Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	11. Commitments and Contingencies As a public biotechnology company, the Company operates in a regulated environment, and from time to time, is party to various legal proceedings and receives regulatory inquiries arising in the ordinary course of business. The costs and outcome of litigation, regulatory, investigatory or other proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty, and some lawsuits, claims, actions or proceedings may be disposed of unfavorably to the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations or financial condition. In addition, intellectual property disputes often have a risk of injunctive relief which, if imposed against the Company, could materially and adversely affect its financial condition or results of operations. If a matter is both probable to result in a material liability and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company accrues the estimated loss. Disclosure is provided when a loss is considered probable, but the loss is not reasonably estimable and when a material loss is reasonably possible but not probable. If such a loss is not probable or cannot be reasonably estimated, a liability is not recorded. As of December 31, 2024 and 2023, no material accruals have been recorded for potential contingencies related to these matters. License Agreements The Company has entered into license agreements with various parties under which it is obligated to make contingent and non-contingent payments (see Note 13). Operating Leases The Company has entered into an operating lease agreement with respect to its corporate headquarters located at 675 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts (see Note 5). Indemnification Agreements In the ordinary course of business, the Company may provide indemnification of varying scope and terms to vendors, lessors, business partners and other parties with respect to certain matters including, but not limited to, losses arising out of breach of such agreements or from intellectual property infringement claims made by third parties. In addition, the Company has entered into indemnification agreements with members of its Board of Directors and its officers that will require the Company, among other things, to indemnify them against certain liabilities that may arise by reason of their status or service as directors or executive officers. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is, in many cases, unlimited. The process surrounding the Investigation and the Wells Notice (both as defined below) has resulted in legal expenses and certain liabilities for the Company and the named individuals, and each of the named individuals, as directors and officers of the Company, are entitled to indemnification for certain costs associated with the Investigation and the Wells Notice. The Company maintains a general liability insurance policy that covers certain expenses and liabilities of our directors and officers arising out of claims based on acts or omissions in their capacities as directors or officers (the “D&O Insurance”), however, the total expenses and liabilities in connection with the Investigation and the Wells Notice and the amount that will be covered by such D&O Insurance is unknown at this time. Legal Proceedings Securities Class Action Lawsuits and Derivative Actions Two putative class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, one captioned Richard S. Germond v. Spero Therapeutics, Inc., Ankit Mahadevia, and Satyavrat Shukla, Case No. 1:22-cv-03125, filed on May 26, 2022, and the other captioned Kashif Memon v. Spero Therapeutics, Inc., Ankit Mahadevia, and Satyavrat Shukla Case No. 1:22-cv-04154, filed on July 15, 2022. The parties moved to consolidate the two complaints on July 22, 2022, which were ordered consolidated on August 5, 2022 (“Consolidated Putative Class Action”). The parties filed an Amended Complaint on December 5, 2022, purported to be brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased our common stock from September 8, 2020 through May 2, 2022. The Amended Complaint generally alleges that the Company and certain of its current and former officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the New Drug Application (“NDA”) for tebipenem HBr in an effort to lead investors to believe that the drug would receive approval from the FDA. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, and other costs. The Company filed a fully-briefed Motion to Dismiss on June 21, 2023. By Order entered on September 30, 2024, the Motion to Dismiss was granted, dismissing the Amended Complaint in its entirety. The Court ordered the case to be closed by Memorandum and Order entered on October 28, 2024. A stockholder derivative action was filed against the Company, as nominal defendant, and certain of the Company's current and former officers in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Marti v. Mahadevia, et al., Case. No. 1:23-cv-01133-RGA (the “First Derivative Complaint”), on October 11, 2023. The plaintiffs both purport to be current stockholders, and the allegations are primarily the same as those made in the Consolidated Putative Class Action. The First Derivative Complaint was transferred to the Eastern District of New York on November 13, 2023. A second stockholder derivative action was filed against the Company, as nominal defendant, and certain of its current and former officers in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County, captioned Heil v. Mahadevia, et al., Case. No. 505153/2024 (the “Second Derivative Complaint”), on February 21, 2024. The Second Derivative Complaint makes primarily the same allegations as the First Derivative Complaint, and the Consolidated Putative Class Action. The plaintiffs in both derivative suits agreed to a stay pending decision on the class action, subject to court approval. By Order entered on September 30, 2024, the motion to stay the First Derivative Complaint was denied as moot due to the dismissal of the Consolidated Putative Class Action. On March 20, 2025, the Second Derivative Complaint was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff. The Company denies any allegations of wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits. However, there is no assurance that the Company will be successful in its defense or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund any settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of these actions. Moreover, the Company is unable to predict the outcomes or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at this time. Additional lawsuits against the Company and certain of its officers or directors may be filed in the future. If additional similar complaints are filed, absent new or different allegations that are material, the Company will not necessarily announce such additional filings. SEC Investigation and Wells Notice On January 9, 2025, the Company responded to a “Wells Notice” from the staff of the Boston Regional Office (“Staff”) of the SEC regarding its preliminary determination to recommend a civil enforcement action or administrative proceeding against the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors, Ankit Mahadevia, M.D. (“Dr. Mahadevia”), and its former Chief Financial Officer and President and Chief Executive Officer, Satyavrat “Sath” Shukla (“Mr. Shukla”), relating to certain public disclosures by the Company from March 31, 2022 leading up to the Company’s announcement on May 3, 2022 that it had determined to cease commercialization of tebipenem HBr based on feedback from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and whether the Company’s disclosures may have violated the federal securities laws (the “Investigation”). Specifically, the contemplated civil enforcement action, if approved by the SEC Commissioners, could include allegations that the Company violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, and 13a-1 thereunder; and could allege against Dr. Mahadevia and Mr. Shukla violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5 and 13a-14 thereunder. The Company, Dr. Mahadevia and Mr. Shukla continue to cooperate with the SEC, they have engaged in further dialogue with the staff and maintain that the Company’s disclosures were appropriate. A Wells Notice is neither a formal charge of wrongdoing nor a final determination that the recipient has violated any law, but is a preliminary determination by the Staff to recommend to the SEC Commissioners that a civil enforcement action or administrative proceeding be brought against the recipients. It provides the recipients the opportunity to address in a non-public forum the issues raised by the Staff before a recommendation is made to the SEC regarding an enforcement action. If the SEC were to authorize an action against the Company and/or any of the identified individuals, it may seek an injunction or cease-and-desist order against future violations of provisions of the federal securities laws, the imposition of civil monetary penalties, disgorgement or other equitable relief.

Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2024

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

11. Commitments and Contingencies

As a public biotechnology company, the Company operates in a regulated environment, and from time to time, is party to various legal proceedings and receives regulatory inquiries arising in the ordinary course of business. The costs and outcome of litigation, regulatory, investigatory or other proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty, and some lawsuits, claims, actions or proceedings may be disposed of unfavorably to the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations or financial condition. In addition, intellectual property disputes often have a risk of injunctive relief which, if imposed against the Company, could materially and adversely affect its financial condition or results of operations. If a matter is both probable to result in a material liability and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company accrues the estimated loss. Disclosure is provided when a loss is considered probable, but the loss is not reasonably estimable and when a material loss is reasonably possible but not probable. If such a loss is not probable or cannot be reasonably estimated, a liability is not recorded. As of December 31, 2024 and 2023, no material accruals have been recorded for potential contingencies related to these matters.

License Agreements

The Company has entered into license agreements with various parties under which it is obligated to make contingent and non-contingent payments (see Note 13).

Operating Leases

The Company has entered into an operating lease agreement with respect to its corporate headquarters located at 675 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts (see Note 5).

Indemnification Agreements

In the ordinary course of business, the Company may provide indemnification of varying scope and terms to vendors, lessors, business partners and other parties with respect to certain matters including, but not limited to, losses arising out of breach of such agreements or from intellectual property infringement claims made by third parties. In addition, the Company has entered into indemnification agreements with members of its Board of Directors and its officers that will require the Company, among other things, to indemnify them against certain liabilities that may arise by reason of their status or service as directors or executive officers. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is, in many cases, unlimited. The process surrounding the Investigation and the Wells Notice (both as defined below) has resulted in legal expenses and certain liabilities for the Company and the named individuals, and each of the named individuals, as directors and officers of the Company, are entitled to indemnification for certain costs associated with the Investigation and the Wells Notice. The Company maintains a general liability insurance policy that covers certain expenses and liabilities of our directors and officers arising out of claims based on acts or omissions in their capacities as directors or officers (the “D&O Insurance”), however, the total expenses and liabilities in connection with the Investigation and the Wells Notice and the amount that will be covered by such D&O Insurance is unknown at this time.

