.

- Definition

Disclosure of accounting policy for legal costs incurred to protect or defend the entity's assets and rights, or to obtain assets, including monetary damages, or to obtain rights.

+ References+ Details