Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	8. Commitments and Contingencies PDL BioPharma, Inc. v Merck Sharp & Dohme, Corp. On October 28, 2015, the Company filed a Complaint against Merck Sharp & Dohme, Corp (“Merck”) for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. In the Complaint, the Company alleges that manufacture and sales of certain of Merck’s Keytruda product infringes one or more claims of the Company’s U.S Patent No. 5,693,761 ('761 Patent). The Company has requested judgment that Merck has infringed the '761 Patent, an award of damages due to the infringement, a finding that such infringement was willful and deliberate and trebling of damages therefore, and a declaration that the case is exceptional and warrants an award of attorney’s fees and costs. Although the '761 Patent expired on December 2, 2014, the Company believes that Merck infringed the patent through, e.g., manufacture and/or sale of Keytruda prior to the expiration of the '761 Patent. On December 21, 2015, Merck filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. In response to Merck’s motion, on January 22, 2016, rather than dispute Merck’s contentions regarding jurisdiction, the Company elected to dismiss the action in Nevada and refile the Complaint in its entirety in the District of New Jersey. On May 25, 2016, Merck filed a Motion to Bifurcate Discovery and Trial into Liability and Damages Phases, which motion was granted by the court. Wellstat Litigation On September 4, 2015, the Company filed in the Supreme Court of New York a motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint which requested that the court enter judgment against Wellstat Diagnostics Guarantors for the total amount due on the Wellstat Diagnostics debt, plus all costs and expenses including lawyers’ fees incurred by the Company in enforcement of the related guarantees. On September 23, 2015, the Company filed in the same court an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order and order of attachment of the Wellstat Diagnostics Guarantors' assets. At a hearing on September 24, 2015, regarding the Company’s request for a temporary restraining order, the court ordered that the Company’s request for attachment and for summary judgment would be heard at a hearing on November 5, 2015. Although the court denied the Company’s request for a temporary restraining order at the hearing on September 24, 2015, it ordered that assets of the Wellstat Diagnostics Guarantors should be held in status quo ante and only used in the normal course of business pending the outcome of the matters under consideration at the hearing. On July 29, 2016, the court issued its Memorandum of Decision granting the Company’s motion for summary judgment and denying the Wellstat Diagnostics Guarantors’ cross-motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court of New York held that the Wellstat Diagnostics Guarantors are liable for all “Obligations” owed by Wellstat Diagnostics to the Company. It did not set a specific dollar amount due, but ordered that a judicial hearing officer or special referee be designated to determine the amount of the Obligations owing, and awarded the Company its attorneys’ fees and costs in an amount to be determined. On July 29, 2016, the Wellstat Diagnostics Guarantors filed a notice of appeal from the Memorandum of Decision to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York has adjourned the Wellstat Diagnostics Guarantors' appeal to the January 2017 term. On October 24, 2016, in response to a request from the Wellstat Guarantors’ to stay the damages hearing before the special referee pending resolution of the Wellstat Guarantors’ appeal of the Supreme Court’s summary judgment against them, a single justice of the Appellate Division granted a temporary stay of all proceedings before the Supreme Court until the Wellstat Guarantors’ motion to stay can be addressed by a three judge panel of the Appellate Division. The motion for a stay will be fully briefed and submitted for decision by the motions panel on November 9, 2016. For a further discussion of the Wellstat litigation, see Note 6. Other Legal Proceedings From time to time, the Company is involved in lawsuits, arbitrations, claims, investigations and proceedings, consisting of intellectual property, commercial, employment and other matters, which arise in the ordinary course of business. The Company makes provisions for liabilities when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Such provisions are reviewed at least quarterly and adjusted to reflect the impact of settlement negotiations, judicial and administrative rulings, advice of legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to a particular case. Litigation is inherently unpredictable. If any unfavorable ruling were to occur in any specific period, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on the results of the Company's operations of that period and on its cash flows and liquidity. Lease Guarantee In connection with the spin-off by the Company of Facet Biotech Corporation ("Facet") (the "Spin-Off,") the Company entered into amendments to the leases for the Company's 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, the Company could be held liable by the landlord as a co-tenant and, thus, the Company has in substance guaranteed the payments under the lease agreements for the Redwood City facilities. As of September 30, 2016, the total lease payments for the duration of the guarantee, which runs through December 2021, are approximately $59.2 million. In April 2010, Abbott Laboratories acquired Facet and later renamed the entity AbbVie Biotherapeutics, Inc. ("AbbVie"). If AbbVie were to default, the Company 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. The Company has recorded a liability of $10.7 million on its Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2016, and December 31, 2015, related to this guarantee. In future periods, the Company may adjust this liability for any changes in the ultimate outcome of this matter that are both probable and estimable. Irrevocable Letters of Credit On June 30, 2016, the Company purchased a $75.0 million certificate of deposit, which is designated as cash collateral for the $75.0 million letter of credit issued on July 1, 2016 with respect to the first anniversary payment under the Noden Purchase Agreement. In addition, we provided an irrevocable and unconditional guarantee to Novartis, to pay up to $14.0 million of the remaining amount of the first anniversary payment not covered by the letter of credit. The Company concluded that both guarantees are contingent obligations and shall be accounted for in accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies. Further, it was concluded that both guarantees do not meet the conditions to be accrued at September 30, 2016. Unconditional Purchase Obligation In connection with the Noden Transaction, Noden entered into an unconditional purchase obligation with Novartis to acquire all local finished goods inventory in certain countries upon transfer of the applicable marketing authorization rights in such country. The purchase is payable within 60 days after the transfer of the marketing authorization rights. The agreement does not specify minimum quantities but details pricing terms. In addition, Noden and Novartis entered into a supply agreement pursuant to which Novartis will manufacture and supply to Noden a finished form of the Noden Products and bulk drug form of the Noden Products for specified periods of time prior to the transfer of manufacturing responsibilities for the Noden Products to another manufacturer. The supply agreement specifies variable quantities based on forecasts and pricing terms.

