Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2014
Contingencies [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies We are subject to potential liabilities under government regulations and various claims and legal actions that are pending or may be asserted. These matters arise in the ordinary course and conduct of our business. They include, for example, commercial, intellectual property, environmental, securities and employment matters. We intend to continue to defend ourselves vigorously in such matters. We regularly assess contingencies to determine the degree of probability and range of possible loss for potential accrual in our financial statements. An estimated loss contingency is accrued in our financial statements if it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Based on our assessment, we have adequately accrued an amount in our financial position for such contingent liabilities, and except for those that are specifically addressed below, that the Company considers immaterial to its overall financial position. Litigation is inherently unpredictable, and unfavorable resolutions could occur. As a result, assessing contingencies is highly subjective and requires judgment about future events. The amount of ultimate loss may exceed our current accruals, and it is possible that our cash flows or results of operations could be materially affected in any particular period by the unfavorable resolution of one or more of these contingencies. Legal Proceedings Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc. Litigation In August 2008, Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc. and other Medtronic related entities (collectively, "Medtronic") filed suit against NuVasive in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (the "Medtronic Litigation"), alleging that certain of NuVasive’s products infringe, or contribute to the infringement of, twelve U.S. patents assigned or licensed to Medtronic. Three of the patents were later withdrawn by Medtronic, leaving nine patents. NuVasive brought counterclaims against Medtronic alleging infringement of certain of NuVasive’s patents. The case has been administratively broken into serial phases. The first phase of the case included three Medtronic patents and one NuVasive patent and on September 20, 2011, a jury from the U.S. District Court delivered an unfavorable verdict against NuVasive with respect to the three Medtronic patents and a favorable verdict with respect to the one NuVasive patent. The jury awarded monetary damages of approximately $101.2 million to Medtronic, which includes lost profits and back royalties (the "2011 verdict"). Medtronic’s subsequent motion for a permanent injunction was denied by the District Court on January 26, 2012. On March 19, 2012, the District Court issued an order granting prejudgment interest, and on June 11, 2013, the District Court ruled on the ongoing royalty rates (the "June 2013 ruling"). On August 20, 2013, NuVasive and Medtronic filed their respective notices of appeal, and the appeal is now proceeding before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In addition, on March 19, 2012, the Company entered into an escrow arrangement and transferred $113.3 million of cash into a restricted escrow account to secure the amount of judgment, plus prejudgment interest, during pendency of the appeal. These funds are included in restricted cash and investments on the Company's March 31, 2014 condensed consolidated balance sheet. In accordance with the authoritative guidance on the evaluation of loss contingencies, during the year ended December 31, 2011, the Company recorded an accrual of $101.2 million for the 2011 verdict. In addition, on sales subsequent to the 2011 verdict and through March 31, 2013, the Company accrued royalties at the royalty rates stated in the 2011 verdict. Upon receiving the District Court ruling in June 2013, the Company began accruing ongoing royalties on sales at the royalty rates stated in the June 2013 ruling, and recorded a charge of approximately $7.9 million to account for the difference between using the royalty rates stated in the 2011 verdict and those in the June 2013 ruling on sales through March 31, 2013. As a result of the June 2013 ruling, the Company will be required to escrow funds to secure accrued royalties, estimated at $23 million to date, and ongoing royalties. The Company is also accruing post-judgment interest. With respect to the prejudgment interest award, the Company, based on its own assessment, as well as that of outside counsel, believes a reversal of the prejudgment interest award on appeal is probable, and therefore, in accordance with authoritative guidance on the evaluation of loss contingencies, the Company has not recorded an accrual for this amount, which is estimated to approximate $13 million. Additional damages, including interest may still be awarded, and at March 31, 2014, the Company cannot estimate a range of additional potential loss. With respect to the favorable verdict delivered regarding the one NuVasive patent, the jury awarded the Company monetary damages of approximately $0.7 million for reasonable royalty damages. In accordance with the authoritative guidance on the evaluation of gain contingencies, this amount has not been recorded at March 31, 2014. Additionally, the June 2013 ruling determined the ongoing royalty rate to be paid to the Company by Medtronic for its post-verdict sales of the one NuVasive patent. Consistent with the treatment afforded the $0.7 million damage award, no amount has been recorded for royalty revenue as of March 31, 2014. The second phase of the case pending in the Southern District of California involved one Medtronic cervical plate patent. On April 25, 2013, NuVasive and Medtronic entered into a settlement agreement fully resolving the second phase of the case. The settlement also removes from the case the cervical plate patent that was part of the first phase. As part of the settlement, NuVasive received a broad license to practice (i) the Medtronic patent that was the sole subject of the second phase of the litigation, (ii) the Medtronic patent that was part of the first phase of the litigation, and (iii) each of the