Commitments, Contingencies and Other Matters	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments, Contingencies and Other Matters	Commitments, Contingencies and Other Matters: Legal Proceedings Our legal proceedings are complex and subject to significant uncertainties. As such, we cannot predict the outcome or the effects of the legal proceedings described below. While we believe that we have valid claims and/or defenses in the litigations described below, litigation is inherently unpredictable, and the outcome of these proceedings could include substantial damages, the imposition of substantial fines, penalties, and injunctive or administrative remedies. For proceedings where losses are both probable and reasonably estimable, we have accrued for such potential loss as set forth below. Such accruals have been developed based upon estimates and assumptions that have been deemed reasonable by management, but the assessment process relies heavily on estimates and assumptions that may ultimately prove to be inaccurate or incomplete, and unknown circumstances may exist or unforeseen events occur that could lead us to change those estimates and assumptions. Unless otherwise indicated below, at this time we are not able to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with these legal proceedings. In general, we intend to continue to vigorously prosecute and/or defend these proceedings, as appropriate; however, from time to time, we may settle or otherwise resolve these matters on terms and conditions that we believe are in the best interests of the Company. Resolution of any or all claims, investigations, and legal proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and/or cash flows in any given accounting period or on our overall financial condition. Patent Related Matters On April 28, 2006, CIMA Labs, Inc. and Schwarz Pharma, Inc. filed separate lawsuits against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. CIMA and Schwarz Pharma each have alleged that we infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,024,981 (the “'981 patent”) and 6,221,392 (the “'392 patent”) by submitting a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of alprazolam orally disintegrating tablets. On July 10, 2008, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) rejected all claims pending in both the '392 and '981 patents. On September 28, 2009, the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) affirmed the Examiner's rejection of all claims in the '981 patent, and on March 24, 2011, the PTAB affirmed the rejections pending for both patents and added new grounds for rejection of the '981 patent. On June 24, 2011, the plaintiffs re-opened prosecution on both patents at the USPTO. On May 13, 2013, the PTAB reversed outstanding rejections to the currently pending claims of the '392 patent reexamination application and affirmed a conclusion by the Examiner that testimony offered by the patentee had overcome other rejections. On September 20, 2013, a reexamination certificate was issued for the ’392 patent, and on January 9, 2014, a reexamination certificate was issued for the ’981 patent, each incorporating narrower claims than the respective originally-issued patent. We intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit and pursue our counterclaims. Unimed and Laboratories Besins Iscovesco (“Besins”) filed a lawsuit on August 22, 2003 against Paddock Laboratories, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia alleging patent infringement as a result of Paddock's submitting an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of testosterone 1% gel, a generic version of Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s Androgel^®. On September 13, 2006, we acquired from Paddock all rights to the ANDA, and the litigation was resolved by a settlement and license agreement that permits us to launch the generic version of the product no earlier than August 31, 2015, and no later than February 28, 2016, assuring our ability to market a generic version of Androgel^® well before the expiration of the patents at issue. On January 30, 2009, the Bureau of Competition for the FTC filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, subsequently transferred to the Northern District of Georgia, alleging violations of antitrust laws stemming from our court-approved settlement, and several distributors and retailers followed suit with a number of private plaintiffs' complaints beginning in February 2009. On February 23, 2010, the District Court granted our motion to dismiss the FTC's claims and granted in part and denied in part our motion to dismiss the claims of the private plaintiffs. On September 28, 2012, the District Court granted our motion for summary judgment against the private plaintiffs' claims of sham litigation. On June 10, 2010, the FTC appealed the District Court's dismissal of the FTC's claims to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. On April 25, 2012, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision. On June 17, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and remanded the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia for further proceedings. On October 23, 2013, the District Court issued an order on indicative ruling on a request for relief from judgment, effectively remanding to the District Court the appeal of the grant of our motion for summary judgment against the private plaintiffs’ claims and holding those claims in abeyance while the remaining issues pending before the Court are resolved. On January 15, 2014 we filed a motion to dismiss the FTC’s complaint for failure to state a claim; and on April 21, 2014, that motion was denied. On April 22, 2014, we filed a motion for an interlocutory appeal of that motion, and on May 9, 2014, that motion was in turn denied. We believe we have complied with all applicable laws in connection with the court-approved settlement and intend to continue to vigorously defend these actions. On September 13, 2007, Santarus, Inc. and The Curators of the University of Missouri (“Missouri”) filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,699,885; 6,489,346; and 6,645,988 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of 20 mg and 40 mg omeprazole/sodium bicarbonate capsules. On December 20, 2007, Santarus and Missouri filed a second lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of the patents because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of 20 mg and 40 mg omeprazole/sodium bicarbonate powders for oral suspension. The complaints generally seek (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. On March 4, 2008, the cases pertaining to our ANDAs for omeprazole capsules and omeprazole oral suspension were consolidated for all purposes. On April 14, 2010, the District Court ruled in our favor, finding that plaintiffs’ patents were invalid as being obvious and without adequate written description. Santarus appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and we cross-appealed the District Court’s decision of enforceability of plaintiffs’ patents. On July 1, 2010, we launched our generic Omeprazole/Sodium Bicarbonate product. On September 4, 2012, the