Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2017
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	18. Commitments and Contingencies 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 below. 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 six months ended June 30, 2017 or the year ended December 31, 2016. 18. Commitments and Contingencies (Continued) 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 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.

18. Commitments and Contingencies

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 below. 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 six months ended June 30, 2017 or the year ended December 31, 2016.

18. Commitments and Contingencies (Continued)

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 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.