Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2016
Contingencies [Abstract]
Contingencies	11. 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 assesses contingencies to determine the degree of probability and range of possible loss for potential accrual in its financial statements. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2016, the Company agreed to settle its ongoing litigation with Medtronic. As a result of the settlement, the Company will pay $45.0 million to Medtronic and accordingly has recorded a gain of $43.3 million related to the settlement by reducing its previous accrual of $88.3 million related to the matter. During the six months ended June 30, 2015, the Company had a gain of $56.4 million related to a litigation accrual change resulting from the legal proceedings in Phase 1 of the Medtronic litigation whereby the damages award by the jury was overturned, and a gain of $2.8 million in litigation accrual change related to settlement of the NeuroVision trademark litigation. This amount was offset by a litigation charge of $13.8 million related to the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“OIG”) investigation and a $3.3 million litigation charge in a general litigation matter. Refer to both the subsequent sections herein titled “Legal Proceedings” and to Note 12 to the Unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements for further information. 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 does not believe are probable or 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 was administratively broken into several phases. The first phase (“Phase 1”) of the case included three Medtronic patents and one Company patent. The initial trial on the first phase of the case concluded on September 20, 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, 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 Company patent at issue, including a monetary damages award of approximately $101.2 million to Medtronic (the “2011 verdict”). Medtronic’s subsequent motion for a permanent injunction was denied by the District Court. On May 15, 2013, the District Court granted the parties’ joint motion to dismiss claims relating to one of the three Medtronic patents pursuant to a settlement agreement, leaving two Medtronic patents remaining in the litigation. On June 11, 2013, the District Court granted the parties ongoing royalties with respect to the two Medtronic patents and the one Company patent remaining in the first phase of the case (the “June 2013 ruling”). Both parties filed appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On March 2, 2015, the Court of Appeals issued a decision upholding the jury’s findings of liability as to all patents, but overturning the damage award against the Company as improper (“March 2^nd Court of Appeals Decision”). The case was remanded back to the District Court for further proceedings and a retrial to determine a proper damages award. Similarly, the U.S. Supreme Court granted Medtronic’s appeal of liability with regard to the one Company patent at issue in Phase 1, and remanded the case back to the Court of Appeals for further consideration of Medtronic’s liability in view of an intervening case from the Supreme Court. On June 3, 2016, the Court of Appeals affirmed Medtronic’s liability regarding the one Company patent. Further, on March 6, 2015, the Company sought reexamination of certain claims of one of the two Medtronic patents at issue in Phase 1 of the litigation and for which the Company was found to have infringed. On June 15, 2016, the District Court stayed the Phase 1 remand proceedings and retrial pending the reexamination. As of June 30, 2016, the claims of the Medtronic patent subject to reexamination stand rejected pursuant to a June 17, 2016 non-final office action. As a result of the affirmation of the infringement and remand for a new trial on damages, the Company assessed the existing liability under the loss contingency framework and – in accordance with applicable accounting guidance – believed the most appropriate accrual estimate within the possible range dictated by such guidance was $87.6 million. This amount represents liability for the infringement of the two Medtronic patents for infringing products at historically supplied rates from the date of infringement to the current period. The liability did not include an accrual for lost profits or convoyed products. A liability associated with this matter has been recorded in non-current litigation liabilities. In prior periods, the Company recorded the respective liabilities (as estimated) in non-current litigation liabilities and the accrued royalties in accrued liabilities. The Company did not agree with the previously-ruled royalty rates, and intended to rigorously pursue appropriate rates during the new trial on damages. Nonetheless, in the interim, the Company applied the previously-ruled royalty rates when calculating the appropriate estimate. As a result of the adjustment, the Company recorded an adjustment of $56.4 million as a gain in its Consolidated Statements of Operations during the first quarter 2015. 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. As a result of the March 2^nd Court of Appeals Decision, the parties agreed to release all of the escrow funds related to this matter back to the Company. During the three months ended September 30, 2015, the Company transferred all of the funds in escrow related to this matter, approximately $114.1 million, from long-term restricted cash and investments into its unrestricted investment accounts. 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, the Company accrued royalties at the royalty rates stated in the 2011 verdict on sales subsequent to the 2011 verdict and through March 31, 2013. After the June 2013 ruling, the Company (i) began accruing ongoing royalties on sales at the royalty rates stated in the June 2013 ruling, and (ii) 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. Based on the June 2013 ruling, the Company agreed to escrow funds to secure accrued royalties as well as future ongoing royalties. However, in light of the March 2^nd Court of Appeals Decision, escrowed funds were released to the Company. Additionally, the Company modified its accrual from the 2011 verdict as a result of the March 2^nd Court of Appeals Decision as previously discussed. With respect to the favorable verdict delivered regarding the one Company 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 was not recorded at June 30, 2016. 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 Company patent. Consistent with the treatment afforded the $0.7 million damage award, no amount was recorded for royalty revenue as of June 30, 2016. 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 (“2013 Settlement”). The settlement also removed 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 cervical plate 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. 