Commitments and contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2015
Commitments and contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments and contingencies	Note 12 Commitments and contingencies: During the year ended December 31, 2013, Radiancy, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of PhotoMedex, commenced legal action against Viatek Consumer Products Group, Inc., over Viatek's Pearl and Samba hair removal products which Radiancy believes infringe the intellectual property covering its no!no! hair removal devices. The first suit, which was filed in the United States Federal Court, Southern District of New York, includes claims against Viatek for patent infringement, trademark and trade dress infringement, and false and misleading advertising. A second suit against Viatek was filed in Canada, where the Pearl is offered on that country's The Shopping Channel, alleging trademark and trade dress infringement, and false and misleading advertising. Viatek's response contains a variety of counterclaims and affirmative defenses against both Radiancy and its parent company PhotoMedex, including, among other counts, claims regarding the invalidity of Radiancy's patents and antitrust allegations regarding Radiancy's conduct. Radiancy, and PhotoMedex, had moved to dismiss PhotoMedex from the case, and to dismiss the counterclaims and affirmative defenses asserted by Viatek. On March 28, 2014, the Court granted the Company's motion and dismissed PhotoMedex from the lawsuit. The Court also dismissed certain counterclaims and affirmative defenses asserted by Viatek, including Viatek's counterclaims against Radiancy for antitrust, unfair competition, and tortious interference with business relationships and Viatek's affirmative defenses of unclean hands and inequitable conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in procuring its patent. Radiancy had also moved for sanctions against Viatek for failure to provide meaningful and timely responses to Radiancy's discovery requests; on April 1, 2014, the Court granted that motion. Viatek appealed both the sanctions ruling and the dismissal of Viatek's counterclaims and defenses from the case, as well as PhotoMedex dismissal as a plaintiff; the Court has denied those appeals. The Court has appointed a Special Master to oversee discovery. A Markman hearing on the patents at issue was held on March 2, 2015. Viatek has requested an opportunity to supplement its patent invalidity contentions in the US case; Radiancy opposes that request. Radiancy has been granted permission by the US Court to supplement its earlier sanctions motion to include the legal fees and costs associated with preparing and prosecuting that motion. As of March 31, 2015, discovery and related court hearings continue in both the US and the Canadian cases. At this time, the amount of any loss, or range of loss, cannot be reasonably estimated as the case is still in the early stages of discovery to determine the validity of any claim or claims made by Viatek. Therefore, the Company has not recorded any reserve or contingent liability related to this particular legal matter. However, in the future, as the case progresses, the Company may be required to record a contingent liability or reserve for this matter. On December 20, 2013, PhotoMedex, Inc. was served with a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Company and its two top executives, Dolev Rafaeli, Chief Executive Officer, and Dennis M. McGrath, President and Chief Financial Officer. The suit alleges various violations of the Federal securities laws between November 7, 2012 and November 14, 2013. A mediation on possible settlement of this action was held on November 10, 2014; the parties including the Company's insurance carrier have agreed on a possible settlement. On March 11, 2015, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving that proposed settlement, which provides a fund of $1.5 million for the benefit of those persons or entities who purchased securities issued by the Company during the period November 6, 2012 and November 5, 2013, inclusive. The settlement fund will also pay for plaintiffs' counsel's fees and expenses approved by the Court with respect to the action. The Company maintains insurance that will help defray the cost of the proposed settlement, and does not expect the proposed settlement to have a material impact on its financial results. The proposed settlement is subject to final approval by the Court. A hearing has been scheduled at 9:30 a.m., on July 20, 2015 to determine whether to (i) approve the settlement, (ii) dismiss the action with prejudice, and (iii) provide for the payment of plaintiffs' counsel's attorney's fees and expenses, and consider an application for reimbursement of expenses (including lost wages) of the lead plaintiff. The Company has paid its own legal fees up to the deductible cap on its insurance policy, and all amounts to be paid to plaintiffs and plaintiff's counsel will be paid by the carrier of the insurance policy. The Company was served on July 29, 2014 with an application to certify a class action, filed in Israel District Court for Tel Aviv against the Company and its two top executives, Dolev Rafaeli, Chief Executive Officer, and Dennis M. McGrath, President and Chief Financial Officer. The plaintiffs' who initiated this complaint have agreed to be part of, and be bound by, the possible settlement reached in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Company and the same two top executives. There were multiple class-action lawsuits filed in connection with PhotoMedex's proposed acquisition of LCA-Vision, Inc. All cases asserted claims against LCA-Vision, Inc., and a mix of other defendants, including LCA's chief executive officer and directors, PhotoMedex, and Gatorade Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of PhotoMedex. The complaints generally allege that the proposed acquisition undervalued LCA and deprived LCA's shareholders of the opportunity to participate in LCA's long-term financial prospects, that the "go shop" and "deal-protection" provisions