Nature of Operations [Text Block] | (1) Description of Business Enzon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (together with its subsidiaries, “Enzon” or the “Company”) receives royalty revenues from existing licensing arrangements with other companies primarily related to sales of four marketed drug products, namely, PegIntron ®, Sylatron ®, Macugen ® and CIMZIA ®. The Company also had previously received royalty revenues from licensing arrangements related to sales of Oncaspar and Adagen until the Company’s rights to receive royalties on sales of these products expired in 2014. In addition, the Company’s rights to receive royalties on sales of Macugen and CIMZIA expired in the U.S. and Great Britain in 2014. The primary source of the Company’s royalty revenues is sales of PegIntron, which is marketed by Merck & Co., Inc. (“Merck”). The Company currently has no clinical operations and limited corporate operations. The Company 80 The Company was previously dedicated to the research and development of innovative therapeutics for patients with high unmet medical needs. Beginning in December 2012, the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”), with outside consultants, began a review of the possible sale or disposition of one or more corporate assets or a sale of the Company. At that time, the Company suspended substantially all clinical development activities with a goal of conserving capital and maximizing value returned to the Company’s stockholders. By April 2013, the review did not result in a definitive offer to acquire the Company or all or substantially all of the Company’s assets. At the same time, the Company announced that its Board intended to distribute excess cash, expected to arise from ongoing royalty revenues, in the form of periodic dividends to stockholders. In April 2013, pursuant to the terms of an asset purchase agreement, the Company sold to Belrose Pharma, Inc. (“Belrose”), all right, title and interest to the Company’s Customized PEGylation platform and related assets. In March 2014, the Company entered into a novation agreement with Zhejiang Hisun Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. ("Hisun") and Belrose (the “Novation Agreement”), pursuant to which the parties confirmed the novation of the Company’s Collaboration Agreement with Hisun to Belrose. As a consequence of the Novation Agreement, the Company received a gross amount of $ 550,000 249,565 300,435 On July 16, 2014, Belrose provided written notice to Hisun asserting multiple breaches by Hisun of the Collaboration Agreement including failure to pay $ 450,000 The Company received a letter dated April 13, 2015, from counsel for Sigma Tau Pharma Ltd regarding the agreement dated November 9, 2009 (the “Agreement”) between the Company and Sigma-Tau Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defiante Farmaceutica, S.A. and Sigma-Tau Finanzaria, S.P.A. (collectively “Sigma-Tau”). In its letter, Sigma-Tau alleged that it was entitled to offset $826,128 (the “Claim”) in rebate payments earned in the fourth quarter of 2014 and paid in the first quarter of 2015 that would otherwise have been due the Company as royalty payments under the Agreement. Sigma-Tau claimed that the offset represented the amount by which the net rebate exceeded the reserve for such payments on the balance sheet and was allowed pursuant to the indemnity provisions of the Agreement. By letter dated April 28, 2015, the Company replied that the offset was not allowed under the Agreement, and that in any event, it was time-barred. Sigma-Tau did not assert that there was any liability beyond an offset against royalties that were otherwise due. Effective June 25, 2015, the Company and Sigma-Tau agreed to settle the Claim for $ 526,128 826,128 300,000 In June 2015, the Company delivered notice to Nektar Therapeutics, Inc. (“Nektar”) asserting a breach of our Cross-License and Option Agreement with Nektar for Nektar’s failure to pay an immunity fee that the Company believes became payable to it under such agreement with respect to certain of the Company’s patents that would be infringed by Nektar’s products (or those of Nektar’s licensees). To date, Nektar has disputed the Company’s claim to an immunity fee. On August 14, 2015, the Company filed a summons and complaint against Nektar in the Supreme Court of New York for breach of contract (the “Complaint”). On October 23, 2015, Nektar filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On February 2, 2016, the Supreme Court of the State of New York granted Nektar its motion to dismiss the Complaint. The Company currently intends to appeal this dismissal. While the Company continues to believe that an immunity fee is currently due and payable by Nektar and intends to continue to pursue this claim, the outcome of such dispute is uncertain and there can be no assurance that the Company will be able to collect, in full or in part, the immunity fee or any future payments related thereto from Nektar. As such, no amounts have been recorded as of December 31, 2015. On February 4, 2016, the Company’s board of directors (the “Board”) adopted a Plan of Liquidation and Dissolution. See Note 16 Subsequent Events. |