Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	8. Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings Genentech / Roche Matter Communications with Genentech regarding European SPCs In August 2010, we received a letter from Genentech, sent on behalf of Roche and Novartis, asserting that the Avastin, Herceptin, Lucentis and Xolair do not infringe the SPCs granted to PDL by various countries in Europe for covering those products and seeking a response from PDL to these assertions. Genentech did not state what actions, if any, it intends to take with respect to its assertions. PDL’s SPCs were granted by the relevant national patent offices in Europe and specifically cover Avastin, Herceptin, Lucentis and Xolair. The SPCs covering the Avastin, Herceptin, Lucentis and Xolair effectively extend our European patent protection for the '216B Patent generally until December 2014, except that the SPCs for Herceptin will generally expire in July 2014. Genentech’s letter does not suggest that any of the Genentech Products do not infringe PDL’s U.S. patents to the extent that such Genentech Products are U.S.-based Sales. Genentech’s quarterly royalty payments received after receipt of the letter have included royalties generated on all worldwide sales of the Genentech Products. If Genentech is successful in asserting this position, then under the terms of our license agreements with Genentech, it would not owe us royalties on sales of Avastin, Herceptin, Lucentis and Xolair that are both manufactured and sold outside of the United States. Royalties on sales of Avastin, Herceptin, Lucentis and Xolair that are ex-U.S.-based Manufacturing and Sales accounted for approximately 40% of our royalty revenues for the six months ended June 30, 2013. We believe that the SPCs are enforceable, that Genentech’s letter violates the terms of the 2003 settlement agreement and that Genentech owes us royalties on sales of the Genentech Products on a worldwide basis. We intend to vigorously assert our SPC-based patent rights. Nevada Litigation with Genentech, Roche and Novartis in Nevada State Court In August 2010, we filed a complaint in the Second Judicial District of Nevada, Washoe County, naming Genentech, Roche and Novartis as defendants. We intend to enforce our rights under our 2003 settlement agreement with Genentech and are seeking an order from the court declaring that Genentech is obligated to pay royalties to us on ex-U.S.-based Manufacturing and Sales of Avastin, Herceptin, Lucentis and Xolair. The 2003 settlement agreement was entered into as part of a definitive agreement resolving intellectual property disputes between the two companies at that time. The agreement limits Genentech’s ability to challenge infringement of our patent rights and waives Genentech’s right to challenge the validity of our patent rights. Certain breaches of the 2003 settlement agreement as alleged by our complaint require Genentech to pay us liquidated and other damages of potentially greater than one billion dollars. This amount includes a retroactive royalty rate of 3.75% on past U.S.-based Sales of the Genentech Products and interest, among other items. We may also be entitled to either terminate our license agreements with Genentech or be paid a flat royalty of 3.75% on future U.S.-based Sales of the Genentech Products. On February 25, 2011, we reached a settlement with Novartis under which, among other things, we agreed to dismiss our claims against Novartis in the action in Nevada state court against Genentech, Roche and Novartis. Genentech and Roche continue to be parties to the Nevada suit. The parties have been engaged in discovery motion practice. On March 29, 2013, the court affirmed an order of the discovery commissioner requiring the production of certain documents in the possession of Roche and Genentech to PDL. Roche and Genentech have communicated to us that they have requested review of the court's order from the Nevada Supreme Court. The parties have agreed to a stay in the proceedings pending the decision of the Nevada Supreme Court regarding whether they will review the court's order. In the event that the Nevada Supreme Court agrees to consider Roche and Genentech's request and review the court's order, we expect a lengthy delay in the case schedule for a period that may extend up to eighteen months. Accordingly, while the court has scheduled trial to commence on October 7, 2013, the likelihood that a trial date will be pushed out to as late as mid-2014 to mid-2015 is significant. Even in the event that the Nevada Supreme Court does not accept review of Roche and Genentech's request, due to the stay of proceedings in the interim period, the possibility exists that the parties will have insufficient time to complete discovery and other pre-trial activities, necessitating a delay in the currently scheduled October 2013 trial. In that instance, it is unclear at this time whether such a