Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2014
Contingencies [Abstract]
Contingencies	Note 11 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. 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 Radiancy’s motion for sanctions against Viatek, which has 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. As of May 12, 2014, the case remains in the discovery phase of the litigation. Radiancy, and PhotoMedex, had moved to dismiss PhotoMedex from the case, and to dismiss the counterclaims and affirmative defenses asserted by Viatek. 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, filed by Mr. Guy Ratz, a former employee of Radiancy (Israel) Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, alleges various violations of the Federal securities laws between November 7, 2012 and November 14, 2013, including that the Company and its officers made false and misleading statements or failed to disclose material facts concerning the Company’s business. Two other shareholders filed suit through other firms; the Asbestos Workers Local 14 Pension Fund was appointed the lead plaintiff in this case. An amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs on April 15, 2014. The complaint seeks certification of the putative class as well as an unspecified amount of monetary damages, pre-and post-judgment interest and attorneys’ fees, expert witness fees and other costs. The Company and its officers intend to vigorously defend themselves against this lawsuit. At this time, the amount of any loss, or range of loss, cannot be reasonably estimated as the cases have 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. Six putative class-action lawsuits were filed in connection with PhotoMedex’s proposed acquisition of LCA-Vision, Inc. Two of those suits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and four were filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County, Ohio. All cases assert 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 complaints seek injunctive relief, unspecified damages, and other relief. The Ohio plaintiffs agreed to consolidate their suits and take the lead on this matter, although the Ohio Court did not formally consolidate the suits until April 24, 2014. The Delaware suits were consolidated on March 25, 2014; on or around that same date, the parties reached an agreement by which LCA and the other defendants agreed to produce certain discovery to the plaintiffs on an expedited basis. On April 30, 2014, the Ohio plaintiffs (with the Delaware plaintiffs’ concurrence) agreed to withdraw their motion for a preliminary injunction and not seek to enjoin the stockholder vote or the consummation of the merger in return for LCA’s agreement to make certain supplemental disclosures related to the merger. Those supplemental disclosures were filed by LCA under a Form 8-K on April 30, 2014. This agreement did not affect the terms of the Merger Agreement or the amount of consideration LCA stockholders will be entitled to receive in the merger. Defendants intend to continue to vigorously defend themselves in the lawsuits if the parties cannot enter into a formal stipulation of settlement. At this time, the amount of any loss, or range of loss, cannot be reasonably estimated, as the cases have only been recently initiated and little 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 if the cases cannot be resolved. 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. Radiancy and its officers intend to vigorously defend themselves against 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. 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 11

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.

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 Radiancy’s motion for sanctions against Viatek, which has 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. As of May 12, 2014, the case remains in the discovery phase of the litigation. Radiancy, and PhotoMedex, had moved to dismiss PhotoMedex from the case, and to dismiss the counterclaims and affirmative defenses asserted by Viatek. 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, filed by Mr. Guy Ratz, a former employee of Radiancy (Israel) Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, alleges various violations of the Federal securities laws between November 7, 2012 and November 14, 2013, including that the Company and its officers made false and misleading statements or failed to disclose material facts concerning the Company’s business. Two other shareholders filed suit through other firms; the Asbestos Workers Local 14 Pension Fund was appointed the lead plaintiff in this case. An amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs on April 15, 2014. The complaint seeks certification of the putative class as well as an unspecified amount of monetary damages, pre-and post-judgment interest and attorneys’ fees, expert witness fees and other costs. The Company and its officers intend to vigorously defend themselves against this lawsuit. At this time, the amount of any loss, or range of loss, cannot be reasonably estimated as the cases have 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.

Six putative class-action lawsuits were filed in connection with PhotoMedex’s proposed acquisition of LCA-Vision, Inc. Two of those suits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and four were filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County, Ohio. All cases assert 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 complaints seek injunctive relief, unspecified damages, and other relief. The Ohio plaintiffs agreed to consolidate their suits and take the lead on this matter, although the Ohio Court did not formally consolidate the suits until April 24, 2014. The Delaware suits were consolidated on March 25, 2014; on or around that same date, the parties reached an agreement by which LCA and the other defendants agreed to produce certain discovery to the plaintiffs on an expedited basis. On April 30, 2014, the Ohio plaintiffs (with the Delaware plaintiffs’ concurrence) agreed to withdraw their motion for a preliminary injunction and not seek to enjoin the stockholder vote or the consummation of the merger in return for LCA’s agreement to make certain supplemental disclosures related to the merger. Those supplemental disclosures were filed by LCA under a Form 8-K on April 30, 2014. This agreement did not affect the terms of the Merger Agreement or the amount of consideration LCA stockholders will be entitled to receive in the merger. Defendants intend to continue to vigorously defend themselves in the lawsuits if the parties cannot enter into a formal stipulation of settlement. At this time, the amount of any loss, or range of loss, cannot be reasonably estimated, as the cases have only been recently initiated and little 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 if the cases cannot be resolved.

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. Radiancy and its officers intend to vigorously defend themselves against 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.

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.