Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 4 — Commitments and Contingencies: *Contingency Matters* On October 13, 2021, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey consolidated into In re CorMedix Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:21-cv014020-JXN-CLW, two putative class action lawsuits filed on or about July 22, 2021 and September 13, 2021, respectively, and appointed lead counsel and lead plaintiff, a purported stockholder of the Company. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class action complaint on December 14, 2021, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, along with Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint names as defendants the Company, Khoso Baluch, Matthew David, Phoebe Mounts, John L. Armstrong, Robert Cook, Janet Dillione, Alan W. Dunton, Myron Kaplan, Steven Lefkowitz, Paulo F. Costa, and Greg Duncan, as well as two underwriters of the Company’s secondary stock offering, B. Riley Securities, Inc. and Needham & Company, LLC. The purported bases for these claims are alleged misstatements and omissions in connection with the NDA submitted to the FDA for DefenCath, and the subsequent notification by the FDA that the NDA could not be approved in its present form. The lead plaintiff purports to assert the Exchange Act claims on behalf of persons that purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Company’s securities between October 16, 2019, and September 6, 2021, and purports to assert the Securities Act claims on behalf of persons that purchased shares of the Company’s securities pursuant or traceable to a secondary offering of stock that commenced on November 27, 2020. The Company intends to vigorously contest such claims and filed a motion to dismiss the current complaint in full, with prejudice, on February 21, 2022. As of this filing, the parties are adhering to the current schedule set by the Court: the Company and the other defendants refiled their motions to dismiss on March 28, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the Defendants’ motions to dismiss on April 27, 2022 and Defendants filed their reply brief on May 26, 2022. On or about October 13, 2021, a purported shareholder, derivatively and on behalf of the Company, filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, in a case entitled Voter v. Baluch, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-18493-JXN-LDW (the “Derivative Litigation”). The complaint names as defendants Khoso Baluch, Janet Dillione, Alan W. Dunton, Myron Kaplan, Steven Lefkowitz, Paulo F. Costa, Greg Duncan, Matthew David, and Phoebe Mounts along with the Company as Nominal Defendant. The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties, abuse of control, and waste of corporate assets against the defendants and a claim for contribution for purported violations of Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act against certain defendants. The Company intends to vigorously contest such claims. On January 21, 2022, pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, the Court entered an order staying the case while the motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit described in the foregoing paragraph is pending. The stay may be terminated before the motion to dismiss is resolved according to certain circumstances described in the stipulation available on the Court’s public docket. On or about June 23, 2022, the Company’s Board received a letter demanding it investigate and pursue causes of action, purportedly on behalf of Company, against certain current and former directors, officers, and/or other employees of the Company (the “Letter”), which the Board believes are duplicative of the claims already asserted in the Derivative Litigation. The Board will consider the Letter at an appropriate time, as circumstances warrant, as it continues to monitor the progress of the Derivative Litigation. On September 9, 2014, the Company filed in the District Court of Mannheim, Germany, a patent infringement action against TauroPharm GmbH and Tauro-Implant GmbH as well as their respective CEOs (the “Defendants”) claiming infringement of the Company’s European Patent EP 1 814 562 B1, which was granted by the European Patent Office (the “EPO”) on January 8, 2014 (the “Prosl European Patent”). The Prosl European Patent covers the formulation of taurolidine and citrate with low dose heparin in a catheter lock solution for maintaining patency and preventing infection in hemodialysis catheters. In this action, the Company claims that the Defendants infringe on the Prosl European Patent by manufacturing and distributing catheter locking solutions to the extent they are covered by the claims of the Prosl European Patent. The Company believes that its patent is sound and is seeking injunctive relief and raising claims for information, rendering of accounts, calling back, destruction and damages. Separately, TauroPharm has filed an opposition with the EPO against the Prosl European Patent alleging that it lacks novelty and inventive step. The Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of either of these related matters. At present, the EPO has revoked the Prosl European Patent as invalid, and the Company has filed an appeal, which is currently pending. In the same complaint against the same Defendants, the Company also alleged an infringement (requesting the same remedies) of ND Partners’ utility model DE 20 2005 022 124 U1 (the “Utility Model”), which the Company believes is fundamentally identical to the Prosl European Patent in its main aspects and claims. The Court separated the two proceedings and the Prosl European Patent and the Utility Model claims were tried separately. TauroPharm has filed a cancellation action against the Utility Model before the German Patent and Trademark Office (the “German PTO”) based on the similar arguments as those in the opposition against the Prosl European Patent. The Court issued its decisions on May 8, 2015, staying both proceedings. In its decisions, the Court found that the commercialization by TauroPharm in Germany of its TauroLock catheter lock solutions Hep100 and Hep500 infringes both the Prosl European Patent and the Utility Model and further that there is no prior use right that would allow TauroPharm to continue to make, use or sell its product in Germany. However, the Court declined to issue an injunction in favor of the Company that would preclude the continued commercialization by TauroPharm based upon its finding that there is a sufficient likelihood that the EPO, in the case of the Prosl European Patent, or the German PTO, in the case of the Utility Model, may find that such patent or utility model is invalid. Specifically, the Court noted the possible publication of certain instructions for product use that may be deemed to constitute prior art. As such, the District Court determined that it will defer any consideration of the request by the Company for injunctive and other relief until such time as the EPO or the German PTO made a final decision on the underlying validity of the Prosl European Patent and the Utility Model. The opposition proceeding against the Prosl European Patent before the EPO is ongoing. The EPO held a