Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES 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 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. Otherwise, the Company expenses these costs as incurred. Under U.S. GAAP, an event is “reasonably possible” if “the chance of the future event or events occurring is more than remote but less than likely” and an event is “remote” if “the chance of the future event or events occurring is slight”. If the estimate of a probable loss is a range and no amount within the range is more likely than any other amount, then the Company accrues the minimum amount of the range. Unless included in the Company’s legal accrual or otherwise indicated below, a range of loss associated with any individual material legal proceeding cannot 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 business, results of operations, financial position, or liquidity. TriReme Patent Infringement and Breach of Fiduciary Duty In July 2012, AngioScore sued TriReme Medical, Inc. (“TriReme”), Eitan Konstantino (“Konstantino”), Quattro Vascular Pte, Ltd. (“Quattro”), and QT Vascular Ltd. (“QT Vascular”), in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “District Court”), alleging patent infringement. In June 2014, AngioScore amended its complaint to allege state law claims (i) that Konstantino, a former founder, officer, and director of AngioScore, breached his fiduciary duties to AngioScore by developing the Chocolate balloon catheter while serving as a director of AngioScore, and (ii) against the other defendants for aiding and abetting that breach. In July 2015, the District Court ruled in favor of AngioScore, finding that Konstantino breached his fiduciary duties to AngioScore, that TriReme and Quattro aided and abetted that breach, and that QT Vascular was liable for the acts of TriReme and Quattro. The District Court awarded AngioScore $20.034 million against all defendants plus disgorgement from Konstantino of all benefits he accrued from his breach of fiduciary duties. In September 2015, a jury found against AngioScore in the patent infringement case. Following an appeal by the defendants, in July 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Federal Circuit”) reversed the breach of fiduciary duty and state law rulings on procedural grounds, finding that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the state law claims, and affirmed the District Court’s ruling that the defendants were not entitled to attorneys’ fees in the patent infringement case. In August 2016, AngioScore filed a petition for rehearing of the order reversing the District Court’s breach of fiduciary duty rulings, which the Federal Circuit denied. The Federal Circuit remanded the matter to the District Court for dismissal of the state law claims, which the District Court did in February 2017. On March 3, 2017, AngioScore filed a complaint in California Superior Court, County of Alameda alleging state law claims (i) that Konstantino, a former founder, officer, and director of AngioScore, breached his fiduciary duties to AngioScore by developing the Chocolate balloon catheter while serving as a director of AngioScore, and (ii) that TriReme, Quattro, and QT Vascular aided and abetted in that breach. TriReme Inventorship In June 2014, TriReme sued AngioScore in the District Court seeking to change the inventorship of certain patents owned by AngioScore. TriReme alleged that an Israeli physician, Chaim Lotan, should be named as a co-inventor on three patents owned by AngioScore. Dr. Lotan allegedly assigned any rights he may have had in the three patents to TriReme. In March 2015, the District Court granted AngioScore’s motion to dismiss this case. TriReme appealed the District Court’s ruling, and in February 2016, an appellate court reversed the District Court’s ruling dismissing the case and remanded the case for further proceedings. In January 2017, AngioScore filed a motion for summary judgment, requesting the District Court to dismiss the case. On March 9, 2017, the District Court granted AngioScore’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. TriReme has filed an appeal of the District Court’s decision granting summary judgment. Konstantino Indemnification and Advancement of Fees In May 2014, Konstantino sued AngioScore in the Delaware Court of Chancery seeking a ruling that AngioScore must indemnify and advance Konstantino’s attorneys’ fees and costs related to the defense of the breach of fiduciary duty claims and his pursuit in Delaware court for advancement of fees. In June 2014, AngioScore filed counter-claims against Konstantino for violating the AngioScore indemnification agreement and filed a third-party complaint against TriReme, Quattro, and QT Vascular seeking contribution from the defendant companies for amounts advanced to Konstantino. The court held in August 2014 that AngioScore was required to advance Konstantino’s attorneys’ fees and costs. AngioScore filed a motion for summary judgment, and in November 2015, the court granted in part AngioScore’s motion and ordered that TriReme is liable for 50% of advanced fees and costs, and must pay all fees and costs to be advanced to Konstantino moving forward until such fees and costs equal the fees and costs paid by AngioScore, and thereafter, the fees and costs must be advanced 50% by TriReme and 50% by AngioScore. The Company cannot at this time determine the likelihood of any outcome and, as of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, had no amounts accrued for potential damages. During the six months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016, the Company incurred $0.3 million and $0.7 million, respectively, of legal fees associated with these matters. These expenses are included within the “Acquisition transaction, integration and legal costs” line of the condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss. Shareholder Litigation In August 2015, a person purporting to represent a class of persons who purchased securities of the Company between February 19, 2015 and July 23, 2015 filed a lawsuit against the Company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that certain of the Company’s public statements concerning its projected revenue for 2015 were false and misleading. In March 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, including additional allegations challenging certain statements in addition to those concerning the Company’s projected revenue for 2015. The class period in the amended complaint runs from February 27, 2014 to July 23, 2015. The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and is defending itself vigorously. In June 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Although the Company believes it is reasonably possible for a loss to occur, the Company cannot estimate an amount of loss or a range of loss, if any, or whether the impact will be material and, as of June 30, 2017, had no amounts accrued for potential damages in this case. Two putative stockholder class action lawsuits have been filed in connection with the proposed Philips Transaction (see Note 1). These actions, Aviles v. Spectranetics Corp., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-01767, and Parshall v. Spectranetics Corp., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-01776, were filed on July 21, 2017 in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint in the Aviles action alleges that the Company and its directors violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose material information in the Schedule 14D-9 Recommendation Statement filed by the Company in connection with the Philips Transaction (the “Schedule 14D-9”). This complaint seeks, among other things, (i) injunctive relief preventing the consummation of the Offer and the Merger; (ii) rescissory damages or rescission in the event the Offer and the Merger are consummated; (iii) damages; and (iv) an award of plaintiffs’ expenses and attorneys’ fees. The complaint in the Parshall action alleges that Spectranetics, its directors, and other defendants including Philips violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose material information in the Schedule 14D-9. This complaint seeks, among other things, (i) injunctive relief preventing the consummation of the Offer and the Merger; (ii) rescissory damages or rescission in the event the Offer and the Merger are consummated; and (iii) an award of plaintiffs’ expenses and attorneys’ fees. On July 24, 2017, the plaintiff in the Aviles action filed a motion for expedited proceedings and a preliminary injunction. On July 26, 2017, the plaintiff in the Aviles action withdrew his motion for expedited proceedings and a preliminary injunction. At this stage, it is not possible to predict the outcome of the proceedings or their impact on the Company or the Philips Transaction. 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. FDA Warning Letter In May 2016, the Company received a warning letter from the FDA related to observed non-conformities with current Good Manufacturing Practice (“GMP”), as defined by the FDA, at its Colorado Springs, Colorado facility. In January 2016, following an inspection of certain of the Company’s manufacturing facilities from late 2015 to early 2016, the FDA issued the Company a Form 483 notice, identifying certain observed non-conformities with current GMP. Following the receipt of the Form 483, the Company provided written responses to the FDA detailing corrective actions underway to address the FDA’s observations. The FDA warning letter acknowledges the actions already taken by the Company to address the observations. The Company plans to continue to respond timely and fully to the FDA’s requests and the Company is working diligently to fully remediate the FDA’s observations regarding the Colorado Springs facility. Spending in connection with the matter for the six months ended June 30, 2017, was approximately $8.3 million. The Company expects to incur expenses ranging from approximately $10 million to approximately $15 million in 2017 in connection with remediation of the warning letter and upgrading the overall quality system. The Company is continuing to manufacture and ship disposable products from the Colorado Springs facility and currently does not anticipate that customer orders will be impacted while the Company works to resolve the FDA’s concerns. Until the violations are corrected, the Company may be subject to additional regulatory action by the FDA and foreign regulatory agencies, including recalls, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals or clearances, and fines or civil penalties.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

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 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. Otherwise, the Company expenses these costs as incurred. Under U.S. GAAP, an event is “reasonably possible” if “the chance of the future event or events occurring is more than remote but less than likely” and an event is “remote” if “the chance of the future event or events occurring is slight”. If the estimate of a probable loss is a range and no amount within the range is more likely than any other amount, then the Company accrues the minimum amount of the range. Unless included in the Company’s legal accrual or otherwise indicated below, a range of loss associated with any individual material legal proceeding cannot 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 business, results of operations, financial position, or liquidity.

TriReme Patent Infringement and Breach of Fiduciary Duty

In July 2012, AngioScore sued TriReme Medical, Inc. (“TriReme”), Eitan Konstantino (“Konstantino”), Quattro Vascular Pte, Ltd. (“Quattro”), and QT Vascular Ltd. (“QT Vascular”), in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “District Court”), alleging patent infringement. In June 2014, AngioScore amended its complaint to allege state law claims (i) that Konstantino, a former founder, officer, and director of AngioScore, breached his fiduciary duties to AngioScore by developing the Chocolate balloon catheter while serving as a director of AngioScore, and (ii) against the other defendants for aiding and abetting that breach. In July 2015, the District Court ruled in favor of AngioScore, finding that Konstantino breached his fiduciary duties to AngioScore, that TriReme and Quattro aided and abetted that breach, and that QT Vascular was liable for the acts of TriReme and Quattro. The District Court awarded AngioScore $20.034 million against all defendants plus disgorgement from Konstantino of all benefits he accrued from his breach of fiduciary duties. In September 2015, a jury found against AngioScore in the patent infringement case.

Following an appeal by the defendants, in July 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Federal Circuit”) reversed the breach of fiduciary duty and state law rulings on procedural grounds, finding that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the state law claims, and affirmed the District Court’s ruling that the defendants were not entitled to attorneys’ fees in the patent infringement case. In August 2016, AngioScore filed a petition for rehearing of the order reversing the District Court’s breach of fiduciary duty rulings, which the Federal Circuit denied. The Federal Circuit remanded the matter to the District Court for dismissal of the state law claims, which the District Court did in February 2017. On March 3, 2017, AngioScore filed a complaint in California Superior Court, County of Alameda alleging state law claims (i) that Konstantino, a former founder, officer, and director of AngioScore, breached his fiduciary duties to AngioScore by developing the Chocolate balloon catheter while serving as a director of AngioScore, and (ii) that TriReme, Quattro, and QT Vascular aided and abetted in that breach.

TriReme Inventorship

In June 2014, TriReme sued AngioScore in the District Court seeking to change the inventorship of certain patents owned by AngioScore. TriReme alleged that an Israeli physician, Chaim Lotan, should be named as a co-inventor on three patents owned by AngioScore. Dr. Lotan allegedly assigned any rights he may have had in the three patents to TriReme. In March 2015, the District Court granted AngioScore’s motion to dismiss this case. TriReme appealed the District Court’s ruling, and in February 2016, an appellate court reversed the District Court’s ruling dismissing the case and remanded the case for further proceedings. In January 2017, AngioScore filed a motion for summary judgment, requesting the District Court to dismiss the case. On March 9, 2017, the District Court granted AngioScore’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. TriReme has filed an appeal of the District Court’s decision granting summary judgment.

Konstantino Indemnification and Advancement of Fees

In May 2014, Konstantino sued AngioScore in the Delaware Court of Chancery seeking a ruling that AngioScore must indemnify and advance Konstantino’s attorneys’ fees and costs related to the defense of the breach of fiduciary duty claims and his pursuit in Delaware court for advancement of fees. In June 2014, AngioScore filed counter-claims against Konstantino for violating the AngioScore indemnification agreement and filed a third-party complaint against TriReme, Quattro, and QT Vascular seeking contribution from the defendant companies for amounts advanced to Konstantino. The court held in August 2014 that AngioScore was required to advance Konstantino’s attorneys’ fees and costs. AngioScore filed a motion for summary judgment, and in November 2015, the court granted in part AngioScore’s motion and ordered that TriReme is liable for 50% of advanced fees and costs, and must pay all fees and costs to be advanced to Konstantino moving forward until such fees and costs equal the fees and costs paid by AngioScore, and thereafter, the fees and costs must be advanced 50% by TriReme and 50% by AngioScore.