Court of Appeals affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part the District Court’s decision. On December 10, 2012, our petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc was denied without comment. A jury trial is now scheduled in the District Court for November 3, 2014. On March 1, 2013, we filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings seeking dismissal of the case, which was denied on May 13, 2014. A contingent liability of $9 million was recorded on our consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013 for this matter. We can give no assurance that the final resolution of this legal proceeding will not materially differ from our estimates and assumptions inherent in our best estimate of potential loss. We have ceased further distribution of our generic omeprazole/sodium bicarbonate 20 mg and 40 mg capsule product pending further developments. We will continue to vigorously defend this action. On September 20, 2010, Schering-Plough HealthCare Products, Santarus, Inc., and the Curators of the University of Missouri filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,699,885; 6,489,346; 6,645,988; and 7,399,772 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of a 20mg/1100 mg omeprazole/sodium bicarbonate capsule, a version of Schering-Plough's Zegerid OTC ^®. The complaint generally seeks (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. The case was stayed pending the decision by the Court of Appeals on the prescription product appeal described in the preceding paragraph, and the parties agreed to be bound by such decision for purposes of the OTC product litigation. The case was re-opened on October 3, 2012, and a bench-trial was scheduled for January 26, 2015. On April 11, 2014, the case was dismissed pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement. On April 29, 2009, Pronova BioPharma ASA filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,502,077 and 5,656,667 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of omega-3-acid ethyl esters oral capsules. On May 29, 2012, the District Court ruled in favor of Pronova in the initial case, and we appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 25, 2012. An oral hearing was held on May 8, 2013, and on September 12, 2013, the Court of Appeals ruled in our favor, reversing the lower District Court decision. On October 15, 2013, Pronova filed petitions for panel and en banc rehearing, which were denied on January 16, 2014. On March 5, 2014, judgment in our favor was formally entered in the District Court. On April 16, 2014, Pronova petitioned for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, to which we responded on June 18, 2014. On October 4, 2010, UCB Manufacturing, Inc. filed a verified complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Middlesex, naming us, our development partner Tris Pharma, and Tris Pharma's head of research and development, Yu- Hsing Tu. The complaint alleges that Tris and Tu misappropriated UCB's trade secrets and, by their actions, breached contracts and agreements to which UCB, Tris, and Tu were bound. The complaint further alleges unfair competition against Tris, Tu, and us relating to the parties' manufacture and marketing of generic Tussionex^® seeking a judgment of misappropriation and breach, a permanent injunction and disgorgement of profits. On June 2, 2011, the court granted Tris's motion for summary judgment dismissing UCB's claims, and UCB appealed. An oral hearing was held on April 8, 2013. On August 27, 2013, the appellate court ruled in Tris’s favor and affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of UCB’s claims. On August 10, 2011, Avanir Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,659,282 and RE38155 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of oral capsules of 20 mg dextromethorphan hydrobromide and 10 mg quinidine sulfate. The complaint generally seeks (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. Our case was consolidated with those of other defendants, Actavis, Impax, and Wockhardt. A Markman ruling was entered December 3, 2012 and a bench trial was held from September 9 to September13 and on October 15, 2013. On April 30, 2014, a decision was entered in favor of Avanir. On June 10, 2014, we filed our notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. We intend to prosecute our appeal of this decision vigorously. On September 1, 2011, we, along with EDT Pharma Holdings Ltd. (now known as Alkermes Pharma Ireland Limited) (Elan), filed a complaint against TWi Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of Taiwan in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and another complaint against TWi on September 2, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In both complaints, Elan and we allege infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,101,576 because TWi filed an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of a generic version of Megace® ES. On February 6, 2012, we voluntarily dismissed our case in the Northern District of Illinois and proceeded with our case in the District of Maryland. Our complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. On July 17, 2013, the District Court granted in part and denied in part TWi's motion for summary judgment of invalidity and noninfringement and granted summary judgment in our favor dismissing two of TWi's invalidity defenses. On September 25, 2013, the District Court entered a stipulation in which TWi conceded infringement of the ’576 patent. A bench trial was held from October 7 to October15, 2013. On February 21, 2014, the District Court issued a decision in favor of TWi, finding all asserted claims of the ’576 patent invalid for obviousness. On March 18, 2014, we filed our notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On July 18, 2014, we filed a motion for preliminary injunction requesting the District Court to enjoin TWi's launch of its generic product, which motion is pending. We intend to vigorously pursue our appeal. On October 28, 2011, Astra Zeneca, Pozen, Inc., and KBI-E Inc., filed a lawsuit against our subsidiary, Anchen Pharmaceuticals, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,926,907; 6,369,085; 7,411,070; and 7,745 ,466 because Anchen submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of delayed-release oral tablets of 375/20 and 500/20 mg naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium. The complaint generally seeks (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. On June 11, 2014, the case was dismissed in light of our conversion of our Paragraph IV certification to a Paragraph III certification in our ANDA. On April 4, 2012, AR Holding Company, Inc. filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,619,004; 7,601,758; 7,820,681; 7,915,269; 7,964,647; 7,964,648; 7,981,938; 8,093,296; 8,093,297; and 8,097,655 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of oral tablets of 0.6 mg colchicine. On November 1, 2012, Takeda Pharmaceuticals was substituted as the plaintiff and real party-in-interest in the case. The complaint generally seeks (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. On August 30, 