Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 7 — Commitments and Contingencies: Contingency Matters On September 9, 2014, the Company filed in the District Court of Mannheim, Germany, a patent infringement action against TauroPharm GmbH and Tauro-Implant GmbH as well as their respective CEOs (the "Defendants") claiming infringement of the Company's European Patent EP 1 814 562 B1, which was granted by the European Patent Office (the "EPO") on January 8, 2014 (the "Prosl European Patent"). The Prosl European Patent covers the formulation of taurolidine and citrate with low dose heparin in a catheter lock solution for maintaining patency and preventing infection in hemodialysis catheters. In this action, the Company claims that the Defendants infringe on the Prosl European Patent by manufacturing and distributing catheter locking solutions to the extent they are covered by the claims of the Prosl European Patent. The Company believes that its patent is sound and is seeking injunctive relief and raising claims for information, rendering of accounts, calling back, destruction and damages. Separately, TauroPharm has filed an opposition with the EPO against the Prosl European Patent alleging that it lacks novelty and inventive step. The Company cannot predict what other defenses the Defendants may raise, or the ultimate outcome of either of these related matters. At present, the EPO has revoked the Prosl European Patent as invalid, and the Company has filed an appeal, which is currently pending. In the same complaint against the same Defendants, the Company also alleged an infringement (requesting the same remedies) of ND Partners' utility model DE 20 2005 022 124 U1 (the "Utility Model"), which the Company believes is fundamentally identical to the Prosl European Patent in its main aspects and claims. The Court separated the two proceedings and the Prosl European Patent and the Utility Model claims are now being tried separately. TauroPharm has filed a cancellation action against the Utility Model before the German Patent and Trademark Office (the "German PTO") based on the similar arguments as those in the opposition against the Prosl European Patent. On March 27, 2015, the District Court held a hearing to evaluate whether the Utility Model has been infringed by TauroPharm in connection with the manufacture, sale and distribution of its TauroLock-HEP100^TM and TauroLock-HEP500^TM products. A hearing before the same court was held on January 30, 2015 on the separate, but related, question of infringement of the Prosl European Patent by TauroPharm. The Court issued its decisions on May 8, 2015, staying both proceedings. In its decisions, the Court found that the commercialization by TauroPharm in Germany of its TauroLock catheter lock solutions Hep100 and Hep500 infringes both the Prosl European Patent and the Utility Model and further that there is no prior use right that would allow TauroPharm to continue to make, use or sell its product in Germany. However, the Court declined to issue an injunction in favor of the Company that would preclude the continued commercialization by TauroPharm based upon its finding that there is a sufficient likelihood that the EPO, in the case of the Prosl European Patent, or the German PTO, in the case of the Utility Model, may find that such patent or utility model is invalid. Specifically, the Court noted the possible publication of certain instructions for product use that may be deemed to constitute prior art. As such, the District Court determined that it will defer any consideration of the request by the Company for injunctive and other relief until such time as the EPO or the German PTO made a final decision on the underlying validity of the Prosl European Patent and the Utility Model. It is safe to assume that the complaint regarding the infringement of the Utility Model will be dismissed now that the German PTO has voided the Utility Model (see below). This does, however, not have a direct effect on the infringement proceedings concerning the Prosl European Patent. The opposition proceeding against the Prosl European Patent before the EPO is ongoing. The EPO held a hearing in the opposition proceeding on November 25, 2015. In its preliminary consideration of the matter, the EPO (and the German PTO) had regarded the patent as not inventive or novel due to publication of prior art. However, the EPO did not issue a decision at the end of the hearing but adjourned the matter due to the fact that the panel was of the view that Claus Herdeis, one of the managing directors of TauroPharm, has to be heard as a witness in a further hearing in order to close some gaps in the documentation presented by TauroPharm as regards the publication of the prior art. The German PTO held a hearing in the validity proceedings relating to the Utility Model on June 29, 2016, at which the panel affirmed its preliminary finding that the Utility Model was invalid based upon prior publication of a reference to the benefits that may be associated with adding heparin to a taurolidine based solution. The Company filed an appeal against the ruling on September 7, 2016. An oral hearing was held on September 17, 2019 in which the German Federal Patent affirmed the first instance decision that the Utility Model was invalid. The decision has only a declaratory effect, as the Utility Model had expired in November 2015. In October 2016, TauroPharm submitted a further writ to the EPO requesting a date for the hearing and bringing forward further arguments, in particular in view of the June 2016 decision of the German PTO on the invalidity of the utility model. On November 22, 2017, the EPO in Munich, Germany held a further oral hearing in this matter. At the hearing, the panel held that the Prosl European Patent would be invalidated because it did not meet the requirements of novelty based on a technical aspect of the European intellectual property law. The Company disagrees with this decision and, after the written opinion was issued by the Opposition Division in September 2018, has appealed the decision. The Company continues to believe that the Prosl European Patent is indeed novel and that its validity should be maintained. There can be no assurance that the Company will prevail in this matter. In addition, the ongoing Unfair Competition litigation brought by the Company against TauroPharm is not affected and will continue. On January 16, 2015, the Company filed a complaint against TauroPharm GmbH and its managing directors in the District Court of Cologne, Germany. In the complaint, the Company alleges violation of the German Unfair Competition Act by TauroPharm for the unauthorized use of its proprietary information obtained in