Medafor Matters	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2015
Medafor Matters [Abstract]
Medafor Matters	8. Medafor Matters Investment in Medafor Common Stock In 2009 and 2010 CryoLife purchased shares of common stock in Medafor, a developer and supplier of plant based hemostatic agents. The Company initially recorded its investment using the cost method as a long-term asset, investment in equity securities, on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets. On October 1, 2013 C.R. Bard, Inc., a developer, manufacturer, and marketer of medical technologies in the fields of vascular, urology, oncology, and surgical specialty products (“Bard”), and its subsidiaries completed its acquisition of all 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 transaction consideration in escrow. Based on information provided by Medafor in its September 24, 2013 Proxy Statement, Bard was required to make additional contingent milestone payments based on the achievement of certain net revenue targets measurable through June 2015. In September 2015 the Company received a letter from the representative of the former shareholders of Medafor, which stated that net sales were insufficient to trigger payment of additional contingent consideration by Bard. The final release of transaction consideration from escrow is expected to be received in October 2017 and is expected to be nominal. This subsequent payment will be recorded as an additional gain if, and when, received by the Company. The Company recorded a gain on the sale of approximately $12.7 million in the fourth quarter of 2013, $530,000 in the fourth quarter of 2014 and $891,000 in the second quarter of 2015. 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 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. CryoLife also 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 and began distributing PerClot Topical in August 2014. CryoLife also received investigational device exemption approval in March 2014 to begin clinical trials for PerClot in certain surgical indications. In August 2014 Medafor filed a counterclaim against CryoLife for infringement of the ‘461 Patent. 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 in the U.S., including PerClot Topical, 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. CryoLife dismissed this appeal in June 2015. On November 18, 2015, the lawsuit was resolved by entry by the District Court of the Parties’ Joint Stipulation for Dismissal, which resulted in the dismissal with prejudice of all parties’ claims and counterclaims in the lawsuit, the continuation of the preliminary injunction prohibiting CryoLife from marketing, selling and distributing PerClot in the U.S. until expiration of the ‘461 Patent on February 8, 2019, each party bearing its own attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the lawsuit, and the continuation of the District Court’s jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the resolution.

8. Medafor Matters

Investment in Medafor Common Stock

In 2009 and 2010 CryoLife purchased shares of common stock in Medafor, a developer and supplier of plant based hemostatic agents. The Company initially recorded its investment using the cost method as a long-term asset, investment in equity securities, on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets.

On October 1, 2013 C.R. Bard, Inc., a developer, manufacturer, and marketer of medical technologies in the fields of vascular, urology, oncology, and surgical specialty products (“Bard”), and its subsidiaries completed its acquisition of all 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 transaction consideration in escrow. Based on information provided by Medafor in its September 24, 2013 Proxy Statement, Bard was required to make additional contingent milestone payments based on the achievement of certain net revenue targets measurable through June 2015.

In September 2015 the Company received a letter from the representative of the former shareholders of Medafor, which stated that net sales were insufficient to trigger payment of additional contingent consideration by Bard. The final release of transaction consideration from escrow is expected to be received in October 2017 and is expected to be nominal. This subsequent payment will be recorded as an additional gain if, and when, received by the Company.

The Company recorded a gain on the sale of approximately $12.7 million in the fourth quarter of 2013, $530,000 in the fourth quarter of 2014 and $891,000 in the second quarter of 2015.

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 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. CryoLife also 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 and began distributing PerClot Topical in August 2014. CryoLife also received investigational device exemption approval in March 2014 to begin clinical trials for PerClot in certain surgical indications.

In August 2014 Medafor filed a counterclaim against CryoLife for infringement of the ‘461 Patent. 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 in the U.S., including PerClot Topical, 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. CryoLife dismissed this appeal in June 2015. On November 18, 2015, the lawsuit was resolved by entry by the District Court of the Parties’ Joint Stipulation for Dismissal, which resulted in the dismissal with prejudice of all parties’ claims and counterclaims in the lawsuit, the continuation of the preliminary injunction prohibiting CryoLife from marketing, selling and distributing PerClot in the U.S. until expiration of the ‘461 Patent on February 8, 2019, each party bearing its own attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the lawsuit, and the continuation of the District Court’s jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the resolution.