Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Commitments and Contingencies	Sep. 30, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	(13) Commitments and Contingencies Put Options Owners of interests in a certain subsidiary have the right in certain circumstances to require the Company to acquire either a portion of or all of the remaining ownership interests held by them. The owners’ ability to exercise any such “put option” right is subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions, including conditions requiring notice in advance of exercise. In addition, these rights cannot be exercised prior to a specified exercise date. The exercise of these rights at their earliest contractual date would result in obligations of the Company to fund the related amounts in 2019. Management estimates, assuming that the subsidiary owned by the Company at September 30, 2019, performs over the relevant future periods at its forecasted earnings levels, that these rights, if exercised, could require the Company, in future periods, to pay approximately $8,872 to the owners of such rights to acquire such ownership interests in the relevant subsidiary. This amount has been recorded as redeemable noncontrolling interests on the Consolidated Balance Sheet at September 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018. The ultimate amount payable relating to this transaction will vary because it is dependent on the future results of operations of the subject business. Litigation Derivative Litigation Nine related derivative complaints have been filed by purported Company stockholders against certain of the Company’s former executive officers and members of its Board of Directors. The Company is named as a nominal defendant in all nine actions. The derivative complaints are styled as follows: (1) Steyn v. Reichental, et al., Case No. 2015-CP-46-2225, filed on July 27, 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas for the 16th Judicial Circuit, County of York, South Carolina (“Steyn”); (2) Piguing v. Reichental, et al., Case No. 2015-CP-46-2396, filed on August 7, 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas for the 16th Judicial Circuit, County of York, South Carolina (“Piguing”); (3)Booth v. Reichental, et al., Case No. 15-692-RGA, filed on August 6, 2015 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware; (4) Nally v. Reichental, et al., Case No. 15-cv-03756-MGL, filed on September 18, 2015 in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina (“Nally”); (5) Gee v. Hull, et al., Case No. BC-610319, filed on February 17, 2016 in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles (“Gee”); (6) Foster v. Reichental, et al., Case No. 0:16-cv-01016-MGL, filed on April 1, 2016 in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina (“Foster”); (7) Lu v. Hull, et al., Case No. BC629730, filed on August 5, 2016 in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles (“Lu”); (8) Howes v. Reichental, et al., Case No. 0:16-cv-2810-MGL, filed on August 11, 2016 in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina (“Howes”); and (9) Ameduri v. Reichental, et al., Case No. 0:16-cv-02995-MGL, filed on September 1, 2016 in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina (“Ameduri”). Steyn and Piguing were consolidated into one action styled as In re 3D Systems Corp. Shareholder Derivative Litig., Lead Case No. 2015-CP-46-2225 in the Court of Common Pleas for the 16th Judicial Circuit, County of York, South Carolina. Gee and Lu were consolidated into one action styled as Gee v. Hull, et al., Case No. BC610319 in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles. Nally, Foster, Howes, and Ameduri were consolidated into one action in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina with Nally as the lead consolidated case. The derivative complaints allege claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment and seek, among other things, monetary damages and certain corporate governance actions. All of the derivative complaints listed above have been stayed. Following negotiations with the assistance of a mediator, on September 20, 2019, the parties to the derivative actions listed above entered into a Stipulation of Settlement to resolve all nine related previously disclosed stockholder derivative complaints. On September 20, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion to seek approval of the global settlement in the derivative action captioned Nally v. Reichental, et al., Docket No. 0:15-cv-03756-MGL (D.S.C. Sept. 18, 2015), pending before Hon. Mary Geiger Lewis of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina (the “Court”). On October 2, 2019, the Court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement, which consists of various corporate governance reforms and plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees in the amount of $2,150. A hearing to determine whether the Court should issue an order finally approving the proposed settlement has been scheduled for December 19, 2019. If the settlement is approved by the Court, the Company’s insurance carrier will fund the entire monetary aspect of the settlement. A current liability of $2,150 was recorded for the preliminary approval amount and an offsetting receivable of $2,150 was recorded for related insurance proceeds. Ronald Barranco and Print3D Corporation v. 3D Systems Corporation, et. al. On August 23, 2013, Ronald Barranco, a former Company employee, filed two lawsuits against the Company and certain officers in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii. The first lawsuit (“Barranco I”) is captioned Ronald Barranco and Print3D Corporation v. 3D Systems Corporation, 3D Systems, Inc., and Damon Gregoire, Case No. CV 13-411 LEK RLP, and alleges seven causes of action relating to the Company’s acquisition of Print3D Corporation (of which Mr. Barranco was a 50% shareholder) and the subsequent employment of Mr. Barranco by the Company. The second lawsuit (“Barranco II”) is captioned Ronald Barranco v. 3D Systems Corporation, 3D Systems, Inc., Abraham Reichental, and Damon Gregoire, Case No. CV 13-412 LEK RLP, and alleges the same seven causes of action relating to the Company’s acquisition of certain website domains from Mr. Barranco and the subsequent employment of Mr. Barranco by the Company. Both Barranco I and Barranco II allege the Company breached certain purchase agreements in order to avoid paying Mr. Barranco additional monies pursuant to royalty and earn out provisions in the agreements. With regard to Barranco I, the Hawaii district court, on February 28, 2014, denied the Company’s motion to dismiss