Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2014
Contingencies [Abstract]
Contingencies	Note 19 — Contingencies Legal Matters The Company is a party to various legal proceedings and subject to government investigations, as noted in this section below. All legal proceedings and any government investigations are subject to inherent uncertainties, unfavorable rulings or other adverse events which could occur. Unfavorable outcomes could include substantial monetary damages or awards, injunctions or other remedies, and if any of these were to occur, the possibility exists for a material adverse impact on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial position, and overall trends. The Company might also conclude that settling one or more such matters is in the best interests of its stockholders and its business, and any such settlement could include substantial payments. On August 5, 2010, SciClone was contacted by the SEC and advised that the SEC has initiated a formal, non-public investigation of SciClone, and the SEC issued a subpoena to SciClone requesting a variety of documents and other information including, but not limited to, potential payments or transfers of anything of value to regulators and government-owned entities in China, bids or contracts with state or government-owned entities in China, any joint venture partner, intermediary or local agent of the Company in China, the Company's ethics and anti-corruption policies, training, and audits, and certain company financial and other disclosures. On August 6, 2010, the Company received a letter from the US Department of Justice (“DOJ”) indicating that the DOJ was investigating Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) issues in the pharmaceutical industry generally, and that the DOJ had information about the Company’s practices suggesting possible violations. The Company received a further subpoena from the SEC in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2012 on additional matters including, but not limited to, matters related to its acquisition of NovaMed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (”NovaMed”) on April 18, 2011 and FCPA matters, and certain sales and marketing expenses. In response to these matters, the Company’s Board of Directors appointed a Special Committee of independent directors (the “Special Committee”) to oversee the Company’s response to the government inquiry. The Special Committee has undertaken independent investigations as to matters reflected in and arising from the SEC and DOJ investigations in order to evaluate whether any violation of the FCPA or other laws occurred. The Company will continue to cooperate fully with the SEC and DOJ in the conduct of their investigations. The Company cannot predict what the outcome of those investigations will be, or the timing of any resolution. However, the Company previously determined that a payment of at least $2.0 million to the government in penalties, fines and/or other remedies is probable. Accordingly, the Company recorded $2.0 million of operating expense in its fourth quarter 2013 results of operations to reflect the Company’s estimate of a probable loss incurred related to potential penalties, fines and/or other remedies in the ongoing investigations with the SEC and DOJ. The Company has monitored developments in the investigations since that time and has not determined that any further adjustments to the estimated loss are both probable and reasonable estimable. Any actual fines or penalties that may be imposed, or other losses that may be realized related to the investigations, could materially differ and could be higher than the amount of the $2.0 million estimated loss and could materially impact the Company’s financial statements. The Company will re-assess the potential liability each quarter and may adjust its estimates accordingly in future periods if it determines that a different amount is both probable of being incurred and is reasonably estimable. NovaMed was a party to a Distribution and Supply Agreement with MEDA Pharma GmbH & Co. KG (“MEDA”). Following the Company’s acquisition of NovaMed, MEDA claimed it had a right to terminate the agreement under a change of control provision. NovaMed does not believe that MEDA had a right of termination under the agreement. NovaMed filed an application for binding arbitration with the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (“CIETAC”) on July 26, 2012. On April 3, 2014, CIETAC issued the final Award of the Arbitral Tribunal. The Arbitral Tribunal found that MEDA did have a right to terminate the agreement upon a change of control, but that MEDA must make reasonable reimbursement to NovaMed before any products rights are returned to MEDA. The amount that must be paid includes $333,333 as “unjust enrichment” plus an amount for reasonable compensation for such services provided by NovaMed to MEDA. The amount of such payment for services was not determined by the Arbitral Tribunal, but was left to be determined by NovaMed. On April 30, 2014, NovaMed informed MEDA that its determination of reasonable compensation for its services was $3,314,629, including the $333,333 for unjust enrichment. MEDA made a counter offer and the parties were attempting to resolve the matter without an additional arbitration proceeding. In December 2014, NovaMed filed a “Request for Second Arbitration” with CIETAC in order to enforce its right to compensation. The arbitration case is pending with CIETAC and no hearing has taken place yet. T he amount of any final payment to NovaMed remains uncertain, and as such the Company has not recognized it as a gain contingency. On March 11, 2013, Adam Crum filed a derivative lawsuit, purportedly in the name of SciClone, against Friedhelm Blobel, Gary Titus, Jon Saxe, Peter Barrett, Richard Hawkins, Gregg Lapointe and Ira Lawrence in California Superior Court, San Mateo County, captioned Crum v. Blobel, et al., Case No. CIV520331. The lawsuit alleges, based on the restatement of the Company’s consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2011 and certain quarters of 2011 and 2012, that the Board of Directors and management breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by not exercising oversight in such a way that they allowed the Company to file consolidated financial statements that were materially inaccurate. Plaintiff asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control and mismanagement. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, injunctive relief, disgorgement, undisclosed damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company and other defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motions to dismiss but allowed plaintiff to amend the complaint. An amended complaint was filed on September 19, 2014. On October 24, 2014, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On December 5, 2014, the court dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety. Plaintiff did not file an appeal and the matter is finally resolved.

