| Legal Matters and Contingencies | Litigation The Company is involved in various disputes, governmental and/or regulatory inquiries, investigations and proceedings, tax proceedings and litigation matters, both in the U.S. and abroad, that arise from time to time, some of which could result in losses, including damages, fines and/or civil penalties, and/or criminal charges against the Company. These matters are often complex and have outcomes that are difficult to predict. In addition, in connection with the Combination, the Company has generally assumed liability for, and control of, pending and threatened legal matters relating to the Upjohn Business – including certain matters initiated against Pfizer described below – and has agreed to indemnify Pfizer for liabilities arising out of such assumed legal matters. Pfizer, however, has agreed to retain various matters – including certain specified competition law matters – to the extent they arise from conduct during the pre-Distribution period and has agreed to indemnify the Company for liabilities arising out of such matters. While the Company believes that it has meritorious defenses with respect to the claims asserted against it and the assumed legal matters referenced above, and intends to vigorously defend its position, the process of resolving these matters is inherently uncertain and may develop over a long period of time, and so it is not possible to predict the ultimate resolution of any such matter. It is possible that an unfavorable resolution of any of the ongoing matters could have a material effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, ability to pay dividends and/or stock price. Some of these governmental inquiries, investigations, proceedings and litigation matters with which the Company is involved are described below, and unless otherwise disclosed, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of the matter or to provide an estimate of the range of reasonably possible material losses. The Company records accruals for loss contingencies to the extent we conclude it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company is also involved in other pending proceedings for which, in the opinion of the Company based upon facts and circumstances known at the time, either the likelihood of loss is remote or any reasonably possible loss associated with the resolution of such proceedings is not expected to be material to the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, cash flows, ability to pay dividends and/or stock price. If and when any reasonably possible losses associated with the resolution of such other pending proceedings, in the opinion of the Company, become material, the Company will disclose such matters. Legal costs are recorded as incurred and are classified in SG&A in the Company’s condensed consolidated statements of operations. EpiPen® Auto-Injector Litigation On February 14, 2020, the Company, together with other non-Viatris affiliated companies, were named as defendants in a putative direct purchaser class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas relating to the pricing and/or marketing of the EpiPen® Auto-Injector. On September 21, 2021, after Plaintiffs’ then operative complaint was dismissed with an option to file a limited amended complaint, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting federal antitrust claims which are based on allegations concerning a patent settlement between Pfizer and Teva and other alleged actions regarding the launch of Teva’s generic epinephrine auto-injector. Plaintiffs’ seek monetary damages, declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees and costs. Beginning in March 2020, the Company, together with other non-Viatris affiliated companies, were named as defendants in putative direct purchaser class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota relating to contracts with certain pharmacy benefit managers concerning EpiPen® Auto-Injector. The plaintiffs claim that the alleged conduct resulted in the exclusion or restriction of competing products and the elimination of pricing constraints in violation of RICO and federal antitrust law. These actions have been consolidated. Plaintiffs’ seek monetary damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. On April 24, 2017, Sanofi Aventis U.S., LLC (“Sanofi”) filed a lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. This lawsuit was transferred into a MDL in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas and alleged exclusive dealing and anti-competitive marketing practices in violation of the antitrust laws in connection with the sale and marketing of the EpiPen® Auto-Injector. Sanofi sought monetary damages, declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees and costs. The Court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Sanofi’s claims. Sanofi’s appeal was denied. Sanofi’s petition seeking review by the U.S. Supreme Court was also denied and concludes this matter. The Company has a total accrual of approximately $5.5 million related to these matters at September 30, 2023, which is included in other current liabilities in the condensed consolidated balance sheets. Although it is reasonably possible that the Company may incur additional losses from these matters, any amount cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. In addition, the Company expects to incur additional legal and other professional service expenses associated with such matters in future periods and will recognize these expenses as services are received. The Company believes that the ultimate amount paid for these services and claims could have a material effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, ability to pay dividends and/or stock price in future periods. Drug Pricing Matters Department of Justice On December 3, 2015, the Company received a subpoena from the Antitrust Division of the DOJ seeking information relating to the marketing, pricing, and sale of certain of our generic products and any communications with competitors about such products. On September 8, 2016, the Company, as well as certain employees and a member of senior management, received subpoenas from the DOJ seeking similar information. Related search warrants also were executed. On May 10, 2018, the Company received a civil investigative demand from the Civil Division of the DOJ seeking information relating to the pricing and sale of its