Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Jul. 31, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies Legal Proceedings Securities Litigation On November 28, 2011, Harold Greenberg filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 4:11-cv-05697-YGR, against the following defendants: the Company; Robert S. Weiss, its President, Chief Executive Officer and a director; Eugene J. Midlock, its former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; and Albert G. White, III, its Vice President and Chief Strategy Officer. On December 12, 2011, a second individual, Ross Wallen, filed a related complaint against the same defendants in the Northern District of California, Case No. 4:11-cv-06214-YGR. The Wallen complaint largely repeats the allegations in the Greenberg complaint. Greenberg and Wallen each sought to represent a class of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between March 4, 2011 and November 15, 2011. On February 29, 2012, the court ordered the Greenberg and Wallen actions consolidated and appointed Universal-Investment-Gesellschaft mbH as lead plaintiff. On May 4, 2012, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint, which alleges that the Company, Robert S. Weiss and Eugene J. Midlock violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other things, making misrepresentations with an intent to deceive investors concerning the safety of the Avaira^® Toric and Avaira Sphere contact lenses, which the Company recalled in 2011. On August 7, 2012, the Court heard argument on defendants' motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint. On January 7, 2013, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint, with leave to amend. On February 4, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint, which again alleges that the Company, Robert S. Weiss and Eugene J. Midlock violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other things, making misrepresentations with an intent to deceive investors concerning the 2011 recall of Avaira contact lenses. The Second Consolidated Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between August 19, 2011 and November 15, 2011. On March 6, 2013, the defendants moved to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. On April 16, 2013 the Court heard argument on defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. On May 31, 2013, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint without leave to amend and entered final judgment in favor of defendants. Plaintiff did not file a notice of appeal within the time prescribed by law. Derivative Litigation On January 9, 2012, Joseph Operman filed a purported shareholder derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 4:12-cv-00143-YGR, against members of the Company's board of directors. The derivative complaint seeks recovery on behalf of the Company, which is named as a “nominal defendant.” The derivative complaint purports to allege causes of action for breach of fiduciary duties and failure to exercise oversight responsibilities against all defendants and a cause of action for contribution against Mr. Weiss for alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On May 18, 2012, Operman filed an amended derivative complaint. The amended derivative complaint largely repeats the allegations of misrepresentations in the securities class action complaints described above, and includes allegations of false projections of future financial results. On June 13, 2013, Operman voluntarily moved the Court to dismiss the derivative action without prejudice. On July 24, 2013, after the Company's shareholders were provided with notice of the voluntary motion for dismissal and an opportunity to object, and no objections were received, the Court entered a final order of dismissal in the derivative action.

Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

Securities Litigation

On November 28, 2011, Harold Greenberg filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 4:11-cv-05697-YGR, against the following defendants: the Company; Robert S. Weiss, its President, Chief Executive Officer and a director; Eugene J. Midlock, its former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; and Albert G. White, III, its Vice President and Chief Strategy Officer. On December 12, 2011, a second individual, Ross Wallen, filed a related complaint against the same defendants in the Northern District of California, Case No. 4:11-cv-06214-YGR. The Wallen complaint largely repeats the allegations in the Greenberg complaint. Greenberg and Wallen each sought to represent a class of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between March 4, 2011 and November 15, 2011.

On February 29, 2012, the court ordered the Greenberg and Wallen actions consolidated and appointed Universal-Investment-Gesellschaft mbH as lead plaintiff. On May 4, 2012, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint, which alleges that the Company, Robert S. Weiss and Eugene J. Midlock violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other things, making misrepresentations with an intent to deceive investors concerning the safety of the Avaira^® Toric and Avaira Sphere contact lenses, which the Company recalled in 2011. On August 7, 2012, the Court heard argument on defendants' motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint. On January 7, 2013, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint, with leave to amend. On February 4, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint, which again alleges that the Company, Robert S. Weiss and Eugene J. Midlock violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other things, making misrepresentations with an intent to deceive investors concerning the 2011 recall of Avaira contact lenses. The Second Consolidated Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between August 19, 2011 and November 15, 2011. On March 6, 2013, the defendants moved to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. On April 16, 2013 the Court heard argument on defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. On May 31, 2013, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint without leave to amend and entered final judgment in favor of defendants. Plaintiff did not file a notice of appeal within the time prescribed by law.

Derivative Litigation

On January 9, 2012, Joseph Operman filed a purported shareholder derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 4:12-cv-00143-YGR, against members of the Company's board of directors. The derivative complaint seeks recovery on behalf of the Company, which is named as a “nominal defendant.” The derivative complaint purports to allege causes of action for breach of fiduciary duties and failure to exercise oversight responsibilities against all defendants and a cause of action for contribution against Mr. Weiss for alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On May 18, 2012, Operman filed an amended derivative complaint. The amended derivative complaint largely repeats the allegations of misrepresentations in the securities class action complaints described above, and includes allegations of false projections of future financial results. On June 13, 2013, Operman voluntarily moved the Court to dismiss the derivative action without prejudice. On July 24, 2013, after the Company's shareholders were provided with notice of the voluntary motion for dismissal and an opportunity to object, and no objections were received, the Court entered a final order of dismissal in the derivative action.