Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2016
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	15. Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings ORBCOMM v. CalAmp Corp. On April 7, 2016, ORBCOMM filed a complaint against defendant CalAmp Corp. in the Eastern District of Virginia alleging infringement of five patents, seeking compensatory damages, treble damages, and an injunction. On July 18, 2016, CalAmp Corp. filed its answer to ORBCOMM’s complaint and counterclaim for (1) declaratory judgment of unenforceability of ORBCOMM’s patents in-suit; (2) inequitable conduct related to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office action to correct one of the patents in-suit and (3) an award of legal fees to CalAmp Corp. On May 27, 2016, CalAmp Corp. filed a motion to dismiss ORBCOMM’s claims on the basis, inter alia, that ORBCOMM’s patents are directed at ineligible subject matter and are therefore invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. On July 22, 2016, the court denied CalAmp’s motion; however, CalAmp filed a motion for reconsideration of its motion to dismiss. On October 19, 2016, the Court denied CalAmp’s motion for reconsideration with respect to four of the five patent in suits and granted CalAmp’s motion to invalidate one of the Company’s patents in suit as an unpatentable abstract idea. On October 28, 2016, the Company dismissed its claims with respect to one of the four remaining patents in-suit and ORBCOMM intends to vigorously prosecute its claims with respect to the three remaining patents in-suit. CalAmp Wireless Networks Corporation v. ORBCOMM Inc. On October 26, 2016, a patent infringement lawsuit was filed against the Company by CalAmp Wireless in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. CalAmp Wireless alleged that certain of the Company’s modems, devices and geofencing systems for tracking and monitoring vehicles, machinery, and other assets infringes on two patents asserted by CalAmp Wireless. CalAmp Wireless has not yet made a specific damages claim, but seeks compensatory damages, treble damages, and equitable relief. The Company believes that its products and services do not infringe CalAmp Wireless’ patents and/or that CalAmp Wireless’ patents are invalid. The Company views the lawsuit as an effort to gain leverage in the Company’s infringement suit against CalAmp described above and ORBCOMM intends to vigorously defend itself against CalAmp Wireless’ claims. At this early stage of the lawsuit, it is not feasible to predict with any certainty the outcome of this litigation, and the Company has made no accrual for these claims. In addition to the foregoing matters, from time to time, we are involved in various litigation claims or matters involving ordinary and routine claims incidental to our business. While the outcome of any such claims or litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, management currently believes that the outcome of these proceedings, either individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition. OG2 Satellite Insurance In April 2014, the Company obtained launch and one year from launch in-orbit insurance for the OG2 satellite program. For the first launch of six satellites, the Company obtained (i) a maximum total of $66,000 of launch plus one year in-orbit insurance coverage; and (ii) $22,000 of launch vehicle flight only insurance coverage (“Launch One”). The total premium cost for Launch One was $9,953. For the second launch of 11 satellites, the Company obtained (i) a maximum total of $120,000 of launch plus one year in-orbit insurance coverage; and (ii) $22,000 of launch vehicle flight only insurance coverage (“Launch Two”). The total premium cost for Launch Two was $16,454. In April 2014, the Company paid the total premium for Launch One and 5% of the total premium for Launch Two, with the balance of the premium cost for Launch Two paid in December 2015. The majority of the premium payments are recorded as satellite network and other equipment, net in the condensed consolidated balance sheet. The policy had a three satellite deductible across both missions under the launch plus one-year insurance coverage whereby claims are payable in excess of the first three satellites in the aggregate for both Launch One and Launch Two combined that are total losses or constructive total losses during the one-year policy period. The policy is also subject to specified exclusions and material change limitations customary in the industry. These exclusions include losses resulting from war, anti-satellite devices, insurrection, terrorist acts, government confiscation, radioactive contamination, electromagnetic interference, loss of revenue and third party liability. In June 2015, the Company lost communication with one of its in-orbit OG2 satellites. The Company recorded a non-cash impairment charge of $12,748 on the condensed consolidated statement of operations to write off the net book value of the satellite. In addition, the Company decreased satellite network and other equipment, net and the associated accumulated depreciation on the condensed consolidated balance sheet by $13,788 and $1,040, respectively. The Company notified its in-orbit insurers that the loss of the OG2 satellite resulted in a constructive total loss of that satellite. Under the insurance terms mentioned above, this satellite was the first of the three satellite deductible in the aggregate for both Launch One and Launch Two, under which no claim is payable. On July 14, 2015, the Company obtained an additional one year in-orbit insurance for the five mission one OG2 satellites for a maximum total of $40,000. The additional in-orbit coverage took effect on July 15, 2015, following the end of the coverage period for the initial launch and one year in-orbit insurance for Launch One. This additional policy contains a one satellite deductible across the five in-orbit OG2 satellites whereby claims are payable in excess of the first satellite that is a total loss or constructive total loss. The policy is also subject to a specific exclusion for losses that have resulted from an anomaly with the same signatures as the initial OG2 satellite loss. There are other specified exclusions and material change limitations customary in the industry which include losses resulting from war, antisatellite devices, insurrection, terrorist acts, government confiscation, radioactive contamination, electromagnetic interference, loss of revenue and third party liability. On July 15, 2016, the Company extended the in-orbit insurance policy for the five mission one OG2 satellites through December 21, 2016, under the same terms, for a premium of $179. In August 2016 the Company lost communication with one of its OG2 satellites, launched on July 14, 2014. The Company is conducting an on-going investigation with support from the satellite prime contractor SNC and the payload subcontractor Boeing. On October 31, 2016, due to the extended period of no communication with the satellite, the Company’s Audit Committee of the Board of Directors concluded, based on management’s recommendation, that a non-cash impairment charge of $10,680 should be recorded as a recognized subsequent event in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 855 “Subsequent Events” to write-off the net book value of the satellite for the quarter ended September 30, 2016 and decreased satellite network and other equipment by $13,474 and associated accumulated depreciation by $2,794 to remove the asset as of September 30, 2016. The impairment charge is reflected in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements. No amount of the impairment charge represents a cash expenditure and the Company does not expect that this impairment will result in any future cash expenditure. The Company has notified its in-orbit insurers that the loss of this OG2 satellite may result in a constructive total loss of that satellite. Under the insurance terms mentioned above, the Company expects this satellite to qualify as the one satellite deductible applicable to the five mission one OG2 satellites, under which no claim is payable. Airtime credits In 2001, in connection with the organization of ORBCOMM Europe and the reorganization of the ORBCOMM business in Europe, the Company agreed to grant certain country representatives in Europe approximately $3,736 in airtime credits. The Company has not recorded the airtime credits as a liability for the following reasons: (i) the Company has no obligation to pay the unused airtime credits if they are not utilized; and (ii) the airtime credits are earned by the country representatives only when the Company generates revenue from the country representatives. The airtime credits have no expiration date. Accordingly, the Company is recording airtime credits as services are rendered and these airtime credits are recorded net of revenues from the country representatives. For the quarters ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, airtime credits used totaled approximately $7. For the nine months ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, airtime credits used totaled approximately $21 and $22, respectively. As of September 30, 2016 and 2015, unused credits granted by the Company were approximately $2,016 and $2,045, respectively.

15. Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

ORBCOMM v. CalAmp Corp.

On April 7, 2016, ORBCOMM filed a complaint against defendant CalAmp Corp. in the Eastern District of Virginia alleging infringement of five patents, seeking compensatory damages, treble damages, and an injunction.

On July 18, 2016, CalAmp Corp. filed its answer to ORBCOMM’s complaint and counterclaim for (1) declaratory judgment of unenforceability of ORBCOMM’s patents in-suit; (2) inequitable conduct related to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office action to correct one of the patents in-suit and (3) an award of legal fees to CalAmp Corp.

On May 27, 2016, CalAmp Corp. filed a motion to dismiss ORBCOMM’s claims on the basis, inter alia, that ORBCOMM’s patents are directed at ineligible subject matter and are therefore invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. On July 22, 2016, the court denied CalAmp’s motion; however, CalAmp filed a motion for reconsideration of its motion to dismiss. On October 19, 2016, the Court denied CalAmp’s motion for reconsideration with respect to four of the five patent in suits and granted CalAmp’s motion to invalidate one of the Company’s patents in suit as an unpatentable abstract idea. On October 28, 2016, the Company dismissed its claims with respect to one of the four remaining patents in-suit and ORBCOMM intends to vigorously prosecute its claims with respect to the three remaining patents in-suit.

CalAmp Wireless Networks Corporation v. ORBCOMM Inc.

On October 26, 2016, a patent infringement lawsuit was filed against the Company by CalAmp Wireless in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. CalAmp Wireless alleged that certain of the Company’s modems, devices and geofencing systems for tracking and monitoring vehicles, machinery, and other assets infringes on two patents asserted by CalAmp Wireless. CalAmp Wireless has not yet made a specific damages claim, but seeks compensatory damages, treble damages, and equitable relief. The Company believes that its products and services do not infringe CalAmp Wireless’ patents and/or that CalAmp Wireless’ patents are invalid. The Company views the lawsuit as an effort to gain leverage in the Company’s infringement suit against CalAmp described above and ORBCOMM intends to vigorously defend itself against CalAmp Wireless’ claims. At this early stage of the lawsuit, it is not feasible to predict with any certainty the outcome of this litigation, and the Company has made no accrual for these claims.

