Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 9: Commitments and Contingencies The Company may become involved in or subject to, routine litigation, claims, disputes, proceedings and investigations in the ordinary course of business, which in management’s opinion will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, cash flows or results of operations. Any such litigation could divert management time and attention from Adamis, could involve significant amounts of legal fees and other fees and expenses. Litigation with Belcher Pharmaceuticals On September 26, 2018, the Company brought action against Belcher Pharmaceuticals, LLC (“Belcher”) in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida for a declaratory judgment (“Complaint”) of non-infringement of certain patents in which Belcher claims rights, relating to certain methods of preparing epinephrine solutions and treating allergic reactions using a method of preparing certain epinephrine solutions (collectively the “Patents-in-Suit”). The Complaint sought a declaratory judgment that the company’s SYMJEPI (epinephrine) Injection product (“SYMJEPI”) does not infringe the Patents-in-Suit. On November 7, 2018, Belcher filed its Answer and Counterclaim to the Complaint and alleged that the Company infringed the Patents-in-Suit as a result of the SYMJEPI product. Belcher’s Counterclaim sought damages and injunctive relief in conjunction with the infringement claims. The Company responded to the Counterclaim by generally denying any wrongdoing and asserting the affirmative defense that the Patents-in-Suit were invalid. The parties exchanged initial disclosures and initiated discovery in January 2019. On December 28, 2018, Belcher filed a reissue application for one of the Patents-in-Suit seeking to amend the asserted claims and correct an improper benefit claim. On March 29, 2019, the parties agreed to stay the litigation at the District Court pending the outcome of the reissue application and the Company’s petition for inter partes review, filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in April 2019, to challenge the validity of the remaining Patent-in-Suit. The Company contended that its SYMJEPI product does not infringe any valid and enforceable patent held by Belcher, and that Belcher’s Counterclaim was without merit. On July 24, 2019, the Company announced that Adamis and Belcher Pharmaceuticals, LLC (“Belcher”) agreed to settle all previously filed litigation between the parties, including the case filed by Adamis in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida in which Adamis was seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of certain patents in which Belcher claimed rights, relating to certain methods of preparing epinephrine solutions (“Patent Case”), and the inter partes review proceeding filed by Adamis in the United States Patent and Trademark Office requesting a formal review of the validity of certain aspect of Belcher’s patents (“IPR”). Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Adamis agreed to voluntarily withdraw both the Patent Case and IPR and Belcher agreed to provide Adamis a worldwide, non-exclusive, fully paid-up, royalty-free license relating to Belcher’s patents for Adamis’ epinephrine injection product, SYMJEPI, and agreed not to make future claims of infringement relating to Adamis’ naloxone injection product candidate, ZIMHI™. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the Patent Case and the IPR have been dismissed. Litigation with kaléo Inc. On May 21, 2019, the Company announced that on May 20, 2019, it received notice that it had been named and served as a defendant in a lawsuit filed by kaléo Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware regarding Adamis’ higher dose naloxone injection product candidate, ZIMHI, for the treatment of opioid overdose, for which Adamis has previously submitted a New Drug Application (NDA) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The complaint alleged, among other things, that the company’s product candidate infringes patents purportedly held by kaléo relating to its naloxone auto-injector product. The action was filed under the provisions of the Hatch-Waxman Act in response to Adamis’ Paragraph IV certification regarding the kaléo patents as part of the company’s NDA process, and resulted in an automatic stay of any final approval by the FDA of Adamis’ NDA. On June 21, 2019, the Company filed two motions in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in response to kaléo’s patent infringement lawsuit relating to ZIMHI. The first was a motion to disqualify Cooley LLP as counsel to kaléo based on, among other things, conflicts of interest and violation of applicable ethical rules. The second was a motion to dismiss the entire lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Adamis filed an amendment to its original new drug application (“NDA”) removing any reference to kaléo’s EVZIO® product, which Adamis contends prevents kaléo from claiming infringement under the Hatch-Waxman Act. On the same day, Adamis filed a separate lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against kaléo, Inc. for cybersquatting under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d), unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and common law unfair competition and trademark infringement for kaléo’s use of Adamis’ SYMJEPI trademark. With this lawsuit, Adamis sought injunctive relief to prevent kaléo from using Adamis’ SYMJEPI trademark and damages for kaléo’s past use of Adamis’ SYMJEPI trademark in commerce. On July 18, 2019, the Company announced that Adamis and kaléo Inc. agreed to settle all previously announced litigation between the parties, including the case filed by kaléo in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in which kaléo claimed specified aspects of Adamis’ ZIMHI naloxone product infringed certain kaléo-owned patents, and the case filed by Adamis in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in which Adamis claimed specified actions by kaléo infringed Adamis’ SYMJEPI trademark. As part of the resolution of the current litigation, kaléo agreed not to bring future action against Adamis relating to ZIMHI so long as Adamis does not reference kaléo’s product in a future filing with the FDA. As of the date of filing of this Report, there is no stay of any final approval by the FDA of Adamis’ NDA relating to ZIMHI. Other The Company has a production threshold commitment to a manufacturer of our SYMJEPI Products where the Company would be required to pay for maintenance fees if it does not meet certain periodic purchase order minimums. Any such maintenance fees would be prorated as a percentage of the required minimum production threshold. The Company believes that the production thresholds will be met in the succeeding periods, or if not that the fees will not be material, as they are prorated based on actual production.

Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2019

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Note 9: Commitments and Contingencies

The Company may become involved in or subject to, routine litigation, claims, disputes, proceedings and investigations in the ordinary course of business, which in management’s opinion will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, cash flows or results of operations. Any such litigation could divert management time and attention from Adamis, could involve significant amounts of legal fees and other fees and expenses.

Litigation with Belcher Pharmaceuticals

On September 26, 2018, the Company brought action against Belcher Pharmaceuticals, LLC (“Belcher”) in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida for a declaratory judgment (“Complaint”) of non-infringement of certain patents in which Belcher claims rights, relating to certain methods of preparing epinephrine solutions and treating allergic reactions using a method of preparing certain epinephrine solutions (collectively the “Patents-in-Suit”). The Complaint sought a declaratory judgment that the company’s SYMJEPI (epinephrine) Injection product (“SYMJEPI”) does not infringe the Patents-in-Suit. On November 7, 2018, Belcher filed its Answer and Counterclaim to the Complaint and alleged that the Company infringed the Patents-in-Suit as a result of the SYMJEPI product. Belcher’s Counterclaim sought damages and injunctive relief in conjunction with the infringement claims. The Company responded to the Counterclaim by generally denying any wrongdoing and asserting the affirmative defense that the Patents-in-Suit were invalid. The parties exchanged initial disclosures and initiated discovery in January 2019. On December 28, 2018, Belcher filed a reissue application for one of the Patents-in-Suit seeking to amend the asserted claims and correct an improper benefit claim. On March 29, 2019, the parties agreed to stay the litigation at the District Court pending the outcome of the reissue application and the Company’s petition for inter partes review, filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in April 2019, to challenge the validity of the remaining Patent-in-Suit. The Company contended that its SYMJEPI product does not infringe any valid and enforceable patent held by Belcher, and that Belcher’s Counterclaim was without merit.

On July 24, 2019, the Company announced that Adamis and Belcher Pharmaceuticals, LLC (“Belcher”) agreed to settle all previously filed litigation between the parties, including the case filed by Adamis in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida in which Adamis was seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of certain patents in which Belcher claimed rights, relating to certain methods of preparing epinephrine solutions (“Patent Case”), and the inter partes review proceeding filed by Adamis in the United States Patent and Trademark Office requesting a formal review of the validity of certain aspect of Belcher’s patents (“IPR”). Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Adamis agreed to voluntarily withdraw both the Patent Case and IPR and Belcher agreed to provide Adamis a worldwide, non-exclusive, fully paid-up, royalty-free license relating to Belcher’s patents for Adamis’ epinephrine injection product, SYMJEPI, and agreed not to make future claims of infringement relating to Adamis’ naloxone injection product candidate, ZIMHI™. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the Patent Case and the IPR have been dismissed.

Litigation with kaléo Inc.

On May 21, 2019, the Company announced that on May 20, 2019, it received notice that it had been named and served as a defendant in a lawsuit filed by kaléo Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware regarding Adamis’ higher dose naloxone injection product candidate, ZIMHI, for the treatment of opioid overdose, for which Adamis has previously submitted a New Drug Application (NDA) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The complaint alleged, among other things, that the company’s product candidate infringes patents purportedly held by kaléo relating to its naloxone auto-injector product. The action was filed under the provisions of the Hatch-Waxman Act in response to Adamis’ Paragraph IV certification regarding the kaléo patents as part of the company’s NDA process, and resulted in an automatic stay of any final approval by the FDA of Adamis’ NDA.

On June 21, 2019, the Company filed two motions in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in response to kaléo’s patent infringement lawsuit relating to ZIMHI. The first was a motion to disqualify Cooley LLP as counsel to kaléo based on, among other things, conflicts of interest and violation of applicable ethical rules. The second was a motion to dismiss the entire lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Adamis filed an amendment to its original new drug application (“NDA”) removing any reference to kaléo’s EVZIO® product, which Adamis contends prevents kaléo from claiming infringement under the Hatch-Waxman Act. On the same day, Adamis filed a separate lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against kaléo, Inc. for cybersquatting under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d), unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and common law unfair competition and trademark infringement for kaléo’s use of Adamis’ SYMJEPI trademark. With this lawsuit, Adamis sought injunctive relief to prevent kaléo from using Adamis’ SYMJEPI trademark and damages for kaléo’s past use of Adamis’ SYMJEPI trademark in commerce.

On July 18, 2019, the Company announced that Adamis and kaléo Inc. agreed to settle all previously announced litigation between the parties, including the case filed by kaléo in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in which kaléo claimed specified aspects of Adamis’ ZIMHI naloxone product infringed certain kaléo-owned patents, and the case filed by Adamis in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in which Adamis claimed specified actions by kaléo infringed Adamis’ SYMJEPI trademark. As part of the resolution of the current litigation, kaléo agreed not to bring future action against Adamis relating to ZIMHI so long as Adamis does not reference kaléo’s product in a future filing with the FDA. As of the date of filing of this Report, there is no stay of any final approval by the FDA of Adamis’ NDA relating to ZIMHI.

Other

The Company has a production threshold commitment to a manufacturer of our SYMJEPI Products where the Company would be required to pay for maintenance fees if it does not meet certain periodic purchase order minimums. Any such maintenance fees would be prorated as a percentage of the required minimum production threshold. The Company believes that the production thresholds will be met in the succeeding periods, or if not that the fees will not be material, as they are prorated based on actual production.