Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 18. Commitments and Contingencies From time to time, in the ordinary course of business, the Company may be subject to litigation and regulatory examinations as well as information gathering requests, inquiries and/or investigations. Other than the below, the Company is not currently subject to any matters where it believes there is a reasonable possibility that a material loss may be incurred. On July 7, 2023, plaintiff Katelyn Martin filed a class action complaint against the Company and certain executives in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, captioned Martin v. BioXcel Therapeutics, et al., 3:23-cv-00915 (D. Conn). The case has since been renamed to Hills et al v. BioXcel Therapeutics, Inc. et al. On October 4, 2023, pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, the court appointed two co-Lead Plaintiffs. The co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December 5, 2023, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On July 11, 2024, the Court dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice and, on August 1, 2024, co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint alleges that defendants made false or misleading statements regarding the TRANQUILITY II trial and the development of BXCL501 for an expanded indication related to the treatment of certain Alzheimer’s-related agitation. The Company moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on September 6, 2024. On February 24, 2025, while the Company’s motion to dismiss remained pending, Plaintiffs moved for leave to further amend their complaint. On September 29, 2025, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend, denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss as moot, and allowing Plaintiffs to proceed on certain of their claims. The Company filed an answer to the third amended complaint on October 28, 2025. On January 23, 2026, the parties reached a tentative agreement to settle the action. In light of this agreement, on January 28, 2026, the Court entered an order vacating the scheduling order and requiring Plaintiffs to file a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement or status report by February 27, 2026. Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval on February 27, 2026, and the Court granted the motion on March 2, 2026. The hearing on the motion for final approval of the class settlement is set for September 2, 2026. The Company evaluates developments in legal proceedings on a quarterly basis. In accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies, the Company records an accrual for loss contingencies to the extent that the Company concludes that it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the related loss can be reasonably estimated. On March 2, 2026, upon entering into a stipulation of settlement, this settlement became estimable and probable. Accordingly, the Company recorded an estimated $9,750 liability within Other current liabilities in the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets with a corresponding insurance recovery for the 100% portion to be paid directly by certain of the Company’s insurance carriers within Other current assets in the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets. On November 28, 2023, Plaintiffs Pratheesan Panancherry and Jeffrey Bastress filed a stockholder derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut purportedly on behalf of the Company and against Vimal Mehta, Richard I. Steinhart, Peter Mueller, June Bray, Sandeep Laumas, Michael Miller, Michal Votruba, and Krishnan Nandabalan as Defendants, and the Company as Nominal Defendant under the caption Panancherry et al v. Mehta et al, 3:23-cv-1554. Following the initial action, Plaintiffs Maria Vomvolakis (3:24-cv-3) and Kelly Fowler (3:24-cv-203) each filed separate stockholder derivative complaints in the District of Connecticut raising similar claims as Panancherry and Bastress, including business torts and violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The cases have been consolidated under the caption In re BioXcel Therapeutics, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation, 3:23-cv-1554 (D. Conn.). On October 30, 2025, the Court entered the parties’ joint stipulation staying the consolidated action until the resolution of Hills v. BioXcel et al, 3:23-cv-00915 (D. Conn.). On January 11, 2024, Plaintiff Jeremy Smith filed a stockholder derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware purportedly on behalf of the Company and against Vimal Mehta, Peter Mueller, June Bray, Sandeep Laumas, Michael Miller, Michal Votruba, Richard I. Steinhart, Robert Risinger, and Krishnan Nandabalan as Defendants, and the Company as Nominal Defendant under the caption Smith v. Mehta et al, 1:24-cv-00041. Following the initial action, Plaintiff Janice Korff filed a stockholder derivative complaint in the District of Delaware raising similar claims as Smith (1:24-cv-130), including business torts and violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The cases have been consolidated under the caption In re BioXcel Therapeutics, Inc. Derivative Litigation, 1:24-cv-00041 (D. Del.). On October 30, 2025, the Court entered the parties’ joint stipulation staying the consolidated action until the resolution of Hills v. BioXcel et al, 3:23-cv-00915 (D. Conn.). On May 7, 2025, Plaintiff Yaakov Portnoy filed a stockholder derivative complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware purportedly on behalf of the Company and against Vimal Mehta, Peter Mueller, June Bray, Sandeep “Steve” Laumas, Michael P. Miller, Michal Votruba, Richard I. Steinhart, Robert Risinger, and Krishnan Nandabalan, and the Company as Nominal Defendant under the caption Yaakov Portnoy, derivatively on behalf of BioXcel Therapeutics, Inc. v. Vimal Mehta, et al, 2025-0508-BWD (Del. Ch.). The complaint alleges similar claims to those raised in In re BioXcel Therapeutics, Inc. Derivative Litigation, 1:24-cv-00041 (D. Del.), including business torts. On January 27, 2026, the Court entered the parties’ joint stipulation staying the case until the resolution of Hills v. BioXcel et al, 3:23-cv-00915 (D. Conn.). At this time, the Company does not believe the claims in the above-captioned stockholder derivative matters have merit, and intends to vigorously defend against them; however, the potential costs and liabilities associated with this litigation are uncertain. In April 2022, the Company signed a commercial supply agreement that requires minimum annual payments for the first three years of the agreement that in aggregate total $10,000 for the three-year period, of which $5,000 was originally due in year ended 2024. On July 11, 2024, the Company entered into an amendment to the commercial supply agreement (the “Product Supply Agreement Amendment”) that reduces the specified minimum annual payment over the next three years starting in the year ended 2024 and, thereafter, for a specified interval, provides for minimum annual payments to the extent that the Company receives approval of a supplemental new drug application (sNDA) or a new drug application (NDA) from the FDA for enumerated indications. The Company’s renegotiated agreement reduced the minimum commitment for 2024 to $1,000 and thereafter for the term of the agreement in annual amounts ranging from $2,000 to $5,000 subject, in certain instances, to the extent that the Company receives approval of an sNDA or NDA from the FDA for enumerated indications. In accordance with the Product Supply Agreement Amendment, the minimum commitments were reduced to $1,000, $2,000 and $2,000 in the years 2024, 2025, and 2026. In addition, the Company agreed to make a reconciliation payment of $1,200, paid in the third quarter of 2024 for full settlement for amounts due prior to the July 11, 2024 amendment.

Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2025

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Note 18. Commitments and Contingencies

From time to time, in the ordinary course of business, the Company may be subject to litigation and regulatory examinations as well as information gathering requests, inquiries and/or investigations. Other than the below, the Company is not currently subject to any matters where it believes there is a reasonable possibility that a material loss may be incurred.

On July 7, 2023, plaintiff Katelyn Martin filed a class action complaint against the Company and certain executives in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, captioned Martin v. BioXcel Therapeutics, et al., 3:23-cv-00915 (D. Conn). The case has since been renamed to Hills et al v. BioXcel Therapeutics, Inc. et al. On October 4, 2023, pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, the court appointed two co-Lead Plaintiffs. The co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December 5, 2023, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On July 11, 2024, the Court dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice and, on August 1, 2024, co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint alleges that defendants made false or misleading statements regarding the TRANQUILITY II trial and the development of BXCL501 for an expanded indication related to the treatment of certain Alzheimer’s-related agitation. The Company moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on September 6, 2024. On February 24, 2025, while the Company’s motion to dismiss remained pending, Plaintiffs moved for leave to further amend their complaint. On September 29, 2025, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend, denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss as moot, and allowing Plaintiffs to proceed on certain of their claims. The Company filed an answer to the third amended complaint on October 28, 2025. On January 23, 2026, the parties reached a tentative agreement to settle the action. In light of this agreement, on January 28, 2026, the Court entered an order vacating the scheduling order and requiring Plaintiffs to file a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement or status report by February 27, 2026. Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval on February 27, 2026, and the Court granted the motion on March 2, 2026. The hearing on the motion for final approval of the class settlement is set for September 2, 2026.

The Company evaluates developments in legal proceedings on a quarterly basis. In accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies, the Company records an accrual for loss contingencies to the extent that the Company concludes that it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the related loss can be reasonably estimated. On March 2, 2026, upon entering into a stipulation of settlement, this settlement became estimable and probable. Accordingly, the Company recorded an estimated $9,750 liability within Other current liabilities in the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets with a corresponding insurance recovery for the 100% portion to be paid directly by certain of the Company’s insurance carriers within Other current assets in the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets.

