Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies From time to time, the Company has been and may again become involved in legal proceedings arising in the course of its business, including product liability, intellectual property, securities, civil tort, and commercial litigation, and environmental or other regulatory matters. California Litigation Neurelis, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. On December 5, 2019, Neurelis, Inc. ("Neurelis") filed a lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego alleging the following three causes of action: (1) Unfair Competition under California Business and Professional Code § 17200 (“UCL”); (2) Defamation; and (3) Malicious Prosecution. Neurelis filed a First Amended Complaint on December 9, 2019, alleging the same three causes of action. The Company filed a Motion to Strike Neurelis’s Complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP (“strategic lawsuit against public participation”) statute on January 31, 2020, which Neurelis opposed. On August 6, 2020, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the Company’s anti-SLAPP motion. The parties cross-appealed the ruling to the California Court of Appeal. The appeals court held oral argument on the appeal on October 14, 2021, and issued its ruling on November 17, 2021. Under the ruling, the court struck the entirety of the malicious prosecution claim and struck portions of the UCL and defamation claims. On April 12, 2022, Neurelis filed a Second Amended Complaint in response to the Court of Appeal’s decision. The Second Amended Complaint also added a cause of action for Trade Libel. On May 3, 2022, the Company filed a "demurrer" challenge to the sufficiency of the allegations of the Second Amended Complaint. Oral argument on the Company’s motion for attorney fees related to the anti-SLAPP motion and on the Second Amended Complaint and demurer challenge was held on June 17, 2022. The Court entered an order granting the Company’s motion for attorney fees, awarding $156 and ordering Neurelis to pay the fees within 60 days of June 17, 2022. The Court denied the Company’s demurrer and the parties proceeded with discovery on the claims in the Second Amended Complaint. The plaintiff filed a motion to file a third amended complaint, which the Court granted on November 17, 2023. The Third Amended Complaint alleges additional facts but includes the same claims as the Second Amended Complaint. The trial in this matter is scheduled for January 5, 2026. The Company is not able to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of this proceeding or provide a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the possible outcome or loss, if any, in this matter. Neurelis FDA Lawsuit Neurelis v. Califf, et al., U.S. District court for the District of Columbia In May 2024, Neurelis filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and certain government officials. The complaint in this matter alleges that the defendants violated the Administrative Procedure Act by approving the Company's NDA for Libervant for ARS patients aged between two and five years, and asked the Court to vacate that approval and enjoin the defendants from approving Libervant for this pediatric patient population until January 10, 2027, the scheduled date for the expiration of the U.S. orphan drug market exclusivity granted by the FDA to the Valtoco nasal spray product of Neurelis. The Company intervened in this litigation to defend the approval of Libervant for this ARS pediatric patient population and, on June 25, 2024, the Court entered a scheduling order governing further proceedings in the case. Pursuant to that order, Neurelis filed a motion for summary judgment on August 19, 2024; the Company and the federal defendants each filed their own cross-motions for summary judgment and opposed Neurelis’s motion for summary judgment on September 18, 2024. Neurelis filed its combined reply brief in support of its motion for summary judgment and in opposition to the defendants’ cross-motions on October 9, 2024, and the Company and the federal defendants filed their closing briefs on October 30, 2024. Following the FDA's award of ODE to Libervant for ARS patients between two and five years of age, Neurelis filed a motion for preliminary injunction requesting an expedited order to vacate FDA's approval and enjoining the sale of Libervant. On February 14, 2025, the Court ruled in favor of Neurelis, granting its summary judgment motion, and against the FDA's and the Company's cross-motions for summary judgment. In an accompanying opinion, the Court directed the FDA to vacate the approval of Libervant. Because the Court entered a final appealable judgment in favor of Neurelis, Neurelis' motion for an expedited preliminary injunction was denied as moot by the Court. On February 18, 2025, the Company filed an appeal of the District Court's decision with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (the "DC Appellate Court") and, on the same day, filed an emergency motion with the District Court to stay its order pending a decision on the appeal with the DC Appellate Court. The District Court denied the motion for a stay. On March 27, 2025, the DC Appellate Court denied the Company's emergency motion for stay. The FDA filed an appeal of the District Court's decision to the DC Appellate Court and the Company withdrew its appeal. As a result of the District Court's ruling, the FDA converted the approval of Libervant to a "tentative approval" and the Company