confidence by TauroPharm. The Company alleges that TauroPharm is improperly and unfairly using its proprietary information relating to the composition and manufacture of Neutrolin, in the manufacture and sale of TauroPharm's products TauroLock^TM, TauroLock-HEP100 and TauroLock-HEP500. The Company seeks a cease and desist order against TauroPharm from continuing to manufacture and sell any product containing taurolidine (the active pharmaceutical ingredient ("API") of Neutrolin) and citric acid in addition to possible other components, damages for any sales in the past and the removal of all such products from the market. An initial hearing in the District Court of Cologne, Germany was held on November 19, 2015 to consider the Company's claims. In this hearing, the presiding judge explained that the court needed more information with regard to several aspects of the case. As a consequence, the court issued an interim decision in the form of a court order outlining several issues of concern that relate primarily to the court's interest in clarifying the facts and reviewing any and all available documentation, in particular with regard to the question which specific know-how was provided to TauroPharm by whom and when. The Company's legal team has prepared the requested reply and produced the respective documentation. TauroPharm has also filed another writ within the same deadline and both parties have filed further writs at the end of April 2016 setting out their respective argumentation in more detail. A further oral hearing in this matter was held on November 15, 2016. In this hearing, the court heard arguments from CorMedix and TauroPharm concerning the allegations of unfair competition. The court made no rulings from the bench and indicated that it is prepared to further examine the underlying facts of the Company's allegations. On March 7, 2017, the court issued another interim decision in the form of a court order outlining again several issues relating to the argumentation of both sides in the proceedings. In particular the court requested the Company to further specify its requests and to further substantiate in even more detail which know-how was provided by Biolink (the company who developed Neutrolin that was acquired by ND Partners) to TauroPharm by whom and when. The court also raised the question whether the know-how provided at the time to TauroPharm could still be considered to be secret know-how or may have become public in the meantime. The court granted both sides the opportunity to reply to this court order and provide additional facts and evidence until May 15, 2017. Both parties have submitted further writs in this matter and the court scheduled a further hearing on May 8, 2018. After having been rescheduled several times, the hearing took place on November 20, 2018. A decision was rendered by the court on December 11, 2018, dismissing the complaint in its entirety. However, the Company intends to continue to pursue this matter, and still believes firmly that its claims are well-founded. The Company therefore appealed in January 2019 and filed its grounds of appeal in March 2019. An oral hearing was held on September 6, 2019 in which the legal counsel of the Company brought forward further arguments for the fact that the manufacturing process of the respective catheter locking solution is indeed protectable as a trade secret. In view of these new arguments, the court issued an evidentiary order on September 27, 2019 ordering an expert opinion. Next steps will be taken after the receipt of the expert opinion. In connection with the aforementioned patent and utility model infringement and unfair competition proceedings against TauroPharm, the Company was required by the District Courts of Mannheim and Cologne to provide security deposits of an aggregate of approximately $170,000, to cover legal fees in the event TauroPharm is entitled to reimbursement of these costs. The Company recorded the deposits as restricted cash on the consolidated balance sheets. *Commitments* In-Licensing In 2008, the Company entered into a License and Assignment Agreement (the "NDP License Agreement") with ND Partners, LLP ("NDP"). Pursuant to the NDP License Agreement, NDP granted the Company exclusive, worldwide licenses for certain antimicrobial catheter lock solutions, processes for treating and inhibiting infections, a biocidal lock system and a taurolidine delivery apparatus, and the corresponding United States and foreign patents and applications (the "NDP Technology"). The Company acquired such licenses and patents through its assignment and assumption of NDP's rights under certain separate license agreements by and between NDP and Dr. Hans-Dietrich Polaschegg, Dr. Klaus Sodemann and Dr. Johannes Reinmueller. As consideration in part for the rights to the NDP Technology, the Company paid NDP an initial licensing fee of $325,000 and granted NDP a 5% equity interest in the Company, consisting of 7,996 shares of the Company's common stock. The Company is required to make payments to NDP upon the achievement of certain regulatory and sales-based milestones. Certain of the milestone payments are to be made in the form of shares of common stock currently held in escrow for NDP, and other milestone payments are to be paid in cash. The maximum aggregate number of shares issuable upon achievement of milestones is 29,109 shares. In 2014, a certain milestone was achieved resulting in the release of 7,277 shares held in escrow. The number of shares held in escrow as of December 31, 2019 is 21,832 shares of common stock. The maximum aggregate amount of cash payments due upon achievement of milestones is $3,000,000 with the balance being $2,500,000 as of December 31, 2019 and 2018. Events that trigger milestone payments include but are not limited to the reaching of various stages of regulatory approval and upon achieving certain worldwide net sales amounts. There were no milestones achieved during the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018. The NDP License Agreement may be terminated by the Company on a country-by-country basis upon 60 days prior written notice. If the NDP License Agreement is terminated by either party, the Company's rights to the NDP Technology will revert back to NDP. Other In September 2017, the Company entered into a sublease agreement for approximately 6,960 square feet of office space in Berkeley Heights, New Jersey, which sublease runs from September 15, 2017 to June 29, 2020. This sublease is rent-free to the Company. A notice of an intention not to renew the Company's current lease has been received and as a result, the Company is actively seeking for a new space to lease that will meet its current needs.

Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2019

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Note 7 — Commitments and Contingencies:

Contingency Matters

On September 9, 2014, the Company filed in the District Court of Mannheim, Germany, a patent infringement action against TauroPharm GmbH and Tauro-Implant GmbH as well as their respective CEOs (the "Defendants") claiming infringement of the Company's European Patent EP 1 814 562 B1, which was granted by the European Patent Office (the "EPO") on January 8, 2014 (the "Prosl European Patent"). The Prosl European Patent covers the formulation of taurolidine and citrate with low dose heparin in a catheter lock solution for maintaining patency and preventing infection in hemodialysis catheters. In this action, the Company claims that the Defendants infringe on the Prosl European Patent by manufacturing and distributing catheter locking solutions to the extent they are covered by the claims of the Prosl European Patent. The Company believes that its patent is sound and is seeking injunctive relief and raising claims for information, rendering of accounts, calling back, destruction and damages. Separately, TauroPharm has filed an opposition with the EPO against the Prosl European Patent alleging that it lacks novelty and inventive step. The Company cannot predict what other defenses the Defendants may raise, or the ultimate outcome of either of these related matters. At present, the EPO has revoked the Prosl European Patent as invalid, and the Company has filed an appeal, which is currently pending.

In the same complaint against the same Defendants, the Company also alleged an infringement (requesting the same remedies) of ND Partners' utility model DE 20 2005 022 124 U1 (the "Utility Model"), which the Company believes is fundamentally identical to the Prosl European Patent in its main aspects and claims. The Court separated the two proceedings and the Prosl European Patent and the Utility Model claims are now being tried separately. TauroPharm has filed a cancellation action against the Utility Model before the German Patent and Trademark Office (the "German PTO") based on the similar arguments as those in the opposition against the Prosl European Patent.

On March 27, 2015, the District Court held a hearing to evaluate whether the Utility Model has been infringed by TauroPharm in connection with the manufacture, sale and distribution of its TauroLock-HEP100^TM and TauroLock-HEP500^TM products. A hearing before the same court was held on January 30, 2015 on the separate, but related, question of infringement of the Prosl European Patent by TauroPharm.

