Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2011
Disclosure - Contingencies - Additional Information [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies The Company and its subsidiary, Indigo Systems Corporation (now known as FLIR Commercial Systems, Inc.), (together, the “FLIR Parties”), were named in a lawsuit filed by Raytheon Company (“Raytheon”) on March 2, 2007, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. On August 11, 2008, Raytheon was granted leave to file a second amended complaint. The complaint, as amended, asserted claims for tortious interference, patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition, breach of contract and fraudulent concealment. The FLIR Parties filed an answer to the second amended complaint and counterclaims on September 2, 2008, in which they denied all material allegations. On August 31, 2009, the court entered an order granting the FLIR Parties' motion for summary judgment on Raytheon's trade secret misappropriation claim based on the FLIR Parties' statute of limitations defense. Raytheon abandoned all of its other claims except its claims relating to four patents (the “Patent Claims”). On August 11, 2010, the FLIR Parties and Raytheon entered into an agreement in principle to resolve the remaining Patent Claims. On October 27, 2010, the parties finalized the agreement which resulted in a payment of $3 million by the FLIR Parties to Raytheon. The agreement also entitles the FLIR Parties to certain license rights in the patents that were the subject of the Patent Claims. A final judgment was entered on January 7, 2011. The parties appealed certain rulings of the district court to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The issues on appeal were briefed and oral argument occurred on February 8, 2012. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter and is unable to estimate the amount or range of potential loss, if any, which might result if the outcome in this matter is unfavorable. On May 20, 2011, the Company entered into a definitive settlement agreement with William J. Parrish and Timothy Fitzgibbons (collectively, “Plaintiffs”). Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company made a cash settlement payment of $39 million to Plaintiffs for dismissal with prejudice of all claims made by Defendants in a 2008 action filed against the Company and two individuals asserting claims for negligent and intentional interference with prospective economic relations and malicious prosecution. In the settlement agreement, the Company also received a non-exclusive license to certain infrared technology. The Company is also subject to other legal proceedings, claims and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company makes a provision for a liability when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company believes it has recorded adequate provisions for any probable and estimable losses. While the outcome of these matters is currently not determinable, the Company does not expect that the ultimate costs to resolve such matters will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2011

Disclosure - Contingencies - Additional Information [Abstract]

The Company and its subsidiary, Indigo Systems Corporation (now known as FLIR Commercial Systems, Inc.), (together, the “FLIR Parties”), were named in a lawsuit filed by Raytheon Company (“Raytheon”) on March 2, 2007, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. On August 11, 2008, Raytheon was granted leave to file a second amended complaint. The complaint, as amended, asserted claims for tortious interference, patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition, breach of contract and fraudulent concealment. The FLIR Parties filed an answer to the second amended complaint and counterclaims on September 2, 2008, in which they denied all material allegations. On August 31, 2009, the court entered an order granting the FLIR Parties' motion for summary judgment on Raytheon's trade secret misappropriation claim based on the FLIR Parties' statute of limitations defense. Raytheon abandoned all of its other claims except its claims relating to four patents (the “Patent Claims”). On August 11, 2010, the FLIR Parties and Raytheon entered into an agreement in principle to resolve the remaining Patent Claims. On October 27, 2010, the parties finalized the agreement which resulted in a payment of $3 million by the FLIR Parties to Raytheon. The agreement also entitles the FLIR Parties to certain license rights in the patents that were the subject of the Patent Claims. A final judgment was entered on January 7, 2011. The parties appealed certain rulings of the district court to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The issues on appeal were briefed and oral argument occurred on February 8, 2012. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter and is unable to estimate the amount or range of potential loss, if any, which might result if the outcome in this matter is unfavorable.

On May 20, 2011, the Company entered into a definitive settlement agreement with William J. Parrish and Timothy Fitzgibbons (collectively, “Plaintiffs”). Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company made a cash settlement payment of $39 million to Plaintiffs for dismissal with prejudice of all claims made by Defendants in a 2008 action filed against the Company and two individuals asserting claims for negligent and intentional interference with prospective economic relations and malicious prosecution. In the settlement agreement, the Company also received a non-exclusive license to certain infrared technology.

The Company is also subject to other legal proceedings, claims and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company makes a provision for a liability when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company believes it has recorded adequate provisions for any probable and estimable losses. While the outcome of these matters is currently not determinable, the Company does not expect that the ultimate costs to resolve such matters will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.