2013, Takeda filed a new complaint against us in view of our change of the ANDA’s labeled indication. A bench trial is scheduled for August 3, 2015. We intend to defend this action vigorously. On August 22, 2012, we were added as a defendant to the action pending before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California brought by Takeda Pharmaceuticals, originally against Handa Pharmaceuticals. Takeda's complaints allege infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,462,058; 6,664,276; 6,939,971; 7,285,668; 7,737,282; and 7,790,755 because Handa submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of dexlansoprazole delayed release capsules, 30 mg and 60 mg. The complaint generally seeks (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We assumed the rights to this ANDA. A bench trial was held on June 5-13, 2013. On April 26, 2013, we filed a declaratory judgment complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in view of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,105,626 and 8,173,158, and another in the same court on July 9, 2013 with respect to U.S. Patent No. 8,461,187, in each case against Takeda Pharmaceuticals, and asserting that the patents in questions are not infringed, invalid, or unenforceable. A bench trial has been set in this case for April 13, 2015. On October 17, 2013, a decision in favor of Takeda was entered in the original District Court case with respect to the ’282 and ’276 patents. On November 6, 2013, we filed our appeal of the original District Court’s judgment to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On July 18, 2014, orders to stay both the appeal and the second District Court case were entered pending regulatory review of a settlement entered into by the parties on July 16, 2014. On October 25, 2012, Purdue Pharma L.P. and Transcept Pharmaceuticals filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,242,131 and 8,252,809 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of zolpidem tartrate sublingual tablets 1.75 and 3.5 mg. The complaint generally seeks (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. A Markman hearing was held on May 8, 2014, and pre-trial briefs are due October 24, 2014. We intend to defend this action vigorously. On December 19, 2012, Endo Pharmaceuticals and Grunenthal filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,851,482; 8,114,383; 8,192,722; 8.309, 060; 8,309,122; and 8,329,216 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of oxymorphone hydrochloride extended release tablets 40 mg. The complaint generally seeks (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We intend to defend this action vigorously. On January 8, 2013, we were substituted for Actavis as defendant in litigation then pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The action was brought by Novartis against Actavis for filing an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of rivastigmine transdermal extended release film 4.6 and 9.5 mg/24 hr. We assumed the rights to this ANDA. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patents 5,602,176; 6,316,023; and 6,335,031 and generally seeks (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. A trial was held August 26 to August 29, 2013, and a second bench trial directed to our non-infringement positions was held on May 1 and 2, 2014. We intend to defend this action vigorously. On February 7, 2013, Sucampo Pharmaceuticals, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, and R-Tech Ueno filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,414,016; 7,795,312; 8,026,393; 8,071,613; 8,097,653; and 8,338,639 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of lubiprostone oral capsules 8 mcg and 24 mcg. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. On July 3, 2013, an amended complaint was filed, adding U.S. Patent No. 8,389,542 to the case. A bench trial is scheduled for December 1, 2014. We intend to defend this action vigorously. On May 14, 2013, Bayer Pharma AG, Bayer IP GMBH, and Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,362,178 and 7,696,206 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of vardenafil hydrochloride orally disintegrating tablets. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. A bench trial is scheduled for April 6, 2015. We intend to defend this action vigorously. On May 15, 2013, Endo Pharmaceuticals filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,851,482; 8,309,122; and 8,329,216 as a result of our November 2012 acquisition from Watson of an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of non-tamper resistant oxymorphone hydrochloride extended release tablets. The complaint generally seeks (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. While Watson had settled patent litigation relating to this product in October 2010, Endo is asserting patents that issued after that settlement agreement was executed. We intend to defend this action vigorously. On June 19, 2013, Alza Corporation and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,163,798 as a result of our November 2012 acquisition from Watson of an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of methylphenidate hydrochloride extended release tablets. The complaint generally seeks (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. A bench trial is scheduled for March 16, 2015. We intend to defend this action vigorously. On June 21, 2013, we, along with Alkermes Pharma Ireland Ltd., filed a complaint against Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. In the complaint, we allege infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,592,903 and 7,101,576 because Breckenridge filed an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of a generic version of Megace^® ES. Our complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. A stipulation to stay the proceedings was entered on July 22, 2014. We intend to prosecute this infringement case vigorously. On September 23, 2013, Forest Labs and Royalty Pharma filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos., 6,602,911; 7,888,342; and 7,994,220 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 12.5, 25, 50, and 100 mg milnacipran HCl oral tablets. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. A bench trial is scheduled for January 19, 2016. We intend to defend this action vigorously. On August 20, 2013, MonoSol RX and Reckitt Benckiser filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos., 8,017,150 and 8,475,832 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of EQ 2/0.5, 8/2, 4/1, 12/3 mg base buprenorphine HCl/naloxone HCl sublingual films. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. A three-day bench trial is scheduled for August 31, 2015. We intend to defend this action vigorously. On December 27, 2013, Jazz Pharmaceuticals filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,472,431; 6,780,889; 7,262,219; 7,851,506; 8,263,650; 8,324,275; 8,461,203; 7,668,730; 7,765,106; 7,765,107; 7,895,059; 8,457,988; and 8,589,182 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 500mg/ml sodium oxybate oral solution. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We intend to defend this action vigorously. On January 21, 2014, Lyne Laboratories, Fresenius USA Manufacturing and Fresenius Medical Care Holdings filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,591,938 and 8,592,480 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 169mg/5ml calcium acetate oral solution. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We intend to defend this action vigorously. On January 23, 2014, Eli Lilly filed two lawsuits against us in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, and on January 24, 2014, Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, and Ube Industries, Ltd. filed two lawsuits against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaints allege infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,404,703 and 8,569,325 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of EQ 5 mg and EQ 10 mg prasugrel hydrochloride oral tablets. The complaints seek (i) a finding of infringement and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. On June 26, 2014, one case in the New Jersey District Court was dismissed pursuant to our conversion of our Paragraph IV certification to a Paragraph III certification. On July 22, 2014, the cases in the Southern District of Indiana were dismissed. We expect the remaining actions will also be dismissed. On February 14, 2014, Forest Laboratories, Inc., Forest Laboratories Holdings, Ltd., and Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc., filed a lawsuit against us and our Anchen subsidiary in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,039,009; 8,168,209; 8,173,708; 8,283,379; 8,329,752; 8,362,085; and 8,598,233 because we submitted ANDAs with Paragraph IV certifications to the FDA for approval of 7, 14, 21, and 28 mg memantine hydrochloride extended release capsules. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We intend to defend this action vigorously. On April 23, 2014, Hyperion Therapeutics filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,404,215 and 8,642,012 because we submitted an ANDA with Paragraph IV certifications to the FDA for approval of 1.1 g/ml glyceryl phenylbutyrate oral liquid. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We intend to defend this action vigorously. On June 20, 2014, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,753,677 and 8,501,730 relating to our Paragraph IV certification accompanying our ANDA for approval of 15 and 30 mg tolvaptan oral tablets. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We intend to defend this action vigorously. On June 30, 2014, AstraZeneca filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,951,400 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of eq 2.5 mg and eq 5 mg saxagliptin hydrochloride oral tablets. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We intend to defend this action vigorously. On July 17, 2014, Glycyx Pharmaceuticals and Salix filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,197,341 and 8,497,256 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 1.1 g balsalazide disodium oral talbets. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We intend to defend this action vigorously. Industry Related Matters We, along with numerous other pharmaceutical companies, have been named as a defendant in an action brought by the Attorney General of Illinois, as well as a state law qui tam action brought on behalf of the state of Wisconsin by Peggy Lautenschlager and Bauer & Bach, LLC, alleging generally that the defendants defrauded the state Medicaid systems by purportedly reporting or causing the reporting of AWP and/or “Wholesale Acquisition Costs” that exceeded the actual selling price of the defendants’ prescription drugs. These AWP cases generally seek some combination of actual damages, and/or double damages, treble damages, compensatory damages, statutory damages, civil penalties, disgorgement of excessive profits, restitution, disbursements, counsel fees and costs, litigation expenses, investigative costs, injunctive relief, punitive damages, imposition of a constructive trust, accounting of profits or gains derived through the alleged conduct, expert fees, interest and other relief that the court deems proper. On June 2, 2014, we settled the claims brought by the State of Illinois for $28,500 thousand, including attorneys’ fees and costs. On February 17, 2014, the Dane County Circuit Court for the state of Wisconsin dismissed the claim brought by Peggy Lautenschlager and Bauer & Bach, LLC. On June 12, 2014, the Dane County Circuit Court for the State of Wisconsin denied the plaintiffs’ renewed motion to amend the complaint and issued a final order of dismissal in the state law qui tam action brought on behalf of the state of Wisconsin by Peggy Lautenschlager and Bauer & Bach, LLC. The plaintiffs have appealed, and the case in now pending before the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. The Attorneys General of Florida, Indiana and Virginia and the United States Office of Personnel Management (the “USOPM”) have issued subpoenas, and the Attorneys General of Michigan, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah have issued civil investigative demands, to us. The demands generally request documents and information pertaining to allegations that certain of our sales and marketing practices caused pharmacies to substitute ranitidine capsules for ranitidine tablets, fluoxetine tablets for fluoxetine capsules, and two 7.5 mg buspirone tablets for one 15 mg buspirone tablet, under circumstances in which some state Medicaid programs at various times reimbursed the new dosage form at a higher rate than the dosage form being substituted. We have provided documents in response to these subpoenas to the respective Attorneys General and the USOPM. The aforementioned subpoenas and civil investigative demands culminated in the federal and state law qui tam action brought on behalf of the United States and several states by Bernard Lisitza. The complaint was unsealed on August 30, 2011. The United States intervened in this action on July 8, 2011 and filed a separate complaint on September 9, 2011, alleging claims for violations of the Federal False Claims Act and common law fraud. The states of Michigan and Indiana have also intervened as to claims arising under their respective state false claims acts, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment. We intend to vigorously defend these lawsuits. Other On August 6, 2014, we received a subpoena from the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut requesting documents related to our agreement with Covis Pharma S.a.r.l. to distribute an authorized generic version of Covis' Lanoxin^®(digoxin) oral tablets. We intend to cooperate fully with the Attorney General's request. We are, from time to time, a party to certain other litigations, including product liability litigations. We believe that these litigations are part of the ordinary course of our business and that their ultimate resolution will not have a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. We intend to defend or, in cases where we are the plaintiff, to prosecute these litigations vigorously.

