Commitments And Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Lease Commitments The Company leases office and research facilities and office equipment under operating leases which expire at various dates through 2029. Under lease agreements that contain escalating rent provisions, lease expense is recorded on a straight-line basis over the lease term. There were no material changes to our future minimum lease payments during the three and six months ended June 30, 2018. Rent expense for the three months ended June 30, 2018 and 2017 amounted to $1.8 million and $1.5 million, respectively. Rent expense for the six months ended June 30, 2018 and 2017 amounted to $3.6 million and $3.1 million, respectively. Contingencies At each reporting period, the Company evaluates whether or not a potential loss amount or a potential range of loss is probable and reasonably estimable under the provisions of the authoritative guidance that addresses accounting for contingencies. The Company is currently unable to predict the final outcome of lawsuits to which it is a party and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss. An adverse decision in any of these proceedings could significantly harm the Company’s business and consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Tessera, Inc. v. Toshiba Corporation, Civil Action No. 5:15-cv-02543-BLF (N.D. Cal.) On May 12, 2015, Tessera, Inc. filed a complaint against Toshiba Corporation (“Toshiba”) in California Superior Court. Tessera, Inc.’s complaint alleges causes of action for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and declaratory relief, generally alleging that Toshiba underpaid royalties and failed to cooperate with audits conducted pursuant to the parties’ license agreement. On June 8, 2015, Toshiba removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On June 18, 2015, Toshiba filed its answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims to Tessera, Inc.’s complaint. Toshiba alleges counterclaims for declaratory judgment and breach of the implied warranty of good faith and fair dealing. The counterclaims seek, among other things, judicial determinations about the interpretation of the parties’ agreement, termination of the agreement, an accounting of the amount of alleged overpayments by Toshiba, restitution, and damages. On July 10, 2015, Tessera, Inc. filed its answer and affirmative defenses to Toshiba’s counterclaims. On March 17, 2016, Tessera, Inc. filed an amended complaint adding a claim for declaratory relief regarding a February 12, 2016 letter sent by Toshiba to Tessera, Inc. purporting to terminate the parties’ license agreement. On March 18, 2016, Toshiba filed its amended answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims. On April 4, 2016, Tessera, Inc. filed an answer to Toshiba’s amended counterclaims. An initial summary judgment hearing on contract issues took place on September 22, 2016. On November 7, 2016, the Court entered an order granting Toshiba’s motion regarding the definition of “TCC,” and denying summary judgment on the other issues raised by the parties’ cross-motions. On December 6, 2016, Tessera, Inc. filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) seeking authorization to appeal the order and for a stay. On March 6, 2017, the Court granted the Rule 54(b) motion. The Court subsequently vacated the trial date and stayed the remainder of the district court proceedings. On April 4, 2017, Tessera, Inc. filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The parties completed briefing on November 2, 2017. A hearing for oral argument has been scheduled for October 15, 2018. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Panasonic Corporation (f/k/a Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.), Ltd., Pannova Semic, LLC, and Tessera Advanced Technologies, Inc. (International Chamber of Commerce) On May 18, 2018, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”) filed a Request for Arbitration against Tessera Advanced Technologies, Inc. (“Tessera”), Panasonic Corporation (f/k/a Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.) (“Panasonic”) and Pannova Semic, LLC (“Pannova”) with the International Chamber of Commerce. The Request seeks declaratory judgments that Samsung has a license to practice U.S. Patent Nos. 6,954,001, 6,784,557, 6,512,298, and 6,852,616 (“Patents-in-Suit”); damages of at least $15 million for alleged breach of contract; and a declaratory judgment that Panasonic’s assignment of the Patents-in-Suit is null and void. The Request further seeks an order requiring reimbursement to Samsung of all expenses, including attorneys’ fees, incurred in defending against lawsuits that Tessera or its affiliates filed in various jurisdictions. On June 25, 2018, Tessera and Pannova filed a Response to the Request for Arbitration, objecting to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and denying the merits of Samsung’s claims. Other Litigation Matters The Company and its subsidiaries are involved in litigation matters and claims in the normal course of business. In the past, the Company and its subsidiaries have litigated to enforce their respective patents and other intellectual property rights, to enforce the terms of license agreements, to protect trade secrets, to determine the validity and scope of the proprietary rights of others and to defend itself or its customers against claims of infringement or invalidity. The Company expects it or its subsidiaries will be involved in similar legal proceedings in the future, including proceedings regarding infringement of its patents, and proceedings to ensure proper and full payment of royalties by licensees under the terms of its license agreements. The existing and any future legal actions may harm the Company’s business. For example, legal actions could cause an existing licensee or strategic partner to cease making royalty or other payments to the Company, or to challenge the validity and enforceability of patents owned by the Company’s subsidiaries or the scope of license agreements with the Company’s subsidiaries, and could significantly damage the Company’s relationship with such licensee or strategic partner and, as a result, prevent the adoption of the Company’s other technologies by such licensee or strategic partner. Litigation could also severely disrupt or shut down the business operations of licensees or strategic partners of the Company’s subsidiaries, which in turn would significantly harm ongoing relations with them and cause the Company to lose royalty revenue. The costs associated with legal proceedings are typically high, relatively unpredictable, and not completely within the Company’s control. These costs may be materially higher than expected, which could adversely affect the Company’s operating results and lead to volatility in the price of its common stock. Whether or not determined in the Company’s favor or ultimately settled, litigation diverts managerial, technical, legal, and financial resources from the Company’s business operations. Furthermore, an adverse decision in any of these legal actions could result in a loss of the Company’s proprietary rights, subject the Company to significant liabilities, require the Company to seek licenses from others, limit the value of the Company’s licensed technology or otherwise negatively impact the Company’s stock price or its business and consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Lease Commitments

The Company leases office and research facilities and office equipment under operating leases which expire at various dates through 2029. Under lease agreements that contain escalating rent provisions, lease expense is recorded on a straight-line basis over the lease term. There were no material changes to our future minimum lease payments during the three and six months ended June 30, 2018. Rent expense for the three months ended June 30, 2018 and 2017 amounted to $1.8 million and $1.5 million, respectively. Rent expense for the six months ended June 30, 2018 and 2017 amounted to $3.6 million and $3.1 million, respectively.

