Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2026
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 civil tort lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. In December 2025, the parties reached a mutual out-of-court settlement agreement resolving all claims related to the matter, the terms of which settlement agreement are confidential. In the settlement agreement, the Company did not concede liability and settled the matter for business reasons. The Company does not consider this settlement material to its financial condition. The settlement of the matter was recorded within Selling, general, and administrative expenses on the Company's Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Loss for the year ended December 31, 2025. The current liability was recorded within Accounts payable and the non-current liability was recorded within Other non-current liabilities on the Company's Balance Sheets as of June 30, 2026 and December 31, 2025. On April 3, 2026 the court signed the Order dismissing the case with prejudice. Neurelis FDA Lawsuit Neurelis, Inc. 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 (ODE) granted by the FDA to the Valtoco® nasal spray product of Neurelis (the "ODE Expiration"). The Company intervened in this litigation to defend the approval of Libervant for this ARS pediatric patient population. Following submission of briefs and filings of respective motions by the parties for summary judgment, on February 14, 2025, the Court entered a final appealable judgment in favor of Neurelis, and against the FDA's and the Company's cross-motions for summary judgment, and directed the FDA to vacate the approval of Libervant. On February 18, 2025, the Company filed an appeal of the District Court's decision with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (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 for Libervant for these ARS pediatric patients. Subsequently, on February 3, 2026, Congress adopted and the President signed into law legislation that amended the Orphan Drug Act to provide that ODE applies only to the extent a subsequent applicant seeks approval for the same approved use or indication within the designated rare disease or condition to which the ODE applies. As applied, this legislation would confirm the FDA's long-standing interpretation of the Orphan Drug Act and its authority to approve another sponsor’s orphan drug for a different use or indication than that of an approved drug with ODE, such as the FDA's prior approval of Libervant for ARS patients aged between two and five years. On February 16, 2026, the Company filed a motion with the DC Appellate Court requesting that the DC Appellate Court order all parties to submit simultaneous briefs regarding appropriate next steps regarding this legislation and its intended application to this case, including the possibility of a summary disposition of the matter by the DC Appellate Court. The parties are submitting briefs to the DC Appellate Court and a decision is expected later this year. 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. 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 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. Contractual indemnification obligation of Indivior remains in effect, and Indivior continues to assume defense costs associated with these matters. The Company's motion to dismiss the MDL matter was granted as to all claims against Aquestive by plaintiffs except design defect claims and claims for punitive damages. Discovery is ongoing and no trial date has been set in the MDL matter. 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 third case has been filed in Quebec and is proceeding towards an authorization hearing, the date of which has not yet been set. Pre-discovery and case management proceedings are underway and no trial date has yet been set. 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. Federal Securities Class Action On March 5, 2026, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and Daniel Barber in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Modica v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. and Daniel Barber. The complaint purports to seek relief on behalf of a class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s publicly traded securities between June 16, 2025 and January 8, 2026, and asserts violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act against all defendants and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendant. The complaint alleges, among other things, that during the proposed class period, defendants made misstatements and/or failed to disclose certain facts regarding the NDA for Anaphylm. The complaint seeks various forms of relief, including monetary damages in an unspecified amount. The lead plaintiff selection process is pending with the court. Following selection of the lead plaintiff the Company anticipates filing a motion to dismiss. 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. Shareholder Derivative Litigation On April 15, 2026, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed by a purported shareholder on behalf of the Company against certain individual directors and officers of the Company, naming the Company as a nominal defendant, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Wilson v. Brown, et al. The complaint asserts claims for violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act against the director defendants, and breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and waste of corporate assets against all individual defendants. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the individual defendants failed to exercise adequate oversight of, and misrepresented and/or failed to disclose certain facts regarding the NDA for Anaphylm. The derivative action has been designated as related to the securities class action described above. The complaint seeks various forms of relief, including monetary damages in an unspecified amount and corporate governance reforms. This case has been stayed, pending a ruling on that anticipated motion to dismiss the securities class action. 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.