Commitments, Contingencies and Other Matters:

Legal Proceedings

Our legal proceedings are complex and subject to significant uncertainties. As such, we cannot predict the outcome or the effects of the legal proceedings described below. While we believe that we have valid claims and/or defenses in the litigations described below, litigation is inherently unpredictable, and the outcome of these proceedings could include substantial damages, the imposition of substantial fines, penalties, and injunctive or administrative remedies. For proceedings where losses are both probable and reasonably estimable, we have accrued for such potential loss as set forth below. Such accruals have been developed based upon estimates and assumptions that have been deemed reasonable by management, but the assessment process relies heavily on estimates and assumptions that may ultimately prove to be inaccurate or incomplete, and unknown circumstances may exist or unforeseen events occur that could lead us to change those estimates and assumptions. Unless otherwise indicated below, at this time we are not able to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with these legal proceedings. In general, we intend to continue to vigorously prosecute and/or defend these proceedings, as appropriate; however, from time to time, we may settle or otherwise resolve these matters on terms and conditions that we believe are in the best interests of the Company. Resolution of any or all claims, investigations, and legal proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and/or cash flows in any given accounting period or on our overall financial condition.

Patent Related Matters

On April 28, 2006, CIMA Labs, Inc. and Schwarz Pharma, Inc. filed separate lawsuits against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. CIMA and Schwarz Pharma each have alleged that we infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,024,981 (the “'981 patent”) and 6,221,392 (the “'392 patent”) by submitting a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of alprazolam orally disintegrating tablets. On July 10, 2008, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) rejected all claims pending in both the '392 and '981 patents. On September 28, 2009, the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) affirmed the Examiner's rejection of all claims in the '981 patent, and on March 24, 2011, the PTAB affirmed the rejections pending for both patents and added new grounds for rejection of the '981 patent. On June 24, 2011, the plaintiffs re-opened prosecution on both patents at the USPTO. On May 13, 2013, the PTAB reversed outstanding rejections to the currently pending claims of the '392 patent reexamination application and affirmed a conclusion by the Examiner that testimony offered by the patentee had overcome other rejections. On September 20, 2013, a reexamination certificate was issued for the ’392 patent, and on January 9, 2014, a reexamination certificate was issued for the ’981 patent, each incorporating narrower claims than the respective originally-issued patent. We intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit and pursue our counterclaims.

Unimed and Laboratories Besins Iscovesco (“Besins”) filed a lawsuit on August 22, 2003 against Paddock Laboratories, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia alleging patent infringement as a result of Paddock's submitting an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of testosterone 1% gel, a generic version of Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s Androgel^®. On September 13, 2006, we acquired from Paddock all rights to the ANDA, and the litigation was resolved by a settlement and license agreement that permits us to launch the generic version of the product no earlier than August 31, 2015, and no later than February 28, 2016, assuring our ability to market a generic version of Androgel^® well before the expiration of the patents at issue. On January 30, 2009, the Bureau of Competition for the FTC filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, subsequently transferred to the Northern District of Georgia, alleging violations of antitrust laws stemming from our court-approved settlement, and several distributors and retailers followed suit with a number of private plaintiffs' complaints beginning in February 2009. On February 23, 2010, the District Court granted our motion to dismiss the FTC's claims and granted in part and denied in part our motion to dismiss the claims of the private plaintiffs. On September 28, 2012, the District Court granted our motion for summary judgment against the private plaintiffs' claims of sham litigation. On June 10, 2010, the FTC appealed the District Court's dismissal of the FTC's claims to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. On April 25, 2012, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision. On June 17, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and remanded the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia for further proceedings. On October 23, 2013, the District Court issued an order on indicative ruling on a request for relief from judgment, effectively remanding to the District Court the appeal of the grant of our motion for summary judgment against the private plaintiffs’ claims and holding those claims in abeyance while the remaining issues pending before the Court are resolved. On January 15, 2014 we filed a motion to dismiss the FTC’s complaint for failure to state a claim; and on April 21, 2014, that motion was denied. On April 22, 2014, we filed a motion for an interlocutory appeal of that motion, and on May 9, 2014, that motion was in turn denied. We believe we have complied with all applicable laws in connection with the court-approved settlement and intend to continue to vigorously defend these actions.

On September 13, 2007, Santarus, Inc. and The Curators of the University of Missouri (“Missouri”) filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,699,885; 6,489,346; and 6,645,988 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of 20 mg and 40 mg omeprazole/sodium bicarbonate capsules. On December 20, 2007, Santarus and Missouri filed a second lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of the patents because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of 20 mg and 40 mg omeprazole/sodium bicarbonate powders for oral suspension. The complaints generally seek (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. On March 4, 2008, the cases pertaining to our ANDAs for omeprazole capsules and omeprazole oral suspension were consolidated for all purposes. On April 14, 2010, the District Court ruled in our favor, finding that plaintiffs’ patents were invalid as being obvious and without adequate written description. Santarus appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and we cross-appealed the District Court’s decision of enforceability of plaintiffs’ patents. On July 1, 2010, we launched our generic Omeprazole/Sodium Bicarbonate product. On September 4, 2012, the Court of Appeals affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part the District Court’s decision. On December 10, 2012, our petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc was denied without comment. A jury trial is now scheduled in the District Court for November 3, 2014. On March 1, 2013, we filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings seeking dismissal of the case, which was denied on May 13, 2014. A contingent liability of $9 million was recorded on our consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013 for this matter. We can give no assurance that the final resolution of this legal proceeding will not materially differ from our estimates and assumptions inherent in our best estimate of potential loss. We have ceased further distribution of our generic omeprazole/sodium bicarbonate 20 mg and 40 mg capsule product pending further developments. We will continue to vigorously defend this action.