of the Merger Agreement were designed to prevent LCA from soliciting or receiving competing offers, that LCA's Board breached its fiduciary duties and failed to maximize that company's stockholder value, and that LCA, PhotoMedex, and Gatorade aided and abetted the LCA defendants' alleged breaches of duty. The parties have reached a possible settlement in these suits. On March 23, 2015, the Ohio Court entered an order preliminarily approving that proposed settlement. Under the terms of settlement, LCA had published certain additional disclosure statements regarding its acquisition by the Company and its financial statements prior to its shareholder vote on the acquisition, which was held on May 12, 2014. The settlement also provides for the proposed payment of plaintiffs' counsel's fees and expenses with respect to the action. The Company believes that LCA maintains insurance that will help defray the cost of the proposed settlement; the Company will contribute less than $100,000 to the settlement, plus the payment of its legal fees, and does not expect the proposed settlement to have a material impact on its financial results. The proposed settlement is subject to final approval by the Court. A hearing has been scheduled at 8:30 a.m., on June 19, 2015 to determine whether to approve the settlement, whether the settlement provided adequate notice to shareholders, thereafter dismiss the action with prejudice, whether the court should enter a complete bar order regarding this matter, and whether to provide for the payment of plaintiffs' counsel's attorney's fees and expenses. On April 25, 2014, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the Company's subsidiary, Radiancy, Inc. and Dolev Rafaeli, Radiancy's President. The suit was filed by Jan Mouzon and twelve other customers residing in ten different states who purchased Radiancy's no!no! Hair products. It alleges various violations of state business and consumer protection codes including false and misleading advertising, unfair trade practices, and breach of express and implied warranties. The complaint seeks certification of the putative class, or, alternatively, certification as subclasses of plaintiffs residing in those specific states. The complaint also seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, pre-and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other costs. Dr. Rafaeli was served with the Complaint on May 5, 2014; to date, Radiancy, has not been served. A mediation was scheduled in this matter for November 24, 2014, but no settlement was reached. On March 30, 2015, the Court dismissed this action in its entirety for failure to state a claim. The Court specifically dismissed with prejudice the claims pursuant to New York General Business Law §§349-50 and the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose; the other counts against Radiancy were dismissed without prejudice. The Court also granted Dr. Rafaeli's motion to dismiss the actions against him for lack of personal jurisdiction over him by the Court. The Court denied the plaintiffs request for jurisdictional discovery with respect to Dr. Rafaeli and plaintiffs request to amend the complaint. Radiancy and its officers intend to continue to vigorously defend themselves against any attempts to continue this lawsuit. At this time, the amount of any loss, or range of loss, cannot be reasonably estimated as the case has only been initiated and no discovery has been conducted to determine the validity of any claim or claims made by plaintiffs. Therefore, the Company has not recorded any reserve or contingent liability related to these particular legal matters. However, in the future, as the cases progress, the Company may be required to record a contingent liability or reserve for these matters. On June 30, 2014, the Company's subsidiary, Radiancy, Inc., was served with a class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court in the State of California, County of Kern. The suit was filed by April Cantley, who purchased Radiancy's no!no! Hair products. It alleges various violations of state business and consumer protection codes including false and misleading advertising, breach of express and implied warranties and breach of the California Legal Remedies Act. The complaint seeks certification of the class, which consists of customers in the State of California who purchased the no!no! Hair devices. The complaint also seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, pre-and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other costs. Radiancy has filed an Answer to this Complaint; the case is now in the discovery phase. Radiancy and its officers intend to vigorously defend themselves against this lawsuit. Discovery has now commenced in this action. At this time, the amount of any loss, or range of loss, cannot be reasonably estimated as the case has only been initiated and no discovery has been conducted to determine the validity of any claim or claims made by plaintiffs. Therefore, the Company has not recorded any reserve or contingent liability related to these particular legal matters. However, in the future, as the cases progress, the Company may be required to record a contingent liability or reserve for these matters. From time to time in the ordinary course of our business, we and certain of our subsidiaries are involved in certain other legal actions and claims, including product liability, consumer, commercial, tax and governmental matters, and claims regarding false advertising and product efficacy which were already raised and reviewed in the Tria litigation. We believe, based on discussions with legal counsel, that these other litigations and claims will likely be resolved without a material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity. However, litigation is inherently unpredictable, and excessive verdicts can result from litigation. Although we believe we have substantial defenses in these matters, we may, in the future, incur judgments or enter into settlements of claims that could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in a particular period.