On December 5, 2019, Neurelis, Inc. ("Neurelis") filed a civil tort lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. In December 2025, the parties reached a mutual out-of-court settlement agreement resolving all claims related to the matter, the terms of which settlement agreement are confidential. In the settlement agreement, the Company did not concede liability and settled the matter for business reasons. The Company does not consider this settlement material to its financial condition. The settlement of the matter was recorded within Selling, general, and administrative expenses on the Company's Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Loss for the year ended December 31, 2025. The current liability was recorded within Accounts payable and the non-current liability was recorded within Other non-current liabilities on the Company's Balance Sheets as of June 30, 2026 and December 31, 2025. On April 3, 2026 the court signed the Order dismissing the case with prejudice.

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 (ODE) granted by the FDA to the Valtoco® nasal spray product of Neurelis (the "ODE Expiration"). The Company intervened in this litigation to defend the approval of Libervant for this ARS pediatric patient population. Following submission of briefs and filings of respective motions by the parties for summary judgment, on February 14, 2025, the Court entered a final appealable judgment in favor of Neurelis, and against the FDA's and the Company's cross-motions for summary judgment, and directed the FDA to vacate the approval of Libervant. On February 18, 2025, the Company filed an appeal of the District Court's decision with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (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 for Libervant for these ARS pediatric patients.

Subsequently, on February 3, 2026, Congress adopted and the President signed into law legislation that amended the Orphan Drug Act to provide that ODE applies only to the extent a subsequent applicant seeks approval for the same approved use or indication within the designated rare disease or condition to which the ODE applies. As applied, this legislation would confirm the FDA's long-standing interpretation of the Orphan Drug Act and its authority to approve another sponsor’s orphan drug for a different use or indication than that of an approved drug with ODE, such as the FDA's prior approval of Libervant for ARS patients aged between two and five years. On February 16, 2026, the Company filed a motion with the DC Appellate Court requesting that the DC Appellate Court order all parties to submit simultaneous briefs regarding appropriate next steps regarding this legislation and its intended application to this case, including the possibility of a summary disposition of the matter by the DC Appellate Court. The parties are submitting briefs to the DC Appellate Court and a decision is expected later this year. The Company is not able to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of these proceedings or provide a reasonable

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 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. Contractual indemnification obligation of Indivior remains in effect, and Indivior continues to assume defense costs associated with these matters. The Company's motion to dismiss the MDL matter was granted as to all claims against Aquestive by plaintiffs except design defect claims and claims for punitive damages. Discovery is ongoing and no trial date has been set in the MDL matter. 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 third case has been filed in Quebec and is proceeding towards an authorization hearing, the date of which has not yet been set. Pre-discovery and case management proceedings are underway and no trial date has yet been set. 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 March 5, 2026, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and Daniel Barber in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Modica v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. and Daniel Barber. The complaint purports to seek relief on behalf of a class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s publicly traded securities between June 16, 2025 and January 8, 2026, and asserts violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act against all defendants and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendant. The complaint alleges, among other things, that during the proposed class period, defendants made misstatements and/or failed to disclose certain facts regarding the NDA for Anaphylm. The complaint seeks various forms of relief, including monetary damages in an unspecified amount. The lead plaintiff selection process is pending with the court. Following selection of the lead plaintiff the Company anticipates filing a motion to dismiss. 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.

On April 15, 2026, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed by a purported shareholder on behalf of the Company against certain individual directors and officers of the Company, naming the Company as a nominal defendant, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Wilson v. Brown, et al. The complaint asserts claims for violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act against the director defendants, and breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and waste of corporate assets against all individual defendants. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the individual defendants failed to exercise adequate oversight of, and misrepresented and/or failed to disclose certain facts regarding the NDA for Anaphylm. The derivative action has been designated as related to the securities class action described above. The complaint seeks various forms of relief, including monetary damages in an unspecified amount and corporate governance reforms. This case has been stayed, pending a ruling on that anticipated motion to dismiss the securities class action. 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.