Commitments And Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2014
Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	(15) Commitments and Contingencies The Company leases office space under various non-cancelable operating leases. Rent expense under operating leases was $2,598 and $4,910 for the quarter and six months ended June 30, 2014 compared to $1,440 and $2,818 for the quarter and six months ended June 30, 2013. The Company has supply commitments for printer assemblies that total $65,621 at June 30, 2014, compared to $41,091 at December 31, 2013. Certain of the Company’s acquisitions contain earnout provisions under which the sellers of the acquired businesses can earn additional amounts. The total liabilities recorded for these earnouts as of June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013 was $10,120 and $5,578, respectively. 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. On April 18, 2014, the Federal Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment for all seven counts, dismissing all remaining claims asserted by DSM Desotech. DSM Desotech took no further action in response to the Federal Circuit's decision in favor of the Company, and the case has completely concluded. 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 on 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 on eight of the Company’s patents relating to stereolithography machines. On December 20, 2013, Formlabs filed a motion to dismiss the Company’s claims of indirect and willful infringement, and the Company filed a memorandum in opposition on January 6, 2014. Formlabs filed a reply on January 16, 2014. The Court ruled on the motion to dismiss on May 12, 2014, granting in part and dismissing in part Formlabs’ motion. The Company filed a first amended complaint on May 16, 2014, and Formlabs filed its answer on June 2, 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. 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 first parties arising from the use of the Company’s products. Historically, costs related to these indemnification provisions have not been significant and we are 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.

(15) Commitments and Contingencies

The Company leases office space under various non-cancelable operating leases. Rent expense under operating leases was $2,598 and $4,910 for the quarter and six months ended June 30, 2014 compared to $1,440 and $2,818 for the quarter and six months ended June 30, 2013.

The Company has supply commitments for printer assemblies that total $65,621 at June 30, 2014, compared to $41,091 at December 31, 2013.

Certain of the Company’s acquisitions contain earnout provisions under which the sellers of the acquired businesses can earn additional amounts. The total liabilities recorded for these earnouts as of June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013 was $10,120 and $5,578, respectively.

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. On April 18, 2014, the Federal Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment for all seven counts, dismissing all remaining claims asserted by DSM Desotech. DSM Desotech took no further action in response to the Federal Circuit's decision in favor of the Company, and the case has completely concluded.

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 on 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 on eight of the Company’s patents relating to stereolithography machines. On December 20, 2013, Formlabs filed a motion to dismiss the Company’s claims of indirect and willful infringement, and the Company filed a memorandum in opposition on January 6, 2014. Formlabs filed a reply on January 16, 2014. The Court ruled on the motion to dismiss on May 12, 2014, granting in part and dismissing in part Formlabs’ motion. The Company filed a first amended complaint on May 16, 2014, and Formlabs filed its answer on June 2, 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.

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 first parties arising from the use of the Company’s products. Historically, costs related to these indemnification provisions have not been significant and we are 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.