Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2015
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	11. Commitments and Contingencies Legal Matters. On January 14, 2011, Butamax filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) in the United States Court for the District of Delaware (the “Delaware District Court”), as Case No. 1:11-cv-00054-SLR, alleging that the Company was infringing one or more claims made in U.S. Patent No. 7,851,188, entitled “Fermentive Production of Four Carbon Alcohols.” On August 11, 2011, Butamax amended the Complaint to include allegations that the Company was infringing one or more claims made in U.S. Patent No. 7,993,889, also entitled “Fermentive Production of Four Carbon Alcohols.” On March 12, 2012, Butamax filed a complaint in the Delaware District Court, as Case No. 1:12-cv-00298-SLR, alleging that the Company was infringing one or more claims made in U.S. Patent No. 8,129,162, entitled “Ketol-Acid Reductoisomerase Using NADH.” On May 15, 2012, Butamax filed a complaint in the Delaware District Court, as Case No. 1:12-cv-00602-SLR, alleging that the Company was infringing one or more claims made in U.S. Patent No. 8,178,328, entitled “Fermentive Production of Four Carbon Alcohols.” On August 6, 2012, Butamax filed a complaint in the Delaware District Court, as Case No. 1:12-cv-01014-SLR, alleging that the Company was infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,222,017, entitled “Ketol-Acid Reductoisomerase Using NADH.” On August 14, 2012, Butamax filed a complaint in the Delaware District Court, as Case No. 1:12-cv-01036-SLR, alleging that the Company was infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,241,878, entitled “Recombinant Yeast Host Cell with Fe-S Cluster Proteins and Methods of Using Thereof.” On September 25, 2012, Butamax filed a complaint in the Delaware District Court, as Case No. 1:12-cv-01200-SLR, alleging that the Company was infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,273,558, entitled “Fermentive Production of Four Carbon Alcohols.” On October 8, 2012, Butamax filed a complaint in the Delaware District Court, as Case No. 1:12-cv-01300-SLR, alleging that the Company was infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,283,144, entitled “Fermentive Production of Four Carbon Alcohols.” On August 22, 2015, the Company entered into a Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release (the “Settlement Agreement”) with Butamax, E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company (“DuPont”) and BP Biofuels North America LLC (“BP” and, together with Butamax and DuPont, the “Butamax Parties”) that resolves the various disputes, lawsuits and other proceedings between one or more of the Butamax Parties and the Company mentioned above, (the “Subject Litigation”), and creates a new business relationship pursuant to which Butamax and the Company have granted rights to each other under certain patents and patent applications in accordance with the terms of the License Agreement which was entered into by the Company and Butamax concurrently with the Settlement Agreement. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the parties terminated the Subject Litigation, subject to certain continuing permitted activities, by filing a joint motion of dismissal with prejudice. Upon the parties’ joint request, the Delaware District Court vacated and withdrew its decisions and orders concerning certain of the parties’ substantive motions, specifically the Delaware District Court’s Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion and Order in matter 11-54, dated March 19, 2013, and the Delaware District Court’s memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 3, 2015 in matters 12-1036, 12-1300 and 12-1200. The Butamax Parties have also agreed to release, on behalf of themselves and their affiliates, the Company and its affiliates from and against all claims that the Butamax Parties have or may have with respect to any matter arising from or related to the Subject Litigation. Likewise, the Company has agreed to release, on behalf of itself and its affiliates, the Butamax Parties and their affiliates from and against all claims that the Company has or may have with respect to any matter arising from or related to the Subject Litigation. In addition to the mutual release discussed above, the parties have also agreed to certain limitations on the making or participating in a challenge of the other party’s patents that are at issue in the Subject Litigation. The parties have also made certain representations, warranties and covenants to each other including, without limitation, with respect to obtaining certain consents. The Settlement Agreement will continue in effect until the expiration of the licensed patents, unless earlier terminated by all parties in writing, except that certain obligations under the Settlement Agreement including the mutual release and obligations to pay royalties and other fees under the License Agreement will survive the termination of the Settlement Agreement. The parties may not assign the Settlement Agreement or any right or obligation thereunder without the prior written consent of the other party. However, the parties may assign the Settlement Agreement to an affiliate or a person that acquires all or substantially all of the business or assets of such party, provided that the assignment includes all patents and patent applications owned by the assigning party that are at issue in the Subject Litigation, subject to certain restrictions. Indemnifications. In the ordinary course of its business, the Company makes certain indemnities under which it may be required to make payments in relation to certain transactions. As of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, the Company did not have any liabilities associated with indemnities. The Company, as permitted under Delaware law and in accordance with its amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws, indemnifies its officers and directors for certain events or occurrences, subject to certain limits, while the officer or director is or was serving at the Company’s request in such capacity. The duration of these indemnifications, commitments, and guarantees varies and, in certain cases, is indefinite. The maximum amount of potential future indemnification is unlimited; however, the Company has a director and officer insurance policy that may enable it to recover a portion of any future amounts paid. The Company accrues for losses for any known contingent liability, including those that may arise from indemnification provisions, when future payment is probable. No such losses have been recorded to date. Environmental Liabilities. The Company’s operations are subject to environmental laws and regulations adopted by various governmental authorities in the jurisdictions in which it operates. These laws require the Company to investigate and remediate the effects of the release or disposal of materials at its locations. Accordingly, the Company has adopted policies, practices and procedures in the areas of pollution control, occupational health and the production, handling, storage and use of hazardous materials to prevent material environmental or other damage, and to limit the financial liability which could result from such events. Environmental liabilities are recorded when the Company’s liability is probable and the costs can be reasonably estimated. No environmental liabilities have been recorded as of September 30, 2015 or as of December 31, 2014.

11. Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Matters. On January 14, 2011, Butamax filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) in the United States Court for the District of Delaware (the “Delaware District Court”), as Case No. 1:11-cv-00054-SLR, alleging that the Company was infringing one or more claims made in U.S. Patent No. 7,851,188, entitled “Fermentive Production of Four Carbon Alcohols.”

On August 11, 2011, Butamax amended the Complaint to include allegations that the Company was infringing one or more claims made in U.S. Patent No. 7,993,889, also entitled “Fermentive Production of Four Carbon Alcohols.”

On March 12, 2012, Butamax filed a complaint in the Delaware District Court, as Case No. 1:12-cv-00298-SLR, alleging that the Company was infringing one or more claims made in U.S. Patent No. 8,129,162, entitled “Ketol-Acid Reductoisomerase Using NADH.”

On May 15, 2012, Butamax filed a complaint in the Delaware District Court, as Case No. 1:12-cv-00602-SLR, alleging that the Company was infringing one or more claims made in U.S. Patent No. 8,178,328, entitled “Fermentive Production of Four Carbon Alcohols.”

On August 6, 2012, Butamax filed a complaint in the Delaware District Court, as Case No. 1:12-cv-01014-SLR, alleging that the Company was infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,222,017, entitled “Ketol-Acid Reductoisomerase Using NADH.”

On August 14, 2012, Butamax filed a complaint in the Delaware District Court, as Case No. 1:12-cv-01036-SLR, alleging that the Company was infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,241,878, entitled “Recombinant Yeast Host Cell with Fe-S Cluster Proteins and Methods of Using Thereof.”

On September 25, 2012, Butamax filed a complaint in the Delaware District Court, as Case No. 1:12-cv-01200-SLR, alleging that the Company was infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,273,558, entitled “Fermentive Production of Four Carbon Alcohols.”

On October 8, 2012, Butamax filed a complaint in the Delaware District Court, as Case No. 1:12-cv-01300-SLR, alleging that the Company was infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,283,144, entitled “Fermentive Production of Four Carbon Alcohols.”

On August 22, 2015, the Company entered into a Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release (the “Settlement Agreement”) with Butamax, E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company (“DuPont”) and BP Biofuels North America LLC (“BP” and, together with Butamax and DuPont, the “Butamax Parties”) that resolves the various disputes, lawsuits and other proceedings between one or more of the Butamax Parties and the Company mentioned above, (the “Subject Litigation”), and creates a new business relationship pursuant to which Butamax and the Company have granted rights to each other under certain patents and patent applications in accordance with the terms of the License Agreement which was entered into by the Company and Butamax concurrently with the Settlement Agreement.

Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the parties terminated the Subject Litigation, subject to certain continuing permitted activities, by filing a joint motion of dismissal with prejudice. Upon the parties’ joint request, the Delaware District Court vacated and withdrew its decisions and orders concerning certain of the parties’ substantive motions, specifically the Delaware District Court’s Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion and Order in matter 11-54, dated March 19, 2013, and the Delaware District Court’s memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 3, 2015 in matters 12-1036, 12-1300 and 12-1200.

The Butamax Parties have also agreed to release, on behalf of themselves and their affiliates, the Company and its affiliates from and against all claims that the Butamax Parties have or may have with respect to any matter arising from or related to the Subject Litigation. Likewise, the Company has agreed to release, on behalf of itself and its affiliates, the Butamax Parties and their affiliates from and against all claims that the Company has or may have with respect to any matter arising from or related to the Subject Litigation.

In addition to the mutual release discussed above, the parties have also agreed to certain limitations on the making or participating in a challenge of the other party’s patents that are at issue in the Subject Litigation. The parties have also made certain representations, warranties and covenants to each other including, without limitation, with respect to obtaining certain consents.

The Settlement Agreement will continue in effect until the expiration of the licensed patents, unless earlier terminated by all parties in writing, except that certain obligations under the Settlement Agreement including the mutual release and obligations to pay royalties and other fees under the License Agreement will survive the termination of the Settlement Agreement.

The parties may not assign the Settlement Agreement or any right or obligation thereunder without the prior written consent of the other party. However, the parties may assign the Settlement Agreement to an affiliate or a person that acquires all or substantially all of the business or assets of such party, provided that the assignment includes all patents and patent applications owned by the assigning party that are at issue in the Subject Litigation, subject to certain restrictions.

Indemnifications. In the ordinary course of its business, the Company makes certain indemnities under which it may be required to make payments in relation to certain transactions. As of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, the Company did not have any liabilities associated with indemnities.

The Company, as permitted under Delaware law and in accordance with its amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws, indemnifies its officers and directors for certain events or occurrences, subject to certain limits, while the officer or director is or was serving at the Company’s request in such capacity. The duration of these indemnifications, commitments, and guarantees varies and, in certain cases, is indefinite. The maximum amount of potential future indemnification is unlimited; however, the Company has a director and officer insurance policy that may enable it to recover a portion of any future amounts paid. The Company accrues for losses for any known contingent liability, including those that may arise from indemnification provisions, when future payment is probable. No such losses have been recorded to date.

Environmental Liabilities. The Company’s operations are subject to environmental laws and regulations adopted by various governmental authorities in the jurisdictions in which it operates. These laws require the Company to investigate and remediate the effects of the release or disposal of materials at its locations. Accordingly, the Company has adopted policies, practices and procedures in the areas of pollution control, occupational health and the production, handling, storage and use of hazardous materials to prevent material environmental or other damage, and to limit the financial liability which could result from such events. Environmental liabilities are recorded when the Company’s liability is probable and the costs can be reasonably estimated. No environmental liabilities have been recorded as of September 30, 2015 or as of December 31, 2014.