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. In August 2012, Medtronic filed additional patent claims in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana alleging that various Company spinal implants (including its CoRoent XL family of spinal implants) infringe Medtronic’s U.S. Patent No. 8,021,430, that the Company’s Osteocel Plus bone graft product infringes Medtronic’s U.S. Patent No. 5,676,146, (“146 Patent”) 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, the Company 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) (“922 Patent”), 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 stayed litigation of a number of Medtronic and Company patents subjected to reexamination or review proceedings conducted by the Patent Office. Both parties brought motions for summary judgment addressing the patents that were not stayed or dismissed in the litigation, and summary judgment of non-infringement was granted as to both remaining patents on October 20, 2015 and February 17, 2016, respectively. No other patent claims are active in the third phase of the case. Before June 30, 2016, the probable outcome of this litigation could not be determined, nor could the Company estimate a range of potential loss. In accordance with the authoritative guidance on the evaluation of loss contingencies, the Company did not record an accrual related to this litigation. On June 30, 2016, the Company announced that it had reached agreement with Medtronic on terms for the settlement of the Medtronic Litigation and that the parties intended to enter into a definitive agreement with respect to the settlement. Under the terms of the settlement, the Company agreed to pay Medtronic $45.0 million, and the parties agreed to release each other from, inter alia, any and all past patent infringement arising from the Medtronic Litigation. The Company adjusted its litigation accrual from $88.3 million to $45.0 million at June 30, 2016, which resulted in a $43.3 million gain which was recorded in the Consolidated Statement of Operations during the three months ended June 30, 2016. Associated with the gain on the litigation are certain service provider fees, the Company has recorded its obligations associated with the gain, however, it is reasonably possible the Company’s estimates could differ from those that have been recorded in the financial statements. On July 13, 2016, the Company entered into a settlement and patent license agreement with Medtronic to settle the Medtronic Litigation. See Note 13 to the Unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements. 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. The verdict awarded damages to NMP of $60.0 million, and the Company appealed the judgment. The Court of Appeals reversed and vacated the judgment, and a new trial was conducted in the District Court. In April 2014, a jury returned a verdict in favor of NMP on its claims against the Company in the amount of $30.0 million. The District Court also entered an order canceling the Company’s NeuroVision trademark registrations. In July 2015, the Company agreed to settle all outstanding matters with NMP for $27.2 million. The Company adjusted its litigation accrual from $30.0 million to $27.2 million at June 30, 2015, which resulted in a $2.8 million gain which was recorded in the Consolidated Statement of Operations during the three months ended June 30, 2015. The Company previously escrowed funds totaling $32.5 million to secure the amount of judgment, and cover potential attorney’s fees and costs. Those funds accrued interest and were included in short-term restricted cash and investments in the Consolidated Balance Sheets until funding of the settlement which occurred during the three months ended September 30, 2015. The Company no longer has any remaining liability or restricted cash related to this matter. Securities Litigation On August 28, 2013, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. 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. The District Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint and ordered Plaintiff to amend its complaint. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on September 8, 2014, and the District Court once again granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. On December 23, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss, and while the Company’s motion was pending, Plaintiff sought leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint. The Company moved to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint. On August 28, 2015, the District Court issued an order granting the Company’s motion to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint with leave to amend. On September 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Fifth Amended Complaint, and in July 2016, the District Court issued an order rejecting the Company’s motion to dismiss the Fifth Amended Complaint. A trial date has not yet been set for this matter. At June 30, 2016, 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. Madsen Medical, Inc. Litigation On February 22, 2016, an unfavorable jury verdict was delivered against the Company in its litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against Madsen Medical, Inc. (“MMI”), a former sales agent. Specifically, the jury awarded MMI $7.5 million in lost profits for tortious interference, $14.0 million for unjust enrichment, $20.0 million in punitive damages, and approximately $0.3 million in damages for breach of contract. On March 18, 2016, the trial court entered judgment in favor of MMI in the amount of $27.8 million, which amount excluded the $14.0 million disgorgement awarded by the jury. The Company’s post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law and/or for a new trial were denied, and the Company has filed a notice of appeal of both the verdict and the court’s subsequent award of attorney’s fees and costs. During pendency of any appeals, the Company has secured a bond to cover the amount of the judgment and attorneys’ fees and costs. As of June 30, 2016, the Company had obtained an appeal bond satisfactory to the District Court, and the Company will not be required to establish an escrow as security for this matter. Historically the Company had believed the likelihood of a loss in this case was remote given the underlying facts of the case, however, during the quarter ended March 31, 2016, the judgment entered caused the Company to reassess its position. The Company, based on its own assessment as well as that of outside counsel, believes that upon either post-trial motions or appeal the judgment will be vacated and have deemed it probable that is the outcome. The Company continues to believe that the judgment will be vacated, and accordingly, at June 30, 2016, the Company believes that the outcome of the case does not constitute a probable nor an estimable loss associated with the litigation but rather a reasonably possible loss rather than a remote loss as historically contemplated. Therefore, the Company has not recorded a loss contingency but has assessed a reasonable range of potential loss, which would be from zero to the current amount entered as a judgment, as well as attorney’s fees and interest, in accordance with the accounting guidance required by ASC 450, Contingencies.