Medtronic patent families that collectively represent the vast majority of Medtronic's patent rights related to cervical plate technology. In exchange for these license rights, NuVasive made a one-time payment to Medtronic of $7.5 million, which amount will be fully offset against any damage award ultimately determined to be owed by NuVasive in connection with a final resolution of the first phase of the litigation. In addition, Medtronic will receive a royalty on certain cervical plate products sold by NuVasive, including the Helix^® and Gradient^® lines of products. As a result of this settlement, all current patent disputes between the parties related to cervical plate technology have been resolved. In August 2012, Medtronic filed additional patent claims in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana alleging that various NuVasive spinal implants (including its CoRoent^® XL family of spinal implants) infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,021,430, that NuVasive's Osteocel^® Plus bone graft product infringes U.S. Patent No. 5,676,146, and that NuVasive's XLIF^® procedure and use of MaXcess IV retractor during the XLIF procedure infringe methodology claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,251,997. The case was later transferred to the Southern District of California and on March 7, 2013, NuVasive counterclaimed to allege infringement by Medtronic of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,000,782 (systems and related methods for performing surgical procedures), 8,005,535 (systems and related methods for performing surgical procedures), 8,016,767 (a surgical access system including a tissue distraction assembly and tissue retraction assembly), 8,192,356 (a system for accessing a surgical target site and related methods, involving an initial distraction system, among other things), 8,187,334 (spinal fusion implant), 8,361,156 (spinal fusion implant), D652,922 (dilator design), and D666,294 (dilator design). On June 27, 2013, NuVasive filed an inter partes review petition with the U.S. Patent Office challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,444,696 ("the '696 Patent"), which issued to Medtronic on May 21, 2013. On July 25, 2013, Medtronic amended its complaint to add a charge of infringement of the '696 Patent. The District Court has yet to determine which patents are to be tried in this phase of the case and has stayed litigation of a number of Medtronic and NuVasive patents currently subject to inter partes reexamination proceedings conducted by the Patent Office. Trial on this third phase of the case is anticipated to begin in early 2015. At March 31, 2014, the probable outcome of this litigation cannot be determined, nor can the Company estimate a range of potential loss. In accordance with the authoritative guidance on the evaluation of loss contingencies, the Company has not recorded an accrual related to this litigation. Trademark Infringement Litigation In September 2009, Neurovision Medical Products, Inc. ("NMP") filed suit against NuVasive in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:9-cv-6988-R-JEM) alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition. NMP sought cancellation of NuVasive’s "NeuroVision" trademark registrations, injunctive relief and damages based on NMP’s common law use of the "NeuroVision" mark. On November 23, 2009, the Company denied the allegations in NMP’s complaint. After trial of the matter on October 25, 2010, an unfavorable jury verdict was delivered against the Company relating to its use of the NeuroVision trade name. The verdict awarded damages to NMP of $60.0 million. The Company appealed the judgment and on September 10, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and vacated the District Court judgment and ordered the case back to the District Court for a new trial before a different judge. On October 5, 2012, the case was reassigned to a new District Court judge for re-trial of the matter. During pendency of the appeal, the Company was required to escrow funds totaling $62.5 million to secure the amount of the judgment, plus interest, attorneys’ fees and costs. As a result of the reversal of the judgment at the conclusion of the appeal, the full $62.5 million was released from escrow and returned to the Company. Re-trial of this matter began on March 25, 2014. On April 3, 2014, the jury returned a verdict in favor of NMP on its claims against NuVasive in the amount of $30 million. Judgment has not been entered, and a hearing on NuVasive's affirmative defenses and motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial, as well as NMP's motions for cancellation of trademark and a permanent injunction is anticipated to occur in June 2014. At March 31, 2014, the jury verdict represents a probable loss that can reasonably be determined. In accordance with the authoritative guidance on the evaluation of loss contingencies, the Company has recorded a $30 million liability related to this litigation. Securities Litigation On August 28, 2013, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed by Danny Popov in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California naming NuVasive and certain of its current and former executive officers for allegedly making false and materially misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results, specifically relating to the purported improper submission of false claims to Medicare and Medicaid. The complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from October 22, 2008 to July 30, 2013. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks unspecified monetary relief, interest, and attorneys’ fees. On February 13, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws. On March 28, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws, which is scheduled to be heard by the court on July 14, 2014. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this action. At March 31, 2014, the probable outcome of this litigation cannot be determined, nor can the Company estimate a range of potential loss. In accordance with authoritative guidance on the evaluation of loss contingencies, the Company has not recorded an accrual related to this litigation.

