Legal Proceedings	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2016
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	(15) Legal Proceedings Two class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company and certain of the Company’s former officers and directors, (Tuan Ha-Ngoc, David N. Johnston, William Slichenmyer and Ronald DePinho), in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, one captioned Paul Sanders v. Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-11157-JLT, filed on May 9, 2013, and the other captioned Christine Krause v. AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-11320-JLT, filed on May 31, 2013. On December 4, 2013, the District Court consolidated the complaints as In re AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation et al., No. 1:13-cv-11157-DJC, and an amended complaint was filed on February 3, 2014. The amended complaint purported to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company’s common stock between January 3, 2012 and May 1, 2013. This consolidated amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice on March 20, 2015, and the lead plaintiffs then filed a second amended complaint bringing similar allegations, and which no longer named Mr. DePinho as a defendant. The Company moved to dismiss again, and after a second round of briefing and oral argument, the court ruled in the Company’s favor and dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice on November 18, 2015. The lead plaintiffs have appealed the court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. They also filed a motion to vacate and reconsider the district court’s judgment, which the Company has opposed. On January 3, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the dismissal and judgment and Plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss their appeal on February 8, 2017. On February 2, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, on behalf of shareholders who purchased common stock between May 16, 2012 and May 1, 2013, alleging claims similar to those alleged in the prior complaints, namely that the Company and certain of its former officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the phase 3 trial design and results for its TIVO-1 clinical trial in an effort to lead investors to believe that the drug would receive approval from the FDA. On March 2, 2017, we filed an answer to the third amended complaint, and the parties have initiated discovery. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, and other costs. The Company denies any allegations of wrongdoing and intends to continue to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. However, there is no assurance that the Company will be successful in its defense or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund any settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of the action. Moreover, the Company is unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at this time. On April 4, 2014, Karen J. van Ingen, a purported purchaser of AVEO stock, filed a derivative complaint allegedly on behalf of AVEO in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the “Court”), Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-11672-DJC, naming AVEO, as a nominal defendant and also naming as defendants present and former members of our board of directors, including Tuan Ha-Ngoc, Henri A. Termeer, Kenneth M. Bate, Anthony B. Evnin, Robert Epstein, Raju Kucherlapati, Robert C. Young, and Kenneth E. Weg. The complaint alleged breach of fiduciary duty and abuse of control between January 2012 and May 2013 with respect to allegedly misleading statements and omissions regarding tivozanib. The lawsuit seeks, among other relief, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, an order requiring us to implement certain corporate governance reforms, restitution from the defendants and such other relief as the court might find just and proper. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the derivative complaint, and after briefing and oral argument, on March 18, 2015 the Court ruled in its favor and dismissed the case with prejudice. The plaintiff then filed a motion seeking to vacate the Court’s order of dismissal and permit filing of an amended complaint, which the Company opposed, and which the Court denied on June 30, 2015. The plaintiff has appealed the Court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle this matter. The settlement involves certain corporate governance changes and other non-monetary relief. The plaintiff is seeking an award of attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses in the amount of $822,116, as well as an incentive award of $2,500, both of which the Company expects will be paid by insurance in the amount ordered by the Court. On September 16, 2016, the Court granted preliminary approval to the proposed settlement. On December 19, 2016, the Court held a final settlement hearing on the terms of the proposed settlement and to consider the award of fees to the plaintiff’s attorneys. No objections to the settlement were filed with the Court or raised at the hearing. At the hearing, the Court indicated orally that the settlement will be approved, and heard argument regarding the size of plaintiff’s potential attorney’s fee award. A formal approval order has not yet entered and the Court has not ruled on the final amount of fees for the plaintiff’s attorneys (which, as stated above, are expected to be paid by insurance). Until a formal approval order has been entered, there can be no complete assurance that the Court will approve the settlement. On July 3, 2013, the staff (the “SEC Staff”) of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) served a subpoena on the Company for documents and information concerning tivozanib, including related communications with the FDA, investors and others. In September 2015, the SEC Staff invited the Company to discuss the settlement of potential claims asserting that the Company violated federal securities laws by omitting to disclose to investors the recommendation by the staff of the FDA on May 11, 2012, that the Company conduct an additional clinical trial with respect to tivozanib. On March 29, 2016, the Commission filed a complaint against the Company and three of its former officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging that the Company misled investors about its efforts to obtain FDA approval for tivozanib. Without admitting or denying the allegations in the Commission’s complaint, the Company consented to the entry of a final judgment pursuant to which the Company paid the Commission a $4.0 million civil penalty to settle the Commission’s claims against it. On March 31, 2016, the District Court entered a final judgment which (i) approved the settlement; (ii) permanently enjoined the Company from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, Sections 10(b) and 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11 and 13a-13 promulgated thereunder; and (iii) ordered the Company to pay the agreed-to civil penalty. The Commission’s action against the Company’s three former officers is still pending. The Company is not a party to any litigation or discussions between the SEC Staff and the former officers, and the Company can make no assurance regarding the outcome of that action or the Commission’s claims against those individuals.

