Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2014
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	NOTE 12. Commitments and Contingencies Viamport Litigation On May 22, 2012, a lawsuit was filed against the Company in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic (Case No. FP-12-461) by Viaimport, SRL, a former customer of the Company, and served on the Company on July 12, 2012. The complaint alleges breach of contract and seeks U.S. $1 million in damages. The Company believes that this case is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself. In addition, on August 31, 2012, the Company filed a lawsuit against Viaimport and its principal, Omar Hassan, in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County Florida (Case No. 12-34647CA32) for non-payment of purchase obligations aggregating $288,559 and other damages. On August 12, 2013, Viaimport filed a counterclaim against InfoSonics in Miami-Dade County, which is essentially a mirror image of the Dominican Republic complaint. On November 19, 2013, InfoSonics filed a request with the Dominican Republic Court to request dismissal of the case there for lack of jurisdiction in order to have both related actions heard in Miami-Dade County. The Miami actions are scheduled for trial on July 21, 2014; no trial date has been set for the Dominican Republic case. The parties began settlement discussions on January 16, 2014, which discussions are still ongoing. On March 26, 2014 the Company filed a Motion for Summary Judgment with the Miami Court that is scheduled to be heard by the Court on June 2, 2014. At this time we do not believe these matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition. However, the ultimate legal and financial liability with respect to these matters cannot be estimated with certainty and the Dominican Republic case is complicated by its foreign venue. Wyncomm Litigation On April 12, 2013, Wyncomm LLC (“Wyncomm”) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that certain of our products infringe claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,506,866. Wyncomm was seeking recovery of unspecified monetary damages. On March 20, 2014 we entered into a Settlement and Patent License Agreement with Wyncomm whereby we denied any wrongdoing and received a fully paid up and perpetual license to Wyncomm’s patent in exchange for a one-time cash payment of an immaterial amount. The lawsuit has now been dismissed with prejudice. Blue Spike Litigation On October 8, 2013, Blue Spike, LLC (“Blue Spike”) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging that certain of our products infringe claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,745,569. Blue Spike is seeking recovery of unspecified monetary damages. We do not believe we infringe the Blue Spike patent and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. On February 10, 2014 we filed an answer with the Court stating that we do not infringe and setting forth multiple defenses. Due to the inherent uncertainty of litigation, we cannot identify probable or estimable damages related to the lawsuit at this time. The Company may become involved in certain other legal proceedings and claims which arise in the normal course of business. Other than as described above, as of the filing date of this report, the Company did not have any significant litigation outstanding.

NOTE 12. Commitments and Contingencies

Viamport Litigation

On May 22, 2012, a lawsuit was filed against the Company in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic (Case No. FP-12-461) by Viaimport, SRL, a former customer of the Company, and served on the Company on July 12, 2012. The complaint alleges breach of contract and seeks U.S. $1 million in damages. The Company believes that this case is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself. In addition, on August 31, 2012, the Company filed a lawsuit against Viaimport and its principal, Omar Hassan, in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County Florida (Case No. 12-34647CA32) for non-payment of purchase obligations aggregating $288,559 and other damages. On August 12, 2013, Viaimport filed a counterclaim against InfoSonics in Miami-Dade County, which is essentially a mirror image of the Dominican Republic complaint. On November 19, 2013, InfoSonics filed a request with the Dominican Republic Court to request dismissal of the case there for lack of jurisdiction in order to have both related actions heard in Miami-Dade County. The Miami actions are scheduled for trial on July 21, 2014; no trial date has been set for the Dominican Republic case. The parties began settlement discussions on January 16, 2014, which discussions are still ongoing. On March 26, 2014 the Company filed a Motion for Summary Judgment with the Miami Court that is scheduled to be heard by the Court on June 2, 2014. At this time we do not believe these matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition. However, the ultimate legal and financial liability with respect to these matters cannot be estimated with certainty and the Dominican Republic case is complicated by its foreign venue.

Wyncomm Litigation

On April 12, 2013, Wyncomm LLC (“Wyncomm”) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that certain of our products infringe claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,506,866. Wyncomm was seeking recovery of unspecified monetary damages. On March 20, 2014 we entered into a Settlement and Patent License Agreement with Wyncomm whereby we denied any wrongdoing and received a fully paid up and perpetual license to Wyncomm’s patent in exchange for a one-time cash payment of an immaterial amount. The lawsuit has now been dismissed with prejudice.

Blue Spike Litigation

On October 8, 2013, Blue Spike, LLC (“Blue Spike”) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging that certain of our products infringe claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,745,569. Blue Spike is seeking recovery of unspecified monetary damages. We do not believe we infringe the Blue Spike patent and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. On February 10, 2014 we filed an answer with the Court stating that we do not infringe and setting forth multiple defenses. Due to the inherent uncertainty of litigation, we cannot identify probable or estimable damages related to the lawsuit at this time.

The Company may become involved in certain other legal proceedings and claims which arise in the normal course of business. Other than as described above, as of the filing date of this report, the Company did not have any significant litigation outstanding.