Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 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 year December 31, 2016, the Company settled its ongoing litigation with Medtronic. As a result of the settlement, the Company paid $45.0 million to Medtronic and accordingly 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 year ended December 31 2015, the Company had a gain of $56.4 million related to a litigation accrual change resulting from the legal proceedings in the first phase of the Medtronic litigation whereby the damages awarded by the jury was overturned, and a gain of $2.8 million in litigation accrual change related to settlement of the NeuroVision trademark litigation. These amounts were 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 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 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 (the “Medtronic Litigation”), alleging that certain of the Company’s products or methods, including the XLIF procedure, infringe, or contribute to the infringement of, various U.S. patents assigned or licensed to Medtronic. The Company brought counterclaims against Medtronic alleging infringement of certain of the Company’s patents. On July 13, 2016, the Company entered into a settlement and patent license agreement (the “2016 Settlement Agreement”) with Medtronic to settle the Medtronic Litigation. The Company no longer has any remaining liability or restricted cash related to this matter. The Medtronic Litigation was administratively broken into three phases. The initial trial on the first phase of the case concluded in September 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (the “District Court”), and a jury delivered an unfavorable verdict against the Company with respect to certain Medtronic patents and a favorable verdict with respect to one Company patent, including a monetary damages award of approximately $101.2 million to Medtronic. Both parties appealed the verdict, and the Company entered into an escrow arrangement and transferred $113.3 million of cash into a restricted escrow account in March 2012 to secure the amount of judgment, plus prejudgment interest, during pendency of the appeal. In March 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision upholding the jury’s findings of liability as to all patents, but overturning the damage award against the Company as improper (the “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. As a result of the Court of Appeals Decision, the parties agreed to release all of the escrow funds related to this matter back to the Company. During the year ended December 31, 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 March 2015, the Company sought reexamination of certain claims of one of the Medtronic patents at issue and for which the Company was found to have infringed. On June 15, 2016, the District Court stayed remand proceedings and retrial of this first phase of the case pending the reexamination. The second phase of the case involved one Medtronic cervical plate patent. In April 2013, the Company and Medtronic entered into a settlement agreement fully resolving the second phase of the case. As part of the settlement, the Company received a license to practice various patent families that collectively represent a 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 May 2013. In addition, Medtronic will receive a royalty on certain cervical plate products sold by the Company, including the Helix and Gradient lines of products. The third phase of the case involved Medtronic filing additional patent claims in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana in August 2012 alleging that certain Company spinal implants (including its CoRoent XL family of spinal implants), the Company’s Osteocel Plus bone graft product, and the Company’s XLIF procedure and use of MaXcess IV retractor during the XLIF procedure infringe several Medtronic patents. Under the terms of the 2016 Settlement Agreement, the Company paid Medtronic $45.0 million, and the parties released each other from, inter alia, any and all past patent infringement arising from the Medtronic Litigation. As a result, the Company adjusted its litigation accrual from $88.3 million to $45.0 million and recorded a $43.3 million gain in the Consolidated Statement of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2016. Pursuant to the 2016 Settlement Agreement, the parties granted each other irrevocable, worldwide, nonexclusive, paid-up, royalty-free licenses to practice certain of their respective patents as to certain of their respective existing product lines, subject to specified exceptions and limitations. The 2016 Settlement Agreement also provides that, subject to certain limitations and exceptions, and for a period of seven years, neither party will assert against the other certain claims for patent infringement (generally claims related to spinal implants and related instruments, biologics and neuromonitoring) other than through a specified dispute resolution process, with the right to thereafter pursue claims outside that process subject to certain limitations and exceptions. Further, Medtronic has agreed that, for a period of five years, and subject to limitations and exceptions, it will not assert against the Company certain other claims for patent infringement other than through a specified dispute resolution process, with the right to thereafter pursue claims outside that process subject to certain limitations and exceptions. Trademark Infringement Litigation On September 25, 2009, Neurovision Medical Products, Inc. (“NMP”) filed a lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the “Central District Court”) 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 judgment was reversed and vacated on appeal, and a new trial was conducted in the Central 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 Central 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 operative 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, Brad Mauss, the lead plaintiff in the case (“Plaintiff”), filed an Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws. The Company answered the complaint on August 25, 2016, and discovery is proceeding. Plaintiffs filed motions for class certification on October 28, 2016 and the Company’s opposition papers were filed on January 9, 2017. Trial has been set for December 18, 2017. At December 31, 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. Shareholder Derivative Litigation On September 28, 2016, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed by James Borta in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego naming certain of the Company’s current and former executive officers and directors for allegedly breaching their fiduciary duties by, among other things, making allegedly false and misleading statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. The derivative complaint is based upon the same factual allegations as the securities class action litigation and names the Company as a nominal defendant. The Company demurred to the complaint on December 16, 2016 and the plaintiff filed an opposition on January 6, 2017. At December 31, 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. On July 5, 2016, the trial court also awarded MMI attorney’s fees and costs of approximately $1.1 million. 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. 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 the judgment will be vacated on appeal, and accordingly, at December 31, 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 year December 31, 2016, the Company settled its ongoing litigation with Medtronic. As a result of the settlement, the Company paid $45.0 million to Medtronic and accordingly 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 year ended December 31 2015, the Company had a gain of $56.4 million related to a litigation accrual change resulting from the legal proceedings in the first phase of the Medtronic litigation whereby the damages awarded by the jury was overturned, and a gain of $2.8 million in litigation accrual change related to settlement of the NeuroVision trademark litigation. These amounts were 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 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 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 (the “Medtronic Litigation”), alleging that certain of the Company’s products or methods, including the XLIF procedure, infringe, or contribute to the infringement of, various U.S. patents assigned or licensed to Medtronic. The Company brought counterclaims against Medtronic alleging infringement of certain of the Company’s patents. On July 13, 2016, the Company entered into a settlement and patent license agreement (the “2016 Settlement Agreement”) with Medtronic to settle the Medtronic Litigation. The Company no longer has any remaining liability or restricted cash related to this matter.

