Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal Matters Securities Class Action Litigation In June 2015, a securities class action complaint entitled Norfolk County Retirement System v. Solazyme, Inc. et al. was filed against the Company, its then CEO, Jonathan Wolfson, its CFO/COO, Tyler Painter, certain of its current and former directors, and the underwriters of its March 2014 equity and debt offerings, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Inc. and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Securities Class Action”). The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as well as Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class that would comprise all individuals who acquired the Company's securities (i) between February 27, 2014 and November 5, 2014 and (ii) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's public equity and debt offerings in March 2014. The complaint alleges that investors were misled by statements made during that period about the construction progress, development, and production capacity associated with the production facility located in Brazil owned by the Company’s joint venture, Solazyme Bunge Produtos Renovaveis Ltda. An amended complaint was filed in December 2015. The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the action in February 2016 that was heard in May 2016. The Company believes the complaint lacks merit, and intends to defend itself vigorously. Derivative Litigation In July 2015, a complaint entitled Jim Bertonis, derivatively on behalf of Solazyme, Inc. v. Jonathan Wolfson et al. was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo. In May 2016, a second, related derivative complaint, captioned Ben Wang, derivatively on behalf of Solazyme, Inc. v. Jonathan Wolfson et al, was filed in the same court. Both actions have been consolidated going forward as In re TerraVia Holdings, Inc. f/k/a Solazyme, Inc. Shareholder Litigation (the “State Derivative Action”). The complaints seek unspecified damages, purportedly on behalf of the Company, from certain of its current and former directors and officers. The complaints assert claims against these defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and aiding and abetting. The complaints allege that these defendants are liable for making allegedly false and misleading statements and omitting certain material facts in the Company's securities filings and other public disclosures. The State Derivative Action is based on substantially the same facts as the Securities Class Action described above. The State Derivative Action is presently stayed by court order through January 1, 2017. Based on a review of the plaintiffs’ allegations, the Company believes that the plaintiffs have not demonstrated standing to sue on its behalf. In August 2015, a complaint entitled Gregory M. Miller, derivatively on behalf of Solazyme, Inc. v. Jonathan S. Wolfson et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Federal Derivative Action”). The complaint seeks unspecified damages, purportedly on behalf of the Company from certain of its current and former directors and officers. The complaint asserts claims against these defendants for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting. The complaint alleges that these defendants are liable for making allegedly false and misleading statements and omitting certain material facts in the Company's securities filings and other public disclosures. The Federal Derivative Action is based on substantially the same facts as the Securities Class Action and the State Derivative Action described above. The Federal Derivative Action is presently stayed pending resolution of the motion to dismiss in the Securities Class Action. Based on a review of the plaintiffs’ allegations, the Company believes that the plaintiff has not demonstrated standing to sue on its behalf. Roquette Frères, S.A. In September 2013, an arbitration (the “Roquette Arbitration”) was initiated with Roquette Frères, S.A. (“Roquette”) in connection with the dissolution of a joint venture between the Company and Roquette known as Solazyme Roquette Nutritionals L.L.C. (“SRN”). The Company sought a declaration that, in accordance with the terms of the joint venture agreement between the parties, the Company should be assigned all improvements made by or on behalf of SRN to the Company’s intellectual property. In February 2015 the arbitration panel released its decision, ordering, inter alia, the assignment to the Company of (i) all SRN patent applications, (ii) all SRN know-how related to high lipid algae flour and high protein algae powder and (iii) all Roquette patent applications filed since November 2010 relating to algae food and food ingredients, as well as methods for making and using them. In addition, the arbitration panel ordered Roquette to pay to the Company $2.3 million in legal costs and fees. The arbitration award was confirmed by order of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in December 2015. Roquette has appealed the confirmation of the arbitration award to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Pending this appeal, the confirmation of the arbitration award was stayed by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in January 2016 by an order wherein the Court granted not only a stay but also enjoined Roquette from pursuing any further commercialization of any technology arguably within the ambit of the arbitral decision, including the sale of products. The appeal was heard by the Third Circuit in September 2016 and the Company expects a decision by the end of 2016. In November 2014, Roquette filed an action against the Company in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware for declaratory judgment related to the Roquette Arbitration. Roquette sought a declaration that (i) the arbitrators in the Roquette Arbitration exceeded their authority by failing to render a timely arbitration award, (ii) any award issued by the arbitrators is void and (iii) all intangible assets of SRN should be assigned jointly to Roquette and the Company. Other than seeking its attorney fees and costs in the action, Roquette did not make any monetary claims against the Company. The Company filed an Answer to the Complaint in January 2015, denying substantially all of Roquette’s claims and all of its prayers for relief. In February 2015 Roquette filed a second action against the Company in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware for declaratory judgment related to the Roquette Arbitration. Roquette sought a declaration that (A) the order of the arbitrators in the Roquette Arbitration for more discovery and new hearings was unenforceable and (B) in the alternative, the proposed new discovery and hearings concerned an issue that was outside the scope of the arbitration. Other than seeking its attorney fees and costs in the action, Roquette did not make any monetary claims against the Company. The two Delaware actions were consolidated in February 2015. The Company filed its Answer to the second Complaint in February 2015, denying all claims made in the Complaint and all related prayers for relief. In addition, the Company cross-claimed for (x) confirmation of the arbitration award, (y) an order compelling Roquette to comply with the arbitration award and (z) damages for misappropriation of the Company’s trade secrets, misuse of the Company’s confidential information and breach of contract. In April 2015 Roquette filed motions for summary judgment in each of the two declaratory judgment actions commenced by Roquette and a motion to vacate the award rendered in the Roquette Arbitration, which included counterclaims alleging the Company misused certain Roquette trade secrets. The summary judgment motions made by Roquette were denied by the court in December 2015. All further proceedings under the declaratory actions have been stayed pending the Third Circuit appeal described above. The Company may be involved, from time to time, in additional legal proceedings and claims arising in the ordinary course of its business. Such matters are subject to many uncertainties and outcomes are not predictable with assurance. The Company accrues amounts, to the extent they can be reasonably estimated, that it believes are adequate to address any liabilities related to legal proceedings and other loss contingencies that the Company believes will result in a probable loss. While there can be no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of any legal proceeding or other loss contingencies involving the Company, management does not believe any pending matters individually and in the aggregate will be resolved in a manner that would have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Legal Matters