hearing in the opposition proceeding on November 25, 2015. However, the EPO did not issue a decision at the end of the hearing but adjourned the matter due to the fact that the panel was of the view that Claus Herdeis, one of the managing directors of TauroPharm, had to be heard as a witness in a further hearing in order to close some gaps in the documentation presented by TauroPharm as regards the publication of the prior art. The German PTO held a hearing in the validity proceedings relating to the Utility Model on June 29, 2016, at which the panel affirmed its preliminary finding that the Utility Model was invalid based upon prior publication of a reference to the benefits that may be associated with adding heparin to a taurolidine based solution. The Company filed an appeal against the ruling on September 7, 2016. An oral hearing was held on September 17, 2019 in which the German Federal Patent Court affirmed the first instance decision that the Utility Model was invalid. The decision has only a declaratory effect, as the Utility Model had expired in November 2015. On April 28, 2020, the Company filed a withdrawal of the complaint on the German utility model, thereby waiving its claims on these proceedings. The proceedings were closed and during the year ended December 31, 2020, final reimbursement of approximately $30,000 for the costs in connection with the utility model infringement were paid to TauroPharm. On November 22, 2017, the EPO in Munich, Germany held a further oral hearing in this matter. At the hearing, the panel held that the Prosl European Patent would be invalidated because it did not meet the requirements of novelty based on a technical aspect of the European intellectual property law. The Company disagrees with this decision and has appealed the decision. The Company continues to believe that the Prosl European Patent is indeed novel and that its validity should be maintained. There can be no assurance that the Company will prevail in this matter. A hearing has been scheduled for October 27, 2022 by the EPO Board of Appeals. On January 16, 2015, the Company filed a complaint against TauroPharm GmbH and its managing directors in the District Court of Cologne, Germany. In the complaint, the Company alleged violation of the German Unfair Competition Act by TauroPharm and that TauroPharm is improperly and unfairly using its proprietary information relating to the composition and manufacture of Neutrolin, in the manufacture and sale of TauroPharm’s products TauroLock^TM, TauroLock-HEP100 and TauroLock-HEP500. The Company sought a cease and desist order against TauroPharm from continuing to manufacture and sell any product containing taurolidine (the active pharmaceutical ingredient (“API”) of Neutrolin) and citric acid in addition to possible other components, damages for any sales in the past and the removal of all such products from the market. Hearings in this matter were held in the District Court of Cologne, Germany on November 19, 2015, on November 15, 2016 and on November 20, 2018. A decision was rendered by the court on December 11, 2018, dismissing the complaint in its entirety. The Company therefore appealed in January 2019. An oral hearing was held on September 6, 2019. In view of new arguments brought forward in this hearing, the Court issued an evidentiary order on September 27, 2019 ordering an expert opinion. The expert opinion was not in the Company’s favor. In a supplementary expert opinion submitted after the Company had brought forward arguments against the first expert opinion, the expert confirmed his view. In an oral hearing held on June 18, 2021, the Court only heard from the expert, and the Court, as well as both parties, asked further questions to the expert around his expert opinion. At the end of the hearing and internal deliberation among the panel of judges, the Court indicated that it would dismiss the complaint of the Company, if the Company did not withdraw the appeal. As there were no advantages to further pursuing the matter in view of the Court’s statements, the Company withdrew the appeal and the proceedings are therefore now closed. TauroPharm requested an increase of the value in dispute determined by the Court in order to receive a higher reimbursement of costs (as this is based on the value in dispute under German law) but the request was rejected in view of arguments brought forward against it by legal counsel of the Company. The Company reimbursed costs in the amount of approximately $41,000 plus interest to TauroPharm. In connection with the aforementioned patent and utility model infringement and unfair competition proceedings against TauroPharm, the Company was required by the District Courts of Mannheim and Cologne to provide security deposits to cover legal fees in the event TauroPharm is entitled to reimbursement of these costs. As of June 30, 2022, the aggregate deposit was approximately $121,000, which the Company recorded as restricted cash on the condensed consolidated balance sheets. *Commitments* In-Licensing In 2008, the Company entered into a License and Assignment Agreement (the “NDP License Agreement”) with ND Partners, LLP (“NDP”). Pursuant to the NDP License Agreement, NDP granted the Company exclusive, worldwide licenses for certain antimicrobial catheter lock solutions, processes for treating and inhibiting infections, a biocidal lock system and a taurolidine delivery apparatus, and the corresponding United States and foreign patents and applications (the “NDP Technology”). The Company acquired such licenses and patents through its assignment and assumption of NDP’s rights under certain separate license agreements by and between NDP and Dr. Hans-Dietrich Polaschegg, Dr. Klaus Sodemann and Dr. Johannes Reinmueller. As consideration in part for the rights to the NDP Technology, the Company paid NDP an initial licensing fee of $325,000 and granted NDP a 5% equity interest in the Company, consisting of 7,996 shares of the Company’s common stock. The Company is required to make payments to NDP upon the achievement of certain regulatory and sales-based milestones. Certain of the milestone payments are to be made in the form of shares of common stock currently held in escrow for NDP, and other milestone payments are to be paid in cash. The maximum aggregate number of shares issuable upon achievement of milestones is 29,109 shares. In 2014, a certain milestone was achieved resulting in the release of 7,277 shares held in escrow. The number of shares held in escrow as of June 30, 2022 is 21,832 shares of common stock. The maximum aggregate amount of cash payments due upon achievement of milestones is $3,000,000 with the balance being $2,500,000 as of June 30, 2022 and 2021. Events that trigger milestone payments include but are not limited to the reaching of various stages of regulatory approval and upon achieving certain worldwide net sales amounts. There were no milestones achieved during the quarters ended June 30, 2022 and 2021. The NDP License Agreement may be terminated by the Company on a country-by-country basis upon 60 days prior written notice. If the NDP License Agreement is terminated by either party, the Company’s rights to the NDP Technology will revert back to NDP.

Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2022

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Note 4 — Commitments and Contingencies:

Contingency Matters

On October 13, 2021, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey consolidated into In re CorMedix Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:21-cv014020-JXN-CLW, two putative class action lawsuits filed on or about July 22, 2021 and September 13, 2021, respectively, and appointed lead counsel and lead plaintiff, a purported stockholder of the Company. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class action complaint on December 14, 2021, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, along with Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint names as defendants the Company, Khoso Baluch, Matthew David, Phoebe Mounts, John L. Armstrong, Robert Cook, Janet Dillione, Alan W. Dunton, Myron Kaplan, Steven Lefkowitz, Paulo F. Costa, and Greg Duncan, as well as two underwriters of the Company’s secondary stock offering, B. Riley Securities, Inc. and Needham & Company, LLC. The purported bases for these claims are alleged misstatements and omissions in connection with the NDA submitted to the FDA for DefenCath, and the subsequent notification by the FDA that the NDA could not be approved in its present form. The lead plaintiff purports to assert the Exchange Act claims on behalf of persons that purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Company’s securities between October 16, 2019, and September 6, 2021, and purports to assert the Securities Act claims on behalf of persons that purchased shares of the Company’s securities pursuant or traceable to a secondary offering of stock that commenced on November 27, 2020. The Company intends to vigorously contest such claims and filed a motion to dismiss the current complaint in full, with prejudice, on February 21, 2022. As of this filing, the parties are adhering to the current schedule set by the Court: the Company and the other defendants refiled their motions to dismiss on March 28, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the Defendants’ motions to dismiss on April 27, 2022 and Defendants filed their reply brief on May 26, 2022.

On or about October 13, 2021, a purported shareholder, derivatively and on behalf of the Company, filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, in a case entitled Voter v. Baluch, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-18493-JXN-LDW (the “Derivative Litigation”). The complaint names as defendants Khoso Baluch, Janet Dillione, Alan W. Dunton, Myron Kaplan, Steven Lefkowitz, Paulo F. Costa, Greg Duncan, Matthew David, and Phoebe Mounts along with the Company as Nominal Defendant. The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties, abuse of control, and waste of corporate assets against the defendants and a claim for contribution for purported violations of Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act against certain defendants. The Company intends to vigorously contest such claims. On January 21, 2022, pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, the Court entered an order staying the case while the motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit described in the foregoing paragraph is pending. The stay may be terminated before the motion to dismiss is resolved according to certain circumstances described in the stipulation available on the Court’s public docket.

