Note 18 - Legal Proceedings	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2011
Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]	18. Legal Proceedings Resolution of Challenges against the Queen et al. Patents in the United States and Europe MedImmune Settlement On February 10, 2011, we entered into a definitive settlement agreement with MedImmune, LLC (MedImmune) resolving all legal disputes with them, including those relating to MedImmune’s product Synagis® and PDL’s patents known as the Queen et al. patents. Under the settlement agreement, PDL paid MedImmune $65.0 million on February 15, 2011, and an additional $27.5 million on February 9, 2012, for a total of $92.5 million. No further payments will be owed by MedImmune to PDL under its license to the Queen et al. patents as a result of past or future Synagis sales and MedImmune will cease any support, financial or otherwise, of any party involved in the appeal proceeding before the European Patent Office (EPO) relating to the opposition against European Patent No. 0 451 216B (the ‘216B Patent) including the opposition owned by BioTransplant Incorporated (BioTransplant). Settlement with UCB On February 2, 2011, we reached a settlement with UCB Pharma S.A. (UCB). Under the settlement agreement, PDL provided UCB a covenant not to sue UCB for any royalties regarding UCB’s Cimzia® product under the Queen et al. patents in return for a lump sum payment of $10 million to PDL and termination of pending patent interference proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark office (PTO) involving our U.S. Patent No. 5,585,089 patent (the ‘089 Patent) and our U.S. Patent No. 6.180.370 (the ‘370 Patent) in PDL’s favor. UCB also agreed to formally withdraw its opposition appeal challenging the validity of the ‘216B Patent. Settlement with Novartis On February 25, 2011, we reached a settlement with Novartis AG (Novartis). Under the settlement agreement, PDL agreed to dismiss its claims against Novartis in its action in Nevada state court which also includes Genentech, Inc. (Genentech) and F. Hoffman Roche Ltd (Roche) as defendants. Novartis agreed to withdraw its opposition appeal in the EPO challenging the validity of the ‘216B Patent. Under the settlement agreement with Novartis, we will pay Novartis certain amounts based on net sales of Lucentis made by Novartis during calendar year 2011 and beyond. The settlement does not affect our claims against Genentech and Roche in the Nevada state court action. We do not currently expect such amount to materially impact our total annual revenues. European Opposition to ‘216B Patent Termination of European Opposition to ‘216B Patent Pursuant to our settlements with UCB, MedImmune and Novartis, and as a result of our acquisition of BioTransplant and subsequent withdrawal of BioTransplant’s appeal, all of the active appellants in the EPO opposition have formally withdrawn their participation in the appeal proceeding. Accordingly, the EPO has cancelled the appeal proceeding and terminated the opposition proceeding in its entirety, with the result that the 2007 EPO decision upholding the claims of our ‘216B Patent as valid will become the final decision of the EPO. In the year ending December 31, 2011, approximately 33% of our royalty revenues were derived from sales of products that were made in Europe and sold outside of the United States. 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 Avastin, Herceptin, Lucentis and Xolair (the Genentech Products) do not infringe the supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) granted to PDL by various countries in Europe for each of the Genentech 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 the Genentech Products. The SPCs covering the Genentech Products 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 the Genentech Products do not infringe PDL’s U.S. patents to the extent that such Genentech Products are made, used or sold in the United States (U.S.-based Sales). Genentech’s quarterly royalty payments received in August and November of 2010 after receipt of the letter 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 the Genentech Products that are both manufactured and sold outside of the United States. Royalties on sale of the Genentech Products that are made and sold outside of the United States (ex-U.S.-based Manufacturing and Sales) accounted for approximately 33% of our royalty revenues for the year ended December 31, 2011. Based on announcements by Roche regarding moving more manufacturing outside of the United States, we expect this amount to increase in the future. We believe that the SPCs are enforceable against the Genentech Products, 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 the Genentech Products. 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. In November 2010, Genentech and Roche filed a motion to dismiss our complaint against them in which we seek to enforce our rights under the 2003 settlement agreement with Genentech. Genentech and Roche's motions to dismiss under Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) alleged that all of our claims for relief relating to the 2003 settlement agreement should be dismissed because the 2003 settlement agreement applies only to our U.S. patents. In addition, Roche filed a separate motion to dismiss our complaint under Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) on the ground that the Nevada court lacks personal jurisdiction over Roche. On July 7, 2011, the Second Judicial District Court of Nevada ruled in favor of us on the two motions to dismiss filed by Genentech and Roche. The court denied Genentech and Roche's motion to dismiss four of our five claims for relief and, further, denied Roche's separate motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court dismissed one of our claims that Genentech committed a bad-faith breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing stating that, based on the current state of the pleadings, no "special relationship" had been established between Genentech and us as required under Nevada law. On November 1, 2011, the Nevada court issued an order accepting Roche’s stipulation of waiver to its personal jurisdiction defense. As a result of the order, Roche is foreclosed from reliance on lack of personal jurisdiction in defending against our claims. 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.