On September 20, 2010, Schering-Plough HealthCare Products, Santarus, Inc., and the Curators of the University of Missouri filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,699,885; 6,489,346; 6,645,988; and 7,399,772 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of a 20mg/1100 mg omeprazole/sodium bicarbonate capsule, a version of Schering-Plough's Zegerid OTC ^®. The complaint generally seeks (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. The case was stayed pending the decision by the Court of Appeals on the prescription product appeal described in the preceding paragraph, and the parties agreed to be bound by such decision for purposes of the OTC product litigation. The case was re-opened on October 3, 2012, and a bench-trial was scheduled for January 26, 2015. On April 11, 2014, the case was dismissed pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement.

On April 29, 2009, Pronova BioPharma ASA filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,502,077 and 5,656,667 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of omega-3-acid ethyl esters oral capsules. On May 29, 2012, the District Court ruled in favor of Pronova in the initial case, and we appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 25, 2012. An oral hearing was held on May 8, 2013, and on September 12, 2013, the Court of Appeals ruled in our favor, reversing the lower District Court decision. On October 15, 2013, Pronova filed petitions for panel and en banc rehearing, which were denied on January 16, 2014. On March 5, 2014, judgment in our favor was formally entered in the District Court. On April 16, 2014, Pronova petitioned for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, to which we responded on June 18, 2014.

On October 4, 2010, UCB Manufacturing, Inc. filed a verified complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Middlesex, naming us, our development partner Tris Pharma, and Tris Pharma's head of research and development, Yu- Hsing Tu. The complaint alleges that Tris and Tu misappropriated UCB's trade secrets and, by their actions, breached contracts and agreements to which UCB, Tris, and Tu were bound. The complaint further alleges unfair competition against Tris, Tu, and us relating to the parties' manufacture and marketing of generic Tussionex^® seeking a judgment of misappropriation and breach, a permanent injunction and disgorgement of profits. On June 2, 2011, the court granted Tris's motion for summary judgment dismissing UCB's claims, and UCB appealed. An oral hearing was held on April 8, 2013. On August 27, 2013, the appellate court ruled in Tris’s favor and affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of UCB’s claims.

On August 10, 2011, Avanir Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,659,282 and RE38155 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of oral capsules of 20 mg dextromethorphan hydrobromide and 10 mg quinidine sulfate. The complaint generally seeks (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. Our case was consolidated with those of other defendants, Actavis, Impax, and Wockhardt. A Markman ruling was entered December 3, 2012 and a bench trial was held from September 9 to September13 and on October 15, 2013. On April 30, 2014, a decision was entered in favor of Avanir. On June 10, 2014, we filed our notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. We intend to prosecute our appeal of this decision vigorously.

On September 1, 2011, we, along with EDT Pharma Holdings Ltd. (now known as Alkermes Pharma Ireland Limited) (Elan), filed a complaint against TWi Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of Taiwan in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and another complaint against TWi on September 2, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In both complaints, Elan and we allege infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,101,576 because TWi filed an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of a generic version of Megace® ES. On February 6, 2012, we voluntarily dismissed our case in the Northern District of Illinois and proceeded with our case in the District of Maryland. Our complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. On July 17, 2013, the District Court granted in part and denied in part TWi's motion for summary judgment of invalidity and noninfringement and granted summary judgment in our favor dismissing two of TWi's invalidity defenses. On September 25, 2013, the District Court entered a stipulation in which TWi conceded infringement of the ’576 patent. A bench trial was held from October 7 to October15, 2013. On February 21, 2014, the District Court issued a decision in favor of TWi, finding all asserted claims of the ’576 patent invalid for obviousness. On March 18, 2014, we filed our notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On July 18, 2014, we filed a motion for preliminary injunction requesting the District Court to enjoin TWi's launch of its generic product, which motion is pending. We intend to vigorously pursue our appeal.

On October 28, 2011, Astra Zeneca, Pozen, Inc., and KBI-E Inc., filed a lawsuit against our subsidiary, Anchen Pharmaceuticals, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,926,907; 6,369,085; 7,411,070; and 7,745 ,466 because Anchen submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of delayed-release oral tablets of 375/20 and 500/20 mg naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium. The complaint generally seeks (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. On June 11, 2014, the case was dismissed in light of our conversion of our Paragraph IV certification to a Paragraph III certification in our ANDA.

On April 4, 2012, AR Holding Company, Inc. filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,619,004; 7,601,758; 7,820,681; 7,915,269; 7,964,647; 7,964,648; 7,981,938; 8,093,296; 8,093,297; and 8,097,655 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of oral tablets of 0.6 mg colchicine. On November 1, 2012, Takeda Pharmaceuticals was substituted as the plaintiff and real party-in-interest in the case. The complaint generally seeks (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. On August 30, 2013, Takeda filed a new complaint against us in view of our change of the ANDA’s labeled indication. A bench trial is scheduled for August 3, 2015. We intend to defend this action vigorously.