Securities Class Action Litigation

In June 2015, a securities class action complaint entitled Norfolk County Retirement System v. Solazyme, Inc. et al. was filed against the Company, its then CEO, Jonathan Wolfson, its CFO/COO, Tyler Painter, certain of its current and former directors, and the underwriters of its March 2014 equity and debt offerings, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Inc. and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Securities Class Action”). The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as well as Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class that would comprise all individuals who acquired the Company's securities (i) between February 27, 2014 and November 5, 2014 and (ii) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's public equity and debt offerings in March 2014. The complaint alleges that investors were misled by statements made during that period about the construction progress, development, and production capacity associated with the production facility located in Brazil owned by the Company’s joint venture, Solazyme Bunge Produtos Renovaveis Ltda. An amended complaint was filed in December 2015. The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the action in February 2016 that was heard in May 2016. The Company believes the complaint lacks merit, and intends to defend itself vigorously.

Derivative Litigation

In July 2015, a complaint entitled Jim Bertonis, derivatively on behalf of Solazyme, Inc. v. Jonathan Wolfson et al. was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo. In May 2016, a second, related derivative complaint, captioned Ben Wang, derivatively on behalf of Solazyme, Inc. v. Jonathan Wolfson et al, was filed in the same court. Both actions have been consolidated going forward as In re TerraVia Holdings, Inc. f/k/a Solazyme, Inc. Shareholder Litigation (the “State Derivative Action”). The complaints seek unspecified damages, purportedly on behalf of the Company, from certain of its current and former directors and officers. The complaints assert claims against these defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and aiding and abetting. The complaints allege that these defendants are liable for making allegedly false and misleading statements and omitting certain material facts in the Company's securities filings and other public disclosures. The State Derivative Action is based on substantially the same facts as the Securities Class Action described above. The State Derivative Action is presently stayed by court order through January 1, 2017. Based on a review of the plaintiffs’ allegations, the Company believes that the plaintiffs have not demonstrated standing to sue on its behalf.