8. Commitments and Contingencies

PDL BioPharma, Inc. v Merck Sharp & Dohme, Corp.

On October 28, 2015, the Company filed a Complaint against Merck Sharp & Dohme, Corp (“Merck”) for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. In the Complaint, the Company alleges that manufacture and sales of certain of Merck’s Keytruda product infringes one or more claims of the Company’s U.S Patent No. 5,693,761 ('761 Patent). The Company has requested judgment that Merck has infringed the '761 Patent, an award of damages due to the infringement, a finding that such infringement was willful and deliberate and trebling of damages therefore, and a declaration that the case is exceptional and warrants an award of attorney’s fees and costs. Although the '761 Patent expired on December 2, 2014, the Company believes that Merck infringed the patent through, e.g., manufacture and/or sale of Keytruda prior to the expiration of the '761 Patent. On December 21, 2015, Merck filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. In response to Merck’s motion, on January 22, 2016, rather than dispute Merck’s contentions regarding jurisdiction, the Company elected to dismiss the action in Nevada and refile the Complaint in its entirety in the District of New Jersey. On May 25, 2016, Merck filed a Motion to Bifurcate Discovery and Trial into Liability and Damages Phases, which motion was granted by the court.

Wellstat Litigation

On September 4, 2015, the Company filed in the Supreme Court of New York a motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint which requested that the court enter judgment against Wellstat Diagnostics Guarantors for the total amount due on the Wellstat Diagnostics debt, plus all costs and expenses including lawyers’ fees incurred by the Company in enforcement of the related guarantees. On September 23, 2015, the Company filed in the same court an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order and order of attachment of the Wellstat Diagnostics Guarantors' assets. At a hearing on September 24, 2015, regarding the Company’s request for a temporary restraining order, the court ordered that the Company’s request for attachment and for summary judgment would be heard at a hearing on November 5, 2015. Although the court denied the Company’s request for a temporary restraining order at the hearing on September 24, 2015, it ordered that assets of the Wellstat Diagnostics Guarantors should be held in status quo ante and only used in the normal course of business pending the outcome of the matters under consideration at the hearing. On July 29, 2016, the court issued its Memorandum of Decision granting the Company’s motion for summary judgment and denying the Wellstat Diagnostics Guarantors’ cross-motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court of New York held that the Wellstat Diagnostics Guarantors are liable for all “Obligations” owed by Wellstat Diagnostics to the Company. It did not set a specific dollar amount due, but ordered that a judicial hearing officer or special referee be designated to determine the amount of the Obligations owing, and awarded the Company its attorneys’ fees and costs in an amount to be determined. On July 29, 2016, the Wellstat Diagnostics Guarantors filed a notice of appeal from the Memorandum of Decision to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York has adjourned the Wellstat Diagnostics Guarantors' appeal to the January 2017 term. On October 24, 2016, in response to a request from the Wellstat Guarantors’ to stay the damages hearing before the special referee pending resolution of the Wellstat Guarantors’ appeal of the Supreme Court’s summary judgment against them, a single justice of the Appellate Division granted a temporary stay of all proceedings before the Supreme Court until the Wellstat Guarantors’ motion to stay can be addressed by a three judge panel of the Appellate Division. The motion for a stay will be fully briefed and submitted for decision by the motions panel on November 9, 2016. For a further discussion of the Wellstat litigation, see Note 6.

