Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2016
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. On March 31, 2016 the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a Final Judgment denying Raytheon’s claims and awarding FLIR court costs and denying each of Raytheon’s and FLIR’s Renewed Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law and denying FLIR’s Amended Rule 54(d) Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Under the Texas Theft Liability Act. On April 29, 2016, Raytheon filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit of the denial by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas of Raytheon’s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, or in the Alternative, Motion for New Trial. The FLIR Parties expect to file a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit of the Order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Denying the FLIR Parties’ Amended Rule 54(d) Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs under the Texas Theft Liability Act, the Order Denying the FLIR Parties’ Renewed Motion For Judgment as a Matter Of Law, and the Final Judgment to the extent it denied the FLIR Parties Attorneys’ Fees and Costs 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 result in fines and penalties or loss or modification of exporting privileges that could potentially be material to the financial condition and results of operations of the Company in and following the period in which such an outcome becomes estimable or known. The Company is also subject to other legal and administrative proceedings, investigations, claims and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business not specifically identified above. In these identified matters and others not specifically identified, the Company makes a provision for a liability with respect to a matter when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated for such matter. The Company believes it has recorded adequate provisions for any probable and estimable losses for matters in existence on the date hereof. While the outcome of each of these matters is currently not determinable, the Company does not expect that the ultimate resolution of any such matter will individually have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. The costs to resolve all such matters may in the aggregate have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

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. On March 31, 2016 the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a Final Judgment denying Raytheon’s claims and awarding FLIR court costs and denying each of Raytheon’s and FLIR’s Renewed Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law and denying FLIR’s Amended Rule 54(d) Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Under the Texas Theft Liability Act.

On April 29, 2016, Raytheon filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit of the denial by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas of Raytheon’s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, or in the Alternative, Motion for New Trial. The FLIR Parties expect to file a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit of the Order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Denying the FLIR Parties’ Amended Rule 54(d) Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs under the Texas Theft Liability Act, the Order Denying the FLIR Parties’ Renewed Motion For Judgment as a Matter Of Law, and the Final Judgment to the extent it denied the FLIR Parties Attorneys’ Fees and Costs 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 result in fines and penalties or loss or modification of exporting privileges that could potentially be material to the financial condition and results of operations of the Company in and following the period in which such an outcome becomes estimable or known.

The Company is also subject to other legal and administrative proceedings, investigations, claims and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business not specifically identified above. In these identified matters and others not specifically identified, the Company makes a provision for a liability with respect to a matter when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated for such matter. The Company believes it has recorded adequate provisions for any probable and estimable losses for matters in existence on the date hereof. While the outcome of each of these matters is currently not determinable, the Company does not expect that the ultimate resolution of any such matter will individually have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. The costs to resolve all such matters may in the aggregate have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.