generic drug products. We have fully cooperated with these investigations, which we believe are related to a broader industry-wide investigation of the generic pharmaceutical industry. We have not had contact from DOJ concerning the above-described subpoenas or civil investigative demand in several years. Civil Litigation Beginning in 2016, the Company, along with other manufacturers, has been named as a defendant in lawsuits filed in the United States and Canada generally alleging anticompetitive conduct with respect to generic drugs. The lawsuits have been filed by plaintiffs, including putative classes of direct purchasers, indirect purchasers, and indirect resellers, as well as individual direct and indirect purchasers and certain cities and counties. The lawsuits allege harm under federal laws and the United States lawsuits also allege harm under state laws, including antitrust laws, state consumer protection laws and unjust enrichment claims. Some of the United States lawsuits also name as defendants the Company’s President, including allegations against him with respect to a single drug product, and one of the Company’s sales employees, including allegations against him with respect to certain generic drugs. The vast majority of the lawsuits have been consolidated in an MDL proceeding in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (“EDPA”). Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs. The EDPA Court has ordered certain plaintiffs’ complaints regarding two single-drug product cases to proceed as bellwethers. The Company is named in those plaintiffs’ complaints that regard one of the two individual drug products. Attorneys General Litigation On December 21, 2015, the Company received a subpoena and interrogatories from the Connecticut Office of the Attorney General seeking information relating to the marketing, pricing and sale of certain of the Company’s generic products and communications with competitors about such products. On December 14, 2016, attorneys general of certain states filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against several generic pharmaceutical drug manufacturers, including the Company, alleging anticompetitive conduct with respect to, among other things, a single drug product. The complaint has subsequently been amended, including on June 18, 2018, to add attorneys general alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws, as well as violations of various states’ consumer protection laws. This lawsuit has been transferred to the aforementioned MDL proceeding in the EDPA. The operative complaint includes attorneys general of forty-four states, the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The Company is alleged to have engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to four generic drug products. The amended complaint also includes claims asserted by attorneys general of thirty-four states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico against certain individuals, including the Company’s President, with respect to a single drug product. The amended complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, disgorgement, attorneys’ fees and costs, and certain states seek monetary damages, civil penalties, restitution, and other equitable monetary relief. The states’ claim for disgorgement and restitution under federal law in this case has been dismissed. On May 10, 2019, certain attorneys general filed a new complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against various drug manufacturers and individuals, including the Company and one of its sales employees, alleging anticompetitive conduct with respect to additional generic drugs. On November 1, 2019, the complaint was amended, adding additional states as plaintiffs. The operative complaint is brought by attorneys general of forty-five states, certain territories and the District of Columbia. The amended complaint also includes claims asserted by attorneys general of forty states and certain territories against several individuals, including a Company sales employee. The amended complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, disgorgement, attorneys’ fees and costs, and certain states seek monetary damages, civil penalties, restitution, and other equitable monetary relief. This lawsuit has been transferred to the aforementioned MDL proceeding in the EDPA. On June 10, 2020, certain attorneys general filed a new complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against drug manufacturers, including the Company, and individual defendants (none from the Company), alleging anticompetitive conduct with respect to additional generic drugs. On September 9, 2021, the complaint was amended, adding an additional state as a plaintiff. The operative complaint is brought by attorneys general of forty-four states, certain territories and the District of Columbia. The amended complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, disgorgement, attorneys’ fees and costs, and certain states seek monetary damages, civil penalties, restitution, and other equitable monetary relief. The states’ claim for disgorgement and restitution under federal law in this case has been dismissed. This lawsuit has been transferred to the aforementioned MDL proceeding in the EDPA and has been ordered to proceed as a bellwether. Securities Related Litigation Purported class action complaints were filed in October 2016 against Mylan N.V. and Mylan Inc. (collectively “Mylan”), certain of Mylan’s former directors and officers, and certain of the Company’s current directors and officers (collectively, for purposes of this paragraph, the “defendants”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”) on behalf of certain purchasers of securities of Mylan on the NASDAQ (“SDNY Class Action Litigation”). The complaints alleged that defendants made false or misleading statements and omissions of purportedly material fact, in violation of federal securities laws, in connection with disclosures relating to the classification of their EpiPen® Auto-Injector as a non-innovator drug for purposes of the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. On March 20, 2017, a consolidated amended complaint was filed alleging substantially similar claims, but adding allegations that defendants made false or misleading statements and omissions of purportedly material fact in connection with allegedly anticompetitive conduct with respect to