Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Commitments and Contingencies	7. Commitments and Contingencies Legal Matters - On August 1, 2005, the Company commenced a suit in the European Court of First Instance in Luxembourg against the ECB alleging patent infringement by the ECB and claimed unspecified damages (the “ECB Litigation”). We brought the suit in the European Court of First Instance in Luxembourg. We alleged that all Euro banknotes in circulation infringe the Company European Patent 0 455 750B1 which covers a method of incorporating an anti-counterfeiting feature into banknotes or similar security documents to protect against forgeries by digital scanning and copying devices. In 2006, the Company received notices that the ECB had filed separate claims in each of the United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, France, Spain, Germany, