Commitments and Contingencies (Notes)	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Indemnification of former officers and employees The Company has indemnification obligations with three former employees who were charged in connection with a previous federal investigation of the Company. In February 2012, a trial was held for two of the defendants, which resulted in the acquittal of one defendant on all charges and acquittal of the other defendant on all charges except for one count of making false statements to federal investigators. The sentencing hearing for this defendant occurred in May 2012, and in June 2012, this defendant filed a notice of appeal. On March 12, 2012, the U.S. District Court of Colorado dismissed the charges against the third defendant who had previously been granted a separate trial. The Company was not a party to these trials. In February 2012, the Company entered into agreements with two of the former employees under which it agreed to reimburse the two former employees an amount not to exceed $1.9 million and $0.5 million, respectively, for legal fees and expenses incurred by them on or after January 1, 2012, including the trial and any appeal that was not successful. In consideration of the former employees’ agreement to this cap on legal fees and expenses, the Company released them from its rights to “clawback” legal fees and expenses advanced by the Company. In addition to the foregoing, each party generally released the other from all claims prior to the date of the agreements. The cap on legal fees and expenses, as well as the release and waiver of clawback rights and the general release of claims, are subject to certain exceptions in the case of a mistrial or successful appeal that results in an order for a new trial. During the year ended December 31, 2012, the Company paid $3.2 million of indemnification costs. As of December 31, 2012, the Company had a remaining accrual for future indemnification costs of approximately $10,000. Additional expenses may be incurred in future periods depending upon the success or failure of an appeal, and in particular, a successful appeal that results in the order of a new trial. Litigation The Company is from time to time subject to, and is presently involved in, various pending or threatened legal actions and proceedings, including those that arise in the ordinary course of its business. Such matters are subject to many uncertainties and to outcomes and the financial impacts of which are not predictable with assurance and that may not be known for extended periods of time. The Company records a liability in its consolidated financial statements for costs related to claims, settlements and judgments, where management has assessed that a loss is probable and an amount can be reasonably estimated. The Company’s significant legal proceedings are discussed below. The costs associated with such proceedings or other legal proceedings that may be commenced could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s future consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows. Fox/Sopkin The Company and Spectranetics B.V., the Company’s Dutch subsidiary, are defendants in a lawsuit brought in the District Court of Utrecht, the Netherlands (the Dutch District Court) by Kenneth Fox in 2004. Mr. Fox is an inventor named on patents licensed to the Company under a license agreement assigned to Interlase LP. Mr. Fox claims an interest in royalties payable under the license and seeks alleged back royalties of approximately $2.2 million. In June 2010, the Dutch District Court issued a ruling, followed by a decision that dismissed Mr. Fox’s claims in their entirety against both the Company and its Dutch subsidiary. The court also awarded the Company a nominal amount as attorney’s fees. In September 2010, Mr. Fox filed and served a notice of appeal to the Dutch Court of Appeals. Under Dutch law, the appeal entitles Mr. Fox to a new trial on the merits, though still taking into evidence the record that is already in the Dutch court system. A hearing on the merits occurred in November 2012. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against Mr. Fox’s claims in this appeal. In May 2011, the Company was served with a lawsuit that names the Company and the Company’s Dutch subsidiary as defendants. The lawsuit was brought in the Dutch District Court by Barbara Joy Sopkin. Ms. Sopkin claims royalties on a license agreement, certain rights to which were allegedly transferred to her, which claims are similar in nature to the claims of Mr. Fox in his litigation. Ms. Sopkin claims damages of approximately $2 million and also claims interest on that amount from January 1, 2011. The proceedings formally commenced in July 2011, and a hearing on the claims was held in September 2012. In October 2012, the Dutch District Court rejected Ms. Sopkin’s claims for damages in their entirety and awarded the Company a nominal amount as attorney’s fees. In January 2013, Ms. Sopkin served the Company with a notice of her intent to appeal to the Dutch Court of Appeals. The Company intends to vigorously defend against Ms. Sopkin’s claims in this matter. The Company has no amounts accrued for the Fox or Sopkin litigation. Cardiomedica The Company was engaged in a dispute since 1999 with Cardiomedica S.p.A. (Cardiomedica), an Italian company, over the existence of a distribution agreement between Cardiomedica and the Company. In 2009, a Dutch District Court issued a ruling in favor of Cardiomedica, requiring the Company to pay $0.6 million, which ruling Cardiomedica appealed. In September 2011, the Dutch Court of Appeals issued a ruling in favor of Cardiomedica, requiring the Company to pay to Cardiomedica an additional $0.6 million in damages plus $0.2 million in interest. The Company paid and expensed this amount in September 2011. Other The Company is involved in other legal proceedings in the normal course of business and does not expect them to have a material adverse effect on its business.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Indemnification of former officers and employees

The Company has indemnification obligations with three former employees who were charged in connection with a previous federal investigation of the Company. In February 2012, a trial was held for two of the defendants, which resulted in the acquittal of one defendant on all charges and acquittal of the other defendant on all charges except for one count of making false statements to federal investigators. The sentencing hearing for this defendant occurred in May 2012, and in June 2012, this defendant filed a notice of appeal. On March 12, 2012, the U.S. District Court of Colorado dismissed the charges against the third defendant who had previously been granted a separate trial. The Company was not a party to these trials.

In February 2012, the Company entered into agreements with two of the former employees under which it agreed to reimburse the two former employees an amount not to exceed $1.9 million and $0.5 million, respectively, for legal fees and expenses incurred by them on or after January 1, 2012, including the trial and any appeal that was not successful. In consideration of the former employees’ agreement to this cap on legal fees and expenses, the Company released them from its rights to “clawback” legal fees and expenses advanced by the Company. In addition to the foregoing, each party generally released the other from all claims prior to the date of the agreements. The cap on legal fees and expenses, as well as the release and waiver of clawback rights and the general release of claims, are subject to certain exceptions in the case of a mistrial or successful appeal that results in an order for a new trial.

During the year ended December 31, 2012, the Company paid $3.2 million of indemnification costs. As of December 31, 2012, the Company had a remaining accrual for future indemnification costs of approximately $10,000. Additional expenses may be incurred in future periods depending upon the success or failure of an appeal, and in particular, a successful appeal that results in the order of a new trial.

Litigation

The Company is from time to time subject to, and is presently involved in, various pending or threatened legal actions and proceedings, including those that arise in the ordinary course of its business. Such matters are subject to many uncertainties and to outcomes and the financial impacts of which are not predictable with assurance and that may not be known for extended periods of time. The Company records a liability in its consolidated financial statements for costs related to claims, settlements and judgments, where management has assessed that a loss is probable and an amount can be reasonably estimated. The Company’s significant legal proceedings are discussed below. The costs associated with such proceedings or other legal proceedings that may be commenced could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s future consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

Fox/Sopkin

The Company and Spectranetics B.V., the Company’s Dutch subsidiary, are defendants in a lawsuit brought in the District Court of Utrecht, the Netherlands (the Dutch District Court) by Kenneth Fox in 2004. Mr. Fox is an inventor named on patents licensed to the Company under a license agreement assigned to Interlase LP. Mr. Fox claims an interest in royalties payable under the license and seeks alleged back royalties of approximately $2.2 million. In June 2010, the Dutch District Court issued a ruling, followed by a decision that dismissed Mr. Fox’s claims in their entirety against both the Company and its Dutch subsidiary. The court also awarded the Company a nominal amount as attorney’s fees. In September 2010, Mr. Fox filed and served a notice of appeal to the Dutch Court of Appeals. Under Dutch law, the appeal entitles Mr. Fox to a new trial on the merits, though still taking into evidence the record that is already in the Dutch court system. A hearing on the merits occurred in November 2012. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against Mr. Fox’s claims in this appeal.

In May 2011, the Company was served with a lawsuit that names the Company and the Company’s Dutch subsidiary as defendants. The lawsuit was brought in the Dutch District Court by Barbara Joy Sopkin. Ms. Sopkin claims royalties on a license agreement, certain rights to which were allegedly transferred to her, which claims are similar in nature to the claims of Mr. Fox in his litigation. Ms. Sopkin claims damages of approximately $2 million and also claims interest on that amount from January 1, 2011. The proceedings formally commenced in July 2011, and a hearing on the claims was held in September 2012. In October 2012, the Dutch District Court rejected Ms. Sopkin’s claims for damages in their entirety and awarded the Company a nominal amount as attorney’s fees. In January 2013, Ms. Sopkin served the Company with a notice of her intent to appeal to the Dutch Court of Appeals. The Company intends to vigorously defend against Ms. Sopkin’s claims in this matter.

The Company has no amounts accrued for the Fox or Sopkin litigation.

Cardiomedica

The Company was engaged in a dispute since 1999 with Cardiomedica S.p.A. (Cardiomedica), an Italian company, over the existence of a distribution agreement between Cardiomedica and the Company. In 2009, a Dutch District Court issued a ruling in favor of Cardiomedica, requiring the Company to pay $0.6 million, which ruling Cardiomedica appealed. In September 2011, the Dutch Court of Appeals issued a ruling in favor of Cardiomedica, requiring the Company to pay to Cardiomedica an additional $0.6 million in damages plus $0.2 million in interest. The Company paid and expensed this amount in September 2011.

Other

The Company is involved in other legal proceedings in the normal course of business and does not expect them to have a material adverse effect on its business.