Commitments And Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2013
Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	Note 22 Commitments and Contingencies The Company leases office space and certain furniture and fixtures under various non-cancelable operating leases. Rent expense under operating leases was $6,891, $4,968 and $2,738 for 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. As of December 31, 2013, the Company has supply commitments for printer assemblies for the first quarter of 2014 that total $41,091 compared to $10,894 at December 31, 2012. For certain of the recent acquisitions, the Company is obligated to pay deferred purchase price totaling $4,500, due in 2014, based upon the exchange rates at the dates of acquisitions. In addition, certain of the agreements contain earnout provisions under which the sellers of the acquired businesses can earn additional amounts. The total liabilities recorded for these earnouts as of December 31, 2013 was $5,578 compared to $2,647 at December 31, 2012. See Note 3 for details of acquisitions and related commitments. Indemnification In the normal course of business the Company periodically enters into agreements to indemnify customers or suppliers against claims of intellectual property infringement made by third parties arising from the use of the Company’s products. Historically, costs related to these indemnification provisions have not been significant and the Company is unable to estimate the maximum potential impact of these indemnification provisions on our future results of operations. To the extent permitted under Delaware law, the Company indemnifies directors and officers for certain events or occurrences while the director or officer is, or was serving, at the Company’s request in such capacity, subject to limited exceptions. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification obligations is unlimited; however, the Company has directors and officers insurance coverage that may enable the Company to recover future amounts paid, subject to a deductible and the policy limits. There is no assurance that the policy limits will be sufficient to cover all damages, if any. Litigation In 2008, DSM Desotech Inc. filed a complaint, which it has subsequently amended, in an action titled DSM Desotech Inc. v. 3D Systems Corporation and 3D Systems, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division) asserting that the Company engaged in anticompetitive behavior with respect to resins used in certain of its stereolithography machines. The complaint further asserted that the Company infringed upon two of DSM Desotech’s patents relating to stereolithography machines. On January 31, 2013, the Court granted the Company summary judgment for all seven of the counts alleging anticompetitive behavior. On February 28, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal of the remaining counts, and the Court dismissed those counts in connection with the settlement of these portions of the litigation. On March 29, 2013, DSM Desotech filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding the Court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of the Company on all seven counts of alleged anticompetitive behavior. DSM Desotech filed its opening appellate brief on May 28, 2013. The Company filed its response appellate brief on July 11, 2013, and DSM Desotech filed its reply appellate brief on August 12, 2013. The parties participated in an oral hearing on January 6, 2014. The Company intends to continue to vigorously contest all the claims asserted by DSM Desotech. On November 20, 2012, the Company filed a complaint in an action titled 3D Systems, Inc. v. Formlabs, Inc. and Kickstarter, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina (Rock Hill Division) asserting that Formlabs’ and Kickstarter’s sales of the Form 1 3D printer infringed one of the Company’s patents relating to stereolithography machines. Formlabs and Kickstarter filed a motion to dismiss or transfer venue on February 25, 2013, and the Company filed a first amended complaint on March 8, 2013. On May 8, 2013, the Court granted the parties’ joint motion to stay the case until September 3, 2013 to enable the parties to continue settlement discussions. On November 8, 2013, the Company voluntarily dismissed the South Carolina complaint and filed a new complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting that Formlabs’ sales of the Form 1 3D printer infringed eight of the Company’s patents relating to stereolithography machines. On December 20, 2013, Formlabs filed a motion to dismiss Company’s claims of indirect and willful infringement, and Company filed a memorandum in opposition on January 6, 2014. Formlabs filed a reply on January 16, 2014.The Company intends to pursue claims for damages against Formlabs. The Company is also involved in various other legal matters incidental to its business. The Company believes, after consulting with counsel, that the disposition of these other legal matters will not have a material effect on our consolidated results of operations or consolidated financial position.

Note 22 Commitments and Contingencies

The Company leases office space and certain furniture and fixtures under various non-cancelable operating leases. Rent expense under operating leases was $6,891, $4,968 and $2,738 for 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

As of December 31, 2013, the Company has supply commitments for printer assemblies for the first quarter of 2014 that total $41,091 compared to $10,894 at December 31, 2012.

For certain of the recent acquisitions, the Company is obligated to pay deferred purchase price totaling $4,500, due in 2014, based upon the exchange rates at the dates of acquisitions. In addition, certain of the agreements contain earnout provisions under which the sellers of the acquired businesses can earn additional amounts. The total liabilities recorded for these earnouts as of December 31, 2013 was $5,578 compared to $2,647 at December 31, 2012. See Note 3 for details of acquisitions and related commitments.

Indemnification

In the normal course of business the Company periodically enters into agreements to indemnify customers or suppliers against claims of intellectual property infringement made by third parties arising from the use of the Company’s products. Historically, costs related to these indemnification provisions have not been significant and the Company is unable to estimate the maximum potential impact of these indemnification provisions on our future results of operations.

To the extent permitted under Delaware law, the Company indemnifies directors and officers for certain events or occurrences while the director or officer is, or was serving, at the Company’s request in such capacity, subject to limited exceptions. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification obligations is unlimited; however, the Company has directors and officers insurance coverage that may enable the Company to recover future amounts paid, subject to a deductible and the policy limits. There is no assurance that the policy limits will be sufficient to cover all damages, if any.

Litigation

In 2008, DSM Desotech Inc. filed a complaint, which it has subsequently amended, in an action titled DSM Desotech Inc. v. 3D Systems Corporation and 3D Systems, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division) asserting that the Company engaged in anticompetitive behavior with respect to resins used in certain of its stereolithography machines. The complaint further asserted that the Company infringed upon two of DSM Desotech’s patents relating to stereolithography machines.

On January 31, 2013, the Court granted the Company summary judgment for all seven of the counts alleging anticompetitive behavior. On February 28, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal of the remaining counts, and the Court dismissed those counts in connection with the settlement of these portions of the litigation. On March 29, 2013, DSM Desotech filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding the Court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of the Company on all seven counts of alleged anticompetitive behavior. DSM Desotech filed its opening appellate brief on May 28, 2013. The Company filed its response appellate brief on July 11, 2013, and DSM Desotech filed its reply appellate brief on August 12, 2013. The parties participated in an oral hearing on January 6, 2014. The Company intends to continue to vigorously contest all the claims asserted by DSM Desotech.

On November 20, 2012, the Company filed a complaint in an action titled 3D Systems, Inc. v. Formlabs, Inc. and Kickstarter, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina (Rock Hill Division) asserting that Formlabs’ and Kickstarter’s sales of the Form 1 3D printer infringed one of the Company’s patents relating to stereolithography machines. Formlabs and Kickstarter filed a motion to dismiss or transfer venue on February 25, 2013, and the Company filed a first amended complaint on March 8, 2013. On May 8, 2013, the Court granted the parties’ joint motion to stay the case until September 3, 2013 to enable the parties to continue settlement discussions. On November 8, 2013, the Company voluntarily dismissed the South Carolina complaint and filed a new complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting that Formlabs’ sales of the Form 1 3D printer infringed eight of the Company’s patents relating to stereolithography machines. On December 20, 2013, Formlabs filed a motion to dismiss Company’s claims of indirect and willful infringement, and Company filed a memorandum in opposition on January 6, 2014. Formlabs filed a reply on January 16, 2014.The Company intends to pursue claims for damages against Formlabs.

The Company is also involved in various other legal matters incidental to its business. The Company believes, after consulting with counsel, that the disposition of these other legal matters will not have a material effect on our consolidated results of operations or consolidated financial position.