Note 18 - Legal Proceedings	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2012
Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]	NOTE R - LEGAL PROCEEDINGS Fortical, our nasal calcitonin product for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis is covered by the U.S. Patent No. 6,440,392, which was reissued on June 30, 2009 as U.S. Patent No. RE 40,812 (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. The District Court upheld the validity of the Fortical Patent and entered a permanent injunction against Apotex. Apotex appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and a hearing was held on March 7, 2011. On August 25, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision affirming the District Court’s ruling confirming the validity of Unigene's Fortical Patent. Apotex filed a petition for certiorari for review of the Appeals Court decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on January 13, 2012, which was assigned Supreme Court Docket Number 11-879. Unigene filed an opposition brief on February 17, 2012, and on February 28, 2012, Apotex filed a reply brief. On March 19, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Apotex’s petition for certiorari, meaning that all of Apotex’s appeals have been exhausted, and the ruling in the civil litigation in favor of Unigene is “final”. On September 8, 2011, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) granted a request for inter partes reexamination of the Fortical Patent filed by Apotex on July 15, 2011. In granting the Request for Reexamination, the USPTO gave Unigene a two month time period to respond to the substantial new questions of patentability raised in the Reexamination Office Action dated September 8, 2011. Unigene filed its response to the Reexamination Office Action on November 8, 2011. Apotex filed Third Party Comments on December 7, 2011 and January 9, 2012. Unigene now waits to hear from the USPTO, which may take over one year. Because the Supreme Court denied Apotex’s petition for certiorari, on April 5, 2012, Unigene moved to Suspend Reexamination of Claim 19 by filing a Petition with the USPTO. On April 19, 2012, Apotex filed a Response to Unigene’s Petition with the USPTO, asking the USPTO to deny Unigene’s Petition. Unigene now waits to hear from the USPTO, which may take over one year. The Reexamination reopens the USPTO prosecution of all claims 13, 14, 16, 17, 19 and 24-29 of the Fortical Patent. Based on USPTO statistics, reexamination proceedings take an average of about 36 months to complete. Potential outcomes for reexamination include the patent emerges with the patent claims remaining unchanged, patent claims being amended, or all patent claims being canceled. There is the usual USPTO prosecution risk that we will not be successful in the reexamination and potentially subsequent USPTO or litigation proceedings. 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 18 - Legal Proceedings

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2012

Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]

NOTE R - LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Fortical, our nasal calcitonin product for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis is covered by the U.S. Patent No. 6,440,392, which was reissued on June 30, 2009 as U.S. Patent No. RE 40,812 (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. The District Court upheld the validity of the Fortical Patent and entered a permanent injunction against Apotex. Apotex appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and a hearing was held on March 7, 2011. On August 25, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision affirming the District Court’s ruling confirming the validity of Unigene's Fortical Patent. Apotex filed a petition for certiorari for review of the Appeals Court decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on January 13, 2012, which was assigned Supreme Court Docket Number 11-879. Unigene filed an opposition brief on February 17, 2012, and on February 28, 2012, Apotex filed a reply brief. On March 19, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Apotex’s petition for certiorari, meaning that all of Apotex’s appeals have been exhausted, and the ruling in the civil litigation in favor of Unigene is “final”.

On September 8, 2011, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) granted a request for inter partes reexamination of the Fortical Patent filed by Apotex on July 15, 2011. In granting the Request for Reexamination, the USPTO gave Unigene a two month time period to respond to the substantial new questions of patentability raised in the Reexamination Office Action dated September 8, 2011. Unigene filed its response to the Reexamination Office Action on November 8, 2011. Apotex filed Third Party Comments on December 7, 2011 and January 9, 2012. Unigene now waits to hear from the USPTO, which may take over one year. Because the Supreme Court denied Apotex’s petition for certiorari, on April 5, 2012, Unigene moved to Suspend Reexamination of Claim 19 by filing a Petition with the USPTO. On April 19, 2012, Apotex filed a Response to Unigene’s Petition with the USPTO, asking the USPTO to deny Unigene’s Petition. Unigene now waits to hear from the USPTO, which may take over one year. The Reexamination reopens the USPTO prosecution of all claims 13, 14, 16, 17, 19 and 24-29 of the Fortical Patent. Based on USPTO statistics, reexamination proceedings take an average of about 36 months to complete. Potential outcomes for reexamination include the patent emerges with the patent claims remaining unchanged, patent claims being amended, or all patent claims being canceled. There is the usual USPTO prosecution risk that we will not be successful in the reexamination and potentially subsequent USPTO or litigation proceedings. 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.