Contingencies

At each reporting period, the Company evaluates whether or not a potential loss amount or a potential range of loss is probable and reasonably estimable under the provisions of the authoritative guidance that addresses accounting for contingencies. The Company is currently unable to predict the final outcome of lawsuits to which it is a party and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss. An adverse decision in any of these proceedings could significantly harm the Company’s business and consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Tessera, Inc. v. Toshiba Corporation, Civil Action No. 5:15-cv-02543-BLF (N.D. Cal.)

On May 12, 2015, Tessera, Inc. filed a complaint against Toshiba Corporation (“Toshiba”) in California Superior Court. Tessera, Inc.’s complaint alleges causes of action for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and declaratory relief, generally alleging that Toshiba underpaid royalties and failed to cooperate with audits conducted pursuant to the parties’ license agreement.

On June 8, 2015, Toshiba removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On June 18, 2015, Toshiba filed its answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims to Tessera, Inc.’s complaint. Toshiba alleges counterclaims for declaratory judgment and breach of the implied warranty of good faith and fair dealing. The counterclaims seek, among other things, judicial determinations about the interpretation of the parties’ agreement, termination of the agreement, an accounting of the amount of alleged overpayments by Toshiba, restitution, and damages. On July 10, 2015, Tessera, Inc. filed its answer and affirmative defenses to Toshiba’s counterclaims. On March 17, 2016, Tessera, Inc. filed an amended complaint adding a claim for declaratory relief regarding a February 12, 2016 letter sent by Toshiba to Tessera, Inc. purporting to terminate the parties’ license agreement. On March 18, 2016, Toshiba filed its amended answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims. On April 4, 2016, Tessera, Inc. filed an answer to Toshiba’s amended counterclaims.

An initial summary judgment hearing on contract issues took place on September 22, 2016. On November 7, 2016, the Court entered an order granting Toshiba’s motion regarding the definition of “TCC,” and denying summary judgment on the other issues raised by the parties’ cross-motions. On December 6, 2016, Tessera, Inc. filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) seeking authorization to appeal the order and for a stay. On March 6, 2017, the Court granted the Rule 54(b) motion. The Court subsequently vacated the trial date and stayed the remainder of the district court proceedings.

On April 4, 2017, Tessera, Inc. filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The parties completed briefing on November 2, 2017. A hearing for oral argument has been scheduled for October 15, 2018.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Panasonic Corporation (f/k/a Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.), Ltd., Pannova Semic, LLC, and Tessera Advanced Technologies, Inc. (International Chamber of Commerce)

On May 18, 2018, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”) filed a Request for Arbitration against Tessera Advanced Technologies, Inc. (“Tessera”), Panasonic Corporation (f/k/a Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.) (“Panasonic”) and Pannova Semic, LLC (“Pannova”) with the International Chamber of Commerce. The Request seeks declaratory judgments that Samsung has a license to practice U.S. Patent Nos. 6,954,001, 6,784,557, 6,512,298, and 6,852,616 (“Patents-in-Suit”); damages of at least $15 million for alleged breach of contract; and a declaratory judgment that Panasonic’s assignment of the Patents-in-Suit is null and void. The Request further seeks an order requiring reimbursement to Samsung of all expenses, including attorneys’ fees, incurred in defending against lawsuits that Tessera or its affiliates filed in various jurisdictions. On June 25, 2018, Tessera and Pannova filed a Response to the Request for Arbitration, objecting to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and denying the merits of Samsung’s claims.

Other Litigation Matters

The Company and its subsidiaries are involved in litigation matters and claims in the normal course of business. In the past, the Company and its subsidiaries have litigated to enforce their respective patents and other intellectual property rights, to enforce the terms of license agreements, to protect trade secrets, to determine the validity and scope of the proprietary rights of others and to defend itself or its customers against claims of infringement or invalidity. The Company expects it or its subsidiaries will be involved in similar legal proceedings in the future, including proceedings regarding infringement of its patents, and proceedings to ensure proper and full payment of royalties by licensees under the terms of its license agreements.

The existing and any future legal actions may harm the Company’s business. For example, legal actions could cause an existing licensee or strategic partner to cease making royalty or other payments to the Company, or to challenge the validity and enforceability of patents owned by the Company’s subsidiaries or the scope of license agreements with the Company’s subsidiaries, and could significantly damage the Company’s relationship with such licensee or strategic partner and, as a result, prevent the adoption of the Company’s other technologies by such licensee or strategic partner. Litigation could also severely disrupt or shut down the business operations of licensees or strategic partners of the Company’s subsidiaries, which in turn would significantly harm ongoing relations with them and cause the Company to lose royalty revenue.

The costs associated with legal proceedings are typically high, relatively unpredictable, and not completely within the Company’s control. These costs may be materially higher than expected, which could adversely affect the Company’s operating results and lead to volatility in the price of its common stock. Whether or not determined in the Company’s favor or ultimately settled, litigation diverts managerial, technical, legal, and financial resources from the Company’s business operations. Furthermore, an adverse decision in any of these legal actions could result in a loss of the Company’s proprietary rights, subject the Company to significant liabilities, require the Company to seek licenses from others, limit the value of the Company’s licensed technology or otherwise negatively impact the Company’s stock price or its business and consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.