Legal Proceedings	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2013
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	12. *Legal Proceedings* Claims and lawsuits are filed against the Company from time to time. Although the results of pending claims are always uncertain, the Company believes that it has adequate reserves or adequate insurance coverage in respect of these claims, but no assurance can be given as to the sufficiency of such reserves or insurance coverage in the event of any unfavorable outcome resulting from these actions. Between February 1, 2012 and February 6, 2012, two putative securities class action complaints were filed against Columbia and certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. These actions were filed under the captions Wright v. Columbia Laboratories, Inc., et al., and Shu v. Columbia Laboratories, Inc., et al and asserted claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of the common stock during the period from December 6, 2010 through January 20, 2012. Both actions were consolidated into a single proceeding entitled In re Columbia Laboratories, Inc., Securities Litigation, under which Actavis, Inc., and three of its officers have been added as defendants. The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleged that Columbia and two of its officers, one of whom is a director, omitted to state material facts that they were under a duty to disclose, and made materially false and misleading statements that related to the results of Columbia’s PREGNANT study and the likelihood of approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) of a New Drug Application (“NDA”) to market progesterone vaginal gel 8% for the prevention of preterm birth in women with premature cervical shortening. According to the amended complaint, these alleged omissions and misleading statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the common stock. The plaintiffs sought unspecified damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees. On June 11, 2013, the Court dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, holding that the plaintiffs did not adequately plead facts supporting an inference of an intent to deceive investors. The Court permitted the plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint, and they did so on July 11, 2013. Columbia moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. On October 21, 2013, the Court dismissed the second amended complaint. The Court ruled that changes the plaintiffs made to their first amended complaint “still do not create a strong inference that Columbia acted with an intent to deceive, manipulate or defraud.” The Court ordered that if the plaintiffs sought to attempt to plead a cognizable action in a third amended complaint, they must do so within thirty days and specifically address why the attempt would not be futile. The plaintiffs chose not to file any further amendments and, on December 20, 2013, appealed the dismissals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Third Circuit will consider the matter after briefing is completed. Columbia believes that the appealed action is without merit, and intends to defend it vigorously. At this time, it is not possible to determine the likely outcome of, or estimate the liability related to this action, and Columbia has not made any provision for losses in connection with it.

12. Legal Proceedings

Claims and lawsuits are filed against the Company from time to time. Although the results of pending claims are always uncertain, the Company believes that it has adequate reserves or adequate insurance coverage in respect of these claims, but no assurance can be given as to the sufficiency of such reserves or insurance coverage in the event of any unfavorable outcome resulting from these actions.

Between February 1, 2012 and February 6, 2012, two putative securities class action complaints were filed against Columbia and certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. These actions were filed under the captions Wright v. Columbia Laboratories, Inc., et al., and Shu v. Columbia Laboratories, Inc., et al and asserted claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of the common stock during the period from December 6, 2010 through January 20, 2012. Both actions were consolidated into a single proceeding entitled In re Columbia Laboratories, Inc., Securities Litigation, under which Actavis, Inc., and three of its officers have been added as defendants. The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleged that Columbia and two of its officers, one of whom is a director, omitted to state material facts that they were under a duty to disclose, and made materially false and misleading statements that related to the results of Columbia’s PREGNANT study and the likelihood of approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) of a New Drug Application (“NDA”) to market progesterone vaginal gel 8% for the prevention of preterm birth in women with premature cervical shortening. According to the amended complaint, these alleged omissions and misleading statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the common stock. The plaintiffs sought unspecified damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees. On June 11, 2013, the Court dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, holding that the plaintiffs did not adequately plead facts supporting an inference of an intent to deceive investors. The Court permitted the plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint, and they did so on July 11, 2013. Columbia moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. On October 21, 2013, the Court dismissed the second amended complaint. The Court ruled that changes the plaintiffs made to their first amended complaint “still do not create a strong inference that Columbia acted with an intent to deceive, manipulate or defraud.” The Court ordered that if the plaintiffs sought to attempt to plead a cognizable action in a third amended complaint, they must do so within thirty days and specifically address why the attempt would not be futile. The plaintiffs chose not to file any further amendments and, on December 20, 2013, appealed the dismissals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Third Circuit will consider the matter after briefing is completed. Columbia believes that the appealed action is without merit, and intends to defend it vigorously. At this time, it is not possible to determine the likely outcome of, or estimate the liability related to this action, and Columbia has not made any provision for losses in connection with it.