Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Apr. 05, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies 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 $2,600,000 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. In June 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 of 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. In July 2014, Microscan filed a Notice of Appeal with the Federal Circuit appealing all orders, findings, and/or conclusions of the District Court that were adverse to Microscan. In August 2014, the Company filed a Notice of Appeal with the Federal Circuit appealing the order granting summary judgment that claims 23, 28, and 29 of the ’487 patent are invalid. Also in August 2014, the Federal Circuit consolidated Microscan’s appeal and the Company’s appeal. In November 2014, the Company filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the Company's appeal, and in December 2014, the Court of Appeals granted the Company's motion to dismiss the Company's appeal. In January 2015, Microscan submitted their appeal brief asserting that the damage award should be vacated, the infringement judgment should be reversed, and that the remaining '487 claims are invalid. The Company filed its response to Microscan’s appeal brief, contesting all assertions therein, on March 16, 2015. In August 2014, Microscan filed a lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that the Company’s DataMan® 8500 handheld imager infringes U.S. Patent 6,352,204 (the “'204 patent”). The lawsuit sought to prohibit the Company from manufacturing, selling, and distributing the DataMan® 8500 product. Microscan also sought monetary damages resulting from the alleged infringement. In September 2014, the Company filed an Answer to the Complaint denying all allegations and asserting in a counterclaim that the ’204 patent is invalid. In October 2014, the Company filed an Amended Answer further explaining its counterclaim of invalidity. Also in October 2014, Microscan filed an Amended Complaint alleging that the Company’s DataMan® 7500 and DataMan® 8600 also infringe the ’204 patent. The Company subsequently responded in October 2014 with its Answer to the Amended Complaint. In December 2014, a Markman hearing regarding the legal construction of the relevant patent claim terms was held. In January 2015, the Court issued an order construing such patent claim terms. In early February 2015, the Company submitted summary judgment motions. On April 6, 2015 the Court issued its rulings on the summary judgment motions. The Court partially granted the Company’s summary judgment motion of non-infringement, dismissing Microscan’s contention that the accused products literally infringe, but denying summary judgment to the Company with respect to Microscan’s claim of infringement under other doctrines. The Court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment dismissing Microscan’s contention that any infringement was willful. The Court denied the Company’s motion for summary judgment with respect to the invalidity of one claim and denied the Company’s motion on the claim of laches. The Court granted Microscan’s motion for summary judgment holding that the Company infringed a single claim. The trial took place from April 21, 2015 to April 29, 2015 in the Southern District of New York. On April 30, 2015, the jury reached a verdict awarding Microscan royalties of $4,411,000 related to sales of the Company’s products during the applicable period. Cognex intends to file an appeal, subject to the Court’s final assessment and decisions regarding the jury’s verdict. 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 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 $2,600,000 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. In June 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 of 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. In July 2014, Microscan filed a Notice of Appeal with the Federal Circuit appealing all orders, findings, and/or conclusions of the District Court that were adverse to Microscan. In August 2014, the Company filed a Notice of Appeal with the Federal Circuit appealing the order granting summary judgment that claims 23, 28, and 29 of the ’487 patent are invalid. Also in August 2014, the Federal Circuit consolidated Microscan’s appeal and the Company’s appeal. In November 2014, the Company filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the Company's appeal, and in December 2014, the Court of Appeals granted the Company's motion to dismiss the Company's appeal. In January 2015, Microscan submitted their appeal brief asserting that the damage award should be vacated, the infringement judgment should be reversed, and that the remaining '487 claims are invalid. The Company filed its response to Microscan’s appeal brief, contesting all assertions therein, on March 16, 2015.

In August 2014, Microscan filed a lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern

District of New York alleging that the Company’s DataMan® 8500 handheld imager infringes U.S. Patent 6,352,204

(the “'204 patent”). The lawsuit sought to prohibit the Company from manufacturing, selling, and distributing the DataMan® 8500 product. Microscan also sought monetary damages resulting from the alleged infringement. In September 2014, the Company filed an Answer to the Complaint denying all allegations and asserting in a counterclaim that the ’204 patent is invalid. In October 2014, the Company filed an Amended Answer further explaining its counterclaim of invalidity. Also in October 2014, Microscan filed an Amended Complaint alleging that the Company’s DataMan® 7500 and DataMan® 8600 also infringe the ’204 patent. The Company subsequently responded in October 2014 with its Answer to the Amended Complaint. In December 2014, a Markman hearing regarding the legal construction of the relevant patent claim terms was held. In January 2015, the Court issued an order construing such patent claim terms. In early February 2015, the Company submitted summary judgment motions. On April 6, 2015 the Court issued its rulings on the summary judgment motions. The Court partially granted the Company’s summary judgment motion of non-infringement, dismissing Microscan’s contention that the accused products literally infringe, but denying summary judgment to the Company with respect to Microscan’s claim of infringement under other doctrines. The Court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment dismissing Microscan’s contention that any infringement was willful. The Court denied the Company’s motion for summary judgment with respect to the invalidity of one claim and denied the Company’s motion on the claim of laches. The Court granted Microscan’s motion for summary judgment holding that the Company infringed a single claim. The trial took place from April 21, 2015 to April 29, 2015 in the Southern District of New York. On April 30, 2015, the jury reached a verdict awarding Microscan royalties of $4,411,000 related to sales of the Company’s products during the applicable period. Cognex intends to file an appeal, subject to the Court’s final assessment and decisions regarding the jury’s verdict.

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.