The Company cannot at this time determine the likelihood of any outcome and, as of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, had no amounts accrued for potential damages. During the six months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016, the Company incurred $0.3 million and $0.7 million, respectively, of legal fees associated with these matters. These expenses are included within the “Acquisition transaction, integration and legal costs” line of the condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss.

Shareholder Litigation

In August 2015, a person purporting to represent a class of persons who purchased securities of the Company between February 19, 2015 and July 23, 2015 filed a lawsuit against the Company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that certain of the Company’s public statements concerning its projected revenue for 2015 were false and misleading. In March 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, including additional allegations challenging certain statements in addition to those concerning the Company’s projected revenue for 2015. The class period in the amended complaint runs from February 27, 2014 to July 23, 2015. The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and is defending itself vigorously. In June 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Although the Company believes it is reasonably possible for a loss to occur, the Company cannot estimate an amount of loss or a range of loss, if any, or whether the impact will be material and, as of June 30, 2017, had no amounts accrued for potential damages in this case.

Two putative stockholder class action lawsuits have been filed in connection with the proposed Philips Transaction (see Note 1). These actions, Aviles v. Spectranetics Corp., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-01767, and Parshall v. Spectranetics Corp., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-01776, were filed on July 21, 2017 in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint in the Aviles action alleges that the Company and its directors violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose material information in the Schedule 14D-9 Recommendation Statement filed by the Company in connection with the Philips Transaction (the “Schedule 14D-9”). This complaint seeks, among other things, (i) injunctive relief preventing the consummation of the Offer and the Merger; (ii) rescissory damages or rescission in the event the Offer and the Merger are consummated; (iii) damages; and (iv) an award of plaintiffs’ expenses and attorneys’ fees. The complaint in the Parshall action alleges that Spectranetics, its directors, and other defendants including Philips violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose material information in the Schedule 14D-9. This complaint seeks, among other things, (i) injunctive relief preventing the consummation of the Offer and the Merger; (ii) rescissory damages or rescission in the event the Offer and the Merger are consummated; and (iii) an award of plaintiffs’ expenses and attorneys’ fees. On July 24, 2017, the plaintiff in the Aviles action filed a motion for expedited proceedings and a preliminary injunction. On July 26, 2017, the plaintiff in the Aviles action withdrew his motion for expedited proceedings and a preliminary injunction. At this stage, it is not possible to predict the outcome of the proceedings or their impact on the Company or the Philips Transaction.

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.

FDA Warning Letter

In May 2016, the Company received a warning letter from the FDA related to observed non-conformities with current Good Manufacturing Practice (“GMP”), as defined by the FDA, at its Colorado Springs, Colorado facility. In January 2016, following an inspection of certain of the Company’s manufacturing facilities from late 2015 to early 2016, the FDA issued the Company a Form 483 notice, identifying certain observed non-conformities with current GMP. Following the receipt of the Form 483, the Company provided written responses to the FDA detailing corrective actions underway to address the FDA’s observations. The FDA warning letter acknowledges the actions already taken by the Company to address the observations. The Company plans to continue to respond timely and fully to the FDA’s requests and the Company is working diligently to fully remediate the FDA’s observations regarding the Colorado Springs facility. Spending in connection with the matter for the six months ended June 30, 2017, was approximately $8.3 million. The Company expects to incur expenses ranging from approximately $10 million to approximately $15 million in 2017 in connection with remediation of the warning letter and upgrading the overall quality system. The Company is continuing to manufacture and ship disposable products from the Colorado Springs facility and currently does not anticipate that customer orders will be impacted while the Company works to resolve the FDA’s concerns. Until the violations are corrected, the Company may be subject to additional regulatory action by the FDA and foreign regulatory agencies, including recalls, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals or clearances, and fines or civil penalties.