On August 22, 2012, we were added as a defendant to the action pending before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California brought by Takeda Pharmaceuticals, originally against Handa Pharmaceuticals. Takeda's complaints allege infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,462,058; 6,664,276; 6,939,971; 7,285,668; 7,737,282; and 7,790,755 because Handa submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of dexlansoprazole delayed release capsules, 30 mg and 60 mg. The complaint generally seeks (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We assumed the rights to this ANDA. A bench trial was held on June 5-13, 2013. On April 26, 2013, we filed a declaratory judgment complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in view of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,105,626 and 8,173,158, and another in the same court on July 9, 2013 with respect to U.S. Patent No. 8,461,187, in each case against Takeda Pharmaceuticals, and asserting that the patents in questions are not infringed, invalid, or unenforceable. A bench trial has been set in this case for April 13, 2015. On October 17, 2013, a decision in favor of Takeda was entered in the original District Court case with respect to the ’282 and ’276 patents. On November 6, 2013, we filed our appeal of the original District Court’s judgment to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On July 18, 2014, orders to stay both the appeal and the second District Court case were entered pending regulatory review of a settlement entered into by the parties on July 16, 2014.

On October 25, 2012, Purdue Pharma L.P. and Transcept Pharmaceuticals filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,242,131 and 8,252,809 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of zolpidem tartrate sublingual tablets 1.75 and 3.5 mg. The complaint generally seeks (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. A Markman hearing was held on May 8, 2014, and pre-trial briefs are due October 24, 2014. We intend to defend this action vigorously.

On December 19, 2012, Endo Pharmaceuticals and Grunenthal filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,851,482; 8,114,383; 8,192,722; 8.309, 060; 8,309,122; and 8,329,216 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of oxymorphone hydrochloride extended release tablets 40 mg. The complaint generally seeks (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We intend to defend this action vigorously.

On January 8, 2013, we were substituted for Actavis as defendant in litigation then pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The action was brought by Novartis against Actavis for filing an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of rivastigmine transdermal extended release film 4.6 and 9.5 mg/24 hr. We assumed the rights to this ANDA. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patents 5,602,176; 6,316,023; and 6,335,031 and generally seeks (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. A trial was held August 26 to August 29, 2013, and a second bench trial directed to our non-infringement positions was held on May 1 and 2, 2014. We intend to defend this action vigorously.

On February 7, 2013, Sucampo Pharmaceuticals, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, and R-Tech Ueno filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,414,016; 7,795,312; 8,026,393; 8,071,613; 8,097,653; and 8,338,639 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of lubiprostone oral capsules 8 mcg and 24 mcg. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. On July 3, 2013, an amended complaint was filed, adding U.S. Patent No. 8,389,542 to the case. A bench trial is scheduled for December 1, 2014. We intend to defend this action vigorously.

On May 14, 2013, Bayer Pharma AG, Bayer IP GMBH, and Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,362,178 and 7,696,206 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of vardenafil hydrochloride orally disintegrating tablets. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. A bench trial is scheduled for April 6, 2015. We intend to defend this action vigorously.

On May 15, 2013, Endo Pharmaceuticals filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,851,482; 8,309,122; and 8,329,216 as a result of our November 2012 acquisition from Watson of an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of non-tamper resistant oxymorphone hydrochloride extended release tablets. The complaint generally seeks (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. While Watson had settled patent litigation relating to this product in October 2010, Endo is asserting patents that issued after that settlement agreement was executed. We intend to defend this action vigorously.

On June 19, 2013, Alza Corporation and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,163,798 as a result of our November 2012 acquisition from Watson of an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of methylphenidate hydrochloride extended release tablets. The complaint generally seeks (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. A bench trial is scheduled for March 16, 2015. We intend to defend this action vigorously.

On June 21, 2013, we, along with Alkermes Pharma Ireland Ltd., filed a complaint against Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. In the complaint, we allege infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,592,903 and 7,101,576 because Breckenridge filed an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of a generic version of Megace^® ES. Our complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. A stipulation to stay the proceedings was entered on July 22, 2014. We intend to prosecute this infringement case vigorously.

On September 23, 2013, Forest Labs and Royalty Pharma filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos., 6,602,911; 7,888,342; and 7,994,220 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 12.5, 25, 50, and 100 mg milnacipran HCl oral tablets. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. A bench trial is scheduled for January 19, 2016. We intend to defend this action vigorously.

On August 20, 2013, MonoSol RX and Reckitt Benckiser filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos., 8,017,150 and 8,475,832 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of EQ 2/0.5, 8/2, 4/1, 12/3 mg base buprenorphine HCl/naloxone HCl sublingual films. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. A three-day bench trial is scheduled for August 31, 2015. We intend to defend this action vigorously.

On December 27, 2013, Jazz Pharmaceuticals filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,472,431; 6,780,889; 7,262,219; 7,851,506; 8,263,650; 8,324,275; 8,461,203; 7,668,730; 7,765,106; 7,765,107; 7,895,059; 8,457,988; and 8,589,182 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 500mg/ml sodium oxybate oral solution. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We intend to defend this action vigorously.

