Litigation	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation	Note 12 – Litigation On August 25, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company commenced a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Shi v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-cv-07476 (the “Securities Class Action”). Plaintiff in the Securities Class Action alleges that the Company and certain of its current and former officers violated the federal securities laws by misrepresenting and/or omitting material information regarding the AP-003 Phase III clinical trial of Ampion. The plaintiff asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company’s common stock from December 14, 2017 through August 7, 2018. Plaintiff in the Securities Class Action seeks unspecified damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On September 27, 2019, the Court presiding over the Securities Class Action issued an order appointing a Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel, pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in late 2019. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on February 10, 2020. On March 26, 2020, Lead Plaintiff filed a brief in opposition to the Company’s motion to dismiss. The Company filed a reply to the Plaintiff’s brief in opposition on April 27, 2020. On September 10, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company brought a derivative action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Cetrone v. Macaluso, et al., Case No. 18-cv-07855 (the “Cetrone Action”), alleging primarily that the directors and officers of Ampio breached their fiduciary duties in connection with alleged misstatements and omissions regarding the AP-003 Phase III clinical trial of Ampion. On October 5, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company brought a derivative action in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Theise v. Macaluso, et al., Case No. 18-cv-02558 (the “Theise Action”), which closely parallels the allegations in the Cetrone Action. A second derivative action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado and was consolidated with the Theise Action under the caption In re: Ampio Pharmaceuticals Inc. Stockholder Derivative Actions, Case No. 18-cv-02558. This consolidated action, and the Certrone Action in California, are stayed pending further developments in the Securities Class Action. The Company believes that all claims asserted are without merit and intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously. However, it is possible that additional actions will be filed in the future. The Company currently believes the likelihood of a loss contingency related to these matters is remote and given the fact of where the claims exist in the litigation process, the Company is not in the position to provide an estimate and/or range of potential loss.

Note 12 – Litigation

On August 25, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company commenced a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Shi v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-cv-07476 (the “Securities Class Action”). Plaintiff in the Securities Class Action alleges that the Company and certain of its current and former officers violated the federal securities laws by misrepresenting and/or omitting material information regarding the AP-003 Phase III clinical trial of Ampion. The plaintiff asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company’s common stock from December 14, 2017 through August 7, 2018. Plaintiff in the Securities Class Action seeks unspecified damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On September 27, 2019, the Court presiding over the Securities Class Action issued an order appointing a Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel, pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in late 2019. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on February 10, 2020. On March 26, 2020, Lead Plaintiff filed a brief in opposition to the Company’s motion to dismiss. The Company filed a reply to the Plaintiff’s brief in opposition on April 27, 2020.

On September 10, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company brought a derivative action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Cetrone v. Macaluso, et al., Case No. 18-cv-07855 (the “Cetrone Action”), alleging primarily that the directors and officers of Ampio breached their fiduciary duties in connection with alleged misstatements and omissions regarding the AP-003 Phase III clinical trial of Ampion.

On October 5, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company brought a derivative action in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Theise v. Macaluso, et al., Case No. 18-cv-02558 (the “Theise Action”), which closely parallels the allegations in the Cetrone Action. A second derivative action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado and was consolidated with the Theise Action under the caption In re: Ampio Pharmaceuticals Inc. Stockholder Derivative Actions, Case No. 18-cv-02558. This consolidated action, and the Certrone Action in California, are stayed pending further developments in the Securities Class Action.

The Company believes that all claims asserted are without merit and intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously. However, it is possible that additional actions will be filed in the future. The Company currently believes the likelihood of a loss contingency related to these matters is remote and given the fact of where the claims exist in the litigation process, the Company is not in the position to provide an estimate and/or range of potential loss.