Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 9 – Commitments and Contingencies Amendment to Agreement with Windlas Healthcare Private Limited On August 17, 2017, we entered into an amendment (the “Amendment”) of that certain Pharmaceutical Development Agreement dated as of March 30, 2017 by and between Windlas Healthcare Private Limited (“Windlas”) and our company (the “Development Agreement”), relating to the development by Windlas of certain pharmaceutical products to be used for conducting clinical trials or for regulatory submissions, as more fully described therein. Pursuant to the Amendment, we and Windlas agreed to amend the Development Agreement to reflect our agreement to issue to Windlas, and Windlas’ agreement to accept from us, in lieu of cash payments with respect to forty percent (40%) of the total amount reflected on invoices sent from time to time by Windlas to us, shares of our common stock having an aggregate value equal to forty percent (40%) of such invoiced amount (with the remaining portion of the invoiced amount being paid in cash). The maximum value of common stock that may be issued to Windlas pursuant to the Development Agreement (as modified by the Amendment) is $2 million. The parties also agreed that the foregoing payment arrangement would apply to any Contract Manufacturing and Supply Agreement (or similar agreement) relating to the manufacturing of commercial batches of the products covered by the Development Agreement that may be entered into between the parties. Litigation Because of the nature of the Company’s activities, the Company is subject to claims and/or threatened legal actions, which arise out of the normal course of business. Other than the disclosure below, as of the date of this filing, the Company is not aware of any pending lawsuits against the Company, its officers or directors. The Company has been named on a complaint filed in New York State as a defendant in the matter entitled Vaya Pharma, Inc. v. Symplmed Technologies, Inc., Symplmed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Erik Emerson and Marina Biotech, Inc. While this complaint has been filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, the Company has not been legally served. The complaint alleges, in relevant part, that: (i) the sale by Symplmed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of its assets related to its Prestalia product, and the sale by Symplmed Technologies, Inc. of its assets related to its DyrctAxess platform, should be set aside pursuant to New York law as they were consummated without fair consideration to the sellers (the “Symplmed Defendants”), and thereby had the effect of fraudulently depriving the creditors of the Symplmed Defendants, including Vaya Pharma, Inc., of funds that could have been used to pay their debts; and (ii) the Company is liable, as successor, for any and all claims by Vaya Pharma, Inc. against the Symplmed Defendants, though pursuant to the agreement the Company is only contractually responsible for liabilities that accrue after the parties entered into the agreement for Prestalia and any liabilities that existed prior to the agreement are contractually held by Symplmed. If and when the Company is legally served, it is the intention of the Company to dispute jurisdiction, the sufficiency of the pleading and the claims set forth in this complaint, and to defend this matter, vigorously. However, due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the ultimate outcome of this matter is uncertain. The Company reached a tentative settlement agreement and, although such settlement has not been finalized, the Company accrued a total provision of $250,000 for this complaint, which is included in accrued expenses on the accompanying consolidated balance sheet. Our Prestalia product is currently involved in a paragraph IV challenge regarding patents issued to perindopril arginine. This challenge, which is currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (No. 1:17-cv-00276), is captioned Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. v. Symplmed Pharmaceuticals, LLC and Les Laboratoires Servier. The challengers (Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (“Apotex”)) have filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application seeking FDA approval to market a generic version of Prestalia and included a Paragraph (IV) certification. In the litigation, Apotex seeks a declaratory judgment that no valid claims of the two patents Symplmed listed in the FDA Orange Book as having claims covering Prestalia, U.S. Patent No. 6,696,481 and 7,846,961, will be infringed by the Apotex proposed generic version of Prestalia and that the claims of those patents are invalid. The challenge is designed to provide Apotex with an opportunity to enter the market with a generic version of Prestalia, ahead of the expiration of the patents with claims covering that product. Apotex entered into negotiations with Symplmed Pharmaceuticals, LLC (which entity sold its assets relating to Prestalia to us in June 2017, including its License and Commercialization Agreement with Les Laboratories Servier) and Les Laboratories Servier (which entity owns or controls intellectual property rights relating to pharmaceutical products containing as an active pharmaceutical ingredient perindopril in combination with other active pharmaceutical ingredients, which rights have been licensed to Symplmed Pharmaceuticals) to resolve the challenge in the second quarter of 2017, and such parties, along with us, have come to a general agreement on terms that will result in a delay to the challengers’ ability to enter the market with a generic version of Prestalia, while still providing the challenger with the right to enter the market prior to the expiration of the patent covering such product. The term sheet memorializing such terms is pending execution in a final settlement agreement. In the meantime, the District Court has entered an order extending the time for the defendants to respond to Apotex’s Complaint until January 9, 2018 . We do not anticipate that the proposed settlement terms – which would provide us with the ability to exclusively market Prestalia for a specified period of time without incurring the risks or costs of litigation – will have a material adverse impact on our long term business as a whole. We hold this expectation because it is our intention that Prestalia will be a building block toward the development of our company into a larger organization, which we hope will include the commercial launch by us of Prestalia and the expansion of our commercial capabilities in connection with such activities, followed by the launch of products that we license for commercialization purposes from our partners and the commercial launch of products that we develop internally. We anticipate that the aforementioned steps to expand and strengthen our commercial capabilities and diversify our product offerings so as to generate meaningful revenues in excess of those revenues generated by sales of Prestalia will occur during our exclusivity period with respect to Prestalia (i.e., prior to the date on which Apotex enters the market with a generic version of Prestalia). If we are able to achieve this growth, the overall economic impact that would result to us even if Apotex markets a generic version of Prestalia and captures a significant percentage of the market for that drug following our exclusivity period would be reduced. However, there can be no assurance that the paragraph IV challenge will be resolved without litigation or resolved on the terms currently proposed. There also cannot be any assurance that our plans to commercialize Prestalia (or any of the products that it may license from its partners or that it may develop internally) and expand our product offerings and the revenue generated therefrom so as to lessen our reliance on sales of Prestalia will be achieved. Any failure of our expectations regarding the resolution of the paragraph IV challenge and the expansion of our commercial activities (and the revenues to be derived therefrom) could have a material adverse effect on us, our prospects and our results of operations.

Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Note 9 – Commitments and Contingencies

Amendment to Agreement with Windlas Healthcare Private Limited

On August 17, 2017, we entered into an amendment (the “Amendment”) of that certain Pharmaceutical Development Agreement dated as of March 30, 2017 by and between Windlas Healthcare Private Limited (“Windlas”) and our company (the “Development Agreement”), relating to the development by Windlas of certain pharmaceutical products to be used for conducting clinical trials or for regulatory submissions, as more fully described therein. Pursuant to the Amendment, we and Windlas agreed to amend the Development Agreement to reflect our agreement to issue to Windlas, and Windlas’ agreement to accept from us, in lieu of cash payments with respect to forty percent (40%) of the total amount reflected on invoices sent from time to time by Windlas to us, shares of our common stock having an aggregate value equal to forty percent (40%) of such invoiced amount (with the remaining portion of the invoiced amount being paid in cash). The maximum value of common stock that may be issued to Windlas pursuant to the Development Agreement (as modified by the Amendment) is $2 million. The parties also agreed that the foregoing payment arrangement would apply to any Contract Manufacturing and Supply Agreement (or similar agreement) relating to the manufacturing of commercial batches of the products covered by the Development Agreement that may be entered into between the parties.

Litigation

Because of the nature of the Company’s activities, the Company is subject to claims and/or threatened legal actions, which arise out of the normal course of business. Other than the disclosure below, as of the date of this filing, the Company is not aware of any pending lawsuits against the Company, its officers or directors.

