Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Oct. 18, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Litigation On December 5, 2013, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts unsealed a qui tam action filed by former employee Andrew Hagerty against us under the Federal False Claims Act (“FCA”) and the false claims statutes of 28 different states and the District of Columbia (United States of America et al ex rel. Andrew Hagerty v. Cyberonics, Inc. Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-10214-FDS). The FCA prohibits the submission of a false claim or the making of a false record or statement to secure reimbursement from, or limit reimbursement to, a government-sponsored program. A “qui tam” action is a lawsuit brought by a private individual, known as a relator, purporting to act on behalf of the government. The action is filed under seal, and the government, after reviewing and investigating the allegations, may elect to participate, or intervene, in the lawsuit. Typically, following the government’s election, the qui tam action is unsealed. Previously, in August 2012, Mr. Hagerty filed a related lawsuit in the same court and then voluntarily dismissed that lawsuit immediately prior to filing this qui tam action. In addition to his claims for wrongful and retaliatory discharge stated in the first lawsuit, the qui tam lawsuit alleges that we violated the FCA and various state false claims statutes while marketing our VNS Therapy System and seeks an unspecified amount consisting of treble damages, civil penalties, and attorneys’ fees and expenses. In October 2013, the United States Department of Justice declined to intervene in the qui tam action, but reserved the right to do so in the future. In December 2013, the district court unsealed the action. In April 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the qui tam complaint, alleging a number of deficiencies in the lawsuit. In May 2014, the relator filed a First Amended Complaint. We filed another motion to dismiss in June 2014, and the parties completed their briefing on the motion in July 2014. On April 6, 2015, the district court dismissed all claims filed by Andrew Hagerty under the FCA, but did not dismiss the claims for wrongful and retaliatory discharge. On July 28, 2015, we filed our answer to the surviving claims in Mr. Hagerty’s first Amended Complaint and asserted our demand for arbitration pursuant to Mr. Hagerty’s employment documents. In August 2015, Mr. Hagerty filed a Motion Seeking Leave to file a Second Amended Complaint responding to certain deficiencies noted by the court when dismissing claims in his First Amended Complaint alleging that we submitted, or caused the submission of false claims under the False Claims Act. On September 4, 2015, we filed our Brief in Opposition to Hagerty’s Motion for Leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. Mr. Hagerty filed a Reply Brief in support of his Motion for Leave to file a Second Amended Complaint on September 11, 2015. On September 16, 2015, the Court heard oral arguments on (a) Mr. Hagerty’s motion seeking to amend his complaint, and (b) our pending motion demanding arbitration on the claims relating to wrongful and retaliatory discharge. On November 17, 2015, the court (1) denied Mr. Hagerty’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (accordingly, the previously dismissed claims remain dismissed); (2) granted our Motion to Compel Arbitration of the two remaining claims (for retaliatory discharge under the FCA and for wrongful termination/retaliation under Massachusetts law); and (3) stayed the pending case (in order to consolidate all issues for appeal pending resolution of the arbitration). We believe that our commercial practices were and are in compliance with applicable legal standards, and we will continue to defend this case vigorously. We make no assurance as to the resources that will be needed to respond to these matters or the final outcome, and we cannot estimate a range of potential loss or damages. Additionally, we are the subject of various pending or threatened legal actions and proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of our business. These matters are subject to many uncertainties and outcomes that are not predictable with assurance and that may not be known for extended periods of time. Since the outcome of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty, the costs associated with them could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated net income, financial position or cash flows. Licensing and Technology Agreements In June 2012, we entered into a patent license agreement and a technology transfer agreement with Imricor Medical Systems, Inc. (“Imricor”) for the integration of magnetic resonance imaging compatibility with our leads. Our final payment to Imricor of $1.0 million under our current license agreement occurred during the twelve week period ended October 18, 2015. We also agreed to a royalty fee based on sales of a licensed product with a minimum annual royalty fee of $50,000. In October 2009, we entered into a contractual arrangement with Flint Hills Scientific, L.L.C. (“Flint Hills”) that includes a royalty fee payable on a quarterly basis, related primarily to cardiac-based seizure detection patents and patent applications. Lease Agreements We lease facilities and equipment with non-contingent, non-cancellable leases, accounted for as operating leases, including: (i) a storage, distribution and computer facility in Austin, Texas; (ii) administrative and sales offices in Brussels, Belgium and elsewhere in Europe, the United States, Beijing, China and Hong Kong; and (iii) vehicles and office equipment. Rental expense from operating leases amounted to $912,000 and $1,143,000 for the twenty-five and twenty-six weeks ended October 18, 2015 and October 24, 2014, respectively.

Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation

On December 5, 2013, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts unsealed a qui tam action filed by former employee Andrew Hagerty against us under the Federal False Claims Act (“FCA”) and the false claims statutes of 28 different states and the District of Columbia (United States of America et al ex rel. Andrew Hagerty v. Cyberonics, Inc. Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-10214-FDS). The FCA prohibits the submission of a false claim or the making of a false record or statement to secure reimbursement from, or limit reimbursement to, a government-sponsored program. A “qui tam” action is a lawsuit brought by a private individual, known as a relator, purporting to act on behalf of the government. The action is filed under seal, and the government, after reviewing and investigating the allegations, may elect to participate, or intervene, in the lawsuit. Typically, following the government’s election, the qui tam action is unsealed.

Previously, in August 2012, Mr. Hagerty filed a related lawsuit in the same court and then voluntarily dismissed that lawsuit immediately prior to filing this qui tam action. In addition to his claims for wrongful and retaliatory discharge stated in the first lawsuit, the qui tam lawsuit alleges that we violated the FCA and various state false claims statutes while marketing our VNS Therapy System and seeks an unspecified amount consisting of treble damages, civil penalties, and attorneys’ fees and expenses.

In October 2013, the United States Department of Justice declined to intervene in the qui tam action, but reserved the right to do so in the future. In December 2013, the district court unsealed the action. In April 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the qui tam complaint, alleging a number of deficiencies in the lawsuit. In May 2014, the relator filed a First Amended Complaint. We filed another motion to dismiss in June 2014, and the parties completed their briefing on the motion in July 2014. On April 6, 2015, the district court dismissed all claims filed by Andrew Hagerty under the FCA, but did not dismiss the claims for wrongful and retaliatory discharge. On July 28, 2015, we filed our answer to the surviving claims in Mr. Hagerty’s first Amended Complaint and asserted our demand for arbitration pursuant to Mr. Hagerty’s employment documents.

In August 2015, Mr. Hagerty filed a Motion Seeking Leave to file a Second Amended Complaint responding to certain deficiencies noted by the court when dismissing claims in his First Amended Complaint alleging that we submitted, or caused the submission of false claims under the False Claims Act. On September 4, 2015, we filed our Brief in Opposition to Hagerty’s Motion for Leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. Mr. Hagerty filed a Reply Brief in support of his Motion for Leave to file a Second Amended Complaint on September 11, 2015. On September 16, 2015, the Court heard oral arguments on (a) Mr. Hagerty’s motion seeking to amend his complaint, and (b) our pending motion demanding arbitration on the claims relating to wrongful and retaliatory discharge. On November 17, 2015, the court (1) denied Mr. Hagerty’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (accordingly, the previously dismissed claims remain dismissed); (2) granted our Motion to Compel Arbitration of the two remaining claims (for retaliatory discharge under the FCA and for wrongful termination/retaliation under Massachusetts law); and (3) stayed the pending case (in order to consolidate all issues for appeal pending resolution of the arbitration).

We believe that our commercial practices were and are in compliance with applicable legal standards, and we will continue to defend this case vigorously. We make no assurance as to the resources that will be needed to respond to these matters or the final outcome, and we cannot estimate a range of potential loss or damages.

Additionally, we are the subject of various pending or threatened legal actions and proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of our business. These matters are subject to many uncertainties and outcomes that are not predictable with assurance and that may not be known for extended periods of time. Since the outcome of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty, the costs associated with them could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated net income, financial position or cash flows.

Licensing and Technology Agreements

In June 2012, we entered into a patent license agreement and a technology transfer agreement with Imricor Medical Systems, Inc. (“Imricor”) for the integration of magnetic resonance imaging compatibility with our leads. Our final payment to Imricor of $1.0 million under our current license agreement occurred during the twelve week period ended October 18, 2015. We also agreed to a royalty fee based on sales of a licensed product with a minimum annual royalty fee of $50,000.

In October 2009, we entered into a contractual arrangement with Flint Hills Scientific, L.L.C. (“Flint Hills”) that includes a royalty fee payable on a quarterly basis, related primarily to cardiac-based seizure detection patents and patent applications.

Lease Agreements

We lease facilities and equipment with non-contingent, non-cancellable leases, accounted for as operating leases, including: (i) a storage, distribution and computer facility in Austin, Texas; (ii) administrative and sales offices in Brussels, Belgium and elsewhere in Europe, the United States, Beijing, China and Hong Kong; and (iii) vehicles and office equipment. Rental expense from operating leases amounted to $912,000 and $1,143,000 for the twenty-five and twenty-six weeks ended October 18, 2015 and October 24, 2014, respectively.