EpiPen® Auto-Injector and certain generic drugs. The operative complaint is the third amended consolidated complaint, which was filed on June 17, 2019, and contains the allegations as described above against Mylan, certain of Mylan’s former directors and officers, and certain of the Company’s current directors, officers, and employees (collectively, for purposes of this paragraph, the “defendants”). A class has been certified covering all persons or entities that purchased Mylan common stock between February 21, 2012 and May 24, 2019 excluding defendants, certain of the Company’s current directors and officers, former directors and officers of Mylan, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in which defendants have or had a controlling interest. Plaintiffs seek damages and costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees and expert costs. On March 30, 2023, the Court dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ claims by granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denying Plaintiffs’ cross-motion for partial summary judgment. Plaintiffs have filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On April 30, 2017, a similar lawsuit was filed in the Tel Aviv District Court (Economic Division) in Israel (“Israel Litigation”), which had been stayed pending a decision in the SDNY Class Action Litigation. The Israel Litigation was dismissed by the Court due to lack of activity and may be refiled. On February 14, 2020, the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority filed a complaint against Mylan in the SDNY asserting allegations pertaining to EpiPen® Auto-Injector and certain generic drugs under the federal securities laws (“ADIA Litigation”) that overlap with those asserted in the SDNY Class Action Litigation. The complaint filed in the ADIA Litigation seeks monetary damages as well as the plaintiff’s fees and costs. On June 26, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed by the Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi, which was subsequently amended on November 13, 2020, against Mylan N.V., certain of Mylan N.V.’s former directors and officers, and an officer and director of the Company (collectively for the purposes of this paragraph, the “defendants”) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (“WDPA”) on behalf of certain purchasers of securities of Mylan N.V. (“WDPA Mylan N.V. Class Action Litigation”). The amended complaint alleges that defendants made false or misleading statements and omissions of purportedly material fact, in violation of federal securities laws, in connection with disclosures relating to the Nashik and Morgantown manufacturing plants and inspections at the plants by the FDA. Plaintiff seeks certification of a class of purchasers of Mylan N.V. securities between February 16, 2016 and May 7, 2019. On May 18, 2023, the Court dismissed 45 of the 46 challenged statements. The complaint seeks monetary damages, as well as the plaintiff’s fees and costs. On February 15, 2021, a complaint was filed in the SDNY by Skandia Mutual Life Ins. Co., Lansforsakringar AB, KBC Asset Management N.V., and GIC Private Limited, against the Company, certain of Mylan N.V.’s former directors and officers, a current director and officer of the Company, and certain current employees of the Company (“Skandia Litigation”). The Complaint filed in the Skandia Litigation asserts claims which are based on allegations that are similar to those in the SDNY Class Action Litigation and WDPA Mylan N.V. Class Action Litigation. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, costs and expenses and attorneys’ fees. On October 28, 2021, the Company and certain of its then officers and directors were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania on behalf of former Mylan shareholders who received Company common stock in connection with the Combination. A non-Viatris affiliated company and persons were also named as defendants. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 for purportedly failing to disclose or misrepresenting material information in the registration statement and related prospectus issued in connection with the Combination. On January 3, 2023, an amended complaint was filed naming the same defendants and alleging the same violations as the original complaint. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, reasonable costs and expenses, and certain other equitable and injunctive relief. Beginning in May 2023, putative class action complaints were filed against the Company and certain of the Company’s current and former officers, directors, and employees in the WDPA on behalf of certain purchasers of securities of the Company. These actions have been consolidated and, on October 23, 2023, a consolidated amended putative class action complaint was filed in the WDPA against the Company, a current officer and director, and a former officer and director (“WDPA Viatris Class Action Litigation”). The operative complaint alleges that defendants made false or misleading statements and omissions of material fact, in violation of federal securities laws, in connection with disclosures relating to the Company’s projected financial performance and biosimilars business. Plaintiffs seek certification of a class of purchasers of Company securities between March 1, 2021 and February 25, 2022. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, reasonable costs and expenses, and certain other relief. Beginning in August 2023, stockholder derivative actions purportedly on behalf of Viatris were filed in the WDPA against certain of the Company’s current and former officers, directors, and employees alleging that defendants failed to ensure that the Company was making truthful and accurate statements in connection with the disclosures alleged in the WDPA Viatris Class Action Litigation. Viatris is named as a nominal defendant in these derivative actions. Certain of the complaints also assert claims for corporate waste and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs seek various forms of relief, including damages, disgorgement, restitution, costs and fees. Opioids The Company, along with other manufacturers, distributors, pharmacies, pharmacy benefit managers, and individual healthcare providers is a defendant in more than 1,000 cases in the United States and Canada filed by various plaintiffs, including counties, cities and other local governmental entities, asserting