Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2014
Contingencies [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies The Company is subject to potential liabilities under government regulations and various claims and legal actions that are pending or may be asserted from time-to-time. These matters arise in the ordinary course and conduct of the Company's business and include, for example, commercial, intellectual property, environmental, securities and employment matters. The Company intends to continue to defend itself vigorously in such matters. Furthermore, the Company regularly assess contingencies to determine the degree of probability and range of possible loss for potential accrual in its financial statements. An estimated loss contingency is accrued in the Company's financial statements if it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Based on the Company's assessment, it has adequately accrued an amount for contingent liabilities currently in existence. The Company does not accrue amounts for liabilities that it 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 the Company's current accruals, and it is possible that its 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 a patent infringement lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (the "Medtronic Litigation"), alleging that certain of the Company's products or methods, including the XLIF^® procedure, 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 Three of the patents were later withdrawn by Medtronic, leaving nine purportedly infringed patents. The Company brought counterclaims against Medtronic alleging infringement of certain of the Company's patents. The case has been administratively broken into serial phases. The first phase of the case included three Medtronic patents and one the Company patent. Trial on the first phase of the case concluded on September 20, 2011 and a jury delivered an unfavorable verdict against the Company with respect to the three Medtronic patents and a favorable verdict with respect to the one NuVasive patent at hand. 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 with respect to the patent infringements determined in the 2011 verdict, and, on June 11, 2013, the District Court ruled on the respective ongoing royalty rates (the "June 2013 ruling"). On August 20, 2013, the Company and Medtronic filed their respective notices of appeal of such decisions, and the appeal is now proceeding before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In addition, on March 19, 2012, in connection with these proceedings, 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 September 30, 2014 consolidated balance sheet. In accordance with the authoritative guidance on the evaluation of loss contingencies, during the three months ended September 30, 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, and, upon receiving the June 2013 ruling, 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 $27 million to date, as well as future 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 - has not recorded an accrual for this amount, which is estimated to approximate $13.0 million. Additional damages (including interest) may still be awarded, and, as of September 30, 2014, the Company cannot estimate a range of additional potential loss. With respect to the favorable verdict delivered regarding the one NuVasive patent litigated to verdict, 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 September 30, 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 September 30, 2014. The second phase of the case involved one Medtronic cervical plate patent. On April 25, 2013, the Company 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, the Company 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, the Company 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 the Company 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 the Company, 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. Accordingly, the Company's accrual for the case for the period ended September 30, 2014 was reduced to $93.7 million (down $7.5 million from the original accrual made and booked since September 2011 as a result of a $7.5 million payment made in 2013). 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 Medtronic's U.S. Patent No. 8,021,430, that NuVasive's Osteocel^® Plus bone graft product infringes Medtronic's U.S. Patent No. 5,676,146, and that the Company's XLIF^® procedure and use of MaXcess IV retractor during the XLIF procedure infringe methodology claims of Medtronic's U.S. Patent No. 8,251,997. The case, which is referred to herein as the third phase of the Medtronic litigation, was later transferred to the Southern District of California, and, on March 7, 2013, NuVasive counterclaimed alleging infringement by Medtronic of the Company's 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 a 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 July 25, 2013, Medtronic amended its complaint to add a charge of infringement of its U.S. Patent No. 8,444,696. The District Court has stayed litigation of a number of Medtronic and NuVasive patents currently subject to reexamination or review proceedings conducted by the Patent Office. No trial date has been set, but trial is anticipated to be scheduled for the second quarter of 2015 on Medtronic's U.S. Patent No. 5,676,146 and the Company's U.S. Patent No. D652,922. At September 30, 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 On September 25, 2009, Neurovision Medical Products, Inc. ("NMP") filed suit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:09-cv-06988-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. 'The matter was tried in October 2010 and 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, which was upheld in a January 2011 judgment ordered by the District Court. The Company appealed the judgment, and, on September 10, 2012, the 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. In October 2012, the case was reassigned to a new District Court judge for re-trial of the matter. During pendency of the first 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, the full $62.5 million was released from escrow and returned to the Company. Re-trial of this matter began on March 25, 2014, and on April 3, 2014, the jury returned a verdict in favor of NMP on its claims against the Company in the amount of $30 million. The Company filed a notice of appeal on September 4, 2014. On September 24, 2014, judgment was entered in favor of NMP in the amount of $30 million. The Court also entered a permanent injunction on September 24, 2014, enjoining the Company's future use of the NeuroVision trademark to market or promote its products. The Court also entered an order canceling the Company's NeuroVision trademark registrations, but that order is stayed pending the appeal process. At September 30, 2014, the April 3, 2014 jury verdict represents a probable loss that can reasonably be determined. Accordingly, in accordance with the authoritative guidance on the evaluation of loss contingencies, the Company has recorded a liability related to this litigation in the amount of $30.0 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2014. Securities Litigation On August 28, 2013, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California naming the Company 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 ("Plaintiff") filed an Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws. In March 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws. On August 19, 2014, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss and ordered Plaintiff to amend its complaint. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on September 8, 2014. The Company once again moved to dismiss the complaint on September 22, 2014 and a hearing on the Company's motion is scheduled for November 17, 2014. At September 30, 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

The Company is subject to potential liabilities under government regulations and various claims and legal actions that are pending or may be asserted from time-to-time. These matters arise in the ordinary course and conduct of the Company's business and include, for example, commercial, intellectual property, environmental, securities and employment matters. The Company intends to continue to defend itself vigorously in such matters. Furthermore, the Company regularly assess contingencies to determine the degree of probability and range of possible loss for potential accrual in its financial statements.

