Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Apr. 30, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	Note 12 – Contingencies The Company has brought cases in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (“the Court”), alleging patent infringement against various companies. In 2017, the Court ruled that the asserted claims of the ‘180 and ‘405 Patents are invalid for nonenablement in cases involving Abbott, Becton Dickinson, Gen-Probe, Hologic, and Roche. That ruling was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) in June 2019. Enzo subsequently filed a petition for certiorari regarding the invalidity ruling for the ‘180 and ‘405 Patents in February 2020; the Supreme Court denied Enzo’s petition on March 30, 2020. There are currently two cases that were originally brought by the Company in the Court. In those two cases, Enzo alleges patent infringement against Becton Dickinson Defendants and Roche Defendants, respectively. The claims in those cases involve the ‘197 Patent. Both cases are stayed. In separate inter partes review proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office involving, among others, Becton Dickinson, certain claims of the ‘197 Patent were found unpatentable as anticipated or obvious and cancelled by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“Board”). Enzo appealed that decision to the Federal Circuit. On August 16, 2019, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision, finding that each of the challenged claims is unpatentable. The Company filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc on October 30, 2019, which the Federal Circuit denied on December 4, 2019. The Company filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court on March 3, 2020, which is pending. In April 2019, the Company entered into an agreement with Hologic and Grifols, resolving litigation resulting from four cases originally brought by the Company in the Court. As a result, Enzo dismissed (1) a stayed patent litigation regarding the ’180 and ’197 Patent against Hologic in the Court; (2) the Consolidated Appeals against Gen-Probe and Hologic resulting from two cases filed in the Court, and (3) the Company’s appeal in the litigation involving the ’581 Patent that involved both Hologic and Grifols. As a result of the agreement with Hologic, Hologic withdrew from Enzo’s Federal Circuit appeal of the Board’s adverse rulings in the inter partes review proceedings regarding the ’197 Patent filed by Hologic and joined by Becton Dickinson mentioned above. On February 5, 2020, plaintiffs Harbert Discovery Fund, LP and Harbert Discovery Co-Investment Fund I, LP (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in connection with the Company’s 2020 annual meeting (the “Annual Meeting”). The Complaint names the Company, Dr. Elazar Rabbani, Barry W. Weiner, Dr. Bruce A. Hanna, Dov Perlysky and Rebecca Fischer as defendants (“Defendants”). On March 26, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an amended verified complaint against the Defendants. Plaintiffs assert claims (i) against the Company for alleged violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 14a-9 thereunder in connection with two public statements by the Company concerning the Annual Meeting; (ii) against the individual defendants for alleged violation of Section 20 of the Exchange Act based on the Company's purported violation of Section 14(a) and Rule 14a-9; (iii) against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the Annual Meeting; and (iv) derivatively on behalf of the Company against the individual defendants for a declaration that any amendment of Article II, Section 2 of the Company's By-Laws requires the approval of the holders of at least 80% of the voting power of the then outstanding shares of the Company's stock entitled to vote generally in the election of directors, voting together as a single class, and a majority of such shares owned by persons not affiliated with an interested shareholder. Defendants' response to the amended complaint is now due on June 30, 2020. Discovery has not commenced. There can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in these litigations. Even if the Company is not successful, management does not believe that there will be a significant adverse monetary impact on the Company. The Company is party to other claims, legal actions, complaints, and contractual disputes that arise in the ordinary course of business. The Company believes that any liability that may ultimately result from the resolution of these matters will not, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations. As described in Note 3, third-party payers, including government programs, may decide to deny payment or recoup payments for testing that they contend was improperly billed or not medically necessary, against their coverage determinations, or for which they believe they have otherwise overpaid (including as a result of their own error), and we may be required to refund payments already received. During the third fiscal quarter of 2019, a significant third-party payer informed us outside of their typical business practice that they believe it overpaid the Company during certain periods of fiscal 2018. The Company disputed these claims and formally sent legal appeal letters to the payer. During the nine month 2020 period, we recorded $0.8 million in legal and related expenses as a result of reduced reimbursements this payer made to us. In April 2020, we and the payer entered into a settlement agreement and release whereby the parties agreed that the $0.8 million previously withheld by the payer shall fully and completely satisfy the dispute. The following legal settlements are included in the statement of operations under Legal settlements, net within the Life Science segment for the 2019 periods: The Company, along with its subsidiaries Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. entered into a Settlement Agreement as of February 5, 2019 (the “Agreement) with Roche Diagnostics GmbH and Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. (together, “Roche”) with respect to an action between the Company and Roche before the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, Case No 04-CV4046. Roche agreed to pay the Company $21 million in settlement pursuant to the Agreement. The Company received $19.4 million net of attorney contingency payments. This settlement does not affect the Company’s civil action for patent infringement against Roche in the U.S. District Court for the State of Delaware, Enzo Life Sciences Inc. v. Roche Molecular Systems Inc., et al., civil action No. 12 cv-00106, which remains pending on appeal. The Company, along with its subsidiaries Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. entered into a settlement and license agreement as of April 16, 2019 (the “Agreement”) with Hologic, Inc. (“Hologic”), Grifols, S.A., and Grifols Diagnostic Solutions Inc. (together, “Grifols”) to settle all outstanding patent disputes among the parties. The terms of the agreement include one-time payments totaling $14 million to the Company in exchange for fully paid-up, worldwide licenses to Hologic and Grifols. The Company received $9.5 million net of attorney contingency payments.

Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Apr. 30, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Note 12 – Contingencies

The Company has brought cases in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (“the Court”), alleging patent infringement against various companies. In 2017, the Court ruled that the asserted claims of the ‘180 and ‘405 Patents are invalid for nonenablement in cases involving Abbott, Becton Dickinson, Gen-Probe, Hologic, and Roche. That ruling was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) in June 2019. Enzo subsequently filed a petition for certiorari regarding the invalidity ruling for the ‘180 and ‘405 Patents in February 2020; the Supreme Court denied Enzo’s petition on March 30, 2020. There are currently two cases that were originally brought by the Company in the Court. In those two cases, Enzo alleges patent infringement against Becton Dickinson Defendants and Roche Defendants, respectively. The claims in those cases involve the ‘197 Patent. Both cases are stayed.

In separate inter partes review proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office involving, among others, Becton Dickinson, certain claims of the ‘197 Patent were found unpatentable as anticipated or obvious and cancelled by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“Board”). Enzo appealed that decision to the Federal Circuit. On August 16, 2019, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision, finding that each of the challenged claims is unpatentable. The Company filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc on October 30, 2019, which the Federal Circuit denied on December 4, 2019. The Company filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court on March 3, 2020, which is pending.

In April 2019, the Company entered into an agreement with Hologic and Grifols, resolving litigation resulting from four cases originally brought by the Company in the Court. As a result, Enzo dismissed (1) a stayed patent litigation regarding the ’180 and ’197 Patent against Hologic in the Court; (2) the Consolidated Appeals against Gen-Probe and Hologic resulting from two cases filed in the Court, and (3) the Company’s appeal in the litigation involving the ’581 Patent that involved both Hologic and Grifols. As a result of the agreement with Hologic, Hologic withdrew from Enzo’s Federal Circuit appeal of the Board’s adverse rulings in the inter partes review proceedings regarding the ’197 Patent filed by Hologic and joined by Becton Dickinson mentioned above.

On February 5, 2020, plaintiffs Harbert Discovery Fund, LP and Harbert Discovery Co-Investment Fund I, LP (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in connection with the Company’s 2020 annual meeting (the “Annual Meeting”). The Complaint names the Company, Dr. Elazar Rabbani, Barry W. Weiner, Dr. Bruce A. Hanna, Dov Perlysky and Rebecca Fischer as defendants (“Defendants”). On March 26, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an amended verified complaint against the Defendants. Plaintiffs assert claims (i) against the Company for alleged violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 14a-9 thereunder in connection with two public statements by the Company concerning the Annual Meeting; (ii) against the individual defendants for alleged violation of Section 20 of the Exchange Act based on the Company's purported violation of Section 14(a) and Rule 14a-9; (iii) against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the Annual Meeting; and (iv) derivatively on behalf of the Company against the individual defendants for a declaration that any amendment of Article II, Section 2 of the Company's By-Laws requires the approval of the holders of at least 80% of the voting power of the then outstanding shares of the Company's stock entitled to vote generally in the election of directors, voting together as a single class, and a majority of such shares owned by persons not affiliated with an interested shareholder. Defendants' response to the amended complaint is now due on June 30, 2020. Discovery has not commenced.

There can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in these litigations. Even if the Company is not successful, management does not believe that there will be a significant adverse monetary impact on the Company. The Company is party to other claims, legal actions, complaints, and contractual disputes that arise in the ordinary course of business. The Company believes that any liability that may ultimately result from the resolution of these matters will not, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations.

As described in Note 3, third-party payers, including government programs, may decide to deny payment or recoup payments for testing that they contend was improperly billed or not medically necessary, against their coverage determinations, or for which they believe they have otherwise overpaid (including as a result of their own error), and we may be required to refund payments already received. During the third fiscal quarter of 2019, a significant third-party payer informed us outside of their typical business practice that they believe it overpaid the Company during certain periods of fiscal 2018. The Company disputed these claims and formally sent legal appeal letters to the payer. During the nine month 2020 period, we recorded $0.8 million in legal and related expenses as a result of reduced reimbursements this payer made to us. In April 2020, we and the payer entered into a settlement agreement and release whereby the parties agreed that the $0.8 million previously withheld by the payer shall fully and completely satisfy the dispute.

The following legal settlements are included in the statement of operations under Legal settlements, net within the Life Science segment for the 2019 periods:

The Company, along with its subsidiaries Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. entered into a Settlement Agreement as of February 5, 2019 (the “Agreement) with Roche Diagnostics GmbH and Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. (together, “Roche”) with respect to an action between the Company and Roche before the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, Case No 04-CV4046. Roche agreed to pay the Company $21 million in settlement pursuant to the Agreement. The Company received $19.4 million net of attorney contingency payments. This settlement does not affect the Company’s civil action for patent infringement against Roche in the U.S. District Court for the State of Delaware, Enzo Life Sciences Inc. v. Roche Molecular Systems Inc., et al., civil action No. 12 cv-00106, which remains pending on appeal.

The Company, along with its subsidiaries Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. entered into a settlement and license agreement as of April 16, 2019 (the “Agreement”) with Hologic, Inc. (“Hologic”), Grifols, S.A., and Grifols Diagnostic Solutions Inc. (together, “Grifols”) to settle all outstanding patent disputes among the parties. The terms of the agreement include one-time payments totaling $14 million to the Company in exchange for fully paid-up, worldwide licenses to Hologic and Grifols. The Company received $9.5 million net of attorney contingency payments.