In addition to the foregoing matters, from time to time, we are involved in various litigation claims or matters involving ordinary and routine claims incidental to our business. While the outcome of any such claims or litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, management currently believes that the outcome of these proceedings, either individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

OG2 Satellite Insurance

In April 2014, the Company obtained launch and one year from launch in-orbit insurance for the OG2 satellite program. For the first launch of six satellites, the Company obtained (i) a maximum total of $66,000 of launch plus one year in-orbit insurance coverage; and (ii) $22,000 of launch vehicle flight only insurance coverage (“Launch One”). The total premium cost for Launch One was $9,953. For the second launch of 11 satellites, the Company obtained (i) a maximum total of $120,000 of launch plus one year in-orbit insurance coverage; and (ii) $22,000 of launch vehicle flight only insurance coverage (“Launch Two”). The total premium cost for Launch Two was $16,454. In April 2014, the Company paid the total premium for Launch One and 5% of the total premium for Launch Two, with the balance of the premium cost for Launch Two paid in December 2015. The majority of the premium payments are recorded as satellite network and other equipment, net in the condensed consolidated balance sheet.

The policy had a three satellite deductible across both missions under the launch plus one-year insurance coverage whereby claims are payable in excess of the first three satellites in the aggregate for both Launch One and Launch Two combined that are total losses or constructive total losses during the one-year policy period. The policy is also subject to specified exclusions and material change limitations customary in the industry. These exclusions include losses resulting from war, anti-satellite devices, insurrection, terrorist acts, government confiscation, radioactive contamination, electromagnetic interference, loss of revenue and third party liability.

In June 2015, the Company lost communication with one of its in-orbit OG2 satellites. The Company recorded a non-cash impairment charge of $12,748 on the condensed consolidated statement of operations to write off the net book value of the satellite. In addition, the Company decreased satellite network and other equipment, net and the associated accumulated depreciation on the condensed consolidated balance sheet by $13,788 and $1,040, respectively.

The Company notified its in-orbit insurers that the loss of the OG2 satellite resulted in a constructive total loss of that satellite. Under the insurance terms mentioned above, this satellite was the first of the three satellite deductible in the aggregate for both Launch One and Launch Two, under which no claim is payable.

On July 14, 2015, the Company obtained an additional one year in-orbit insurance for the five mission one OG2 satellites for a maximum total of $40,000. The additional in-orbit coverage took effect on July 15, 2015, following the end of the coverage period for the initial launch and one year in-orbit insurance for Launch One. This additional policy contains a one satellite deductible across the five in-orbit OG2 satellites whereby claims are payable in excess of the first satellite that is a total loss or constructive total loss. The policy is also subject to a specific exclusion for losses that have resulted from an anomaly with the same signatures as the initial OG2 satellite loss. There are other specified exclusions and material change limitations customary in the industry which include losses resulting from war, antisatellite devices, insurrection, terrorist acts, government confiscation, radioactive contamination, electromagnetic interference, loss of revenue and third party liability. On July 15, 2016, the Company extended the in-orbit insurance policy for the five mission one OG2 satellites through December 21, 2016, under the same terms, for a premium of $179.

In August 2016 the Company lost communication with one of its OG2 satellites, launched on July 14, 2014. The Company is conducting an on-going investigation with support from the satellite prime contractor SNC and the payload subcontractor Boeing. On October 31, 2016, due to the extended period of no communication with the satellite, the Company’s Audit Committee of the Board of Directors concluded, based on management’s recommendation, that a non-cash impairment charge of $10,680 should be recorded as a recognized subsequent event in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 855 “Subsequent Events” to write-off the net book value of the satellite for the quarter ended September 30, 2016 and decreased satellite network and other equipment by $13,474 and associated accumulated depreciation by $2,794 to remove the asset as of September 30, 2016. The impairment charge is reflected in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements. No amount of the impairment charge represents a cash expenditure and the Company does not expect that this impairment will result in any future cash expenditure.

The Company has notified its in-orbit insurers that the loss of this OG2 satellite may result in a constructive total loss of that satellite. Under the insurance terms mentioned above, the Company expects this satellite to qualify as the one satellite deductible applicable to the five mission one OG2 satellites, under which no claim is payable.

Airtime credits

In 2001, in connection with the organization of ORBCOMM Europe and the reorganization of the ORBCOMM business in Europe, the Company agreed to grant certain country representatives in Europe approximately $3,736 in airtime credits. The Company has not recorded the airtime credits as a liability for the following reasons: (i) the Company has no obligation to pay the unused airtime credits if they are not utilized; and (ii) the airtime credits are earned by the country representatives only when the Company generates revenue from the country representatives. The airtime credits have no expiration date. Accordingly, the Company is recording airtime credits as services are rendered and these airtime credits are recorded net of revenues from the country representatives. For the quarters ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, airtime credits used totaled approximately $7. For the nine months ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, airtime credits used totaled approximately $21 and $22, respectively. As of September 30, 2016 and 2015, unused credits granted by the Company were approximately $2,016 and $2,045, respectively.