On January 21, 2014, Lyne Laboratories, Fresenius USA Manufacturing and Fresenius Medical Care Holdings filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,591,938 and 8,592,480 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 169mg/5ml calcium acetate oral solution. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We intend to defend this action vigorously.

On January 23, 2014, Eli Lilly filed two lawsuits against us in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, and on January 24, 2014, Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, and Ube Industries, Ltd. filed two lawsuits against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaints allege infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,404,703 and 8,569,325 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of EQ 5 mg and EQ 10 mg prasugrel hydrochloride oral tablets. The complaints seek (i) a finding of infringement and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. On June 26, 2014, one case in the New Jersey District Court was dismissed pursuant to our conversion of our Paragraph IV certification to a Paragraph III certification. On July 22, 2014, the cases in the Southern District of Indiana were dismissed. We expect the remaining actions will also be dismissed.

On February 14, 2014, Forest Laboratories, Inc., Forest Laboratories Holdings, Ltd., and Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc., filed a lawsuit against us and our Anchen subsidiary in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,039,009; 8,168,209; 8,173,708; 8,283,379; 8,329,752; 8,362,085; and 8,598,233 because we submitted ANDAs with Paragraph IV certifications to the FDA for approval of 7, 14, 21, and 28 mg memantine hydrochloride extended release capsules. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We intend to defend this action vigorously.

On April 23, 2014, Hyperion Therapeutics filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,404,215 and 8,642,012 because we submitted an ANDA with Paragraph IV certifications to the FDA for approval of 1.1 g/ml glyceryl phenylbutyrate oral liquid. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We intend to defend this action vigorously.

On June 20, 2014, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,753,677 and 8,501,730 relating to our Paragraph IV certification accompanying our ANDA for approval of 15 and 30 mg tolvaptan oral tablets. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We intend to defend this action vigorously.

On June 30, 2014, AstraZeneca filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,951,400 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of eq 2.5 mg and eq 5 mg saxagliptin hydrochloride oral tablets. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We intend to defend this action vigorously.

On July 17, 2014, Glycyx Pharmaceuticals and Salix filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,197,341 and 8,497,256 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 1.1 g balsalazide disodium oral talbets. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We intend to defend this action vigorously.

Industry Related Matters

We, along with numerous other pharmaceutical companies, have been named as a defendant in an action brought by the Attorney General of Illinois, as well as a state law qui tam action brought on behalf of the state of Wisconsin by Peggy Lautenschlager and Bauer & Bach, LLC, alleging generally that the defendants defrauded the state Medicaid systems by purportedly reporting or causing the reporting of AWP and/or “Wholesale Acquisition Costs” that exceeded the actual selling price of the defendants’ prescription drugs. These AWP cases generally seek some combination of actual damages, and/or double damages, treble damages, compensatory damages, statutory damages, civil penalties, disgorgement of excessive profits, restitution, disbursements, counsel fees and costs, litigation expenses, investigative costs, injunctive relief, punitive damages, imposition of a constructive trust, accounting of profits or gains derived through the alleged conduct, expert fees, interest and other relief that the court deems proper. On June 2, 2014, we settled the claims brought by the State of Illinois for $28,500 thousand, including attorneys’ fees and costs. On February 17, 2014, the Dane County Circuit Court for the state of Wisconsin dismissed the claim brought by Peggy Lautenschlager and Bauer & Bach, LLC. On June 12, 2014, the Dane County Circuit Court for the State of Wisconsin denied the plaintiffs’ renewed motion to amend the complaint and issued a final order of dismissal in the state law qui tam action brought on behalf of the state of Wisconsin by Peggy Lautenschlager and Bauer & Bach, LLC. The plaintiffs have appealed, and the case in now pending before the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.

The Attorneys General of Florida, Indiana and Virginia and the United States Office of Personnel Management (the “USOPM”) have issued subpoenas, and the Attorneys General of Michigan, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah have issued civil investigative demands, to us. The demands generally request documents and information pertaining to allegations that certain of our sales and marketing practices caused pharmacies to substitute ranitidine capsules for ranitidine tablets, fluoxetine tablets for fluoxetine capsules, and two 7.5 mg buspirone tablets for one 15 mg buspirone tablet, under circumstances in which some state Medicaid programs at various times reimbursed the new dosage form at a higher rate than the dosage form being substituted. We have provided documents in response to these subpoenas to the respective Attorneys General and the USOPM. The aforementioned subpoenas and civil investigative demands culminated in the federal and state law qui tam action brought on behalf of the United States and several states by Bernard Lisitza. The complaint was unsealed on August 30, 2011. The United States intervened in this action on July 8, 2011 and filed a separate complaint on September 9, 2011, alleging claims for violations of the Federal False Claims Act and common law fraud. The states of Michigan and Indiana have also intervened as to claims arising under their respective state false claims acts, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment. We intend to vigorously defend these lawsuits.

Other

On August 6, 2014, we received a subpoena from the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut requesting documents related to our agreement with Covis Pharma S.a.r.l. to distribute an authorized generic version of Covis' Lanoxin^®(digoxin) oral tablets. We intend to cooperate fully with the Attorney General's request.

We are, from time to time, a party to certain other litigations, including product liability litigations. We believe that these litigations are part of the ordinary course of our business and that their ultimate resolution will not have a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. We intend to defend or, in cases where we are the plaintiff, to prosecute these litigations vigorously.