Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2016
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	18. Commitments and Contingencies Contingent Consideration As discussed in Note 3, in September 2015, the Company completed the Senhance Acquisition using a combination of cash, stock and potential post-acquisition milestone payments. These milestone payments may be payable in the future, depending on the achievement of certain regulatory and commercial milestones. The maximum amount of the aggregate milestone payments could be €27.5 million. As of September 30, 2016, the fair value of the contingent consideration was $25.2 million. Legal Proceedings On June 2, 2016 a stockholder filed a putative class action complaint, Ashok V. Bankley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. TransEnterix, Inc., Todd M. Pope and Joseph P. Slattery, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina (Case No. 5:16-cv-00313-D) (the “Initial Complaint”), against the Company and two of its executive officers on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s common stock between February 10, 2016 and May 10, 2016. On August 4, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Initial Complaint for failure to state a claim under the securities laws. On August 30, 2016, the court appointed Randall Clark, Samir Patel, the Underhill Cemetery Association, and the North Underhill Cemetery Association as the lead plaintiffs in the Initial Complaint, and also provided the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend the Initial Complaint. On September 26, 2016, the lead plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. Among other things, the Amended Complaint asserts revised claims against the Company and Messrs. Pope and Slattery, and adds claims against certain current and former members of the Company’s Board of Directors, and Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., the sales agent under the 2016 Sales Agreement, under which the Company offered and sold, through Cantor, shares of common stock in its 2016 ATM Offering. The Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading public statements related to the Company's SurgiBot System and its 510(k) application in violation of certain federal securities laws. The Amended Complaint seeks class certification of a class consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s common stock between February 10, 2016 and May 10, 2016, class certification of a subclass of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s common stock in connection with the 2016 ATM Offering between February 9, 2016 and April 19, 2016, unspecified monetary damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees. On November 8, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. On June 9, 2016, a different stockholder filed another putative class action complaint, Thomas Ravey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. TransEnterix, Inc., Todd M. Pope and Joseph P. Slattery, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina (Case No. 1:16-cv-599) (the “Ravey Action”). The Ravey Action asserted substantially similar claims against the same defendants and seeks substantially similar relief as the Initial Complaint. On August 4, 2016, the plaintiff in the Ravey Action voluntarily dismissed the Ravey Action. 18. Commitments and Contingencies (Continued) On July 8, 2016, a stockholder filed a putative derivative complaint, Otto Pikal v. Todd M. Pope, et al., in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, Wake County, North Carolina (case number 16CV008930), on behalf of the Company against certain of our current officers and directors. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by disseminating false and misleading information to the Company’s shareholders relating to the Company’s SurgiBot System and its 510(k) application in violation of certain federal securities laws and by failing to ensure that the Company maintained adequate internal controls. The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and an order directing the Company to take steps to improve its corporate governance and to protect the Company and its stockholders from future wrongdoing such as that alleged in the complaint. On September 29, 2016, the court entered an order staying the litigation pending resolution of the motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in the Bankley Action. On April 25, 2016, Intuitive Surgical, Inc. and its French subsidiary, Intuitive Surgical SAS (collectively, “Intuitive”), brought a request for unilateral measures of enquiry in front of the President of the Commercial Court of Toulon (France) (the “President”) against two employees of TransEnterix International, Inc. alleging that the company, through these two employees, engaged in acts of unfair competition. On May 3, 2016, the President rendered an order granting Intuitive’s request for unilateral measures of enquiry with respect to its allegations (the “Order”). On June 28, 2016, TransEnterix International filed a writ challenging the Order and requesting that it be withdrawn by the President. On September 7, 2016, the President rendered his decision on TransEnterix International’s challenge (the “Ruling”) and ruled in favor of TransEnterix International. Under the Ruling, the Intuitive unilateral measures of enquiry were declared to be unjustified and the Order was withdrawn. The President also declared that the Ruling was provisionally enforceable. Intuitive has filed an appeal against the Ruling (the “Appeal”) with the Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence (France). No hearing date for the Appeal has yet been noticed. In addition, because Intuitive did not comply with the Ruling, TransEnterix International filed a dismissal request against the Appeal with the same Court of Appeal (the “Dismissal Request”). A hearing has been scheduled on January 3, 2017 with respect to the Dismissal Request.