An estimated loss contingency is accrued in the Company's financial statements if it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Based on the Company's assessment, it has adequately accrued an amount for contingent liabilities currently in existence. The Company does not accrue amounts for liabilities that it 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 the Company's current accruals, and it is possible that its 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 a patent infringement lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (the "Medtronic Litigation"), alleging that certain of the Company's products or methods, including the XLIF^® procedure, 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 purportedly infringed patents. The Company brought counterclaims against Medtronic alleging infringement of certain of the Company's patents.

The case has been administratively broken into serial phases. The first phase of the case included three Medtronic patents and one the Company patent. Trial on the first phase of the case concluded on September 20, 2011 and a jury delivered an unfavorable verdict against the Company with respect to the three Medtronic patents and a favorable verdict with respect to the one NuVasive patent at hand. 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 with respect to the patent infringements determined in the 2011 verdict, and, on June 11, 2013, the District Court ruled on the respective ongoing royalty rates (the "June 2013 ruling"). On August 20, 2013, the Company and Medtronic filed their respective notices of appeal of such decisions, and the appeal is now proceeding before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In addition, on March 19, 2012, in connection with these proceedings, 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 September 30, 2014 consolidated balance sheet.

In accordance with the authoritative guidance on the evaluation of loss contingencies, during the three months ended September 30, 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, and, upon receiving the June 2013 ruling, 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 $27 million to date, as well as future 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 - has not recorded an accrual for this amount, which is estimated to approximate $13.0 million. Additional damages (including interest) may still be awarded, and, as of September 30, 2014, the Company cannot estimate a range of additional potential loss.

With respect to the favorable verdict delivered regarding the one NuVasive patent litigated to verdict, 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 September 30, 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 September 30, 2014.

The second phase of the case involved one Medtronic cervical plate patent. On April 25, 2013, the Company 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, the Company 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, the Company 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 the Company 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 the Company, 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. Accordingly, the Company's accrual for the case for the period ended September 30, 2014 was reduced to $93.7 million (down $7.5 million from the original accrual made and booked since September 2011 as a result of a $7.5 million payment made in 2013).

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 Medtronic's U.S. Patent No. 8,021,430, that NuVasive's Osteocel^® Plus bone graft product infringes Medtronic's U.S. Patent No. 5,676,146, and that the Company's XLIF^® procedure and use of MaXcess IV retractor during the XLIF procedure infringe methodology claims of Medtronic's U.S. Patent No. 8,251,997. The case, which is referred to herein as the third phase of the Medtronic litigation, was later transferred to the Southern District of California, and, on March 7, 2013, NuVasive counterclaimed alleging infringement by Medtronic of the Company's 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 a 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 July 25, 2013, Medtronic amended its complaint to add a charge of infringement of its U.S. Patent No. 8,444,696. The District Court has stayed litigation of a number of Medtronic and NuVasive patents currently subject to reexamination or review proceedings conducted by the Patent Office. No trial date has been set, but trial is anticipated to be scheduled for the second quarter of 2015 on Medtronic's U.S. Patent No. 5,676,146 and the Company's U.S. Patent No. D652,922. At September 30, 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

On September 25, 2009, Neurovision Medical Products, Inc. ("NMP") filed suit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:09-cv-06988-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. 'The matter was tried in October 2010 and 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, which was upheld in a January 2011 judgment ordered by the District Court. The Company appealed the judgment, and, on September 10, 2012, the 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. In October 2012, the case was reassigned to a new District Court judge for re-trial of the matter. During pendency of the first 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, the full $62.5 million was released from escrow and returned to the Company. Re-trial of this matter began on March 25, 2014, and on April 3, 2014, the jury returned a verdict in favor of NMP on its claims against the Company in the amount of $30 million. The Company filed a notice of appeal on September 4, 2014. On September 24, 2014, judgment was entered in favor of NMP in the amount of $30 million. The Court also entered a permanent injunction on September 24, 2014, enjoining the Company's future use of the NeuroVision trademark to market or promote its products. The Court also entered an order canceling the Company's NeuroVision trademark registrations, but that order is stayed pending the appeal process. At September 30, 2014, the April 3, 2014 jury verdict represents a probable loss that can reasonably be determined. Accordingly, in accordance with the authoritative guidance on the evaluation of loss contingencies, the Company has recorded a liability related to this litigation in the amount of $30.0 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2014.

Securities Litigation

On August 28, 2013, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California naming the Company 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 ("Plaintiff") filed an Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws. In March 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws. On August 19, 2014, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss and ordered Plaintiff to amend its complaint. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on September 8, 2014. The Company once again moved to dismiss the complaint on September 22, 2014 and a hearing on the Company's motion is scheduled for November 17, 2014. At September 30, 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.