Legal Proceedings

Securities Class Action Lawsuits and Derivative Actions

Two putative class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, one captioned Richard S. Germond v. Spero Therapeutics, Inc., Ankit Mahadevia, and Satyavrat Shukla, Case No. 1:22-cv-03125, filed on May 26, 2022, and the other captioned Kashif Memon v. Spero

Therapeutics, Inc., Ankit Mahadevia, and Satyavrat Shukla Case No. 1:22-cv-04154, filed on July 15, 2022. The parties moved to consolidate the two complaints on July 22, 2022, which were ordered consolidated on August 5, 2022 (“Consolidated Putative Class Action”). The parties filed an Amended Complaint on December 5, 2022, purported to be brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased our common stock from September 8, 2020 through May 2, 2022. The Amended Complaint generally alleges that the Company and certain of its current and former officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the New Drug Application (“NDA”) for tebipenem HBr in an effort to lead investors to believe that the drug would receive approval from the FDA. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, and other costs. The Company filed a fully-briefed Motion to Dismiss on June 21, 2023. By Order entered on September 30, 2024, the Motion to Dismiss was granted, dismissing the Amended Complaint in its entirety. The Court ordered the case to be closed by Memorandum and Order entered on October 28, 2024.

A stockholder derivative action was filed against the Company, as nominal defendant, and certain of the Company's current and former officers in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Marti v. Mahadevia, et al., Case. No. 1:23-cv-01133-RGA (the “First Derivative Complaint”), on October 11, 2023. The plaintiffs both purport to be current stockholders, and the allegations are primarily the same as those made in the Consolidated Putative Class Action. The First Derivative Complaint was transferred to the Eastern District of New York on November 13, 2023. A second stockholder derivative action was filed against the Company, as nominal defendant, and certain of its current and former officers in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County, captioned Heil v. Mahadevia, et al., Case. No. 505153/2024 (the “Second Derivative Complaint”), on February 21, 2024. The Second Derivative Complaint makes primarily the same allegations as the First Derivative Complaint, and the Consolidated Putative Class Action. The plaintiffs in both derivative suits agreed to a stay pending decision on the class action, subject to court approval. By Order entered on September 30, 2024, the motion to stay the First Derivative Complaint was denied as moot due to the dismissal of the Consolidated Putative Class Action. On March 20, 2025, the Second Derivative Complaint was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.

The Company denies any allegations of wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits. However, there is no assurance that the Company will be successful in its defense or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund any settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of these actions. Moreover, the Company is unable to predict the outcomes or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at this time.

Additional lawsuits against the Company and certain of its officers or directors may be filed in the future. If additional similar complaints are filed, absent new or different allegations that are material, the Company will not necessarily announce such additional filings.

SEC Investigation and Wells Notice

On January 9, 2025, the Company responded to a “Wells Notice” from the staff of the Boston Regional Office (“Staff”) of the SEC regarding its preliminary determination to recommend a civil enforcement action or administrative proceeding against the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors, Ankit Mahadevia, M.D. (“Dr. Mahadevia”), and its former Chief Financial Officer and President and Chief Executive Officer, Satyavrat “Sath” Shukla (“Mr. Shukla”), relating to certain public disclosures by the Company from March 31, 2022 leading up to the Company’s announcement on May 3, 2022 that it had determined to cease commercialization of tebipenem HBr based on feedback from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and whether the Company’s disclosures may have violated the federal securities laws (the “Investigation”).

Specifically, the contemplated civil enforcement action, if approved by the SEC Commissioners, could include allegations that the Company violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, and 13a-1 thereunder; and could allege against Dr. Mahadevia and Mr. Shukla violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5 and 13a-14 thereunder. The Company, Dr. Mahadevia and Mr. Shukla continue to cooperate with the SEC, they have engaged in further dialogue with the staff and maintain that the Company’s disclosures were appropriate.

A Wells Notice is neither a formal charge of wrongdoing nor a final determination that the recipient has violated any law, but is a preliminary determination by the Staff to recommend to the SEC Commissioners that a civil enforcement action or administrative proceeding be brought against the recipients. It provides the recipients the opportunity to address in a non-public forum the issues raised by the Staff before a recommendation is made to the SEC regarding an enforcement action. If the SEC were to authorize an action against the Company and/or any of the identified individuals, it may seek an injunction or cease-and-desist order against future violations of provisions of the federal securities laws, the imposition of civil monetary penalties, disgorgement or other equitable relief.