(15) Legal Proceedings

Two class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company and certain of the Company’s former officers and directors, (Tuan Ha-Ngoc, David N. Johnston, William Slichenmyer and Ronald DePinho), in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, one captioned Paul Sanders v. Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-11157-JLT, filed on May 9, 2013, and the other captioned Christine Krause v. AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-11320-JLT, filed on May 31, 2013. On December 4, 2013, the District Court consolidated the complaints as In re AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation et al., No. 1:13-cv-11157-DJC, and an amended complaint was filed on February 3, 2014. The amended complaint purported to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company’s common stock between January 3, 2012 and May 1, 2013. This consolidated amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice on March 20, 2015, and the lead plaintiffs then filed a second amended complaint bringing similar allegations, and which no longer named Mr. DePinho as a defendant. The Company moved to dismiss again, and after a second round of briefing and oral argument, the court ruled in the Company’s favor and dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice on November 18, 2015. The lead plaintiffs have appealed the court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. They also filed a motion to vacate and reconsider the district court’s judgment, which the Company has opposed. On January 3, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the dismissal and judgment and Plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss their appeal on February 8, 2017. On February 2, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, on behalf of shareholders who purchased common stock between May 16, 2012 and May 1, 2013, alleging claims similar to those alleged in the prior complaints, namely that the Company and certain of its former officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the phase 3 trial design and results for its TIVO-1 clinical trial in an effort to lead investors to believe that the drug would receive approval from the FDA. On March 2, 2017, we filed an answer to the third amended complaint, and the parties have initiated discovery. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, and other costs. The Company denies any allegations of wrongdoing and intends to continue to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. However, there is no assurance that the Company will be successful in its defense or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund any settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of the action. Moreover, the Company is unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at this time.

On April 4, 2014, Karen J. van Ingen, a purported purchaser of AVEO stock, filed a derivative complaint allegedly on behalf of AVEO in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the “Court”), Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-11672-DJC, naming AVEO, as a nominal defendant and also naming as defendants present and former members of our board of directors, including Tuan Ha-Ngoc, Henri A. Termeer, Kenneth M. Bate, Anthony B. Evnin, Robert Epstein, Raju Kucherlapati, Robert C. Young, and Kenneth E. Weg. The complaint alleged breach of fiduciary duty and abuse of control between January 2012 and May 2013 with respect to allegedly misleading statements and omissions regarding tivozanib. The lawsuit seeks, among other relief, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, an order requiring us to implement certain corporate governance reforms, restitution from the defendants and such other relief as the court might find just and proper. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the derivative complaint, and after briefing and oral argument, on March 18, 2015 the Court ruled in its favor and dismissed the case with prejudice. The plaintiff then filed a motion seeking to vacate the Court’s order of dismissal and permit filing of an amended complaint, which the Company opposed, and which the Court denied on June 30, 2015. The plaintiff has appealed the Court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle this matter. The settlement involves certain corporate governance changes and other non-monetary relief. The plaintiff is seeking an award of attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses in the amount of $822,116, as well as an incentive award of $2,500, both of which the Company expects will be paid by insurance in the amount ordered by the Court. On September 16, 2016, the Court granted preliminary approval to the proposed settlement. On December 19, 2016, the Court held a final settlement hearing on the terms of the proposed settlement and to consider the award of fees to the plaintiff’s attorneys. No objections to the settlement were filed with the Court or raised at the hearing. At the hearing, the Court indicated orally that the settlement will be approved, and heard argument regarding the size of plaintiff’s potential attorney’s fee award. A formal approval order has not yet entered and the Court has not ruled on the final amount of fees for the plaintiff’s attorneys (which, as stated above, are expected to be paid by insurance). Until a formal approval order has been entered, there can be no complete assurance that the Court will approve the settlement.

On July 3, 2013, the staff (the “SEC Staff”) of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) served a subpoena on the Company for documents and information concerning tivozanib, including related communications with the FDA, investors and others. In September 2015, the SEC Staff invited the Company to discuss the settlement of potential claims asserting that the Company violated federal securities laws by omitting to disclose to investors the recommendation by the staff of the FDA on May 11, 2012, that the Company conduct an additional clinical trial with respect to tivozanib. On March 29, 2016, the Commission filed a complaint against the Company and three of its former officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging that the Company misled investors about its efforts to obtain FDA approval for tivozanib. Without admitting or denying the allegations in the Commission’s complaint, the Company consented to the entry of a final judgment pursuant to which the Company paid the Commission a $4.0 million civil penalty to settle the Commission’s claims against it. On March 31, 2016, the District Court entered a final judgment which (i) approved the settlement; (ii) permanently enjoined the Company from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, Sections 10(b) and 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11 and 13a-13 promulgated thereunder; and (iii) ordered the Company to pay the agreed-to civil penalty. The Commission’s action against the Company’s three former officers is still pending. The Company is not a party to any litigation or discussions between the SEC Staff and the former officers, and the Company can make no assurance regarding the outcome of that action or the Commission’s claims against those individuals.