Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 29, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies In May 2008, the Company filed a complaint against MvTec Software GmbH, MvTec LLC, and Fuji America Corporation in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging infringement of certain patents owned by the Company. In May 2014, the parties mutually agreed to dismiss this action with prejudice. This matter is now closed. In May 2009, the Company pre-filed a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. §1337, against MvTec Software GmbH, MvTec LLC, Fuji America, and several other respondents alleging unfair methods of competition and unfair acts in the unlawful importation into the United States, sale for importation, or sale within the United States after importation. By this filing, the Company requested the ITC to investigate the Company’s contention that certain machine vision software, machine vision systems, and products containing the same infringe, and respondents directly infringe and/or actively induce and/or contribute to the infringement in the United States, of one or more of the Company’s U.S. patents. In September 2009, the Company reached a settlement with two of the respondents, and in December 2009, the Company reached a settlement with five additional respondents. In March 2010, the Company reached a settlement with respondent Fuji Machine Manufacturing Co., Ltd. and its subsidiary Fuji America Corporation. These settlements did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial results. An ITC hearing was held in May 2010. In July 2010, the Administrative Law Judge issued an initial determination finding two of the Company’s patents invalid and that respondents did not infringe the patents-at-issue. In September 2010, the ITC issued a notice that it would review the initial determination of the Administrative Law Judge. The ITC issued its Final Determination in November 2010 in which it determined to modify-in-part and affirm-in-part the Administrative Law Judge’s determination, and terminate the investigation with a finding of no violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (as amended 19 U.S.C. §1337). The Company filed an appeal of the decision with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. An oral hearing before the United States Court of Appeals occurred in February 2012. In December 2013, the Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s finding of non-infringement, and therefore did not also need to address the ITC’s finding regarding validity. This matter is now closed. In March 2013, the Company filed a lawsuit against Microscan Systems, Inc. (“Microscan”) and Code Corporation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that Microscan’s Mobile Hawk handheld imager infringes U.S. Patent 7,874,487 owned by the Company (the “'487 patent”). The lawsuit sought to prohibit Code Corporation from manufacturing the product, and Microscan from selling and distributing the product. The Company also sought monetary damages resulting from the alleged infringement. Late in the day on April 30, 2014, the jury found that Microscan willfully infringed the ‘487 patent and awarded Cognex $2.6M in damages. Following the verdict, Microscan filed motions requesting judgment as a matter of law on the issues of infringement, invalidity and willfulness, as well as a motion to dismiss for lack of standing. The Company filed motions seeking treble damages (based on the finding of willfulness), attorneys’ fees as an exceptional case, and a permanent injunction against future infringement of the ‘487 patent and the import, manufacture and/or sale of Microscan’s Mobile Hawk product within the U.S. Final briefs were filed on June 11, 2014. On June 29, 2014, the court issued an order denying all of Microscan’s motions and the Company’s motion for treble damages, while granting the Company’s motion for permanent injunction (limited to enjoining future infringement of the ‘487 patent and the import, manufacture and/or sale of infringing versions Microscan’s Mobile Hawk product within the U.S.) and the Company’s motion for attorneys’ fees, in part, pending a determination thereof following submission of supplemental briefs by both parties, which were due on July 25, 2014. The parties are currently awaiting a final judgment from the court. The Company cannot predict the outcome of the above-referenced pending matter and an adverse resolution of this lawsuit could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, liquidity, results of operations, and/or indemnification obligations. In addition, various other claims and legal proceedings generally incidental to the normal course of business are pending or threatened on behalf of or against the Company. While we cannot predict the outcome of these incidental matters, we believe that any liability arising from them will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position, liquidity, or results of operations.

Contingencies

In May 2008, the Company filed a complaint against MvTec Software GmbH, MvTec LLC, and Fuji America Corporation in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging infringement of certain patents owned by the Company. In May 2014, the parties mutually agreed to dismiss this action with prejudice. This matter is now closed.

In May 2009, the Company pre-filed a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. §1337, against MvTec Software GmbH, MvTec LLC, Fuji America, and several other respondents alleging unfair methods of competition and unfair acts in the unlawful importation into the United States, sale for importation, or sale within the United States after importation. By this filing, the Company requested the ITC to investigate the Company’s contention that certain machine vision software, machine vision systems, and products containing the same infringe, and respondents directly infringe and/or actively induce and/or contribute to the infringement in the United States, of one or more of the Company’s U.S. patents. In September 2009, the Company reached a settlement with two of the respondents, and in December 2009, the Company reached a settlement with five additional respondents. In March 2010, the Company reached a settlement with respondent Fuji Machine Manufacturing Co., Ltd. and its subsidiary Fuji America Corporation. These settlements did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial results. An ITC hearing was held in May 2010. In July 2010, the Administrative Law Judge issued an initial determination finding two of the Company’s patents invalid and that respondents did not infringe the patents-at-issue. In September 2010, the ITC issued a notice that it would review the initial determination of the Administrative Law Judge. The ITC issued its Final Determination in November 2010 in which it determined to modify-in-part and affirm-in-part the Administrative Law Judge’s determination, and terminate the investigation with a finding of no violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (as amended 19 U.S.C. §1337). The Company filed an appeal of the decision with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. An oral hearing before the United States Court of Appeals occurred in February 2012. In December 2013, the Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s finding of non-infringement, and therefore did not also need to address the ITC’s finding regarding validity. This matter is now closed.

In March 2013, the Company filed a lawsuit against Microscan Systems, Inc. (“Microscan”) and Code Corporation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that Microscan’s Mobile Hawk handheld imager infringes U.S. Patent 7,874,487 owned by the Company (the “'487 patent”). The lawsuit sought to prohibit Code Corporation from manufacturing the product, and Microscan from selling and distributing the product. The Company also sought monetary damages resulting from the alleged infringement. Late in the day on April 30, 2014, the jury found that Microscan willfully infringed the ‘487 patent and awarded Cognex $2.6M in damages. Following the verdict, Microscan filed motions requesting judgment as a matter of law on the issues of infringement, invalidity and willfulness, as well as a motion to dismiss for lack of standing. The Company filed motions seeking treble damages (based on the finding of willfulness), attorneys’ fees as an exceptional case, and a permanent injunction against future infringement of the ‘487 patent and the import, manufacture and/or sale of Microscan’s Mobile Hawk product within the U.S. Final briefs were filed on June 11, 2014. On June 29, 2014, the court issued an order denying all of Microscan’s motions and the Company’s motion for treble damages, while granting the Company’s motion for permanent injunction (limited to enjoining future infringement of the ‘487 patent and the import, manufacture and/or sale of infringing versions Microscan’s Mobile Hawk product within the U.S.) and the Company’s motion for attorneys’ fees, in part, pending a determination thereof following submission of supplemental briefs by both parties, which were due on July 25, 2014. The parties are currently awaiting a final judgment from the court.

The Company cannot predict the outcome of the above-referenced pending matter and an adverse resolution of this lawsuit could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, liquidity, results of operations, and/or indemnification obligations. In addition, various other claims and legal proceedings generally incidental to the normal course of business are pending or threatened on behalf of or against the Company. While we cannot predict the outcome of these incidental matters, we believe that any liability arising from them will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position, liquidity, or results of operations.