The Court issued its decisions on May 8, 2015, staying both proceedings. In its decisions, the Court found that the commercialization by TauroPharm in Germany of its TauroLock catheter lock solutions Hep100 and Hep500 infringes both the Prosl European Patent and the Utility Model and further that there is no prior use right that would allow TauroPharm to continue to make, use or sell its product in Germany. However, the Court declined to issue an injunction in favor of the Company that would preclude the continued commercialization by TauroPharm based upon its finding that there is a sufficient likelihood that the EPO, in the case of the Prosl European Patent, or the German PTO, in the case of the Utility Model, may find that such patent or utility model is invalid. Specifically, the Court noted the possible publication of certain instructions for product use that may be deemed to constitute prior art. As such, the District Court determined that it will defer any consideration of the request by the Company for injunctive and other relief until such time as the EPO or the German PTO made a final decision on the underlying validity of the Prosl European Patent and the Utility Model. It is safe to assume that the complaint regarding the infringement of the Utility Model will be dismissed now that the German PTO has voided the Utility Model (see below). This does, however, not have a direct effect on the infringement proceedings concerning the Prosl European Patent.

The opposition proceeding against the Prosl European Patent before the EPO is ongoing. The EPO held a hearing in the opposition proceeding on November 25, 2015. In its preliminary consideration of the matter, the EPO (and the German PTO) had regarded the patent as not inventive or novel due to publication of prior art. However, the EPO did not issue a decision at the end of the hearing but adjourned the matter due to the fact that the panel was of the view that Claus Herdeis, one of the managing directors of TauroPharm, has to be heard as a witness in a further hearing in order to close some gaps in the documentation presented by TauroPharm as regards the publication of the prior art.

The German PTO held a hearing in the validity proceedings relating to the Utility Model on June 29, 2016, at which the panel affirmed its preliminary finding that the Utility Model was invalid based upon prior publication of a reference to the benefits that may be associated with adding heparin to a taurolidine based solution. The Company filed an appeal against the ruling on September 7, 2016. An oral hearing was held on September 17, 2019 in which the German Federal Patent affirmed the first instance decision that the Utility Model was invalid. The decision has only a declaratory effect, as the Utility Model had expired in November 2015.

In October 2016, TauroPharm submitted a further writ to the EPO requesting a date for the hearing and bringing forward further arguments, in particular in view of the June 2016 decision of the German PTO on the invalidity of the utility model. On November 22, 2017, the EPO in Munich, Germany held a further oral hearing in this matter. At the hearing, the panel held that the Prosl European Patent would be invalidated because it did not meet the requirements of novelty based on a technical aspect of the European intellectual property law. The Company disagrees with this decision and, after the written opinion was issued by the Opposition Division in September 2018, has appealed the decision. The Company continues to believe that the Prosl European Patent is indeed novel and that its validity should be maintained. There can be no assurance that the Company will prevail in this matter. In addition, the ongoing Unfair Competition litigation brought by the Company against TauroPharm is not affected and will continue.