Other Legal Proceedings

From time to time, the Company is involved in lawsuits, arbitrations, claims, investigations and proceedings, consisting of intellectual property, commercial, employment and other matters, which arise in the ordinary course of business. The Company makes provisions for liabilities when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Such provisions are reviewed at least quarterly and adjusted to reflect the impact of settlement negotiations, judicial and administrative rulings, advice of legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to a particular case. Litigation is inherently unpredictable. If any unfavorable ruling were to occur in any specific period, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on the results of the Company's operations of that period and on its cash flows and liquidity.

Lease Guarantee

In connection with the spin-off by the Company of Facet Biotech Corporation ("Facet") (the "Spin-Off,") the Company entered into amendments to the leases for the Company's 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, the Company could be held liable by the landlord as a co-tenant and, thus, the Company has in substance guaranteed the payments under the lease agreements for the Redwood City facilities. As of September 30, 2016, the total lease payments for the duration of the guarantee, which runs through December 2021, are approximately $59.2 million. In April 2010, Abbott Laboratories acquired Facet and later renamed the entity AbbVie Biotherapeutics, Inc. ("AbbVie"). If AbbVie were to default, the Company 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. The Company has recorded a liability of $10.7 million on its Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2016, and December 31, 2015, related to this guarantee. In future periods, the Company may adjust this liability for any changes in the ultimate outcome of this matter that are both probable and estimable.

Irrevocable Letters of Credit

On June 30, 2016, the Company purchased a $75.0 million certificate of deposit, which is designated as cash collateral for the $75.0 million letter of credit issued on July 1, 2016 with respect to the first anniversary payment under the Noden Purchase

Agreement. In addition, we provided an irrevocable and unconditional guarantee to Novartis, to pay up to $14.0 million of the remaining amount of the first anniversary payment not covered by the letter of credit. The Company concluded that both guarantees are contingent obligations and shall be accounted for in accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies. Further, it was concluded that both guarantees do not meet the conditions to be accrued at September 30, 2016.

Unconditional Purchase Obligation

In connection with the Noden Transaction, Noden entered into an unconditional purchase obligation with Novartis to acquire all local finished goods inventory in certain countries upon transfer of the applicable marketing authorization rights in such country. The purchase is payable within 60 days after the transfer of the marketing authorization rights. The agreement does not specify minimum quantities but details pricing terms.

In addition, Noden and Novartis entered into a supply agreement pursuant to which Novartis will manufacture and supply to Noden a finished form of the Noden Products and bulk drug form of the Noden Products for specified periods of time prior to the transfer of manufacturing responsibilities for the Noden Products to another manufacturer. The supply agreement specifies variable quantities based on forecasts and pricing terms.