and its motion to transfer venue to South Carolina for the convenience of the parties. However, the Hawaii court recognized that Barranco’s claims were all subject to mandatory and binding arbitration in Charlotte, North Carolina. The parties selected an arbitrator and arbitration took place in September 2015 in Charlotte, North Carolina. On September 28, 2015, the arbitrator issued a final award in favor of Barranco with respect to two alleged breaches of contract and implied covenants arising out of the contract. The arbitrator found that the Company did not commit fraud or make any negligent misrepresentations to Barranco. Pursuant to the award, the Company was directed to pay approximately $11,282, which includes alleged actual damages of $7,254, fees and expenses of $2,318 and prejudgment interest of $1,710. On August 3, 2018, following an unsuccessful appeal to the federal court in the Western District of North Carolina and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the Company paid $9,127 of the Barranco I judgment, net setoff. On September 28, 2018, the parties filed a Consent Stipulation Resolving Motion for Setoff of Judgment, stipulating that subject only to vacatur or amendment reducing the Barranco II judgment in Barranco’s appeal to the Ninth Circuit related to the Barranco II action discussed below, the Barranco II judgment in the amount of $2,182 was setoff against the Barranco I judgment (“Stipulated Setoff”). The Company paid Barranco the $101 balance remaining due after the Stipulated Setoff. With regard to Barranco II, the case was tried to a jury in Hawaii district court in May 2016, and on May 27, 2016 the jury found that the Company was not liable for either breach of contract or breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Additionally, the jury found in favor of the Company on its counterclaim against Barranco and determined that Barranco violated his non-competition covenant with the Company. On March 30, 2018, the court entered Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order requiring Barranco to disgorge, and the Company recover, $523, representing all but four months of the full amount paid to Barranco as salary during his employment with the Company as well as a portion of the up front and buyout payments made to Barranco in connection with the purchase of certain web domains. In addition, the court ordered Barranco to pay pre-judgment interest to the Company to be calculated beginning as of his first breach of the non-competition covenant in August 2011. Judgment was entered thereafter on April 2, 2018. On September 13, 2018, the Hawaii district court entered its Amended Judgment in a Civil Case, awarding the Company a final amended judgment of $2,182. On September 19, 2018, Barranco filed an Amended Notice of Appeal. On January 13, 2019, Barranco filed Appellant’s Opening Brief in the Ninth Circuit. On March 15, 2019, the Company filed its Answering Brief. On April 14, 2019, Barranco filed his Reply Brief. Oral Arguments took place on October 24, 2019. The Company intends to defend the appeal. Export Controls and Government Contracts Compliance Matter In October 2017 the Company received an administrative subpoena from the Bureau of Industry and Security of the Department of Commerce (“BIS”) requesting the production of records in connection with possible violations of U.S. export control laws, including with regard to the On Demand manufacturing business done by our subsidiary, Quickparts.com, Inc. In addition, while collecting information responsive to the above-referenced subpoena, the Company identified potential violations of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”) administered by the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls of the Department of State (“DDTC”) and potential violations of the Export Administration Regulations administered by the BIS. On June 8, 2018 and thereafter, the Company submitted voluntary disclosures to BIS and DDTC identifying numerous potentially unauthorized exports of technical data, which supplemented an initial notice of voluntary disclosure that the Company submitted to DDTC in February 2018. The Company has and will continue to implement compliance enhancements to export controls, trade sanctions, and government contracting compliance to address the issues identified through its internal investigation and cooperate with DDTC and BIS, as well as the U.S. Departments of Justice, Defense, and Homeland Security, in their reviews of these matters. In addition, on July 19, 2019, the Company received a notice of immediate suspension of federal contracting from the United States Air Force, pending the outcome of an ongoing investigation. The suspension applied to 3D Systems, its subsidiaries and affiliates, and was related to the potential export controls violations involving the Company’s On Demand manufacturing business described above. Under the suspension, the Company was generally prohibited from receiving new federal government contracts or subcontracts from any executive branch agency as described in the provisions of 48 C.F.R Subpart 9.4 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation. The suspension allowed the Company to continue to perform current federal contracts, and also to receive awards of new subcontracts for items under $35 and for items considered commercially available off-the-shelf items. The Air Force lifted the suspension on September 6, 2019 following the execution of a two-year Administrative Agreement with the Company. The Company is now eligible to obtain and perform U.S. government contracts and subcontracts without restrictions. Under the Administrative Agreement, the Company will be monitored and evaluated by independent monitors who will report to the Air Force on the Company’s compliance with the terms of the Company’s Ethics & Compliance Program, including its overall culture, government contracting compliance program, and export controls compliance program. Although the Company cannot predict the ultimate resolution of these matters, the Company has incurred and expects to continue to incur significant legal costs and other expenses in connection with responding to the U.S. government agencies. Other The Company is involved in various other legal matters incidental to its business. Although the Company cannot predict the results of the litigation with certainty, the Company believes that the disposition of all these various other legal matters will not have a material adverse effect, individually or in the aggregate, on its consolidated results of operations, consolidated cash flows or consolidated financial position.