Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jul. 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 ("Code") 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 from manufacturing the product, and Microscan from selling and distributing the product. The Company also sought monetary damages resulting from the alleged infringement. On April 30, 2014, the jury found that Microscan willfully infringed the ‘487 patent and awarded Cognex $2,578,000 in damages. 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. 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® 7500, 8500, 8600, and 9500 products. Microscan also sought monetary damages resulting from the alleged infringement. 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. On June 25, 2015, the Company executed a settlement agreement with Microscan in the amount of $3,500,000 settling all outstanding litigation between the parties. The settlement included a patent license agreement valued at $1,667,000 that allows the Company to continue producing current models of its handheld barcode readers, which was recorded as an asset as of July 5, 2015 and will be amortized to cost of revenue over the five year life of the patent. The remaining $1,833,000 of the settlement was recorded as expense in the second quarter of 2015. All cases were dismissed by the end of July 2015. On July 1, 2015, the Company also executed an immaterial settlement agreement with Code. 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, including some pertaining to the Company’s recently divested surface inspection business, which arose prior to the transaction closing date and for which the Company retains liability pursuant to the agreement governing such divesture. While we cannot predict the outcome of these 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 ("Code") 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 from manufacturing the product, and Microscan from selling and distributing the product. The Company also sought monetary damages resulting from the alleged infringement. On April 30, 2014, the jury found that Microscan willfully infringed the ‘487 patent and awarded Cognex $2,578,000 in damages. 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. 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® 7500, 8500, 8600, and 9500 products. Microscan also sought monetary damages resulting from the alleged infringement. 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.

On June 25, 2015, the Company executed a settlement agreement with Microscan in the amount of $3,500,000 settling all outstanding litigation between the parties. The settlement included a patent license agreement valued at $1,667,000 that allows the Company to continue producing current models of its handheld barcode readers, which was recorded as an asset as of July 5, 2015 and will be amortized to cost of revenue over the five year life of the patent. The remaining $1,833,000 of the settlement was recorded as expense in the second quarter of 2015. All cases were dismissed by the end of July 2015. On July 1, 2015, the Company also executed an immaterial settlement agreement with Code.

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, including some pertaining to the Company’s recently divested surface inspection business, which arose prior to the transaction closing date and for which the Company retains liability pursuant to the agreement governing such divesture. While we cannot predict the outcome of these 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.