Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	13. Commitments and Contingencies License Agreements The Company has entered into exclusive license agreements with certain academic institutions and universities pursuant to which the Company acquired certain intellectual property. Pursuant to each agreement, as consideration for an exclusive license to the intellectual property, the Company paid a license fee, reimbursed the institution for historical patent costs and, in certain instances, issued the institution shares of restricted common stock. Additionally, under each agreement, the institution is generally eligible to receive future consideration including, but not limited to, annual maintenance fees, royalties, milestone payments and sublicensing fees. Each of the license agreements is generally cancelable by the Company, given appropriate prior written notice. Minimum annual payments to maintain these cancelable licenses total an aggregate of $0.4 million. See Note 2 for additional information on certain licenses. Litigation During the reporting period, the Company pursued claims in two lawsuits that were filed in 2022 against Shoreline Biosciences, Inc. (Shoreline) and certain of its founders and officers (collectively, the Shoreline litigations). The first suit, filed on May 13, 2022, was pending in San Diego Superior Court against Shoreline and four of its founders, Drs. Dan S. Kaufman (Kaufman), Kleanthis G. Xanthopoulos, and Messrs. William Sandborn and Steven Holtzman. The Company's claims included actions for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud and deceit, tortious interference, restitution and unfair competition. On August 9, 2024, the court denied the defendants’ motions for summary judgment preserving for trial all of the Company’s claims against the defendants, with the exception of defendants’ motions with respect to certain theories under the Company’s tortious interference claim (which claim by Fate was otherwise preserved for trial). On September 19, 2024, the court denied defendants’ motion for reconsideration of its summary judgment ruling. Trial began on October 21, 2024, with a jury selected on October 24, 2024. On October 28, 2024, the parties entered a settlement agreement resolving the litigation on terms agreeable to all parties, pursuant to which the Company filed a request for dismissal with prejudice of all claims on October 31, 2024. In the second of the Shoreline litigations, also filed on May 13, 2022, the Company and Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research (Whitehead) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against Shoreline and Kaufman seeking monetary damages for the defendants’ infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,071,369, 8,932,856, 8,951,797, 8,940,536, 9,169,490, 10,457,917, and 10,017,744. On June 7, 2023, the Company and Whitehead filed a motion to dismiss our patent infringement claims against Kaufman in his personal capacity; that motion was granted on June 9, 2023. On August 30, 2023, the court granted Shoreline’s motion for summary judgment and denied the Company’s motion for partial summary judgment as moot. Judgment in favor of Shoreline was entered on August 31, 2023. On September 27, 2023, the Company and Whitehead filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit challenging the trial court’s claim construction and grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants; the defendants cross-appealed challenging the district court’s earlier denial of a motion to dismiss and partial motion for summary judgment on other grounds. The Federal Circuit docketed the case on October 5, 2023, and briefing was completed on June 26, 2024. On October 28, 2024, the parties entered a settlement agreement resolving the litigation on terms agreeable to all parties, pursuant to which the parties filed a joint notice of dismissal of the appeal and cross-appeal on October 31, 2024. On January 20, 2023, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a securities class action lawsuit against the Company and certain of its officers captioned Hadian v. Fate Therapeutics, Inc. et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (the Securities Action). On May 4, 2023, the court appointed a different purported stockholder of the Company to serve as lead plaintiff in the Securities Action. On July 24, 2023, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint alleged that the Company violated the federal securities laws by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions in its public disclosures dating back to August 2020 relating to the Company’s collaboration agreement with Janssen Biotech, Inc. (the Janssen Agreement), potential product candidates subject to the Janssen Agreement, and the termination of the Janssen Agreement. On September 22, 2023, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On September 19, 2024, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint, with leave for plaintiff to file a second amended complaint. On October 18, 2024, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint alleging substantially similar facts and claims as in the prior amended complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on November 18, 2024, and briefing on the motion was completed on January 21, 2025. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against this action. On June 2, 2023, a derivative complaint, captioned Guarino v. Wolchko, et al., was filed by a purported stockholder of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (the Guarino Action). On June 12, 2024, an additional derivative complaint, captioned Horrobin v. Wolchko, et al., was filed by a purported stockholder of the Company in the same district (the Horrobin Action). On December 3, 2024, the court entered an order consolidating the Guarino Action and the Horrobin Action under the caption In re Fate Therapeutics, Inc. Derivative Litigation (the Derivative Action) and staying the Derivative Action pending the court’s decision on our motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the Securities Action. The court’s ruling on the motion is pending. The Derivative Action names members of the Company’s board of directors and certain officers as defendants. The Company is also named as a nominal defendant. The plaintiffs in the Derivative Actions assert derivative claims arising out of substantially the same alleged facts and circumstances as the Securities Action. The Guarino complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and violation of federal securities laws. The Horrobin complaint asserts substantially similar claims in addition to a claim of breach of fiduciary duty for insider trading. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the Derivative Action. From time to time, the Company may be subject to various other legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of business activities.

Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2024

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

13. Commitments and Contingencies

License Agreements

The Company has entered into exclusive license agreements with certain academic institutions and universities pursuant to which the Company acquired certain intellectual property. Pursuant to each agreement, as consideration for an exclusive license to the intellectual property, the Company paid a license fee, reimbursed the institution for historical patent costs and, in certain instances, issued the institution shares of restricted common stock. Additionally, under each agreement, the institution is generally eligible to receive future consideration including, but not limited to, annual maintenance fees, royalties, milestone payments and sublicensing fees. Each of the license agreements is generally cancelable by the Company, given appropriate prior written notice. Minimum annual payments to maintain these cancelable licenses total an aggregate of $0.4 million. See Note 2 for additional information on certain licenses.

Litigation

During the reporting period, the Company pursued claims in two lawsuits that were filed in 2022 against Shoreline Biosciences, Inc. (Shoreline) and certain of its founders and officers (collectively, the Shoreline litigations). The first suit, filed on May 13, 2022, was pending in San Diego Superior Court against Shoreline and four of its founders, Drs. Dan S. Kaufman (Kaufman), Kleanthis G. Xanthopoulos, and Messrs. William Sandborn and Steven Holtzman. The Company's claims included actions for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud and deceit, tortious interference, restitution and unfair competition. On August 9, 2024, the court denied the defendants’ motions for summary judgment preserving for trial all of the Company’s claims against the defendants, with the exception of defendants’ motions with respect to certain theories under the Company’s tortious interference claim (which claim by Fate was otherwise preserved for trial). On September 19, 2024, the court denied defendants’ motion for reconsideration of its summary judgment ruling. Trial began on October 21, 2024, with a jury selected on October 24, 2024. On October 28, 2024, the parties entered a settlement agreement resolving the litigation on terms agreeable to all parties, pursuant to which the Company filed a request for dismissal with prejudice of all claims on October 31, 2024.

In the second of the Shoreline litigations, also filed on May 13, 2022, the Company and Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research (Whitehead) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against Shoreline and Kaufman seeking monetary damages for the defendants’ infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,071,369, 8,932,856, 8,951,797, 8,940,536, 9,169,490, 10,457,917, and 10,017,744. On June 7, 2023, the Company and Whitehead filed a motion to dismiss our patent infringement claims against Kaufman in his personal capacity; that motion was granted on June 9, 2023. On August 30, 2023, the court granted Shoreline’s motion for summary judgment and denied the Company’s motion for partial summary judgment as moot. Judgment in favor of Shoreline was entered on August 31, 2023. On September 27, 2023, the Company and Whitehead filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit challenging the trial court’s claim construction and grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants; the defendants cross-appealed challenging the district court’s earlier denial of a motion to dismiss and partial motion for summary judgment on other grounds. The Federal Circuit docketed the case on October 5, 2023, and briefing was completed on June 26, 2024. On October 28, 2024, the parties entered a settlement agreement resolving the litigation on terms agreeable to all parties, pursuant to which the parties filed a joint notice of dismissal of the appeal and cross-appeal on October 31, 2024.

On January 20, 2023, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a securities class action lawsuit against the Company and certain of its officers captioned Hadian v. Fate Therapeutics, Inc. et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (the Securities Action). On May 4, 2023, the court appointed a different purported stockholder of the Company to serve as lead plaintiff in the Securities Action. On July 24, 2023, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint alleged that the Company violated the federal securities laws by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions in its public disclosures dating back to August 2020 relating to the Company’s collaboration agreement with Janssen Biotech, Inc. (the Janssen Agreement), potential product candidates subject to the Janssen Agreement, and the termination of the Janssen Agreement. On September 22, 2023, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On September 19, 2024, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint, with leave for plaintiff to file a second amended complaint. On October 18, 2024, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint alleging substantially similar facts and claims as in the prior amended complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on November 18, 2024, and briefing on the motion was completed on January 21, 2025. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against this action.

On June 2, 2023, a derivative complaint, captioned Guarino v. Wolchko, et al., was filed by a purported stockholder of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (the Guarino Action). On June 12, 2024, an additional derivative complaint, captioned Horrobin v. Wolchko, et al., was filed by a purported stockholder of the Company in the same district (the Horrobin Action). On December 3, 2024, the court entered an order consolidating the Guarino Action and the Horrobin Action under the caption In re Fate Therapeutics, Inc. Derivative Litigation (the Derivative Action) and staying the Derivative Action pending the court’s decision on our motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the Securities Action. The court’s ruling on the motion is pending. The Derivative Action names members of the Company’s board of directors and certain officers as defendants. The Company is also named as a nominal defendant. The plaintiffs in the Derivative Actions assert derivative claims arising out of substantially the same alleged facts and circumstances as the Securities Action. The Guarino complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and violation of federal securities laws. The Horrobin complaint asserts substantially similar claims in addition to a claim of breach of fiduciary duty for insider trading. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the Derivative Action.

From time to time, the Company may be subject to various other legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of business activities.