On January 16, 2015, the Company filed a complaint against TauroPharm GmbH and its managing directors in the District Court of Cologne, Germany. In the complaint, the Company alleges violation of the German Unfair Competition Act by TauroPharm for the unauthorized use of its proprietary information obtained in confidence by TauroPharm. The Company alleges that TauroPharm is improperly and unfairly using its proprietary information relating to the composition and manufacture of Neutrolin, in the manufacture and sale of TauroPharm's products TauroLock^TM, TauroLock-HEP100 and TauroLock-HEP500. The Company seeks a cease and desist order against TauroPharm from continuing to manufacture and sell any product containing taurolidine (the active pharmaceutical ingredient ("API") of Neutrolin) and citric acid in addition to possible other components, damages for any sales in the past and the removal of all such products from the market. An initial hearing in the District Court of Cologne, Germany was held on November 19, 2015 to consider the Company's claims. In this hearing, the presiding judge explained that the court needed more information with regard to several aspects of the case. As a consequence, the court issued an interim decision in the form of a court order outlining several issues of concern that relate primarily to the court's interest in clarifying the facts and reviewing any and all available documentation, in particular with regard to the question which specific know-how was provided to TauroPharm by whom and when. The Company's legal team has prepared the requested reply and produced the respective documentation. TauroPharm has also filed another writ within the same deadline and both parties have filed further writs at the end of April 2016 setting out their respective argumentation in more detail. A further oral hearing in this matter was held on November 15, 2016. In this hearing, the court heard arguments from CorMedix and TauroPharm concerning the allegations of unfair competition. The court made no rulings from the bench and indicated that it is prepared to further examine the underlying facts of the Company's allegations. On March 7, 2017, the court issued another interim decision in the form of a court order outlining again several issues relating to the argumentation of both sides in the proceedings. In particular the court requested the Company to further specify its requests and to further substantiate in even more detail which know-how was provided by Biolink (the company who developed Neutrolin that was acquired by ND Partners) to TauroPharm by whom and when. The court also raised the question whether the know-how provided at the time to TauroPharm could still be considered to be secret know-how or may have become public in the meantime. The court granted both sides the opportunity to reply to this court order and provide additional facts and evidence until May 15, 2017. Both parties have submitted further writs in this matter and the court scheduled a further hearing on May 8, 2018. After having been rescheduled several times, the hearing took place on November 20, 2018. A decision was rendered by the court on December 11, 2018, dismissing the complaint in its entirety. However, the Company intends to continue to pursue this matter, and still believes firmly that its claims are well-founded. The Company therefore appealed in January 2019 and filed its grounds of appeal in March 2019. An oral hearing was held on September 6, 2019 in which the legal counsel of the Company brought forward further arguments for the fact that the manufacturing process of the respective catheter locking solution is indeed protectable as a trade secret. In view of these new arguments, the court issued an evidentiary order on September 27, 2019 ordering an expert opinion. Next steps will be taken after the receipt of the expert opinion.

In connection with the aforementioned patent and utility model infringement and unfair competition proceedings against TauroPharm, the Company was required by the District Courts of Mannheim and Cologne to provide security deposits of an aggregate of approximately $170,000, to cover legal fees in the event TauroPharm is entitled to reimbursement of these costs. The Company recorded the deposits as restricted cash on the consolidated balance sheets.

Commitments

In-Licensing

In 2008, the Company entered into a License and Assignment Agreement (the "NDP License Agreement") with ND Partners, LLP ("NDP"). Pursuant to the NDP License Agreement, NDP granted the Company exclusive, worldwide licenses for certain antimicrobial catheter lock solutions, processes for treating and inhibiting infections, a biocidal lock system and a taurolidine delivery apparatus, and the corresponding United States and foreign patents and applications (the "NDP Technology"). The Company acquired such licenses and patents through its assignment and assumption of NDP's rights under certain separate license agreements by and between NDP and Dr. Hans-Dietrich Polaschegg, Dr. Klaus Sodemann and Dr. Johannes Reinmueller. As consideration in part for the rights to the NDP Technology, the Company paid NDP an initial licensing fee of $325,000 and granted NDP a 5% equity interest in the Company, consisting of 7,996 shares of the Company's common stock.

The Company is required to make payments to NDP upon the achievement of certain regulatory and sales-based milestones. Certain of the milestone payments are to be made in the form of shares of common stock currently held in escrow for NDP, and other milestone payments are to be paid in cash. The maximum aggregate number of shares issuable upon achievement of milestones is 29,109 shares. In 2014, a certain milestone was achieved resulting in the release of 7,277 shares held in escrow. The number of shares held in escrow as of December 31, 2019 is 21,832 shares of common stock. The maximum aggregate amount of cash payments due upon achievement of milestones is $3,000,000 with the balance being $2,500,000 as of December 31, 2019 and 2018. Events that trigger milestone payments include but are not limited to the reaching of various stages of regulatory approval and upon achieving certain worldwide net sales amounts. There were no milestones achieved during the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018.

The NDP License Agreement may be terminated by the Company on a country-by-country basis upon 60 days prior written notice. If the NDP License Agreement is terminated by either party, the Company's rights to the NDP Technology will revert back to NDP.

Other

In September 2017, the Company entered into a sublease agreement for approximately 6,960 square feet of office space in Berkeley Heights, New Jersey, which sublease runs from September 15, 2017 to June 29, 2020. This sublease is rent-free to the Company. A notice of an intention not to renew the Company's current lease has been received and as a result, the Company is actively seeking for a new space to lease that will meet its current needs.