Note 12

Commitments and contingencies:

During the year ended December 31, 2013, Radiancy, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of PhotoMedex, commenced legal action against Viatek Consumer Products Group, Inc., over Viatek's Pearl and Samba hair removal products which Radiancy believes infringe the intellectual property covering its no!no! hair removal devices. The first suit, which was filed in the United States Federal Court, Southern District of New York, includes claims against Viatek for patent infringement, trademark and trade dress infringement, and false and misleading advertising. A second suit against Viatek was filed in Canada, where the Pearl is offered on that country's The Shopping Channel, alleging trademark and trade dress infringement, and false and misleading advertising. Viatek's response contains a variety of counterclaims and affirmative defenses against both Radiancy and its parent company PhotoMedex, including, among other counts, claims regarding the invalidity of Radiancy's patents and antitrust allegations regarding Radiancy's conduct.

Radiancy, and PhotoMedex, had moved to dismiss PhotoMedex from the case, and to dismiss the counterclaims and affirmative defenses asserted by Viatek. On March 28, 2014, the Court granted the Company's motion and dismissed PhotoMedex from the lawsuit. The Court also dismissed certain counterclaims and affirmative defenses asserted by Viatek, including Viatek's counterclaims against Radiancy for antitrust, unfair competition, and tortious interference with business relationships and Viatek's affirmative defenses of unclean hands and inequitable conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in procuring its patent. Radiancy had also moved for sanctions against Viatek for failure to provide meaningful and timely responses to Radiancy's discovery requests; on April 1, 2014, the Court granted that motion. Viatek appealed both the sanctions ruling and the dismissal of Viatek's counterclaims and defenses from the case, as well as PhotoMedex dismissal as a plaintiff; the Court has denied those appeals. The Court has appointed a Special Master to oversee discovery. A Markman hearing on the patents at issue was held on March 2, 2015. Viatek has requested an opportunity to supplement its patent invalidity contentions in the US case; Radiancy opposes that request. Radiancy has been granted permission by the US Court to supplement its earlier sanctions motion to include the legal fees and costs associated with preparing and prosecuting that motion. As of March 31, 2015, discovery and related court hearings continue in both the US and the Canadian cases. At this time, the amount of any loss, or range of loss, cannot be reasonably estimated as the case is still in the early stages of discovery to determine the validity of any claim or claims made by Viatek. Therefore, the Company has not recorded any reserve or contingent liability related to this particular legal matter. However, in the future, as the case progresses, the Company may be required to record a contingent liability or reserve for this matter.

On December 20, 2013, PhotoMedex, Inc. was served with a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Company and its two top executives, Dolev Rafaeli, Chief Executive Officer, and Dennis M. McGrath, President and Chief Financial Officer. The suit alleges various violations of the Federal securities laws between November 7, 2012 and November 14, 2013.

A mediation on possible settlement of this action was held on November 10, 2014; the parties including the Company's insurance carrier have agreed on a possible settlement. On March 11, 2015, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving that proposed settlement, which provides a fund of $1.5 million for the benefit of those persons or entities who purchased securities issued by the Company during the period November 6, 2012 and November 5, 2013, inclusive. The settlement fund will also pay for plaintiffs' counsel's fees and expenses approved by the Court with respect to the action. The Company maintains insurance that will help defray the cost of the proposed settlement, and does not expect the proposed settlement to have a material impact on its financial results. The proposed settlement is subject to final approval by the Court. A hearing has been scheduled at 9:30 a.m., on July 20, 2015 to determine whether to (i) approve the settlement, (ii) dismiss the action with prejudice, and (iii) provide for the payment of plaintiffs' counsel's attorney's fees and expenses, and consider an application for reimbursement of expenses (including lost wages) of the lead plaintiff. The Company has paid its own legal fees up to the deductible cap on its insurance policy, and all amounts to be paid to plaintiffs and plaintiff's counsel will be paid by the carrier of the insurance policy.

The Company was served on July 29, 2014 with an application to certify a class action, filed in Israel District Court for Tel Aviv against the Company and its two top executives, Dolev Rafaeli, Chief Executive Officer, and Dennis M. McGrath, President and Chief Financial Officer. The plaintiffs' who initiated this complaint have agreed to be part of, and be bound by, the possible settlement reached in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Company and the same two top executives.