delay would occur or how long such a delay would be. The outcome of this litigation is uncertain and we may not be successful in our allegations. Arbitration with Genentech On June 7, 2013, the Company filed a Notice of Arbitration against Genentech with the American Arbitration Association in Voorhees, New Jersey, alleging, inter alia, that Genentech underpaid royalties going back to at least 2007 and impeded PDL's attempts to have Genentech's books and records inspected to determine whether Genentech's past payments to PDL were accurately calculated. In 2009, PDL retained KPMG to conduct an independent inspection and analysis of the books and records of Genentech and its sublicensees for the three year period covering January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2009, a right granted to PDL under PDL's Patent License Master Agreement and License Agreements with Genentech. KPMG reported to PDL that, due to limitations on its inspection imposed by Genentech, it was unable to assess the completeness or accuracy of Genentech's reporting of royalties. KPMG concluded that, based on the limited information it was able to review, Genentech appears to have underpaid PDL in an amount that, if substantiated, PDL believes would be material. Genentech has informed PDL that it disagrees with KPMG's conclusions and that it believes that it has correctly calculated royalties due. In the arbitration, PDL: (i) requests a declaration of the parties' rights and obligations with respect to reporting and payment of royalties under the license agreements; (ii) alleges that Genentech has breached the license agreements due to its obstruction of KPMG's inspection and underpayment of royalties; and (iii) alleges that Genentech breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by depriving PDL of the benefits of the license agreements through its obstruction of the inspection, which we further assert concealed the nature and extent of its underpayment. On July 3, 2013, Genentech filed its Response and Counterclaim in which Genentech requests that the arbitrator (i) reject PDL's claims that Genentech breached the license agreements by underpaying royalties owed to PDL, obstructing KPMG's inspection, or violating the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (ii) reject PDL's claim that Genentech owed any royalties to PDL on Herceptin, Avastin and Xolair manufactured and sold outside of the United States prior to December 27, 2009 on the ground that those products did not infringe the '216B patent prior to its expiration; (iii) offset any royalties underpaid during the audit period by the amount Genentech claims to have overpaid in royalties attributable to the sale of Herceptin, Avastin and Xolair manufactured and sold outside of the United States prior to December 27, 2009; and (iv) award damages to Genentech in the amount of $428,751, representing royalties Genentech overpaid during the audit period, as well as costs and reasonable attorney's fees. Genentech's counterclaim does not challenge whether Herceptin, Avastin and Xolair manufactured and sold outside of the United States after December 27, 2009, are Licensed Products (and subject to a royalty under PDL's SPCs issued to such products in Europe) as Genentech's ability to contest infringement of PDL's SPCs is the subject of pending litigation in Nevada. The outcome of this arbitration is uncertain, and PDL may not be successful in its allegations. Other Legal Proceedings In addition, from time to time, we are subject to various other legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of business and which we do not expect to materially impact our financial statements. Lease Guarantee In connection with the Spin-Off, we entered into amendments to the leases for our former facilities in Redwood City, California, under which Facet was added as a co-tenant, and a Co-Tenancy Agreement, under which Facet agreed to indemnify us for all matters related to the leases attributable to the period after the Spin-Off date. Should Facet default under its lease obligations, we could be held liable by the landlord as a co-tenant and, thus, we have in substance guaranteed the payments under the lease agreements for the Redwood City facilities. As of June 30, 2013, the total lease payments for the duration of the guarantee, which runs through December 2021, are approximately $95.1 million. If Facet were to default, we could also be responsible for lease related costs including utilities, property taxes and common area maintenance which may be as much as the actual lease payments. We have recorded a liability of $10.7 million on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of June 30, 2013, and December 31, 2012, related to this guarantee. In future periods, we may increase the recorded liability for this obligation if we conclude that a loss, which is larger than the amount recorded, is both probable and estimable.

8. Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

Genentech / Roche Matter

Communications with Genentech regarding European SPCs

In August 2010, we received a letter from Genentech, sent on behalf of Roche and Novartis, asserting that the Avastin, Herceptin, Lucentis and Xolair do not infringe the SPCs granted to PDL by various countries in Europe for covering those products and seeking a response from PDL to these assertions. Genentech did not state what actions, if any, it intends to take with respect to its assertions. PDL’s SPCs were granted by the relevant national patent offices in Europe and specifically cover Avastin, Herceptin, Lucentis and Xolair. The SPCs covering the Avastin, Herceptin, Lucentis and Xolair effectively extend our European patent protection for the '216B Patent generally until December 2014, except that the SPCs for Herceptin will generally expire in July 2014.

Genentech’s letter does not suggest that any of the Genentech Products do not infringe PDL’s U.S. patents to the extent that such Genentech Products are U.S.-based Sales. Genentech’s quarterly royalty payments received after receipt of the letter have included royalties generated on all worldwide sales of the Genentech Products.

If Genentech is successful in asserting this position, then under the terms of our license agreements with Genentech, it would not owe us royalties on sales of Avastin, Herceptin, Lucentis and Xolair that are both manufactured and sold outside of the United States. Royalties on sales of Avastin, Herceptin, Lucentis and Xolair that are ex-U.S.-based Manufacturing and Sales accounted for approximately 40% of our royalty revenues for the six months ended June 30, 2013.

We believe that the SPCs are enforceable, that Genentech’s letter violates the terms of the 2003 settlement agreement and that Genentech owes us royalties on sales of the Genentech Products on a worldwide basis. We intend to vigorously assert our SPC-based patent rights.

Nevada Litigation with Genentech, Roche and Novartis in Nevada State Court

In August 2010, we filed a complaint in the Second Judicial District of Nevada, Washoe County, naming Genentech, Roche and Novartis as defendants. We intend to enforce our rights under our 2003 settlement agreement with Genentech and are seeking an order from the court declaring that Genentech is obligated to pay royalties to us on ex-U.S.-based Manufacturing and Sales of Avastin, Herceptin, Lucentis and Xolair.

The 2003 settlement agreement was entered into as part of a definitive agreement resolving intellectual property disputes between the two companies at that time. The agreement limits Genentech’s ability to challenge infringement of our patent rights and waives Genentech’s right to challenge the validity of our patent rights. Certain breaches of the 2003 settlement agreement as alleged by our complaint require Genentech to pay us liquidated and other damages of potentially greater than one billion dollars. This amount includes a retroactive royalty rate of 3.75% on past U.S.-based Sales of the Genentech Products and interest, among other items. We may also be entitled to either terminate our license agreements with Genentech or be paid a flat royalty of 3.75% on future U.S.-based Sales of the Genentech Products.

On February 25, 2011, we reached a settlement with Novartis under which, among other things, we agreed to dismiss our claims against Novartis in the action in Nevada state court against Genentech, Roche and Novartis. Genentech and Roche continue to be parties to the Nevada suit.

The parties have been engaged in discovery motion practice. On March 29, 2013, the court affirmed an order of the discovery commissioner requiring the production of certain documents in the possession of Roche and Genentech to PDL. Roche and Genentech have communicated to us that they have requested review of the court's order from the Nevada Supreme Court. The parties have agreed to a stay in the proceedings pending the decision of the Nevada Supreme Court regarding whether they will review the court's order. In the event that the Nevada Supreme Court agrees to consider Roche and Genentech's request and review the court's order, we expect a lengthy delay in the case schedule for a period that may extend up to eighteen months. Accordingly, while the court has scheduled trial to commence on October 7, 2013, the likelihood that a trial date will be pushed out to as late as mid-2014 to mid-2015 is significant. Even in the event that the Nevada Supreme Court does not accept review of Roche and Genentech's request, due to the stay of proceedings in the interim period, the possibility exists that the parties will have insufficient time to complete discovery and other pre-trial activities, necessitating a delay in the currently scheduled October 2013 trial. In that instance, it is unclear at this time whether such a delay would occur or how long such a delay would be. The outcome of this litigation is uncertain and we may not be successful in our allegations.