has ceased marketing activities in the United States. The Company is communicating with the FDA on a path forward for approval of Libervant for ARS patients aged between two and five years but the Company has not yet received any decision from the FDA on market access for these Libervant pediatric patients. No dates have been set for arguments on the appeal proceedings at the DC Appellate Court. The Company is not able to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of these proceedings or provide a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the possible outcome or loss, if any, in this matter or whether the FDA will grant U.S. market access to Libervant for ARS patients aged between two and five years in advance of the ODE expiration period. Suboxone Product Liability Litigation The Company was named as a defendant in a multitude of product liability lawsuits, along with Indivior and several other named defendants, in which the individual plaintiffs in those cases allege that their use of Suboxone® Sublingual Film, a prescription drug product for opioid use disorder, caused them dental injuries. On February 2, 2024, this litigation became a Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL") consolidated in the U.S District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. One case alleging the same allegations as contained in the MDL has been filed in a state court in the State of New Jersey. The parties to the MDL have agreed to a tolling of unfiled claimants in several states. Indivior has agreed to defend the Company in these litigation matters. Discovery is underway and no trial date has been set in the MDL matter. The Company's motion to dismiss the MDL matter was granted as to all claims by plaintiffs except design defect claims. The Company is not able to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of this litigation or provide a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the possible outcome or loss, if any, in this matter. The Company was named as a defendant in three proposed class action lawsuits filed in Canada, along with Indivior and several other named defendants, in which the individual plaintiffs in those cases allege that their use of Suboxone® products caused them dental injuries. Two of these cases have been filed in British Columbia, and the plaintiffs in those cases are seeking assignment of a case management judge. The anticipated next step in British Columbia will involve applications by the plaintiffs to determine which of the two cases will proceed towards a certification hearing and which will be stayed. The third case has been filed in Quebec and is proceeding towards an authorization hearing, the date of which has not yet been set. The authorization and certification hearings will determine whether the Courts will allow the cases to proceed as class actions. Pre-discovery and case management proceedings are underway and no trial date has yet been set. Given the early stages of these proceedings, the Company is not able to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of this litigation or provide a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the possible outcome or loss, if any, in this litigation.

On December 5, 2019, Neurelis, Inc. ("Neurelis") filed a lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego alleging the following three causes of action: (1) Unfair Competition under California Business and Professional Code § 17200 (“UCL”); (2) Defamation; and (3) Malicious Prosecution. Neurelis filed a First Amended Complaint on December 9, 2019, alleging the same three causes of action. The Company filed a Motion to Strike Neurelis’s Complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP (“strategic lawsuit against public participation”) statute on January 31, 2020, which Neurelis opposed. On August 6, 2020, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the Company’s anti-SLAPP motion. The parties cross-appealed the ruling to the California Court of Appeal. The appeals court held oral argument on the appeal on October 14, 2021, and issued its ruling on November 17, 2021. Under the ruling, the court struck the entirety of the malicious prosecution claim and struck portions of the UCL and defamation claims. On April 12, 2022, Neurelis filed a Second Amended Complaint in response to the Court of Appeal’s decision. The Second Amended Complaint also added a cause of action for Trade Libel. On May 3, 2022, the Company filed a "demurrer" challenge to the sufficiency of the allegations of the Second Amended Complaint. Oral argument on the Company’s motion for attorney fees related to the anti-SLAPP motion and on the Second Amended Complaint and demurer challenge was held on June 17, 2022. The Court entered an order granting the Company’s motion for attorney fees, awarding $156 and ordering Neurelis to pay the fees within 60 days of June 17, 2022. The Court denied the Company’s demurrer and the parties proceeded with discovery on the claims in the Second Amended Complaint. The plaintiff filed a motion to file a third amended complaint, which the Court granted on November 17, 2023. The Third Amended Complaint alleges additional facts but includes the same claims as the Second Amended Complaint. The trial in this matter is scheduled for January 5, 2026. The Company is not able to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of this proceeding or provide a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the possible outcome or loss, if any, in this matter.