There were multiple class-action lawsuits filed in connection with PhotoMedex's proposed acquisition of LCA-Vision, Inc. All cases asserted claims against LCA-Vision, Inc., and a mix of other defendants, including LCA's chief executive officer and directors, PhotoMedex, and Gatorade Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of PhotoMedex. The complaints generally allege that the proposed acquisition undervalued LCA and deprived LCA's shareholders of the opportunity to participate in LCA's long-term financial prospects, that the "go shop" and "deal-protection" provisions of the Merger Agreement were designed to prevent LCA from soliciting or receiving competing offers, that LCA's Board breached its fiduciary duties and failed to maximize that company's stockholder value, and that LCA, PhotoMedex, and Gatorade aided and abetted the LCA defendants' alleged breaches of duty. The parties have reached a possible settlement in these suits. On March 23, 2015, the Ohio Court entered an order preliminarily approving that proposed settlement. Under the terms of settlement, LCA had published certain additional disclosure statements regarding its acquisition by the Company and its financial statements prior to its shareholder vote on the acquisition, which was held on May 12, 2014. The settlement also provides for the proposed payment of plaintiffs' counsel's fees and expenses with respect to the action. The Company believes that LCA maintains insurance that will help defray the cost of the proposed settlement; the Company will contribute less than $100,000 to the settlement, plus the payment of its legal fees, and does not expect the proposed settlement to have a material impact on its financial results. The proposed settlement is subject to final approval by the Court. A hearing has been scheduled at 8:30 a.m., on June 19, 2015 to determine whether to approve the settlement, whether the settlement provided adequate notice to shareholders, thereafter dismiss the action with prejudice, whether the court should enter a complete bar order regarding this matter, and whether to provide for the payment of plaintiffs' counsel's attorney's fees and expenses.

On April 25, 2014, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the Company's subsidiary, Radiancy, Inc. and Dolev Rafaeli, Radiancy's President. The suit was filed by Jan Mouzon and twelve other customers residing in ten different states who purchased Radiancy's no!no! Hair products. It alleges various violations of state business and consumer protection codes including false and misleading advertising, unfair trade practices, and breach of express and implied warranties. The complaint seeks certification of the putative class, or, alternatively, certification as subclasses of plaintiffs residing in those specific states. The complaint also seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, pre-and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other costs. Dr. Rafaeli was served with the Complaint on May 5, 2014; to date, Radiancy, has not been served. A mediation was scheduled in this matter for November 24, 2014, but no settlement was reached. On March 30, 2015, the Court dismissed this action in its entirety for failure to state a claim. The Court specifically dismissed with prejudice the claims pursuant to New York General Business Law §§349-50 and the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose; the other counts against Radiancy were dismissed without prejudice. The Court also granted Dr. Rafaeli's motion to dismiss the actions against him for lack of personal jurisdiction over him by the Court. The Court denied the plaintiffs request for jurisdictional discovery with respect to Dr. Rafaeli and plaintiffs request to amend the complaint. Radiancy and its officers intend to continue to vigorously defend themselves against any attempts to continue this lawsuit. At this time, the amount of any loss, or range of loss, cannot be reasonably estimated as the case has only been initiated and no discovery has been conducted to determine the validity of any claim or claims made by plaintiffs. Therefore, the Company has not recorded any reserve or contingent liability related to these particular legal matters. However, in the future, as the cases progress, the Company may be required to record a contingent liability or reserve for these matters.

On June 30, 2014, the Company's subsidiary, Radiancy, Inc., was served with a class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court in the State of California, County of Kern. The suit was filed by April Cantley, who purchased Radiancy's no!no! Hair products. It alleges various violations of state business and consumer protection codes including false and misleading advertising, breach of express and implied warranties and breach of the California Legal Remedies Act. The complaint seeks certification of the class, which consists of customers in the State of California who purchased the no!no! Hair devices. The complaint also seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, pre-and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other costs. Radiancy has filed an Answer to this Complaint; the case is now in the discovery phase. Radiancy and its officers intend to vigorously defend themselves against this lawsuit. Discovery has now commenced in this action. At this time, the amount of any loss, or range of loss, cannot be reasonably estimated as the case has only been initiated and no discovery has been conducted to determine the validity of any claim or claims made by plaintiffs. Therefore, the Company has not recorded any reserve or contingent liability related to these particular legal matters. However, in the future, as the cases progress, the Company may be required to record a contingent liability or reserve for these matters.

From time to time in the ordinary course of our business, we and certain of our subsidiaries are involved in certain other legal actions and claims, including product liability, consumer, commercial, tax and governmental matters, and claims regarding false advertising and product efficacy which were already raised and reviewed in the Tria litigation. We believe, based on discussions with legal counsel, that these other litigations and claims will likely be resolved without a material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity. However, litigation is inherently unpredictable, and excessive verdicts can result from litigation. Although we believe we have substantial defenses in these matters, we may, in the future, incur judgments or enter into settlements of claims that could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in a particular period.