Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2017
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	17. 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. On December 30, 2016, the Company entered into an Amendment to restructure the terms of the Second Tranche of the Cash Consideration. Under the Amendment, the Second Tranche was restructured to reduce the contingent cash consideration by €5.0 million in exchange for the issuance of 3,722,685 shares of the Company’s common stock with an aggregate fair market value of €5.0 million. As of December 31, 2016, the fair value of the contingent consideration was $22.8 million. On March 31, 2017, after the issuance of 3,722,685 shares of the Company’s common stock, the fair value of the contingent consideration was $18.8 million. Legal Proceedings When determining the estimated probable loss or range of losses, significant judgment is required to be exercised in order to estimate the amount and timing of the loss to be recorded. Estimating an amount or range of possible losses resulting from litigation proceedings is inherently difficult and requires an extensive degree of judgment, particularly where the matters involve indeterminate claims for monetary damages, are in the early stages of the proceedings, and are subject to appeal. In addition, because most legal proceedings are resolved over extended periods of time, potential losses are subject to change due to, among other things, new developments, changes in legal strategy, the outcome of intermediate procedural and substantive rulings and other parties’ settlement posture and their evaluation of the strength or weakness of their case against the Company. For these reasons, the Company is currently unable to predict the ultimate timing or outcome of, or reasonably estimate the possible losses or a range of possible losses resulting from, the matters described above. Based on information currently available, the Company does not believe that any reasonably possible losses arising from currently pending legal matters will be material to the Company’s results of operations or financial condition. However, in light of the inherent uncertainties involved in such matters, an adverse outcome in one or more of these matters could materially and adversely affect the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows in any particular reporting period. No liability or related charge was recorded to earnings in the Company’s consolidated financial statements for legal contingencies for the three months ended March 31, 2017 or the year ended December 31, 2016. 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, which the plaintiffs later opposed. As of January 23, 2017, the motions to dismiss were fully briefed and deemed submitted to the court for decision. On June 9, 2016, a different stockholder filed another putative class action complaint, captioned 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 sought substantially similar relief as the Initial Complaint. On August 4, 2016, the plaintiff in the Ravey Action voluntarily dismissed the Ravey Action. 17. Commitments and Contingencies (Continued) On July 8, 2016, a stockholder filed a different putative derivative complaint, captioned Otto Pikal v. Todd M. Pope, et al., in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, Wake County, North Carolina (case number 16CV008930) (the “Pikal Action”), 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 Pikal Action pending resolution of the motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in the Bankley Action. On March 3, 2017, a different stockholder filed another putative class action complaint on behalf of the Company, captioned Scott Maine vs. Paul LaViolette, et al., in the Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, Wake County, North Carolina (case number 17CV002590) (the “Maine Action”). The complaint in the Maine Action is substantially similar to the complaint in the Pikal Action, asserting similar claims and seeking similar relief against largely the same group of defendants named in the complaint in the Pikal Action. On April 11, 2017, the court entered an order staying the Maine Action 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). 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”). Currently, Intuitive’s counsel advised TransEnterix International’s counsel of their intent to waive the Appeal (the “Waiver”). A hearing regarding the Dismissal Request took place on March 7, 2017 at which hearing the Waiver was formalized. On April 4, 2017, the Court of Appeal declared the litigation terminated. As a result, the Dismissal Request, as well as the Appeal, was struck off the agenda of the Court of Appeal making the Ruling (dated September 7, 2016) in favor of TransEnterix International final.

17. 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. On December 30, 2016, the Company entered into an Amendment to restructure the terms of the Second Tranche of the Cash Consideration. Under the Amendment, the Second Tranche was restructured to reduce the contingent cash consideration by €5.0 million in exchange for the issuance of 3,722,685 shares of the Company’s common stock with an aggregate fair market value of €5.0 million. As of December 31, 2016, the fair value of the contingent consideration was $22.8 million. On March 31, 2017, after the issuance of 3,722,685 shares of the Company’s common stock, the fair value of the contingent consideration was $18.8 million.

Legal Proceedings

When determining the estimated probable loss or range of losses, significant judgment is required to be exercised in order to estimate the amount and timing of the loss to be recorded. Estimating an amount or range of possible losses resulting from litigation proceedings is inherently difficult and requires an extensive degree of judgment, particularly where the matters involve indeterminate claims for monetary damages, are in the early stages of the proceedings, and are subject to appeal. In addition, because most legal proceedings are resolved over extended periods of time, potential losses are subject to change due to, among other things, new developments, changes in legal strategy, the outcome of intermediate procedural and substantive rulings and other parties’ settlement posture and their evaluation of the strength or weakness of their case against the Company. For these reasons, the Company is currently unable to predict the ultimate timing or outcome of, or reasonably estimate the possible losses or a range of possible losses resulting from, the matters described above. Based on information currently available, the Company does not believe that any reasonably possible losses arising from currently pending legal matters will be material to the Company’s results of operations or financial condition. However, in light of the inherent uncertainties involved in such matters, an adverse outcome in one or more of these matters could materially and adversely affect the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows in any particular reporting period.

No liability or related charge was recorded to earnings in the Company’s consolidated financial statements for legal contingencies for the three months ended March 31, 2017 or the year ended December 31, 2016.

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, which the plaintiffs later opposed. As of January 23, 2017, the motions to dismiss were fully briefed and deemed submitted to the court for decision.

On June 9, 2016, a different stockholder filed another putative class action complaint, captioned 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 sought substantially similar relief as the Initial Complaint. On August 4, 2016, the plaintiff in the Ravey Action voluntarily dismissed the Ravey Action.

17. Commitments and Contingencies (Continued)

On July 8, 2016, a stockholder filed a different putative derivative complaint, captioned Otto Pikal v. Todd M. Pope, et al., in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, Wake County, North Carolina (case number 16CV008930) (the “Pikal Action”), 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 Pikal Action pending resolution of the motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in the Bankley Action.

On March 3, 2017, a different stockholder filed another putative class action complaint on behalf of the Company, captioned Scott Maine vs. Paul LaViolette, et al., in the Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, Wake County, North Carolina (case number 17CV002590) (the “Maine Action”). The complaint in the Maine Action is substantially similar to the complaint in the Pikal Action, asserting similar claims and seeking similar relief against largely the same group of defendants named in the complaint in the Pikal Action. On April 11, 2017, the court entered an order staying the Maine Action 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). 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”). Currently, Intuitive’s counsel advised TransEnterix International’s counsel of their intent to waive the Appeal (the “Waiver”). A hearing regarding the Dismissal Request took place on March 7, 2017 at which hearing the Waiver was formalized. On April 4, 2017, the Court of Appeal declared the litigation terminated. As a result, the Dismissal Request, as well as the Appeal, was struck off the agenda of the Court of Appeal making the Ruling (dated September 7, 2016) in favor of TransEnterix International final.