The Company has been named on a complaint filed in New York State as a defendant in the matter entitled Vaya Pharma, Inc. v. Symplmed Technologies, Inc., Symplmed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Erik Emerson and Marina Biotech, Inc. While this complaint has been filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, the Company has not been legally served. The complaint alleges, in relevant part, that: (i) the sale by Symplmed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of its assets related to its Prestalia product, and the sale by Symplmed Technologies, Inc. of its assets related to its DyrctAxess platform, should be set aside pursuant to New York law as they were consummated without fair consideration to the sellers (the “Symplmed Defendants”), and thereby had the effect of fraudulently depriving the creditors of the Symplmed Defendants, including Vaya Pharma, Inc., of funds that could have been used to pay their debts; and (ii) the Company is liable, as successor, for any and all claims by Vaya Pharma, Inc. against the Symplmed Defendants, though pursuant to the agreement the Company is only contractually responsible for liabilities that accrue after the parties entered into the agreement for Prestalia and any liabilities that existed prior to the agreement are contractually held by Symplmed. If and when the Company is legally served, it is the intention of the Company to dispute jurisdiction, the sufficiency of the pleading and the claims set forth in this complaint, and to defend this matter, vigorously. However, due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the ultimate outcome of this matter is uncertain. The Company reached a tentative settlement agreement and, although such settlement has not been finalized, the Company accrued a total provision of $250,000 for this complaint, which is included in accrued expenses on the accompanying consolidated balance sheet.

Our Prestalia product is currently involved in a paragraph IV challenge regarding patents issued to perindopril arginine. This challenge, which is currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (No. 1:17-cv-00276), is captioned Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. v. Symplmed Pharmaceuticals, LLC and Les Laboratoires Servier. The challengers (Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (“Apotex”)) have filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application seeking FDA approval to market a generic version of Prestalia and included a Paragraph (IV) certification. In the litigation, Apotex seeks a declaratory judgment that no valid claims of the two patents Symplmed listed in the FDA Orange Book as having claims covering Prestalia, U.S. Patent No. 6,696,481 and 7,846,961, will be infringed by the Apotex proposed generic version of Prestalia and that the claims of those patents are invalid. The challenge is designed to provide Apotex with an opportunity to enter the market with a generic version of Prestalia, ahead of the expiration of the patents with claims covering that product. Apotex entered into negotiations with Symplmed Pharmaceuticals, LLC (which entity sold its assets relating to Prestalia to us in June 2017, including its License and Commercialization Agreement with Les Laboratories Servier) and Les Laboratories Servier (which entity owns or controls intellectual property rights relating to pharmaceutical products containing as an active pharmaceutical ingredient perindopril in combination with other active pharmaceutical ingredients, which rights have been licensed to Symplmed Pharmaceuticals) to resolve the challenge in the second quarter of 2017, and such parties, along with us, have come to a general agreement on terms that will result in a delay to the challengers’ ability to enter the market with a generic version of Prestalia, while still providing the challenger with the right to enter the market prior to the expiration of the patent covering such product. The term sheet memorializing such terms is pending execution in a final settlement agreement. In the meantime, the District Court has entered an order extending the time for the defendants to respond to Apotex’s Complaint until January 9, 2018 .

We do not anticipate that the proposed settlement terms – which would provide us with the ability to exclusively market Prestalia for a specified period of time without incurring the risks or costs of litigation – will have a material adverse impact on our long term business as a whole. We hold this expectation because it is our intention that Prestalia will be a building block toward the development of our company into a larger organization, which we hope will include the commercial launch by us of Prestalia and the expansion of our commercial capabilities in connection with such activities, followed by the launch of products that we license for commercialization purposes from our partners and the commercial launch of products that we develop internally. We anticipate that the aforementioned steps to expand and strengthen our commercial capabilities and diversify our product offerings so as to generate meaningful revenues in excess of those revenues generated by sales of Prestalia will occur during our exclusivity period with respect to Prestalia (i.e., prior to the date on which Apotex enters the market with a generic version of Prestalia). If we are able to achieve this growth, the overall economic impact that would result to us even if Apotex markets a generic version of Prestalia and captures a significant percentage of the market for that drug following our exclusivity period would be reduced.

However, there can be no assurance that the paragraph IV challenge will be resolved without litigation or resolved on the terms currently proposed. There also cannot be any assurance that our plans to commercialize Prestalia (or any of the products that it may license from its partners or that it may develop internally) and expand our product offerings and the revenue generated therefrom so as to lessen our reliance on sales of Prestalia will be achieved. Any failure of our expectations regarding the resolution of the paragraph IV challenge and the expansion of our commercial activities (and the revenues to be derived therefrom) could have a material adverse effect on us, our prospects and our results of operations.