Contingencies

We are subject to potential liabilities under government regulations and various claims and legal actions that are pending or may be asserted. These matters arise in the ordinary course and conduct of our business. They include, for example, commercial, intellectual property, environmental, securities and employment matters. We intend to continue to defend ourselves vigorously in such matters. We regularly assess contingencies to determine the degree of probability and range of possible loss for potential accrual in our financial statements. An estimated loss contingency is accrued in our financial statements if it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Based on our assessment, we have adequately accrued an amount in our financial position for such contingent liabilities, and except for those that are specifically addressed below, that the Company considers immaterial to its overall financial position. Litigation is inherently unpredictable, and unfavorable resolutions could occur. As a result, assessing contingencies is highly subjective and requires judgment about future events. The amount of ultimate loss may exceed our current accruals, and it is possible that our cash flows or results of operations could be materially affected in any particular period by the unfavorable resolution of one or more of these contingencies.

Legal Proceedings

Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc. Litigation

In August 2008, Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc. and other Medtronic related entities (collectively, "Medtronic") filed suit against NuVasive in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (the "Medtronic Litigation"), alleging that certain of NuVasive’s products infringe, or contribute to the infringement of, twelve U.S. patents assigned or licensed to Medtronic. Three of the patents were later withdrawn by Medtronic, leaving nine patents. NuVasive brought counterclaims against Medtronic alleging infringement of certain of NuVasive’s patents. The case has been administratively broken into serial phases. The first phase of the case included three Medtronic patents and one NuVasive patent and on September 20, 2011, a jury from the U.S. District Court delivered an unfavorable verdict against NuVasive with respect to the three Medtronic patents and a favorable verdict with respect to the one NuVasive patent. The jury awarded monetary damages of approximately $101.2 million to Medtronic, which includes lost profits and back royalties (the "2011 verdict"). Medtronic’s subsequent motion for a permanent injunction was denied by the District Court on January 26, 2012. On March 19, 2012, the District Court issued an order granting prejudgment interest, and on June 11, 2013, the District Court ruled on the ongoing royalty rates (the "June 2013 ruling"). On August 20, 2013, NuVasive and Medtronic filed their respective notices of appeal, and the appeal is now proceeding before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In addition, on March 19, 2012, the Company entered into an escrow arrangement and transferred $113.3 million of cash into a restricted escrow account to secure the amount of judgment, plus prejudgment interest, during pendency of the appeal. These funds are included in restricted cash and investments on the Company's March 31, 2014 condensed consolidated balance sheet.

In accordance with the authoritative guidance on the evaluation of loss contingencies, during the year ended December 31, 2011, the Company recorded an accrual of $101.2 million for the 2011 verdict. In addition, on sales subsequent to the 2011 verdict and through March 31, 2013, the Company accrued royalties at the royalty rates stated in the 2011 verdict. Upon receiving the District Court ruling in June 2013, the Company began accruing ongoing royalties on sales at the royalty rates stated in the June 2013 ruling, and recorded a charge of approximately $7.9 million to account for the difference between using the royalty rates stated in the 2011 verdict and those in the June 2013 ruling on sales through March 31, 2013. As a result of the June 2013 ruling, the Company will be required to escrow funds to secure accrued royalties, estimated at $23 million to date, and ongoing royalties. The Company is also accruing post-judgment interest. With respect to the prejudgment interest award, the Company, based on its own assessment, as well as that of outside counsel, believes a reversal of the prejudgment interest award on appeal is probable, and therefore, in accordance with authoritative guidance on the evaluation of loss contingencies, the Company has not recorded an accrual for this amount, which is estimated to approximate $13 million. Additional damages, including interest may still be awarded, and at March 31, 2014, the Company cannot estimate a range of additional potential loss.

With respect to the favorable verdict delivered regarding the one NuVasive patent, the jury awarded the Company monetary damages of approximately $0.7 million for reasonable royalty damages. In accordance with the authoritative guidance on the evaluation of gain contingencies, this amount has not been recorded at March 31, 2014. Additionally, the June 2013 ruling determined the ongoing royalty rate to be paid to the Company by Medtronic for its post-verdict sales of the one NuVasive patent. Consistent with the treatment afforded the $0.7 million damage award, no amount has been recorded for royalty revenue as of March 31, 2014.