On November 28, 2023, Plaintiffs Pratheesan Panancherry and Jeffrey Bastress filed a stockholder derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut purportedly on behalf of the Company and against Vimal Mehta, Richard I. Steinhart, Peter Mueller, June Bray, Sandeep Laumas, Michael Miller, Michal Votruba, and Krishnan Nandabalan as Defendants, and the Company as Nominal Defendant under the caption Panancherry et al v. Mehta et al, 3:23-cv-1554. Following the initial action, Plaintiffs Maria Vomvolakis (3:24-cv-3) and Kelly Fowler

(3:24-cv-203) each filed separate stockholder derivative complaints in the District of Connecticut raising similar claims as Panancherry and Bastress, including business torts and violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The cases have been consolidated under the caption In re BioXcel Therapeutics, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation, 3:23-cv-1554 (D. Conn.). On October 30, 2025, the Court entered the parties’ joint stipulation staying the consolidated action until the resolution of Hills v. BioXcel et al, 3:23-cv-00915 (D. Conn.).

On January 11, 2024, Plaintiff Jeremy Smith filed a stockholder derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware purportedly on behalf of the Company and against Vimal Mehta, Peter Mueller, June Bray, Sandeep Laumas, Michael Miller, Michal Votruba, Richard I. Steinhart, Robert Risinger, and Krishnan Nandabalan as Defendants, and the Company as Nominal Defendant under the caption Smith v. Mehta et al, 1:24-cv-00041. Following the initial action, Plaintiff Janice Korff filed a stockholder derivative complaint in the District of Delaware raising similar claims as Smith (1:24-cv-130), including business torts and violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The cases have been consolidated under the caption In re BioXcel Therapeutics, Inc. Derivative Litigation, 1:24-cv-00041 (D. Del.). On October 30, 2025, the Court entered the parties’ joint stipulation staying the consolidated action until the resolution of Hills v. BioXcel et al, 3:23-cv-00915 (D. Conn.).

On May 7, 2025, Plaintiff Yaakov Portnoy filed a stockholder derivative complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware purportedly on behalf of the Company and against Vimal Mehta, Peter Mueller, June Bray, Sandeep “Steve” Laumas, Michael P. Miller, Michal Votruba, Richard I. Steinhart, Robert Risinger, and Krishnan Nandabalan, and the Company as Nominal Defendant under the caption Yaakov Portnoy, derivatively on behalf of BioXcel Therapeutics, Inc. v. Vimal Mehta, et al, 2025-0508-BWD (Del. Ch.). The complaint alleges similar claims to those raised in In re BioXcel Therapeutics, Inc. Derivative Litigation, 1:24-cv-00041 (D. Del.), including business torts. On January 27, 2026, the Court entered the parties’ joint stipulation staying the case until the resolution of Hills v. BioXcel et al, 3:23-cv-00915 (D. Conn.).

At this time, the Company does not believe the claims in the above-captioned stockholder derivative matters have merit, and intends to vigorously defend against them; however, the potential costs and liabilities associated with this litigation are uncertain.

In April 2022, the Company signed a commercial supply agreement that requires minimum annual payments for the first three years of the agreement that in aggregate total $10,000 for the three-year period, of which $5,000 was originally due in year ended 2024. On July 11, 2024, the Company entered into an amendment to the commercial supply agreement (the “Product Supply Agreement Amendment”) that reduces the specified minimum annual payment over the next three years starting in the year ended 2024 and, thereafter, for a specified interval, provides for minimum annual payments to the extent that the Company receives approval of a supplemental new drug application (sNDA) or a new drug application (NDA) from the FDA for enumerated indications. The Company’s renegotiated agreement reduced the minimum commitment for 2024 to $1,000 and thereafter for the term of the agreement in annual amounts ranging from $2,000 to $5,000 subject, in certain instances, to the extent that the Company receives approval of an sNDA or NDA from the FDA for enumerated indications. In accordance with the Product Supply Agreement Amendment, the minimum commitments were reduced to $1,000, $2,000 and $2,000 in the years 2024, 2025, and 2026. In addition, the Company agreed to make a reconciliation payment of $1,200, paid in the third quarter of 2024 for full settlement for amounts due prior to the July 11, 2024 amendment.