Arbitration with Genentech

On June 7, 2013, the Company filed a Notice of Arbitration against Genentech with the American Arbitration Association in Voorhees, New Jersey, alleging, inter alia, that Genentech underpaid royalties going back to at least 2007 and impeded PDL's attempts to have Genentech's books and records inspected to determine whether Genentech's past payments to PDL were accurately calculated.

In 2009, PDL retained KPMG to conduct an independent inspection and analysis of the books and records of Genentech and its sublicensees for the three year period covering January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2009, a right granted to PDL under PDL's Patent License Master Agreement and License Agreements with Genentech. KPMG reported to PDL that, due to limitations on its inspection imposed by Genentech, it was unable to assess the completeness or accuracy of Genentech's reporting of royalties. KPMG concluded that, based on the limited information it was able to review, Genentech appears to have underpaid PDL in an amount that, if substantiated, PDL believes would be material. Genentech has informed PDL that it disagrees with KPMG's conclusions and that it believes that it has correctly calculated royalties due.

In the arbitration, PDL: (i) requests a declaration of the parties' rights and obligations with respect to reporting and payment of royalties under the license agreements; (ii) alleges that Genentech has breached the license agreements due to its obstruction of KPMG's inspection and underpayment of royalties; and (iii) alleges that Genentech breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by depriving PDL of the benefits of the license agreements through its obstruction of the inspection, which we further assert concealed the nature and extent of its underpayment.

On July 3, 2013, Genentech filed its Response and Counterclaim in which Genentech requests that the arbitrator (i) reject PDL's claims that Genentech breached the license agreements by underpaying royalties owed to PDL, obstructing KPMG's inspection, or violating the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (ii) reject PDL's claim that Genentech owed any royalties to PDL on Herceptin, Avastin and Xolair manufactured and sold outside of the United States prior to December 27, 2009 on the ground that those products did not infringe the '216B patent prior to its expiration; (iii) offset any royalties underpaid during the audit period by the amount Genentech claims to have overpaid in royalties attributable to the sale of Herceptin, Avastin and Xolair manufactured and sold outside of the United States prior to December 27, 2009; and (iv) award damages to Genentech in the amount of $428,751, representing royalties Genentech overpaid during the audit period, as well as costs and reasonable attorney's fees. Genentech's counterclaim does not challenge whether Herceptin, Avastin and Xolair manufactured and sold outside of the United States after December 27, 2009, are Licensed Products (and subject to a royalty under PDL's SPCs issued to such products in Europe) as Genentech's ability to contest infringement of PDL's SPCs is the subject of pending litigation in Nevada.

The outcome of this arbitration is uncertain, and PDL may not be successful in its allegations.

Other Legal Proceedings

In addition, from time to time, we are subject to various other legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of business and which we do not expect to materially impact our financial statements.

Lease Guarantee

In connection with the Spin-Off, we entered into amendments to the leases for our former facilities in Redwood City, California, under which Facet was added as a co-tenant, and a Co-Tenancy Agreement, under which Facet agreed to indemnify us for all matters related to the leases attributable to the period after the Spin-Off date. Should Facet default under its lease obligations, we could be held liable by the landlord as a co-tenant and, thus, we have in substance guaranteed the payments under the lease agreements for the Redwood City facilities. As of June 30, 2013, the total lease payments for the duration of the guarantee, which runs through December 2021, are approximately $95.1 million. If Facet were to default, we could also be responsible for lease related costs including utilities, property taxes and common area maintenance which may be as much as the actual lease payments.

We have recorded a liability of $10.7 million on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of June 30, 2013, and December 31, 2012, related to this guarantee. In future periods, we may increase the recorded liability for this obligation if we conclude that a loss, which is larger than the amount recorded, is both probable and estimable.