Medafor Matters	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2015
Medafor Matters [Abstract]
Medafor Matters	7. Medafor Matters Investment in Medafor Common Stock In 2009 and 2010 CryoLife purchased shares of common stock in Medafor, Inc. (“Medafor”). The Company initially recorded its investment using the cost method as a long-term asset, investment in equity securities, on the Company’s Summary Consolidated Balance Sheets. On October 1, 2013 C.R. Bard, Inc. (“Bard”) and its subsidiaries completed the previously announced acquisition of the outstanding shares of Medafor common stock. The Company received an initial payment of approximately $15.4 million in the fourth quarter of 2013 for its 2.4 million shares of Medafor common stock and received additional payments of $530,000 in the fourth quarter of 2014 and $891,000 in April 2015 related to the release of funds in escrow. Based on information provided by Medafor as part of its September 24, 2013 Proxy Statement, the Company could receive additional payments totaling up to $7.0 million upon the release of funds held in escrow and the satisfaction of certain contingent milestones, measurable through June 2015. The Company recorded a gain on the sale of Medafor investment of approximately $891,000 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2015 and zero for the three and six months ended June 30, 2014. Subsequent payments will be recorded as an additional gain if, and when, received by the Company. Legal Action In April 2014 CryoLife filed a declaratory judgment lawsuit against Bard, and its subsidiaries Davol, Inc. (“Davol”) and Medafor (collectively, “Defendants”), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (the “District Court”). CryoLife requested that the District Court declare that CryoLife’s manufacture, use, offer for sale, and sale of PerClot in the U.S. does not, and would not, infringe Bard’s U.S. Patent No. 6,060,461 (the “‘461 Patent”). In addition, CryoLife requested that the District Court declare that the claims of the ‘461 Patent are invalid. As part of the relief requested, CryoLife requested injunctive relief and an award of attorneys’ fees. The lawsuit against the Defendants followed the receipt by CryoLife of a letter from Medafor in September 2012 stating that PerClot, when introduced in the U.S., would infringe the ‘461 Patent when used in accordance with the method published in CryoLife’s literature and with the instructions for use. CryoLife received FDA 510(k) clearance for the sale of PerClot Topical in April 2014, began distributing PerClot Topical in August 2014, and received IDE approval in March 2014 to begin clinical trials for PerClot in certain surgical indications. In September 2014 Medafor filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, asking the District Court to enjoin CryoLife’s marketing and sale of PerClot in the U.S. In March 2015 the District Court ruled that CryoLife’s declaratory judgment lawsuit against Medafor may proceed but dismissed Bard and Davol from the lawsuit. The District Court also granted Medafor’s motion for a preliminary injunction, which prohibits CryoLife from marketing, selling, and distributing PerClot in the U.S. while the litigation proceeds. In March 2015 CryoLife ceased all marketing, sales, and distribution of PerClot, including PerClot Topical, in the U.S. in accordance with the District Court’s order. In April 2015 CryoLife appealed the District Court’s ruling on the preliminary injunction motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and CryoLife dismissed this appeal in June 2015. The District Court proceedings are scheduled to resume in late August 2015.

7. Medafor Matters

Investment in Medafor Common Stock

In 2009 and 2010 CryoLife purchased shares of common stock in Medafor, Inc. (“Medafor”). The Company initially recorded its investment using the cost method as a long-term asset, investment in equity securities, on the Company’s Summary Consolidated Balance Sheets.

On October 1, 2013 C.R. Bard, Inc. (“Bard”) and its subsidiaries completed the previously announced acquisition of the outstanding shares of Medafor common stock. The Company received an initial payment of approximately $15.4 million in the fourth quarter of 2013 for its 2.4 million shares of Medafor common stock and received additional payments of $530,000 in the fourth quarter of 2014 and $891,000 in April 2015 related to the release of funds in escrow. Based on information provided by Medafor as part of its September 24, 2013 Proxy Statement, the Company could receive additional payments totaling up to $7.0 million upon the release of funds held in escrow and the satisfaction of certain contingent milestones, measurable through June 2015.

The Company recorded a gain on the sale of Medafor investment of approximately $891,000 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2015 and zero for the three and six months ended June 30, 2014. Subsequent payments will be recorded as an additional gain if, and when, received by the Company.

Legal Action

In April 2014 CryoLife filed a declaratory judgment lawsuit against Bard, and its subsidiaries Davol, Inc. (“Davol”) and Medafor (collectively, “Defendants”), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (the “District Court”). CryoLife requested that the District Court declare that CryoLife’s manufacture, use, offer for sale, and sale of PerClot in the U.S. does not, and would not, infringe Bard’s U.S. Patent No. 6,060,461 (the “‘461 Patent”). In addition, CryoLife requested that the District Court declare that the claims of the ‘461 Patent are invalid. As part of the relief requested, CryoLife requested injunctive relief and an award of attorneys’ fees.

The lawsuit against the Defendants followed the receipt by CryoLife of a letter from Medafor in September 2012 stating that PerClot, when introduced in the U.S., would infringe the ‘461 Patent when used in accordance with the method published in CryoLife’s literature and with the instructions for use. CryoLife received FDA 510(k) clearance for the sale of PerClot Topical in April 2014, began distributing PerClot Topical in August 2014, and received IDE approval in March 2014 to begin clinical trials for PerClot in certain surgical indications.

In September 2014 Medafor filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, asking the District Court to enjoin CryoLife’s marketing and sale of PerClot in the U.S. In March 2015 the District Court ruled that CryoLife’s declaratory judgment lawsuit against Medafor may proceed but dismissed Bard and Davol from the lawsuit. The District Court also granted Medafor’s motion for a preliminary injunction, which prohibits CryoLife from marketing, selling, and distributing PerClot in the U.S. while the litigation proceeds. In March 2015 CryoLife ceased all marketing, sales, and distribution of PerClot, including PerClot Topical, in the U.S. in accordance with the District Court’s order.

In April 2015 CryoLife appealed the District Court’s ruling on the preliminary injunction motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and CryoLife dismissed this appeal in June 2015. The District Court proceedings are scheduled to resume in late August 2015.