Litigation/Legal Matters	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation/Legal Matters	ABMC v. Premier Biotech, Inc., Todd Bailey, et al. In February 2017, the Company filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in Columbia County against Premier Biotech Inc., Premier Biotech Labs, LLC and its principals, including its President Todd Bailey (“Bailey”), and Peckham Vocational Industries, Inc. (together the “Defendants”). Bailey formerly served as the Company’s Vice President of Sales and Marketing and as a sales consultant until December 23, 2016. The complaint seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions and a temporary restraining order against Bailey (for his benefit or the benefit of another party or entity) related to the solicitation of Company customers as well as damages related to any profits and revenues that would result from actions taken by the Defendants related to Company customers. In March 2017, the complaint was moved to the federal court in the Northern District of New York. In April 2017, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the basis of jurisdiction, to which the Company responded on April 21, 2017. In July 2017, the Company was notified that it was not awarded a contract with a state agency for which it has held a contract in excess of 10 years. The contract in question is included in the February 2017 complaint. The Company believes that the Defendants actions related to this customer and a RFP that was issued by the state agency resulted in the loss of the contract award to the Company and the award of the contract to Peckham and Premier Biotech. This contract historically accounted for 10-15% of the Company’s annual revenue. The Company continued to hold a contract with the agency through September 30, 2017. The Company did protest the award of the contract to Peckham and Premier Biotech, and the state agency advised the Company on July 26, 2017 that they denied the Company’s protest of the award. The Company amended its complaint against the Defendants to show actual damages caused by the Defendants and to show proprietary and confidential information (belonging to the Company) used by the Defendants in their response to the RFP. This confidential information belonging to the Company enabled the Defendants to comply with specifications of the RFP. The Defendants filed a response to the court opposing the Company’s supplemental motion and the Company filed reply papers to the Defendants response on November 2, 2017. In January 2018, the court ruled on the motion to dismiss (that was filed by the Defendants in April 2017). The court found that there was jurisdiction over Bailey only. In the Company’s opinion, this ruling does not diminish its standing in the case against Bailey, who again in the Company’s opinion, has always been the primary defendant. The court did not rule on the other motions before them. In February 2018, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration and for leave to serve a supplemental/amended complaint. The new filing asks for reconsideration in the jurisdiction ruling regarding Premier Biotech Inc. and addresses the Company’s intent to further supplement its complaint based on additional (subsequent) damage alleged by ABMC on the part of Bailey and Premier Biotech, Inc. In September 2018, the court ruled on the motions filed in February 2018. The court granted in part and denied in part our motions for reconsideration. More specifically, our motions related to jurisdiction over Premier Biotech, Inc., supplementing claims of Bailey’s breach of contract and damages related to the same, and Bailey’s misappropriation of the Company’s trade secrets were granted. The Company’s motions related to unjust enrichment and tortious interference were not granted. Bailey’s motion to dismiss was once again denied. The Company filed its supplemental motions as required on October 12, 2018. On November 1, 2018, the Defendants filed their response to our supplemental motions. As of the date of this report, the Company is awaiting to court’s decision on both parties’ motions. Given the stage of the litigation, management is not yet able to opine on the outcome of the case. Todd Bailey v. ABMC On October 20, 2017, the Company received notice that Bailey, its former Vice President of Sales & Marketing and sales consultant (and the same “Bailey” discussed above) filed a complaint against the Company in the State of Minnesota seeking deferred commissions of $164,000 that Bailey alleges is owed to him by the Company. On November 2, 2017, the Company filed a Notice of Removal in this action to move the matter from state to federal court. On November 9, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative to transfer venue and consolidate, the Bailey complaint with our litigation filed previously against Bailey and others. In January 2018, the judge in the Minnesota case requested additional briefing on the impact of ruling in the New York case that determined there was personal jurisdiction over Bailey. The Company filed the requested briefing as requested by the court. The action in Minnesota has been stayed while the New York motions were decided. When the Bailey response was filed in the New York case on November 2, 2018, Bailey also filed a stipulation to transfer the Minnesota case to the New York court (the Bailey litigation was not added as a counter-claim to the Company’s case against Bailey). The Company agreed to the stipulation. Given the stage of the litigation, management is not yet able to opine on the outcome of the case.