civil claims related to sales, marketing and/or distribution practices with respect to prescription opioid products. In addition, lawsuits have been filed as putative class actions including on behalf of children with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome due to alleged exposure to opioids. The lawsuits generally seek equitable relief and monetary damages (including punitive and/or exemplary damages) based on a variety of legal theories, including various statutory and/or common law claims, such as negligence, public nuisance and unjust enrichment. The vast majority of these lawsuits have been consolidated in an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District Court of Ohio. On January 13, 2023, the Company received a civil subpoena from the Attorney General of the State of New York seeking information relating to opioids manufactured, marketed, or sold by the Company and related subject matter. The Company is fully cooperating with this subpoena request. The Company has accrued $7.9 million in connection with the possible resolution of certain of these matters at September 30, 2023, which is included in other current liabilities in the condensed consolidated balance sheets. Although it is reasonably possible that the Company may incur additional losses from these matters, any amount cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. In addition, the Company expects to incur additional legal and other professional service expenses associated with such matters in future periods and will recognize these expenses as services are received. The Company believes that the ultimate amount paid for these services and claims could have a material effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, ability to pay dividends and/or stock price in future periods. Meda Sweden Commercial Dispute On August 30, 2021, Ocular AS and other related entities (“Claimants”) initiated an arbitration in Sweden against Meda OTC AB and Meda AB (collectively, “Meda” or the “Company”) alleging breach of a 2013 sale and purchase agreement between Claimants and Meda concerning commercialization of a dental hygiene product. Claimants sought approximately $155 million in purported damages, plus interest and costs. In May 2023, the arbitration panel ruled in Claimants’ favor and the Company resolved the matter for approximately $21.8 million, which was accrued at June 30, 2023 and paid in July 2023. Citalopram In 2013, the European Commission issued a decision finding that Lundbeck and several generic companies, including Generics [U.K.] Limited (“GUK” or the “Company”), had violated EU competition rules relating to various settlement agreements entered into in 2002 for citalopram. After various appeals, the European Commission’s decision was upheld in March 2021. On March 28, 2023, bodies of the national health authorities in England & Wales served a claim in the U.K. Competition Appeals Tribunal against parties to the citalopram investigation, including GUK, seeking monetary damages, plus interest, purportedly arising from the settlement agreements. The Company, beginning in approximately 2018, has received notices from other health service authorities and insurers asserting an intention to file similar claims. Pursuant to an indemnification agreement, Merck KGaA and GUK have agreed to equally share any damages claimed against Merck KGaA and/or GUK alleged to have been caused by the conduct which is the subject of the European Commission decision. The Company has accrued approximately €12.0 million as of September 30, 2023 related to this matter. It is reasonably possible that we will incur additional losses above the amount accrued but we cannot estimate a range of such reasonably possible losses at this time. There are no assurances, however, that settlements reached and/or adverse judgments received, if any, will not exceed amounts accrued. Product Liability Like other pharmaceutical companies, the Company is involved in a number of product liability lawsuits related to alleged personal injuries arising out of certain products manufactured/or distributed by the Company, including but not limited to those discussed below. Plaintiffs in these cases generally seek damages and other relief on various grounds for alleged personal injury and economic loss. The Company has accrued approximately $66.0 million as of September 30, 2023 for its product liability matters. It is reasonably possible that we will incur additional losses and fees above the amount accrued but we cannot estimate a range of such reasonably possible losses or legal fees related to these claims at this time. There are no assurances, however, that settlements reached and/or adverse judgments received, if any, will not exceed amounts accrued. Nitrosamines The Company, along with numerous other manufacturers, retailers, and others, are parties to litigation relating to alleged trace amounts of nitrosamine impurities in certain products, including valsartan and ranitidine. The vast majority of these lawsuits naming the Company in the United States are pending in two MDLs, namely an MDL pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey concerning valsartan and an MDL pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida concerning ranitidine. The lawsuits against the Company in the MDLs include putative and certified classes seeking the refund of the purchase price and other economic and punitive damages allegedly sustained by consumers and end payors as well as individuals seeking compensatory and punitive damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by ingestion of the medications. Similar lawsuits pertaining to valsartan have been filed in other countries. Third party payor, consumer and medical monitoring classes were certified in the valsartan MDL and a Rule 23(f) petition to appeal the certification decision was denied. The Company has also received claims and inquiries related to these products, as well as requests to indemnify purchasers of the Company’s API and/ or finished dose forms of these products. The original master complaints concerning ranitidine were dismissed on December 31, 2020. The end-payor plaintiff immediately appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal. The personal injury and consumer putative class plaintiffs filed amended master complaints. The Company was not named as a defendant in the amended master complaints, though it was still named in certain short form complaints filed by personal injury plaintiffs. The trial court has dismissed all remaining claims against the generic defendants. Certain of the personal injury plaintiffs appealed this dismissal, which remains pending. Lipitor A number of individual and multi-plaintiff lawsuits have been filed against Pfizer in various federal and state courts alleging that the plaintiffs developed type 2 diabetes purportedly as a result of the ingestion of Lipitor. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages. In February 2014, the federal actions were transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. Since 2016, certain cases in the MDL were remanded to certain state courts. In 2017, the District Court granted Pfizer’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of the cases pending in the MDL. In June 2018, this dismissal was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The state court proceedings remain pending in Missouri and New York. Prior state court proceedings in California have now been terminated after the California Court previously granted motions (i) to exclude the opinions of plaintiffs’ only general causation expert in connection with his opinions involving the three lowest doses of Lipitor (10, 20 and 40 mg); (ii) for summary judgment in connection with the 10, 20, and 40 mg plaintiffs; and (iii) seeking the dismissal of the remaining cases involving the highest dose of Lipitor (80 mg). Intellectual Property The Company is involved in a number of patent litigation lawsuits involving the validity and/or infringement of patents held by branded pharmaceutical manufacturers including but not limited to the matters described below. The Company uses its business judgment to decide to market and sell certain products, in each case based on its belief that the applicable patents are invalid and/or that its products do not infringe, notwithstanding the fact that allegations of patent infringement(s) or other potential third party rights have not been finally resolved by the courts. The risk involved in doing so can be substantial because the remedies available to the owner of a patent for infringement may include, a reasonable royalty on sales or damages measured by the profits lost by the patent owner. If there is a finding of willful infringement, damages may be increased up to three times. Moreover, because of the discount pricing typically involved with bioequivalent products, patented branded products generally realize a substantially higher profit margin than generic and biosimilar products. The Company also faces challenges to its patents, including suits in various jurisdictions pursuant to which generic drug manufacturers, payers, governments, or other parties are seeking damages for allegedly causing delay of generic entry. An adverse decision in any of these matters could have an adverse effect that is material to our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, ability to pay dividends and/or stock price. The Company has accrued approximately $33.7 million as of September 30, 2023 for its intellectual property matters. It is reasonably possible that we will incur additional losses and fees above the amount accrued but we cannot estimate a range of such reasonably possible losses or legal fees related to these claims at this time. There are no assurances, however, that settlements reached and/or adverse judgments received, if any, will not exceed amounts accrued. Lyrica - United Kingdom Beginning in 2014, Pfizer was involved in patent litigation in the English courts concerning the validity of its Lyrica pain use patent. In 2015, the High Court of Justice in London ordered that the NHS England issue guidance for prescribers and pharmacists directing the prescription and dispensing of Lyrica by brand when pregabalin was prescribed for the treatment of neuropathic pain and entered a preliminary injunction against certain Sandoz group companies preventing the sale of Sandoz’s full label pregabalin product. Pfizer undertook to compensate certain generic companies and NHS entities for losses caused by these orders, which remained in effect until patent expiration in July 2017. In November 2018, the U.K. Supreme Court ruled that all the relevant claims directed to neuropathic pain were invalid. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories filed a claim for monetary damages, interest, and costs in May 2020, followed by the Scottish Ministers and fourteen Scottish Health Boards (together, NHS Scotland) in July 2020. In September 2020, Teva, Sandoz, Ranbaxy, Actavis, and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, together with 32 other NHS entities (together, NHS England, Wales, and Northern Ireland) filed their claims. All of the claims have been resolved. Yupelri Beginning in January 2023, certain generic companies notified us that they had filed ANDAs with the FDA seeking approval to market generic versions of Yupelri® with associated Paragraph IV certifications. The companies assert the invalidity and/or non-infringement of polymorph patents expiring in 2030 and 2031, and a method of use patent expiring in 2039. The companies have not filed Paragraph IV certifications to our compound patents, which currently expire in December 2025, with one compound patent subject to a patent term extension to October 2028. In February 2023, we brought patent infringement actions against the generic filers in federal district courts, including the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, and the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, asserting infringement of the patents by the generic companies. The actions filed in Delaware and North Carolina have been dismissed and the actions will proceed in New Jersey. In October 2023, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with Teva in which Teva was granted a license to commercialize its generic version of Yupelri® in April 2039 or earlier depending on certain circumstances. Tyrvaya In June 2023, a generic company notified Oyster Point that it had filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking approval to market a generic version of Tyrvaya® with associated Paragraph IV certifications. The generic company asserts the invalidity and/or non-infringement of six Orange Book listed patents that all have expiration dates in October 2035. In July 2023, Oyster Point brought a patent infringement action against t |
