Legal Proceedings, Commitments and Contingencies (Notes)	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings, Commitments and Contingencies	Legal Proceedings, Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings In re Galena Biopharma, Inc. Securities Litigation and In Re Galena Biopharma, Inc. Derivative Litigation On August 4, 2015, plaintiffs in the voluntarily dismissed Delaware derivative action have filed a motion seeking to file under seal a derivative complaint in the District Court. That motion was granted and on August 31, 2015, that action was consolidated with In Re Galena Biopharma, Inc. Derivative Litigation. On or about September 15, 2015, a federal securities lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon entitled, Riley v. Galena Biopharma, Inc., et al. The time to answer or otherwise plead has been extended by agreement of the parties. We intend to vigorously defend against and seek resolution to the foregoing claims. As of September 30, 2015, we have not recorded any liabilities with respect to the claims in our consolidated financial statements. We believe that claims are covered under our liability insurance, and we have notified our insurance carriers of the claims. The insurers have responded by requesting additional information and by reserving their rights under the policies, including the rights to deny coverage under various policy exclusions. Subject to their reservation of rights, we are being reimbursed by our insurance carriers for significant portion of all legal fees relating to our defense of the claims. We have entered into certain undertaking agreements with our directors related to the litigation by which we have agreed to advance reasonable legal fees and costs for the litigation under certain conditions. SEC Investigation We are aware that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is investigating certain matters relating to the use of certain outside investor-relations professionals by us and other public companies. We have been in contact with the SEC staff through our counsel and are cooperating with the investigation. ANDA Litigation On October 23, 2015, Orexo AB (“Orexo”) and Galena Biopharma, Inc. (the “Company”) entered into a settlement and license agreement with Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. (“Actavis”) to resolve pending patent litigation brought by the Orexo against Actavis involving Abstral® (fentanyl) sublingual tablets. The pending patent litigation was filed by Orexo in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in response to Actavis’ submission of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), seeking marketing approval for a generic version of Abstral. As a result of the settlement and license agreement, Actavis will be permitted to enter the market with a generic or authorized generic version of Abstral in the United States June 2018 or earlier under certain circumstances. The Court has entered an order dismissing with prejudice the litigation against Actavis. Details of the settlement are confidential, and the parties have submited the agreement to the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice, as required by federal law. The expiration date for the latest expiring Abstral patent listed in the FDA’s Orange Book is September 2019. Commitments The company acquires assets still in development and enters into research and development arrangements with third parties that often require milestone and royalty payments based on the progress of the asset through development stages. Milestone payments may be required, for example, upon approval of the product for marketing by a regulatory agency. In certain agreements, the company is required to make royalty payments based upon a percentage of the sales. These arrangements may be material individually, and in the unlikely event that milestones for multiple products covered by these arrangements were reached in the same period, the aggregate charge to expense could be material to the results of operations. In addition, these arrangements often give the company the discretion to unilaterally terminate development of the product, which the company might do for clinical, business or other reasons, which would allow the company to avoid making the contingent payments. The company applies the disclosure provisions FASB ASC Topic 460 (“ASC 460”), “ Guarantor’s Accounting and Disclosure Requirements for Guarantees, Including Indirect Guarantees of Indebtedness of Others ”, to its agreements that contain guarantee or indemnification clauses. The company provides (i) indemnifications of varying scope and size to certain investors and other parties for certain losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party in connection with various types of third-party claims and (ii) indemnifications of varying scope and size to officers and directors against third party claims arising from the services they provide to us. These indemnifications give rise only to the disclosure provisions of ASC 460. To date, the company has not incurred costs as a result of these obligations and does not expect to incur material costs in the future. Accordingly, the company has not accrued any liabilities in its financial statements related to these indemnifications.

Legal Proceedings, Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

In re Galena Biopharma, Inc. Securities Litigation and In Re Galena Biopharma, Inc. Derivative Litigation

On August 4, 2015, plaintiffs in the voluntarily dismissed Delaware derivative action have filed a motion seeking to file under seal a derivative complaint in the District Court. That motion was granted and on August 31, 2015, that action was consolidated with In Re Galena Biopharma, Inc. Derivative Litigation.

On or about September 15, 2015, a federal securities lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon entitled, Riley v. Galena Biopharma, Inc., et al. The time to answer or otherwise plead has been extended by agreement of the parties.

We intend to vigorously defend against and seek resolution to the foregoing claims. As of September 30, 2015, we have not recorded any liabilities with respect to the claims in our consolidated financial statements. We believe that claims are covered under our liability insurance, and we have notified our insurance carriers of the claims. The insurers have responded by requesting additional information and by reserving their rights under the policies, including the rights to deny coverage under various policy exclusions. Subject to their reservation of rights, we are being reimbursed by our insurance carriers for significant portion of all legal fees relating to our defense of the claims. We have entered into certain undertaking agreements with our directors related to the litigation by which we have agreed to advance reasonable legal fees and costs for the litigation under certain conditions.

SEC Investigation

We are aware that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is investigating certain matters relating to the use of certain outside investor-relations professionals by us and other public companies. We have been in contact with the SEC staff through our counsel and are cooperating with the investigation.

ANDA Litigation

On October 23, 2015, Orexo AB (“Orexo”) and Galena Biopharma, Inc. (the “Company”) entered into a settlement and license agreement with Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. (“Actavis”) to resolve pending patent litigation brought by the Orexo against Actavis involving Abstral® (fentanyl) sublingual tablets. The pending patent litigation was filed by Orexo in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in response to Actavis’ submission of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), seeking marketing approval for a generic version of Abstral. As a result of the settlement and license agreement, Actavis will be permitted to enter the market with a generic or authorized generic version of Abstral in the United States June 2018 or earlier under certain circumstances. The Court has entered an order dismissing with prejudice the litigation against Actavis. Details of the settlement are confidential, and the parties have submited the agreement to the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice, as required by federal law. The expiration date for the latest expiring Abstral patent listed in the FDA’s Orange Book is September 2019.

Commitments

The company acquires assets still in development and enters into research and development arrangements with third parties that often require milestone and royalty payments based on the progress of the asset through development stages. Milestone payments may be required, for example, upon approval of the product for marketing by a regulatory agency. In certain agreements, the company is required to make royalty payments based upon a percentage of the sales.

These arrangements may be material individually, and in the unlikely event that milestones for multiple products covered by these arrangements were reached in the same period, the aggregate charge to expense could be material to the results of operations. In addition, these arrangements often give the company the discretion to unilaterally terminate development of the product, which the company might do for clinical, business or other reasons, which would allow the company to avoid making the contingent payments.

The company applies the disclosure provisions FASB ASC Topic 460 (“ASC 460”), “ Guarantor’s Accounting and Disclosure Requirements for Guarantees, Including Indirect Guarantees of Indebtedness of Others ”, to its agreements that contain guarantee or indemnification clauses. The company provides (i) indemnifications of varying scope and size to certain investors and other parties for certain losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party in connection with various types of third-party claims and (ii) indemnifications of varying scope and size to officers and directors against third party claims arising from the services they provide to us. These indemnifications give rise only to the disclosure provisions of ASC 460. To date, the company has not incurred costs as a result of these obligations and does not expect to incur material costs in the future. Accordingly, the company has not accrued any liabilities in its financial statements related to these indemnifications.