On or about June 23, 2022, the Company’s Board received a letter demanding it investigate and pursue causes of action, purportedly on behalf of Company, against certain current and former directors, officers, and/or other employees of the Company (the “Letter”), which the Board believes are duplicative of the claims already asserted in the Derivative Litigation. The Board will consider the Letter at an appropriate time, as circumstances warrant, as it continues to monitor the progress of the Derivative Litigation.

On September 9, 2014, the Company filed in the District Court of Mannheim, Germany, a patent infringement action against TauroPharm GmbH and Tauro-Implant GmbH as well as their respective CEOs (the “Defendants”) claiming infringement of the Company’s European Patent EP 1 814 562 B1, which was granted by the European Patent Office (the “EPO”) on January 8, 2014 (the “Prosl European Patent”). The Prosl European Patent covers the formulation of taurolidine and citrate with low dose heparin in a catheter lock solution for maintaining patency and preventing infection in hemodialysis catheters. In this action, the Company claims that the Defendants infringe on the Prosl European Patent by manufacturing and distributing catheter locking solutions to the extent they are covered by the claims of the Prosl European Patent. The Company believes that its patent is sound and is seeking injunctive relief and raising claims for information, rendering of accounts, calling back, destruction and damages. Separately, TauroPharm has filed an opposition with the EPO against the Prosl European Patent alleging that it lacks novelty and inventive step. The Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of either of these related matters. At present, the EPO has revoked the Prosl European Patent as invalid, and the Company has filed an appeal, which is currently pending.

In the same complaint against the same Defendants, the Company also alleged an infringement (requesting the same remedies) of ND Partners’ utility model DE 20 2005 022 124 U1 (the “Utility Model”), which the Company believes is fundamentally identical to the Prosl European Patent in its main aspects and claims. The Court separated the two proceedings and the Prosl European Patent and the Utility Model claims were tried separately. TauroPharm has filed a cancellation action against the Utility Model before the German Patent and Trademark Office (the “German PTO”) based on the similar arguments as those in the opposition against the Prosl European Patent.

The Court issued its decisions on May 8, 2015, staying both proceedings. In its decisions, the Court found that the commercialization by TauroPharm in Germany of its TauroLock catheter lock solutions Hep100 and Hep500 infringes both the Prosl European Patent and the Utility Model and further that there is no prior use right that would allow TauroPharm to continue to make, use or sell its product in Germany. However, the Court declined to issue an injunction in favor of the Company that would preclude the continued commercialization by TauroPharm based upon its finding that there is a sufficient likelihood that the EPO, in the case of the Prosl European Patent, or the German PTO, in the case of the Utility Model, may find that such patent or utility model is invalid. Specifically, the Court noted the possible publication of certain instructions for product use that may be deemed to constitute prior art. As such, the District Court determined that it will defer any consideration of the request by the Company for injunctive and other relief until such time as the EPO or the German PTO made a final decision on the underlying validity of the Prosl European Patent and the Utility Model.

The opposition proceeding against the Prosl European Patent before the EPO is ongoing. The EPO held a hearing in the opposition proceeding on November 25, 2015. However, the EPO did not issue a decision at the end of the hearing but adjourned the matter due to the fact that the panel was of the view that Claus Herdeis, one of the managing directors of TauroPharm, had to be heard as a witness in a further hearing in order to close some gaps in the documentation presented by TauroPharm as regards the publication of the prior art.

The German PTO held a hearing in the validity proceedings relating to the Utility Model on June 29, 2016, at which the panel affirmed its preliminary finding that the Utility Model was invalid based upon prior publication of a reference to the benefits that may be associated with adding heparin to a taurolidine based solution. The Company filed an appeal against the ruling on September 7, 2016. An oral hearing was held on September 17, 2019 in which the German Federal Patent Court affirmed the first instance decision that the Utility Model was invalid. The decision has only a declaratory effect, as the Utility Model had expired in November 2015. On April 28, 2020, the Company filed a withdrawal of the complaint on the German utility model, thereby waiving its claims on these proceedings. The proceedings were closed and during the year ended December 31, 2020, final reimbursement of approximately $30,000 for the costs in connection with the utility model infringement were paid to TauroPharm.

