Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Contingencies	Jun. 30, 2024
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. Patent-Related Litigation Indivior Inc., Indivior UK Ltd., and Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. On February 7, 2018, the Company and Indivior initiated a lawsuit against Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”) asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,855,221 ("the '221 patent"). On April 3, 2018, the Company and Indivior initiated a separate lawsuit against Teva asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,931,305 ("the '305 patent"). On May 29, 2018, the lawsuits regarding the '221 and '305 patents were consolidated with a suit originally initiated by Indivior against Teva asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,687,454 ("the '454 patent"). The parties agreed that the case would be governed by the final judgment against Dr. Reddy’s, which also involved allegations of infringement of the '221, '305, and '454 patents, which was resolved via a settlement agreement and entry of a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal on June 28,2022. On January 31, 2024, the Court entered a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal, dismissing all claims and counterclaims with prejudice in the lawsuit against Teva. Kentucky Litigation - Humana Humana Inc. v. Indivior Inc, Indivior Solutions Inc., Indivior PLC, Reckitt Benckiser Group plc, Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (UK) Ltd., and Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. On August 20, 2021, Humana filed a complaint in state court in Kentucky, alleging conspiracy to violate the RICO Act, fraud under state law, unfair and deceptive trade practices under state law, insurance fraud, and unjust enrichment against the Company relating to Indivior’s launch of Suboxone Sublingual Film in 2010. The Humana action was stayed pending related litigation, and the stay was lifted on October 30, 2023. On February 23, 2024, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint. Oral argument on the Company's motion to dismiss is currently set for September 9, 2024. No discovery schedule has been set in the action and there is no trial date set in this case. The Company is not able to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of the state court action in Kentucky by Humana, or provide a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the possible outcome or loss, if any, in this matter. California Litigation Neurelis, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. On December 5, 2019, Neurelis Inc. filed a lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego alleging the following three causes of action: (1) Unfair Competition under California Business and Professional Code § 17200 (“UCL”); (2) Defamation; and (3) Malicious Prosecution. Neurelis filed a First Amended Complaint on December 9, 2019, alleging the same three causes of action. The Company filed a Motion to Strike Neurelis’s Complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP (“strategic lawsuit against public participation”) statute on January 31, 2020, which Neurelis opposed. On August 6, 2020, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the Company’s anti-SLAPP motion. The parties cross-appealed the ruling to the California Court of Appeal. The appeals court held oral argument on the appeal on October 14, 2021, and issued its ruling on November 17, 2021. Under the ruling, the court struck the entirety of the malicious prosecution claim and struck portions of the UCL and defamation claims. On April 12, 2022, Neurelis filed a Second Amended Complaint in response to the Court of Appeal’s decision. The Second Amended Complaint also added a cause of action for Trade Libel. On May 3, 2022, the Company filed a "demurrer" challenge to the sufficiency of the allegations of the Second Amended Complaint. Oral argument on the Company’s motion for attorney fees related to the anti-SLAPP motion and on the Second Amended Complaint and demurer challenge was held on June 17, 2022. The Court entered an order granting the Company’s motion for attorney fees, awarding $156 and ordering Neurelis to pay the fees within 60 days of June 17, 2022. The Court denied the Company’s demurrer and the parties proceeded with discovery on the claims in the Second Amended Complaint. The plaintiff filed a motion to file a third amended complaint, which the Court granted on November 17, 2023. The Third Amended Complaint alleges additional facts but includes the same claims as the Second Amended Complaint. Trial in this matter is scheduled for March 7, 2025. 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. Suboxone Product Liability Litigation As of July 29, 2024, the Company was named as a defendant in over 560 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 Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL") consolidated in the United States 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, but have not yet agreed to a tolling of the N.J. state case. Indivior has agreed to defend the Company in these litigation matters. No discovery schedule or 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. Neurelis FDA Lawsuit Neurelis v. Califf, et al., U.S. District court for the District of Columbia