11. 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 assesses contingencies to determine the degree of probability and range of possible loss for potential accrual in its financial statements. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2016, the Company agreed to settle its ongoing litigation with Medtronic. As a result of the settlement, the Company will pay $45.0 million to Medtronic and accordingly has recorded a gain of $43.3 million related to the settlement by reducing its previous accrual of $88.3 million related to the matter.

During the six months ended June 30, 2015, the Company had a gain of $56.4 million related to a litigation accrual change resulting from the legal proceedings in Phase 1 of the Medtronic litigation whereby the damages award by the jury was overturned, and a gain of $2.8 million in litigation accrual change related to settlement of the NeuroVision trademark litigation. This amount was offset by a litigation charge of $13.8 million related to the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“OIG”) investigation and a $3.3 million litigation charge in a general litigation matter. Refer to both the subsequent sections herein titled “Legal Proceedings” and to Note 12 to the Unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements for further information.

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 does not believe are probable or 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 was administratively broken into several phases.

The first phase (“Phase 1”) of the case included three Medtronic patents and one Company patent. The initial trial on the first phase of the case concluded on September 20, 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, 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 Company patent at issue, including a monetary damages award of approximately $101.2 million to Medtronic (the “2011 verdict”). Medtronic’s subsequent motion for a permanent injunction was denied by the District Court. On May 15, 2013, the District Court granted the parties’ joint motion to dismiss claims relating to one of the three Medtronic patents pursuant to a settlement agreement, leaving two Medtronic patents remaining in the litigation. On June 11, 2013, the District Court granted the parties ongoing royalties with respect to the two Medtronic patents and the one Company patent remaining in the first phase of the case (the “June 2013 ruling”).