In May 2024, Neurelis filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and certain government officials. The complaint in this matter alleges that the defendants violated the Administrative Procedure Act by approving the Company's NDA for Libervant for ARS patients aged between two and five years, and asked the Court to vacate that approval and enjoin the defendants from approving Libervant for this pediatric patient population until January 10, 2027, the scheduled date for the expiration of the U.S. orphan drug market exclusivity granted by the FDA to the Valtoco nasal spray product of Neurelis. The Company intervened in this litigation to defend the approval of Libervant for this ARS pediatric patient population and, on June 25, 2024, the Court entered a scheduling order governing further proceedings in the case. Pursuant to that order, Neurelis filed a motion for summary judgment on August 19, 2024; the Company and the federal defendants each filed their own cross-motions for summary judgment and opposed Neurelis’s motion for summary judgment on September 18, 2024. Neurelis filed its combined reply brief in support of its motion for summary judgment and in opposition to the defendants’ cross-motions on October 9, 2024, and the Company and the federal defendants filed their closing briefs on October 30, 2024. Following the FDA's award of ODE to Libervant for ARS patients between two and five years of age, Neurelis filed a motion for preliminary injunction requesting an expedited order to vacate FDA's approval and enjoining the sale of Libervant. On February 14, 2025, the Court ruled in favor of Neurelis, granting its summary judgment motion, and against the FDA's and the Company's cross-motions for summary judgment. In an accompanying opinion, the Court directed the FDA to vacate the approval of Libervant. Because the Court entered a final appealable judgment in favor of Neurelis, Neurelis' motion for an expedited preliminary injunction was denied as moot by the Court. On February 18, 2025, the Company filed an appeal of the District Court's decision with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (the "DC Appellate Court") and, on the same day, filed an emergency motion with the District Court to stay its order pending a decision on the appeal with the DC Appellate Court. The District Court denied the motion for a stay. On March 27, 2025, the DC Appellate Court denied the Company's emergency motion for stay. The FDA filed an appeal of the District Court's decision to the DC Appellate Court and the Company withdrew its appeal. As a result of the District Court's ruling, the FDA converted the approval of Libervant to a "tentative approval" and the Company has ceased marketing activities in the United States. The Company is communicating with the FDA on a path forward for approval of Libervant for ARS patients aged between two and five years but the Company has not yet received any decision from the FDA on market access for these Libervant pediatric patients. No dates have been set for arguments on the appeal proceedings at the DC Appellate Court. The Company is not able to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of these

The Company was named as a defendant in a multitude of product liability lawsuits, along with Indivior and several other named defendants, in which the individual plaintiffs in those cases allege that their use of Suboxone® Sublingual Film, a prescription drug product for opioid use disorder, caused them dental injuries. On February 2, 2024, this litigation became a Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL") consolidated in the U.S District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. One case alleging the same allegations as contained in the MDL has been filed in a state court in the State of New Jersey. The parties to the MDL have agreed to a tolling of unfiled claimants in several states. Indivior has agreed to defend the Company in these litigation matters. Discovery is underway and no trial date has been set in the MDL matter. The Company's motion to dismiss the MDL matter was granted as to all claims by plaintiffs except design defect claims. The Company is not able to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of this litigation or provide a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the possible outcome or loss, if any, in this matter.

The Company was named as a defendant in three proposed class action lawsuits filed in Canada, along with Indivior and several other named defendants, in which the individual plaintiffs in those cases allege that their use of Suboxone® products caused them dental injuries. Two of these cases have been filed in British Columbia, and the plaintiffs in those cases are seeking assignment of a case management judge. The anticipated next step in British Columbia will involve applications by the plaintiffs to determine which of the two cases will proceed towards a certification hearing and which will be stayed. The third case has been filed in Quebec and is proceeding towards an authorization hearing, the date of which has not yet been set. The authorization and certification hearings will determine whether the Courts will allow the cases to proceed as class actions. Pre-discovery and case management proceedings are underway and no trial date has yet been set. Given the early stages of these proceedings, the Company is not able to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of this litigation or provide a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the possible outcome or loss, if any, in this litigation.