Note 19 — Contingencies

Legal Matters

The Company is a party to various legal proceedings and subject to government investigations, as noted in this section below. All legal proceedings and any government investigations are subject to inherent uncertainties, unfavorable rulings or other adverse events which could occur. Unfavorable outcomes could include substantial monetary damages or awards, injunctions or other remedies, and if any of these were to occur, the possibility exists for a material adverse impact on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial position, and overall trends. The Company might also conclude that settling one or more such matters is in the best interests of its stockholders and its business, and any such settlement could include substantial payments.

On August 5, 2010, SciClone was contacted by the SEC and advised that the SEC has initiated a formal, non-public investigation of SciClone, and the SEC issued a subpoena to SciClone requesting a variety of documents and other information including, but not limited to, potential payments or transfers of anything of value to regulators and government-owned entities in China, bids or contracts with state or government-owned entities in China, any joint venture partner, intermediary or local agent of the Company in China, the Company's ethics and anti-corruption policies, training, and audits, and certain company financial and other disclosures. On August 6, 2010, the Company received a letter from the US Department of Justice (“DOJ”) indicating that the DOJ was investigating Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) issues in the pharmaceutical industry generally, and that the DOJ had information about the Company’s practices suggesting possible violations. The Company received a further subpoena from the SEC in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2012 on additional matters including, but not limited to, matters related to its acquisition of NovaMed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (”NovaMed”) on April 18, 2011 and FCPA matters, and certain sales and marketing expenses.

In response to these matters, the Company’s Board of Directors appointed a Special Committee of independent directors (the “Special Committee”) to oversee the Company’s response to the government inquiry. The Special Committee has undertaken independent investigations as to matters reflected in and arising from the SEC and DOJ investigations in order to evaluate whether any violation of the FCPA or other laws occurred. The Company will continue to cooperate fully with the SEC and DOJ in the conduct of their investigations.

The Company cannot predict what the outcome of those investigations will be, or the timing of any resolution. However, the Company previously determined that a payment of at least $2.0 million to the government in penalties, fines and/or other remedies is probable. Accordingly, the Company recorded $2.0 million of operating expense in its fourth quarter 2013 results of operations to reflect the Company’s estimate of a probable loss incurred related to potential penalties, fines and/or other remedies in the ongoing investigations with the SEC and DOJ. The Company has monitored developments in the investigations since that time and has not determined that any further adjustments to the estimated loss are both probable and reasonable estimable. Any actual fines or penalties that may be imposed, or other losses that may be realized related to the investigations, could materially differ and could be higher than the amount of the $2.0 million estimated loss and could materially impact the Company’s financial statements. The Company will re-assess the potential liability each quarter and may adjust its estimates accordingly in future periods if it determines that a different amount is both probable of being incurred and is reasonably estimable.

NovaMed was a party to a Distribution and Supply Agreement with MEDA Pharma GmbH & Co. KG (“MEDA”). Following the Company’s acquisition of NovaMed, MEDA claimed it had a right to terminate the agreement under a change of control provision. NovaMed does not believe that MEDA had a right of termination under the agreement. NovaMed filed an application for binding arbitration with the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (“CIETAC”) on July 26, 2012. On April 3, 2014, CIETAC issued the final Award of the Arbitral Tribunal. The Arbitral Tribunal found that MEDA did have a right to terminate the agreement upon a change of control, but that MEDA must make reasonable reimbursement to NovaMed before any products rights are returned to MEDA. The amount that must be paid includes $333,333 as “unjust enrichment” plus an amount for reasonable compensation for such services provided by NovaMed to MEDA. The amount of such payment for services was not determined by the Arbitral Tribunal, but was left to be determined by NovaMed. On April 30, 2014, NovaMed informed MEDA that its determination of reasonable compensation for its services was $3,314,629, including the $333,333 for unjust enrichment. MEDA made a counter offer and the parties were attempting to resolve the matter without an additional arbitration proceeding. In December 2014, NovaMed filed a “Request for Second Arbitration” with CIETAC in order to enforce its right to compensation. The arbitration case is pending with CIETAC and no hearing has taken place yet. T he amount of any final payment to NovaMed remains uncertain, and as such the Company has not recognized it as a gain contingency.

On March 11, 2013, Adam Crum filed a derivative lawsuit, purportedly in the name of SciClone, against Friedhelm Blobel, Gary Titus, Jon Saxe, Peter Barrett, Richard Hawkins, Gregg Lapointe and Ira Lawrence in California Superior Court, San Mateo County, captioned Crum v. Blobel, et al., Case No. CIV520331. The lawsuit alleges, based on the restatement of the Company’s consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2011 and certain quarters of 2011 and 2012, that the Board of Directors and management breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by not exercising oversight in such a way that they allowed the Company to file consolidated financial statements that were materially inaccurate. Plaintiff asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control and mismanagement. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, injunctive relief, disgorgement, undisclosed damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company and other defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motions to dismiss but allowed plaintiff to amend the complaint. An amended complaint was filed on September 19, 2014. On October 24, 2014, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On December 5, 2014, the court dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety. Plaintiff did not file an appeal and the matter is finally resolved.