Both parties filed appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On March 2, 2015, the Court of Appeals issued a decision upholding the jury’s findings of liability as to all patents, but overturning the damage award against the Company as improper (“March 2^nd Court of Appeals Decision”). The case was remanded back to the District Court for further proceedings and a retrial to determine a proper damages award. Similarly, the U.S. Supreme Court granted Medtronic’s appeal of liability with regard to the one Company patent at issue in Phase 1, and remanded the case back to the Court of Appeals for further consideration of Medtronic’s liability in view of an intervening case from the Supreme Court. On June 3, 2016, the Court of Appeals affirmed Medtronic’s liability regarding the one Company patent. Further, on March 6, 2015, the Company sought reexamination of certain claims of one of the two Medtronic patents at issue in Phase 1 of the litigation and for which the Company was found to have infringed. On June 15, 2016, the District Court stayed the Phase 1 remand proceedings and retrial pending the reexamination. As of June 30, 2016, the claims of the Medtronic patent subject to reexamination stand rejected pursuant to a June 17, 2016 non-final office action.

As a result of the affirmation of the infringement and remand for a new trial on damages, the Company assessed the existing liability under the loss contingency framework and – in accordance with applicable accounting guidance – believed the most appropriate accrual estimate within the possible range dictated by such guidance was $87.6 million. This amount represents liability for the infringement of the two Medtronic patents for infringing products at historically supplied rates from the date of infringement to the current period. The liability did not include an accrual for lost profits or convoyed products. A liability associated with this matter has been recorded in non-current litigation liabilities. In prior periods, the Company recorded the respective liabilities (as estimated) in non-current litigation liabilities and the accrued royalties in accrued liabilities. The Company did not agree with the previously-ruled royalty rates, and intended to rigorously pursue appropriate rates during the new trial on damages. Nonetheless, in the interim, the Company applied the previously-ruled royalty rates when calculating the appropriate estimate. As a result of the adjustment, the Company recorded an adjustment of $56.4 million as a gain in its Consolidated Statements of Operations during the first quarter 2015.

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. As a result of the March 2^nd Court of Appeals Decision, the parties agreed to release all of the escrow funds related to this matter back to the Company. During the three months ended September 30, 2015, the Company transferred all of the funds in escrow related to this matter, approximately $114.1 million, from long-term restricted cash and investments into its unrestricted investment accounts.

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, the Company accrued royalties at the royalty rates stated in the 2011 verdict on sales subsequent to the 2011 verdict and through March 31, 2013. After the June 2013 ruling, the Company (i) began accruing ongoing royalties on sales at the royalty rates stated in the June 2013 ruling, and (ii) 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. Based on the June 2013 ruling, the Company agreed to escrow funds to secure accrued royalties as well as future ongoing royalties. However, in light of the March 2^nd Court of Appeals Decision, escrowed funds were released to the Company. Additionally, the Company modified its accrual from the 2011 verdict as a result of the March 2^nd Court of Appeals Decision as previously discussed.

With respect to the favorable verdict delivered regarding the one Company 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 was not recorded at June 30, 2016. 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 Company patent. Consistent with the treatment afforded the $0.7 million damage award, no amount was recorded for royalty revenue as of June 30, 2016.

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 (“2013 Settlement”). The settlement also removed 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 cervical plate 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. 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.

In August 2012, Medtronic filed additional patent claims in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana alleging that various Company spinal implants (including its CoRoent XL family of spinal implants) infringe Medtronic’s U.S. Patent No. 8,021,430, that the Company’s Osteocel Plus bone graft product infringes Medtronic’s U.S. Patent No. 5,676,146, (“146 Patent”) 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, the Company 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) (“922 Patent”), 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 stayed litigation of a number of Medtronic and Company patents subjected to reexamination or review proceedings conducted by the Patent Office. Both parties brought motions for summary judgment addressing the patents that were not stayed or dismissed in the litigation, and summary judgment of non-infringement was granted as to both remaining patents on October 20, 2015 and February 17, 2016, respectively. No other patent claims are active in the third phase of the case. Before June 30, 2016, the probable outcome of this litigation could not be determined, nor could the Company estimate a range of potential loss. In accordance with the authoritative guidance on the evaluation of loss contingencies, the Company did not record an accrual related to this litigation.