18. Commitments and Contingencies

Contingent Consideration

As discussed in Note 3, in September 2015, the Company completed the Senhance Acquisition using a combination of cash, stock and potential post-acquisition milestone payments. These milestone payments may be payable in the future, depending on the achievement of certain regulatory and commercial milestones. The maximum amount of the aggregate milestone payments could be €27.5 million. As of September 30, 2016, the fair value of the contingent consideration was $25.2 million.

Legal Proceedings

On June 2, 2016 a stockholder filed a putative class action complaint, Ashok V. Bankley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. TransEnterix, Inc., Todd M. Pope and Joseph P. Slattery, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina (Case No. 5:16-cv-00313-D) (the “Initial Complaint”), against the Company and two of its executive officers on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s common stock between February 10, 2016 and May 10, 2016. On August 4, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Initial Complaint for failure to state a claim under the securities laws. On August 30, 2016, the court appointed Randall Clark, Samir Patel, the Underhill Cemetery Association, and the North Underhill Cemetery Association as the lead plaintiffs in the Initial Complaint, and also provided the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend the Initial Complaint. On September 26, 2016, the lead plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. Among other things, the Amended Complaint asserts revised claims against the Company and Messrs. Pope and Slattery, and adds claims against certain current and former members of the Company’s Board of Directors, and Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., the sales agent under the 2016 Sales Agreement, under which the Company offered and sold, through Cantor, shares of common stock in its 2016 ATM Offering. The Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading public statements related to the Company's SurgiBot System and its 510(k) application in violation of certain federal securities laws. The Amended Complaint seeks class certification of a class consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s common stock between February 10, 2016 and May 10, 2016, class certification of a subclass of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s common stock in connection with the 2016 ATM Offering between February 9, 2016 and April 19, 2016, unspecified monetary damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees. On November 8, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint.

On June 9, 2016, a different stockholder filed another putative class action complaint, Thomas Ravey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. TransEnterix, Inc., Todd M. Pope and Joseph P. Slattery, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina (Case No. 1:16-cv-599) (the “Ravey Action”). The Ravey Action asserted substantially similar claims against the same defendants and seeks substantially similar relief as the Initial Complaint. On August 4, 2016, the plaintiff in the Ravey Action voluntarily dismissed the Ravey Action.

18. Commitments and Contingencies (Continued)

On July 8, 2016, a stockholder filed a putative derivative complaint, Otto Pikal v. Todd M. Pope, et al., in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, Wake County, North Carolina (case number 16CV008930), on behalf of the Company against certain of our current officers and directors. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by disseminating false and misleading information to the Company’s shareholders relating to the Company’s SurgiBot System and its 510(k) application in violation of certain federal securities laws and by failing to ensure that the Company maintained adequate internal controls. The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and an order directing the Company to take steps to improve its corporate governance and to protect the Company and its stockholders from future wrongdoing such as that alleged in the complaint. On September 29, 2016, the court entered an order staying the litigation pending resolution of the motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in the Bankley Action.

On April 25, 2016, Intuitive Surgical, Inc. and its French subsidiary, Intuitive Surgical SAS (collectively, “Intuitive”), brought a request for unilateral measures of enquiry in front of the President of the Commercial Court of Toulon (France) (the “President”) against two employees of TransEnterix International, Inc. alleging that the company, through these two employees, engaged in acts of unfair competition. On May 3, 2016, the President rendered an order granting Intuitive’s request for unilateral measures of enquiry with respect to its allegations (the “Order”). On June 28, 2016, TransEnterix International filed a writ challenging the Order and requesting that it be withdrawn by the President. On September 7, 2016, the President rendered his decision on TransEnterix International’s challenge (the “Ruling”) and ruled in favor of TransEnterix International. Under the Ruling, the Intuitive unilateral measures of enquiry were declared to be unjustified and the Order was withdrawn. The President also declared that the Ruling was provisionally enforceable. Intuitive has filed an appeal against the Ruling (the “Appeal”) with the Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence (France). No hearing date for the Appeal has yet been noticed. In addition, because Intuitive did not comply with the Ruling, TransEnterix International filed a dismissal request against the Appeal with the same Court of Appeal (the “Dismissal Request”). A hearing has been scheduled on January 3, 2017 with respect to the Dismissal Request.