Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2015
Loss Contingency [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies FLIR Systems, Inc. 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. Raytheon's 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 complaint on September 2, 2008, in which they denied all material allegations. On October 27, 2010, the FLIR Parties and Raytheon entered into a settlement agreement that resolved the patent infringement claims (the "Patent Claims") pursuant to which the FLIR Parties paid $3 million to Raytheon and entitles the FLIR Parties to certain license rights in the patents that were the subject of the Patent Claims. On October 28, 2014, a four-week trial began with respect to Raytheon's remaining claims of misappropriations of trade secrets and claims related to 31 alleged trade secrets. On November 24, 2014, a jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas rejected Raytheon’s claims and determined that 27 of the alleged trade secrets were not in fact trade secrets and that neither Indigo, prior to its acquisition by FLIR Systems, Inc., nor FLIR Systems, Inc. infringed any of the trade secrets claimed and awarded Raytheon no damages. The court has yet to rule on any post-trial motion seeking to modify the jury verdict or on the FLIR Parties' motion for an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $28 million as a prevailing party under the Texas Theft Liability Act. The matter remains ongoing and is subject to appeal and the Company is unable to estimate the amount or range of potential loss or recovery, if any, which might result if the final determination of this matter is favorable or unfavorable, but an adverse ruling on the merits of the original claims against the FLIR Parties, while remote, could be material. On October 22, 2014, the Company initially contacted the United States Department of State Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance (“DDTC”), pursuant to International Traffic in Arms Regulation (“ITAR”) § 127.12(c), regarding the unauthorized export of technical data and defense services to dual and third country nationals in at least four facilities of the Company. On April 27, 2015, the Company submitted its initial report to DDTC regarding the details of the issues raised in the October 22, 2014 submission. DDTC subsequently notified the Company that it was considering administrative proceedings under Part 128 of ITAR and requested a tolling agreement, which the Company executed on June 16, 2015. DDTC continues its review and the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the time it may take to resolve the matter or the amount or range of potential loss, penalty or other government action, if any, that may be incurred in connection with this matter. However, an unfavorable outcome could potentially be material to the financial condition and results of operations of the Company in the period in which such an outcome becomes estimable or known.

Contingencies

FLIR Systems, Inc. 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. Raytheon's 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 complaint on September 2, 2008, in which they denied all material allegations. On October 27, 2010, the FLIR Parties and Raytheon entered into a settlement agreement that resolved the patent infringement claims (the "Patent Claims") pursuant to which the FLIR Parties paid $3 million to Raytheon and entitles the FLIR Parties to certain license rights in the patents that were the subject of the Patent Claims. On October 28, 2014, a four-week trial began with respect to Raytheon's remaining claims of misappropriations of trade secrets and claims related to 31 alleged trade secrets. On November 24, 2014, a jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas rejected Raytheon’s claims and determined that 27 of the alleged trade secrets were not in fact trade secrets and that neither Indigo, prior to its acquisition by FLIR Systems, Inc., nor FLIR Systems, Inc. infringed any of the trade secrets claimed and awarded Raytheon no damages. The court has yet to rule on any post-trial motion seeking to modify the jury verdict or on the FLIR Parties' motion for an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $28 million as a prevailing party under the Texas Theft Liability Act. The matter remains ongoing and is subject to appeal and the Company is unable to estimate the amount or range of potential loss or recovery, if any, which might result if the final determination of this matter is favorable or unfavorable, but an adverse ruling on the merits of the original claims against the FLIR Parties, while remote, could be material.

On October 22, 2014, the Company initially contacted the United States Department of State Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance (“DDTC”), pursuant to International Traffic in Arms Regulation (“ITAR”) § 127.12(c), regarding the unauthorized export of technical data and defense services to dual and third country nationals in at least four facilities of the Company. On April 27, 2015, the Company submitted its initial report to DDTC regarding the details of the issues raised in the October 22, 2014 submission. DDTC subsequently notified the Company that it was considering administrative proceedings under Part 128 of ITAR and requested a tolling agreement, which the Company executed on June 16, 2015. DDTC continues its review and the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the time it may take to resolve the matter or the amount or range of potential loss, penalty or other government action, if any, that may be incurred in connection with this matter. However, an unfavorable outcome could potentially be material to the financial condition and results of operations of the Company in the period in which such an outcome becomes estimable or known.