Subsequent Events	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2022
Subsequent Events [Abstract]
Subsequent Events	13. Subsequent Events Certain Litigation On July 12, July 18, July 20, and July 22, 2022, four purported stockholders of the Company filed separate lawsuits against the Company and certain of its current and former directors and officers in the federal district court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Mark Diebolt v. F-star Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-05941 (the “Diebolt Complaint”), Amber Johnson v. F-star Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-06103 (the “Johnson Complaint”), Jacob Wheeler v. F-star Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00950 (the “Wheeler Complaint”), and Sam Carlisle v. F-star Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-06253 (the “Carlisle Complaint,” and together with the Diebolt Complaint, Johnson Complaint, and Wheeler Complaint, the “Complaints”), respectively. The Johnson Complaint, Wheeler Complaint, and Carlisle Complaint have each been voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice. The only complaint remaining, the Diebolt Complaint, alleges violations of Sections 14(d) and 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 14d-9 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Diebolt Complaint alleges that the Schedule 14D-9 Solicitation / Recommendation Statement filed by the Company on July 7, 2022 is materially incomplete and misleading and seek to enjoin the tender offer until the purported deficiencies in the 14D-9 are corrected, or alternatively, seek monetary damages if the tender offer is consummated. The plaintiff also seeks fees and costs incurred in bringing the Diebolt Complaint. The defendants believe the claims asserted in the Diebolt Complaint are without merit. The Company has also received demand letters from eight purported shareholders (collectively, the “Demand Letters”) separately requesting that the Company provide additional disclosures in connection with the Merger. The Company and the defendants named in the Complaint and the Demand Letters believe that the claims asserted in the Complaints and the Demand Letters are without merit. Additional lawsuits arising out of or relating to the tender offer may be filed and other demand letters may be received in the future. If additional similar complaints are filed or demand letters are received, absent new or different allegations that are material, the Company will not necessarily announce such additional filings. From time to time, we may become involved in additional legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of our business. We are not presently a party to any material litigation.

Subsequent Events

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2022

13. Subsequent Events

Certain Litigation

On July 12, July 18, July 20, and July 22, 2022, four purported stockholders of the Company filed separate lawsuits against the Company and certain of its current and former directors and officers in the federal district court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Mark Diebolt v. F-star Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-05941 (the “Diebolt Complaint”), Amber Johnson v. F-star Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-06103 (the “Johnson Complaint”), Jacob Wheeler v. F-star Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00950 (the “Wheeler Complaint”), and Sam Carlisle v. F-star Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-06253 (the “Carlisle Complaint,” and together with the Diebolt Complaint, Johnson Complaint, and Wheeler Complaint, the “Complaints”), respectively. The Johnson Complaint, Wheeler Complaint, and Carlisle Complaint have each been voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice. The only complaint remaining, the Diebolt Complaint, alleges violations of Sections 14(d) and 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 14d-9 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Diebolt Complaint alleges that the Schedule 14D-9 Solicitation / Recommendation Statement filed by the Company on July 7, 2022 is materially incomplete and misleading and seek to enjoin the tender offer until the purported deficiencies in the 14D-9 are corrected, or alternatively, seek monetary damages if the tender offer is consummated. The plaintiff also seeks fees and costs incurred in bringing the Diebolt Complaint. The defendants believe the claims asserted in the Diebolt Complaint are without merit.

The Company has also received demand letters from eight purported shareholders (collectively, the “Demand Letters”) separately requesting that the Company provide additional disclosures in connection with the Merger.

The Company and the defendants named in the Complaint and the Demand Letters believe that the claims asserted in the Complaints and the Demand Letters are without merit.

Additional lawsuits arising out of or relating to the tender offer may be filed and other demand letters may be received in the future. If additional similar complaints are filed or demand letters are received, absent new or different allegations that are material, the Company will not necessarily announce such additional filings.

From time to time, we may become involved in additional legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of our business. We are not presently a party to any material litigation.