On June 30, 2016, the Company announced that it had reached agreement with Medtronic on terms for the settlement of the Medtronic Litigation and that the parties intended to enter into a definitive agreement with respect to the settlement. Under the terms of the settlement, the Company agreed to pay Medtronic $45.0 million, and the parties agreed to release each other from, inter alia, any and all past patent infringement arising from the Medtronic Litigation. The Company adjusted its litigation accrual from $88.3 million to $45.0 million at June 30, 2016, which resulted in a $43.3 million gain which was recorded in the Consolidated Statement of Operations during the three months ended June 30, 2016. Associated with the gain on the litigation are certain service provider fees, the Company has recorded its obligations associated with the gain, however, it is reasonably possible the Company’s estimates could differ from those that have been recorded in the financial statements. On July 13, 2016, the Company entered into a settlement and patent license agreement with Medtronic to settle the Medtronic Litigation. See Note 13 to the Unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements.

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. The verdict awarded damages to NMP of $60.0 million, and the Company appealed the judgment. The Court of Appeals reversed and vacated the judgment, and a new trial was conducted in the District Court. In April 2014, a jury returned a verdict in favor of NMP on its claims against the Company in the amount of $30.0 million. The District Court also entered an order canceling the Company’s NeuroVision trademark registrations. In July 2015, the Company agreed to settle all outstanding matters with NMP for $27.2 million. The Company adjusted its litigation accrual from $30.0 million to $27.2 million at June 30, 2015, which resulted in a $2.8 million gain which was recorded in the Consolidated Statement of Operations during the three months ended June 30, 2015. The Company previously escrowed funds totaling $32.5 million to secure the amount of judgment, and cover potential attorney’s fees and costs. Those funds accrued interest and were included in short-term restricted cash and investments in the Consolidated Balance Sheets until funding of the settlement which occurred during the three months ended September 30, 2015. The Company no longer has any remaining liability or restricted cash related to this matter.

Securities Litigation

On August 28, 2013, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. 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. The District Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint and ordered Plaintiff to amend its complaint. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on September 8, 2014, and the District Court once again granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. On December 23, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss, and while the Company’s motion was pending, Plaintiff sought leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint. The Company moved to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint. On August 28, 2015, the District Court issued an order granting the Company’s motion to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint with leave to amend. On September 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Fifth Amended Complaint, and in July 2016, the District Court issued an order rejecting the Company’s motion to dismiss the Fifth Amended Complaint. A trial date has not yet been set for this matter. At June 30, 2016, 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.

Madsen Medical, Inc. Litigation

On February 22, 2016, an unfavorable jury verdict was delivered against the Company in its litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against Madsen Medical, Inc. (“MMI”), a former sales agent. Specifically, the jury awarded MMI $7.5 million in lost profits for tortious interference, $14.0 million for unjust enrichment, $20.0 million in punitive damages, and approximately $0.3 million in damages for breach of contract. On March 18, 2016, the trial court entered judgment in favor of MMI in the amount of $27.8 million, which amount excluded the $14.0 million disgorgement awarded by the jury. The Company’s post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law and/or for a new trial were denied, and the Company has filed a notice of appeal of both the verdict and the court’s subsequent award of attorney’s fees and costs. During pendency of any appeals, the Company has secured a bond to cover the amount of the judgment and attorneys’ fees and costs. As of June 30, 2016, the Company had obtained an appeal bond satisfactory to the District Court, and the Company will not be required to establish an escrow as security for this matter.

Historically the Company had believed the likelihood of a loss in this case was remote given the underlying facts of the case, however, during the quarter ended March 31, 2016, the judgment entered caused the Company to reassess its position. The Company, based on its own assessment as well as that of outside counsel, believes that upon either post-trial motions or appeal the judgment will be vacated and have deemed it probable that is the outcome. The Company continues to believe that the judgment will be vacated, and accordingly, at June 30, 2016, the Company believes that the outcome of the case does not constitute a probable nor an estimable loss associated with the litigation but rather a reasonably possible loss rather than a remote loss as historically contemplated. Therefore, the Company has not recorded a loss contingency but has assessed a reasonable range of potential loss, which would be from zero to the current amount entered as a judgment, as well as attorney’s fees and interest, in accordance with the accounting guidance required by ASC 450, Contingencies.