Note 18 - Legal Proceedings

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2011

Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]

18. Legal Proceedings

Resolution of Challenges against the Queen et al. Patents in the United States and Europe

MedImmune Settlement

On February 10, 2011, we entered into a definitive settlement agreement with MedImmune, LLC (MedImmune) resolving all legal disputes with them, including those relating to MedImmune’s product Synagis® and PDL’s patents known as the Queen et al. patents. Under the settlement agreement, PDL paid MedImmune $65.0 million on February 15, 2011, and an additional $27.5 million on February 9, 2012, for a total of $92.5 million. No further payments will be owed by MedImmune to PDL under its license to the Queen et al. patents as a result of past or future Synagis sales and MedImmune will cease any support, financial or otherwise, of any party involved in the appeal proceeding before the European Patent Office (EPO) relating to the opposition against European Patent No. 0 451 216B (the ‘216B Patent) including the opposition owned by BioTransplant Incorporated (BioTransplant).

Settlement with UCB

On February 2, 2011, we reached a settlement with UCB Pharma S.A. (UCB). Under the settlement agreement, PDL provided UCB a covenant not to sue UCB for any royalties regarding UCB’s Cimzia® product under the Queen et al. patents in return for a lump sum payment of $10 million to PDL and termination of pending patent interference proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark office (PTO) involving our U.S. Patent No. 5,585,089 patent (the ‘089 Patent) and our U.S. Patent No. 6.180.370 (the ‘370 Patent) in PDL’s favor. UCB also agreed to formally withdraw its opposition appeal challenging the validity of the ‘216B Patent.

Settlement with Novartis

On February 25, 2011, we reached a settlement with Novartis AG (Novartis). Under the settlement agreement, PDL agreed to dismiss its claims against Novartis in its action in Nevada state court which also includes Genentech, Inc. (Genentech) and F. Hoffman Roche Ltd (Roche) as defendants. Novartis agreed to withdraw its opposition appeal in the EPO challenging the validity of the ‘216B Patent. Under the settlement agreement with Novartis, we will pay Novartis certain amounts based on net sales of Lucentis made by Novartis during calendar year 2011 and beyond. The settlement does not affect our claims against Genentech and Roche in the Nevada state court action. We do not currently expect such amount to materially impact our total annual revenues.

European Opposition to ‘216B Patent

Termination of European Opposition to ‘216B Patent

Pursuant to our settlements with UCB, MedImmune and Novartis, and as a result of our acquisition of BioTransplant and subsequent withdrawal of BioTransplant’s appeal, all of the active appellants in the EPO opposition have formally withdrawn their participation in the appeal proceeding. Accordingly, the EPO has cancelled the appeal proceeding and terminated the opposition proceeding in its entirety, with the result that the 2007 EPO decision upholding the claims of our ‘216B Patent as valid will become the final decision of the EPO. In the year ending December 31, 2011, approximately 33% of our royalty revenues were derived from sales of products that were made in Europe and sold outside of the United States.

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 Avastin, Herceptin, Lucentis and Xolair (the Genentech Products) do not infringe the supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) granted to PDL by various countries in Europe for each of the Genentech 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 the Genentech Products. The SPCs covering the Genentech Products 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 the Genentech Products do not infringe PDL’s U.S. patents to the extent that such Genentech Products are made, used or sold in the United States (U.S.-based Sales). Genentech’s quarterly royalty payments received in August and November of 2010 after receipt of the letter 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 the Genentech Products that are both manufactured and sold outside of the United States. Royalties on sale of the Genentech Products that are made and sold outside of the United States (ex-U.S.-based Manufacturing and Sales) accounted for approximately 33% of our royalty revenues for the year ended December 31, 2011. Based on announcements by Roche regarding moving more manufacturing outside of the United States, we expect this amount to increase in the future.

We believe that the SPCs are enforceable against the Genentech Products, 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 the Genentech Products.

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.

In November 2010, Genentech and Roche filed a motion to dismiss our complaint against them in which we seek to enforce our rights under the 2003 settlement agreement with Genentech. Genentech and Roche's motions to dismiss under Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) alleged that all of our claims for relief relating to the 2003 settlement agreement should be dismissed because the 2003 settlement agreement applies only to our U.S. patents. In addition, Roche filed a separate motion to dismiss our complaint under Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) on the ground that the Nevada court lacks personal jurisdiction over Roche. On July 7, 2011, the Second Judicial District Court of Nevada ruled in favor of us on the two motions to dismiss filed by Genentech and Roche. The court denied Genentech and Roche's motion to dismiss four of our five claims for relief and, further, denied Roche's separate motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court dismissed one of our claims that Genentech committed a bad-faith breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing stating that, based on the current state of the pleadings, no "special relationship" had been established between Genentech and us as required under Nevada law. On November 1, 2011, the Nevada court issued an order accepting Roche’s stipulation of waiver to its personal jurisdiction defense. As a result of the order, Roche is foreclosed from reliance on lack of personal jurisdiction in defending against our claims.

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.