Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies Legal Proceedings On September 12, 2014, MV Circuit Design, Inc., an Ohio company ("MV Circuit"), brought an action to correct the inventorship of certain patents owned by Omnicell, as well as related state-law claims against Omnicell in the Northern District of Ohio (Case No. 1:14-cv-02028-DAP) regarding allegations of fraud in the filing and prosecution of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,180,485, 8,773,270, 8,812,153, PCT/US2007/003765, PCT/US2011/063597, and PCT/US2011/0635505 (the “Action”). On November 14, 2014, we filed a Motion to Dismiss the Action. MV Circuit responded on January 29, 2015, and we replied in support of our Motion to Dismiss on February 17, 2015. On March 24, 2015, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the Motion to Dismiss. Specifically, the Court granted Omnicell's Motion to Dismiss with respect to Counts 4, 5, and 6 (declaratory judgments regarding PCT/US2007/003765, PCT/US2011/063597, and PCT/US2011/0635505) and count 13 (civil conspiracy). The Court denied the Company's Motion to Dismiss with respect to Count 9 (fraud), Count 7 (fraudulent concealment) and Count 8 (negligent misrepresentation). We Answered the Complaint on April 8, 2015. The Court held a Case Management Conference on April 22, 2015. At the Case Management Conference, the Court assigned this case to a “complex” track and ordered production of initial discovery regarding inventorship and sales of the relevant Omnicell products by June 22, 2015. The Court indicated it will defer issuing a schedule in the case until it holds another conference on July 14, 2015. We intend to defend the matter vigorously. On March 19, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and two executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Nelson v. Omnicell, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01280-HSG.The complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company’s stock between May 2, 2014 and March 2, 2015. It alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by purportedly making false and misleading statements regarding the existence of a “side letter” arrangement and the adequacy of internal controls that allegedly resulted in false and misleading financial statements. The Company and the individual defendants have not yet been served with the complaint. The Company believes that the claims have no merit and will defend the lawsuit vigorously. As required under ASC 450, Contingencies, we accrue for contingencies when we believe that a loss is probable and that we can reasonably estimate the amount of any such loss. We have not recorded any accrual for contingent liabilities associated with the legal proceedings described above based on our belief that any potential loss, while reasonably possible, is not probable. Further, any possible range of loss in these matters cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. We believe that we have valid defenses with respect to legal proceedings pending against us. However, litigation is inherently unpredictable, and it is possible that cash flows or results of operations could be materially affected in any particular period by the unfavorable resolution of this contingency or because of the diversion of management's attention and the creation of significant expenses. Guarantees As permitted under Delaware law and our certificate of incorporation and bylaws, we have agreed to indemnify our directors and officers against certain losses that they may suffer by reason of the fact that such persons are, were or become our directors or officers. The term of the indemnification period is for the director’s or officer’s lifetime and there is no limit on the potential amount of future payments that we could be required to make under these indemnification agreements. We have purchased a directors’ and officers’ liability insurance policy that may enable us to recover a portion of any future payments that we may be required to make under these indemnification agreements. Assuming the applicability of coverage and the willingness of the insurer to assume coverage and subject to certain retention, loss limits and other policy provisions, we believe it is unlikely that we will be required to pay any material amounts pursuant to these indemnification obligations. However, no assurances can be given that the insurers will not attempt to dispute the validity, applicability or amount of coverage without expensive and time-consuming litigation against the insurers. Additionally, we undertake indemnification obligations in our ordinary course of business in connection with, among other things, the licensing of our products and the provision of our support services. In the ordinary course of our business, we have in the past and may in the future agree to indemnify another party, generally our business affiliates or customers, against certain losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party in connection with various types of claims, which may include, without limitation, claims of intellectual property infringement, certain tax liabilities, our gross negligence or intentional acts in the performance of support services and violations of laws. The term of these indemnification obligations is generally perpetual. In general, we attempt to limit the maximum potential amount of future payments that we may be required to make under these indemnification obligations to the amounts paid to us by a customer, but in some cases the obligation may not be so limited. In addition, we have in the past and may in the future warrant to our customers that our products will conform to functional specifications for a limited period of time following the date of installation (generally not exceeding 30 days) or that our software media is free from material defects. Sales contracts for certain of our medication packaging systems often include limited warranties for up to six months, but the periodic activity and ending warranty balances we record have historically been immaterial. From time to time, we may also warrant that our professional services will be performed in a good and workmanlike manner or in a professional manner consistent with industry standards. We generally seek to disclaim most warranties, including any implied or statutory warranties such as warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title, quality and non-infringement, as well as any liability with respect to incidental, consequential, special, exemplary, punitive or similar damages. In some states, such disclaimers may not be enforceable. If necessary, we would provide for the estimated cost of product and service warranties based on specific warranty claims and claim history. We have not been subject to any significant claims for such losses and have not incurred any material costs in defending or settling claims related to these indemnification obligations. Accordingly, we believe it is unlikely that we will be required to pay any material amounts pursuant to these indemnification obligations or potential warranty claims and, therefore, no material liabilities have been recorded for such indemnification obligations as of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014.

Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

On September 12, 2014, MV Circuit Design, Inc., an Ohio company ("MV Circuit"), brought an action to correct the inventorship of certain patents owned by Omnicell, as well as related state-law claims against Omnicell in the Northern District of Ohio (Case No. 1:14-cv-02028-DAP) regarding allegations of fraud in the filing and prosecution of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,180,485, 8,773,270, 8,812,153, PCT/US2007/003765, PCT/US2011/063597, and PCT/US2011/0635505 (the “Action”). On November 14, 2014, we filed a Motion to Dismiss the Action. MV Circuit responded on January 29, 2015, and we replied in support of our Motion to Dismiss on February 17, 2015. On March 24, 2015, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the Motion to Dismiss. Specifically, the Court granted Omnicell's Motion to Dismiss with respect to Counts 4, 5, and 6 (declaratory judgments regarding PCT/US2007/003765, PCT/US2011/063597, and PCT/US2011/0635505) and count 13 (civil conspiracy). The Court denied the Company's Motion to Dismiss with respect to Count 9 (fraud), Count 7 (fraudulent concealment) and Count 8 (negligent misrepresentation). We Answered the Complaint on April 8, 2015. The Court held a Case Management Conference on April 22, 2015. At the Case Management Conference, the Court assigned this case to a “complex” track and ordered production of initial discovery regarding inventorship and sales of the relevant Omnicell products by June 22, 2015. The Court indicated it will defer issuing a schedule in the case until it holds another conference on July 14, 2015. We intend to defend the matter vigorously.

On March 19, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and two executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Nelson v. Omnicell, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01280-HSG.The complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company’s stock between May 2, 2014 and March 2, 2015. It alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by purportedly making false and misleading statements regarding the existence of a “side letter” arrangement and the adequacy of internal controls that allegedly resulted in false and misleading financial statements. The Company and the individual defendants have not yet been served with the complaint. The Company believes that the claims have no merit and will defend the lawsuit vigorously.

As required under ASC 450, Contingencies, we accrue for contingencies when we believe that a loss is probable and that we can reasonably estimate the amount of any such loss. We have not recorded any accrual for contingent liabilities associated with the legal proceedings described above based on our belief that any potential loss, while reasonably possible, is not probable. Further, any possible range of loss in these matters cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. We believe that we have valid defenses with respect to legal proceedings pending against us. However, litigation is inherently unpredictable, and it is possible that cash flows or results of operations could be materially affected in any particular period by the unfavorable resolution of this contingency or because of the diversion of management's attention and the creation of significant expenses.

Guarantees

As permitted under Delaware law and our certificate of incorporation and bylaws, we have agreed to indemnify our directors and officers against certain losses that they may suffer by reason of the fact that such persons are, were or become our directors or officers. The term of the indemnification period is for the director’s or officer’s lifetime and there is no limit on the potential amount of future payments that we could be required to make under these indemnification agreements. We have purchased a directors’ and officers’ liability insurance policy that may enable us to recover a portion of any future payments that we may be required to make under these indemnification agreements. Assuming the applicability of coverage and the willingness of the insurer to assume coverage and subject to certain retention, loss limits and other policy provisions, we believe it is unlikely that we will be required to pay any material amounts pursuant to these indemnification obligations. However, no assurances can be given that the insurers will not attempt to dispute the validity, applicability or amount of coverage without expensive and time-consuming litigation against the insurers.

Additionally, we undertake indemnification obligations in our ordinary course of business in connection with, among other things, the licensing of our products and the provision of our support services. In the ordinary course of our business, we have in the past and may in the future agree to indemnify another party, generally our business affiliates or customers, against certain losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party in connection with various types of claims, which may include, without limitation, claims of intellectual property infringement, certain tax liabilities, our gross negligence or intentional acts in the performance of support services and violations of laws. The term of these indemnification obligations is generally perpetual. In general, we attempt to limit the maximum potential amount of future payments that we may be required to make under these indemnification obligations to the amounts paid to us by a customer, but in some cases the obligation may not be so limited. In addition, we have in the past and may in the future warrant to our customers that our products will conform to functional specifications for a limited period of time following the date of installation (generally not exceeding 30 days) or that our software media is free from material defects. Sales contracts for certain of our medication packaging systems often include limited warranties for up to six months, but the periodic activity and ending warranty balances we record have historically been immaterial.

From time to time, we may also warrant that our professional services will be performed in a good and workmanlike manner or in a professional manner consistent with industry standards. We generally seek to disclaim most warranties, including any implied or statutory warranties such as warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title, quality and non-infringement, as well as any liability with respect to incidental, consequential, special, exemplary, punitive or similar damages. In some states, such disclaimers may not be enforceable. If necessary, we would provide for the estimated cost of product and service warranties based on specific warranty claims and claim history. We have not been subject to any significant claims for such losses and have not incurred any material costs in defending or settling claims related to these indemnification obligations. Accordingly, we believe it is unlikely that we will be required to pay any material amounts pursuant to these indemnification obligations or potential warranty claims and, therefore, no material liabilities have been recorded for such indemnification obligations as of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014.