In August 2015, a complaint entitled Gregory M. Miller, derivatively on behalf of Solazyme, Inc. v. Jonathan S. Wolfson et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Federal Derivative Action”). The complaint seeks unspecified damages, purportedly on behalf of the Company from certain of its current and former directors and officers. The complaint asserts claims against these defendants for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting. The complaint alleges that these defendants are liable for making allegedly false and misleading statements and omitting certain material facts in the Company's securities filings and other public disclosures. The Federal Derivative Action is based on substantially the same facts as the Securities Class Action and the State Derivative Action described above. The Federal Derivative Action is presently stayed pending resolution of the motion to dismiss in the Securities Class Action. Based on a review of the plaintiffs’ allegations, the Company believes that the plaintiff has not demonstrated standing to sue on its behalf.

Roquette Frères, S.A.

In September 2013, an arbitration (the “Roquette Arbitration”) was initiated with Roquette Frères, S.A. (“Roquette”) in connection with the dissolution of a joint venture between the Company and Roquette known as Solazyme Roquette Nutritionals L.L.C. (“SRN”). The Company sought a declaration that, in accordance with the terms of the joint venture agreement between the parties, the Company should be assigned all improvements made by or on behalf of SRN to the Company’s intellectual property. In February 2015 the arbitration panel released its decision, ordering, inter alia, the assignment to the Company of (i) all SRN patent applications, (ii) all SRN know-how related to high lipid algae flour and high protein algae powder and (iii) all Roquette patent applications filed since November 2010 relating to algae food and food ingredients, as well as methods for making and using them. In addition, the arbitration panel ordered Roquette to pay to the Company $2.3 million in legal costs and fees. The arbitration award was confirmed by order of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in December 2015. Roquette has appealed the confirmation of the arbitration award to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Pending this appeal, the confirmation of the arbitration award was stayed by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in January 2016 by an order wherein the Court granted not only a stay but also enjoined Roquette from pursuing any further commercialization of any technology arguably within the ambit of the arbitral decision, including the sale of products. The appeal was heard by the Third Circuit in September 2016 and the Company expects a decision by the end of 2016.

In November 2014, Roquette filed an action against the Company in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware for declaratory judgment related to the Roquette Arbitration. Roquette sought a declaration that (i) the arbitrators in the Roquette Arbitration exceeded their authority by failing to render a timely arbitration award, (ii) any award issued by the arbitrators is void and (iii) all intangible assets of SRN should be assigned jointly to Roquette and the Company. Other than seeking its attorney fees and costs in the action, Roquette did not make any monetary claims against the Company. The Company filed an Answer to the Complaint in January 2015, denying substantially all of Roquette’s claims and all of its prayers for relief.

In February 2015 Roquette filed a second action against the Company in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware for declaratory judgment related to the Roquette Arbitration. Roquette sought a declaration that (A) the order of the arbitrators in the Roquette Arbitration for more discovery and new hearings was unenforceable and (B) in the alternative, the proposed new discovery and hearings concerned an issue that was outside the scope of the arbitration. Other than seeking its attorney fees and costs in the action, Roquette did not make any monetary claims against the Company. The two Delaware actions were consolidated in February 2015. The Company filed its Answer to the second Complaint in February 2015, denying all claims made in the Complaint and all related prayers for relief. In addition, the Company cross-claimed for (x) confirmation of the arbitration award, (y) an order compelling Roquette to comply with the arbitration award and (z) damages for misappropriation of the Company’s trade secrets, misuse of the Company’s confidential information and breach of contract. In April 2015 Roquette filed motions for summary judgment in each of the two declaratory judgment actions commenced by Roquette and a motion to vacate the award rendered in the Roquette Arbitration, which included counterclaims alleging the Company misused certain Roquette trade secrets. The summary judgment motions made by Roquette were denied by the court in December 2015. All further proceedings under the declaratory actions have been stayed pending the Third Circuit appeal described above.

The Company may be involved, from time to time, in additional legal proceedings and claims arising in the ordinary course of its business. Such matters are subject to many uncertainties and outcomes are not predictable with assurance. The Company accrues amounts, to the extent they can be reasonably estimated, that it believes are adequate to address any liabilities related to legal proceedings and other loss contingencies that the Company believes will result in a probable loss. While there can be no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of any legal proceeding or other loss contingencies involving the Company, management does not believe any pending matters individually and in the aggregate will be resolved in a manner that would have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.