Litigation/Legal Matters

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2018

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

ABMC v. Premier Biotech, Inc., Todd Bailey, et al.

In February 2017, the Company filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in Columbia County against Premier Biotech Inc., Premier Biotech Labs, LLC and its principals, including its President Todd Bailey (“Bailey”), and Peckham Vocational Industries, Inc. (together the “Defendants”). Bailey formerly served as the Company’s Vice President of Sales and Marketing and as a sales consultant until December 23, 2016. The complaint seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions and a temporary restraining order against Bailey (for his benefit or the benefit of another party or entity) related to the solicitation of Company customers as well as damages related to any profits and revenues that would result from actions taken by the Defendants related to Company customers.

In March 2017, the complaint was moved to the federal court in the Northern District of New York. In April 2017, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the basis of jurisdiction, to which the Company responded on April 21, 2017.

In July 2017, the Company was notified that it was not awarded a contract with a state agency for which it has held a contract in excess of 10 years. The contract in question is included in the February 2017 complaint. The Company believes that the Defendants actions related to this customer and a RFP that was issued by the state agency resulted in the loss of the contract award to the Company and the award of the contract to Peckham and Premier Biotech. This contract historically accounted for 10-15% of the Company’s annual revenue. The Company continued to hold a contract with the agency through September 30, 2017. The Company did protest the award of the contract to Peckham and Premier Biotech, and the state agency advised the Company on July 26, 2017 that they denied the Company’s protest of the award.

The Company amended its complaint against the Defendants to show actual damages caused by the Defendants and to show proprietary and confidential information (belonging to the Company) used by the Defendants in their response to the RFP. This confidential information belonging to the Company enabled the Defendants to comply with specifications of the RFP. The Defendants filed a response to the court opposing the Company’s supplemental motion and the Company filed reply papers to the Defendants response on November 2, 2017.

In January 2018, the court ruled on the motion to dismiss (that was filed by the Defendants in April 2017). The court found that there was jurisdiction over Bailey only. In the Company’s opinion, this ruling does not diminish its standing in the case against Bailey, who again in the Company’s opinion, has always been the primary defendant. The court did not rule on the other motions before them. In February 2018, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration and for leave to serve a supplemental/amended complaint. The new filing asks for reconsideration in the jurisdiction ruling regarding Premier Biotech Inc. and addresses the Company’s intent to further supplement its complaint based on additional (subsequent) damage alleged by ABMC on the part of Bailey and Premier Biotech, Inc. In September 2018, the court ruled on the motions filed in February 2018. The court granted in part and denied in part our motions for reconsideration. More specifically, our motions related to jurisdiction over Premier Biotech, Inc., supplementing claims of Bailey’s breach of contract and damages related to the same, and Bailey’s misappropriation of the Company’s trade secrets were granted. The Company’s motions related to unjust enrichment and tortious interference were not granted. Bailey’s motion to dismiss was once again denied. The Company filed its supplemental motions as required on October 12, 2018. On November 1, 2018, the Defendants filed their response to our supplemental motions. As of the date of this report, the Company is awaiting to court’s decision on both parties’ motions. Given the stage of the litigation, management is not yet able to opine on the outcome of the case.

Todd Bailey v. ABMC

On October 20, 2017, the Company received notice that Bailey, its former Vice President of Sales & Marketing and sales consultant (and the same “Bailey” discussed above) filed a complaint against the Company in the State of Minnesota seeking deferred commissions of $164,000 that Bailey alleges is owed to him by the Company. On November 2, 2017, the Company filed a Notice of Removal in this action to move the matter from state to federal court. On November 9, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative to transfer venue and consolidate, the Bailey complaint with our litigation filed previously against Bailey and others.

In January 2018, the judge in the Minnesota case requested additional briefing on the impact of ruling in the New York case that determined there was personal jurisdiction over Bailey. The Company filed the requested briefing as requested by the court. The action in Minnesota has been stayed while the New York motions were decided. When the Bailey response was filed in the New York case on November 2, 2018, Bailey also filed a stipulation to transfer the Minnesota case to the New York court (the Bailey litigation was not added as a counter-claim to the Company’s case against Bailey). The Company agreed to the stipulation. Given the stage of the litigation, management is not yet able to opine on the outcome of the case.