The Medtronic Litigation was administratively broken into three phases. The initial trial on the first phase of the case concluded in September 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (the “District Court”), and a jury delivered an unfavorable verdict against the Company with respect to certain Medtronic patents and a favorable verdict with respect to one Company patent, including a monetary damages award of approximately $101.2 million to Medtronic.

Both parties appealed the verdict, and the Company entered into an escrow arrangement and transferred $113.3 million of cash into a restricted escrow account in March 2012 to secure the amount of judgment, plus prejudgment interest, during pendency of the appeal. In March 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision upholding the jury’s findings of liability as to all patents, but overturning the damage award against the Company as improper (the “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. As a result of the Court of Appeals Decision, the parties agreed to release all of the escrow funds related to this matter back to the Company. During the year ended December 31, 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 March 2015, the Company sought reexamination of certain claims of one of the Medtronic patents at issue and for which the Company was found to have infringed. On June 15, 2016, the District Court stayed remand proceedings and retrial of this first phase of the case pending the reexamination.

The second phase of the case involved one Medtronic cervical plate patent. In April 2013, the Company and Medtronic entered into a settlement agreement fully resolving the second phase of the case. As part of the settlement, the Company received a license to practice various patent families that collectively represent a 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 May 2013. In addition, Medtronic will receive a royalty on certain cervical plate products sold by the Company, including the Helix and Gradient lines of products.

The third phase of the case involved Medtronic filing additional patent claims in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana in August 2012 alleging that certain Company spinal implants (including its CoRoent XL family of spinal implants), the Company’s Osteocel Plus bone graft product, and the Company’s XLIF procedure and use of MaXcess IV retractor during the XLIF procedure infringe several Medtronic patents.

Under the terms of the 2016 Settlement Agreement, the Company paid Medtronic $45.0 million, and the parties released each other from, inter alia, any and all past patent infringement arising from the Medtronic Litigation. As a result, the Company adjusted its litigation accrual from $88.3 million to $45.0 million and recorded a $43.3 million gain in the Consolidated Statement of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2016. Pursuant to the 2016 Settlement Agreement, the parties granted each other irrevocable, worldwide, nonexclusive, paid-up, royalty-free licenses to practice certain of their respective patents as to certain of their respective existing product lines, subject to specified exceptions and limitations. The 2016 Settlement Agreement also provides that, subject to certain limitations and exceptions, and for a period of seven years, neither party will assert against the other certain claims for patent infringement (generally claims related to spinal implants and related instruments, biologics and neuromonitoring) other than through a specified dispute resolution process, with the right to thereafter pursue claims outside that process subject to certain limitations and exceptions. Further, Medtronic has agreed that, for a period of five years, and subject to limitations and exceptions, it will not assert against the Company certain other claims for patent infringement other than through a specified dispute resolution process, with the right to thereafter pursue claims outside that process subject to certain limitations and exceptions.

Trademark Infringement Litigation

On September 25, 2009, Neurovision Medical Products, Inc. (“NMP”) filed a lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the “Central District Court”) 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 judgment was reversed and vacated on appeal, and a new trial was conducted in the Central 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 Central 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 operative 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, Brad Mauss, the lead plaintiff in the case (“Plaintiff”), filed an Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws. The Company answered the complaint on August 25, 2016, and discovery is proceeding. Plaintiffs filed motions for class certification on October 28, 2016 and the Company’s opposition papers were filed on January 9, 2017. Trial has been set for December 18, 2017. At December 31, 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.

Shareholder Derivative Litigation

On September 28, 2016, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed by James Borta in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego naming certain of the Company’s current and former executive officers and directors for allegedly breaching their fiduciary duties by, among other things, making allegedly false and misleading statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. The derivative complaint is based upon the same factual allegations as the securities class action litigation and names the Company as a nominal defendant. The Company demurred to the complaint on December 16, 2016 and the plaintiff filed an opposition on January 6, 2017. At December 31, 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. On July 5, 2016, the trial court also awarded MMI attorney’s fees and costs of approximately $1.1 million. 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.

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 the judgment will be vacated on appeal, and accordingly, at December 31, 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.