The second phase of the case pending in the Southern District of California involved one Medtronic cervical plate patent. On April 25, 2013, NuVasive and Medtronic entered into a settlement agreement fully resolving the second phase of the case. The settlement also removes from the case the cervical plate patent that was part of the first phase. As part of the settlement, NuVasive received a broad license to practice (i) the Medtronic patent that was the sole subject of the second phase of the litigation, (ii) the Medtronic patent that was part of the first phase of the litigation, and (iii) each of the Medtronic patent families that collectively represent the vast majority of Medtronic's patent rights related to cervical plate technology. In exchange for these license rights, NuVasive made a one-time payment to Medtronic of $7.5 million, which amount will be fully offset against any damage award ultimately determined to be owed by NuVasive in connection with a final resolution of the first phase of the litigation. In addition, Medtronic will receive a royalty on certain cervical plate products sold by NuVasive, including the Helix^® and Gradient^® lines of products. As a result of this settlement, all current patent disputes between the parties related to cervical plate technology have been resolved.

In August 2012, Medtronic filed additional patent claims in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana alleging that various NuVasive spinal implants (including its CoRoent^® XL family of spinal implants) infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,021,430, that NuVasive's Osteocel^® Plus bone graft product infringes U.S. Patent No. 5,676,146, and that NuVasive's XLIF^® procedure and use of MaXcess IV retractor during the XLIF procedure infringe methodology claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,251,997. The case was later transferred to the Southern District of California and on March 7, 2013, NuVasive counterclaimed to allege infringement by Medtronic of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,000,782 (systems and related methods for performing surgical procedures), 8,005,535 (systems and related methods for performing surgical procedures), 8,016,767 (a surgical access system including a tissue distraction assembly and tissue retraction assembly), 8,192,356 (a system for accessing a surgical target site and related methods, involving an initial distraction system, among other things), 8,187,334 (spinal fusion implant), 8,361,156 (spinal fusion implant), D652,922 (dilator design), and D666,294 (dilator design). On June 27, 2013, NuVasive filed an inter partes review petition with the U.S. Patent Office challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,444,696 ("the '696 Patent"), which issued to Medtronic on May 21, 2013. On July 25, 2013, Medtronic amended its complaint to add a charge of infringement of the '696 Patent. The District Court has yet to determine which patents are to be tried in this phase of the case and has stayed litigation of a number of Medtronic and NuVasive patents currently subject to inter partes reexamination proceedings conducted by the Patent Office. Trial on this third phase of the case is anticipated to begin in early 2015. At March 31, 2014, the probable outcome of this litigation cannot be determined, nor can the Company estimate a range of potential loss. In accordance with the authoritative guidance on the evaluation of loss contingencies, the Company has not recorded an accrual related to this litigation.

Trademark Infringement Litigation

In September 2009, Neurovision Medical Products, Inc. ("NMP") filed suit against NuVasive in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:9-cv-6988-R-JEM) alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition. NMP sought cancellation of NuVasive’s "NeuroVision" trademark registrations, injunctive relief and damages based on NMP’s common law use of the "NeuroVision" mark. On November 23, 2009, the Company denied the allegations in NMP’s complaint. After trial of the matter on October 25, 2010, an unfavorable jury verdict was delivered against the Company relating to its use of the NeuroVision trade name. The verdict awarded damages to NMP of $60.0 million. The Company appealed the judgment and on September 10, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and vacated the District Court judgment and ordered the case back to the District Court for a new trial before a different judge. On October 5, 2012, the case was reassigned to a new District Court judge for re-trial of the matter. During pendency of the appeal, the Company was required to escrow funds totaling $62.5 million to secure the amount of the judgment, plus interest, attorneys’ fees and costs. As a result of the reversal of the judgment at the conclusion of the appeal, the full $62.5 million was released from escrow and returned to the Company. Re-trial of this matter began on March 25, 2014. On April 3, 2014, the jury returned a verdict in favor of NMP on its claims against NuVasive in the amount of $30 million. Judgment has not been entered, and a hearing on NuVasive's affirmative defenses and motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial, as well as NMP's motions for cancellation of trademark and a permanent injunction is anticipated to occur in June 2014. At March 31, 2014, the jury verdict represents a probable loss that can reasonably be determined. In accordance with the authoritative guidance on the evaluation of loss contingencies, the Company has recorded a $30 million liability related to this litigation.

Securities Litigation

On August 28, 2013, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed by Danny Popov in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California naming NuVasive and certain of its current and former executive officers for allegedly making false and materially misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results, specifically relating to the purported improper submission of false claims to Medicare and Medicaid. The complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from October 22, 2008 to July 30, 2013. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks unspecified monetary relief, interest, and attorneys’ fees. On February 13, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws. On March 28, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws, which is scheduled to be heard by the court on July 14, 2014. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this action. At March 31, 2014, the probable outcome of this litigation cannot be determined, nor can the Company estimate a range of potential loss. In accordance with authoritative guidance on the evaluation of loss contingencies, the Company has not recorded an accrual related to this litigation.