On November 22, 2017, the EPO in Munich, Germany held a further oral hearing in this matter. At the hearing, the panel held that the Prosl European Patent would be invalidated because it did not meet the requirements of novelty based on a technical aspect of the European intellectual property law. The Company disagrees with this decision and has appealed the decision. The Company continues to believe that the Prosl European Patent is indeed novel and that its validity should be maintained. There can be no assurance that the Company will prevail in this matter. A hearing has been scheduled for October 27, 2022 by the EPO Board of Appeals.

On January 16, 2015, the Company filed a complaint against TauroPharm GmbH and its managing directors in the District Court of Cologne, Germany. In the complaint, the Company alleged violation of the German Unfair Competition Act by TauroPharm and that TauroPharm is improperly and unfairly using its proprietary information relating to the composition and manufacture of Neutrolin, in the manufacture and sale of TauroPharm’s products TauroLock^TM, TauroLock-HEP100 and TauroLock-HEP500. The Company sought a cease and desist order against TauroPharm from continuing to manufacture and sell any product containing taurolidine (the active pharmaceutical ingredient (“API”) of Neutrolin) and citric acid in addition to possible other components, damages for any sales in the past and the removal of all such products from the market. Hearings in this matter were held in the District Court of Cologne, Germany on November 19, 2015, on November 15, 2016 and on November 20, 2018. A decision was rendered by the court on December 11, 2018, dismissing the complaint in its entirety. The Company therefore appealed in January 2019. An oral hearing was held on September 6, 2019. In view of new arguments brought forward in this hearing, the Court issued an evidentiary order on September 27, 2019 ordering an expert opinion. The expert opinion was not in the Company’s favor. In a supplementary expert opinion submitted after the Company had brought forward arguments against the first expert opinion, the expert confirmed his view. In an oral hearing held on June 18, 2021, the Court only heard from the expert, and the Court, as well as both parties, asked further questions to the expert around his expert opinion. At the end of the hearing and internal deliberation among the panel of judges, the Court indicated that it would dismiss the complaint of the Company, if the Company did not withdraw the appeal. As there were no advantages to further pursuing the matter in view of the Court’s statements, the Company withdrew the appeal and the proceedings are therefore now closed. TauroPharm requested an increase of the value in dispute determined by the Court in order to receive a higher reimbursement of costs (as this is based on the value in dispute under German law) but the request was rejected in view of arguments brought forward against it by legal counsel of the Company. The Company reimbursed costs in the amount of approximately $41,000 plus interest to TauroPharm.

In connection with the aforementioned patent and utility model infringement and unfair competition proceedings against TauroPharm, the Company was required by the District Courts of Mannheim and Cologne to provide security deposits to cover legal fees in the event TauroPharm is entitled to reimbursement of these costs. As of June 30, 2022, the aggregate deposit was approximately $121,000, which the Company recorded as restricted cash on the condensed consolidated balance sheets.

Commitments

In-Licensing

In 2008, the Company entered into a License and Assignment Agreement (the “NDP License Agreement”) with ND Partners, LLP (“NDP”). Pursuant to the NDP License Agreement, NDP granted the Company exclusive, worldwide licenses for certain antimicrobial catheter lock solutions, processes for treating and inhibiting infections, a biocidal lock system and a taurolidine delivery apparatus, and the corresponding United States and foreign patents and applications (the “NDP Technology”). The Company acquired such licenses and patents through its assignment and assumption of NDP’s rights under certain separate license agreements by and between NDP and Dr. Hans-Dietrich Polaschegg, Dr. Klaus Sodemann and Dr. Johannes Reinmueller. As consideration in part for the rights to the NDP Technology, the Company paid NDP an initial licensing fee of $325,000 and granted NDP a 5% equity interest in the Company, consisting of 7,996 shares of the Company’s common stock.

The Company is required to make payments to NDP upon the achievement of certain regulatory and sales-based milestones. Certain of the milestone payments are to be made in the form of shares of common stock currently held in escrow for NDP, and other milestone payments are to be paid in cash. The maximum aggregate number of shares issuable upon achievement of milestones is 29,109 shares. In 2014, a certain milestone was achieved resulting in the release of 7,277 shares held in escrow. The number of shares held in escrow as of June 30, 2022 is 21,832 shares of common stock. The maximum aggregate amount of cash payments due upon achievement of milestones is $3,000,000 with the balance being $2,500,000 as of June 30, 2022 and 2021. Events that trigger milestone payments include but are not limited to the reaching of various stages of regulatory approval and upon achieving certain worldwide net sales amounts. There were no milestones achieved during the quarters ended June 30, 2022 and 2021.

The NDP License Agreement may be terminated by the Company on a country-by-country basis upon 60 days prior written notice. If the NDP License Agreement is terminated by either party, the Company’s rights to the NDP Technology will revert back to NDP.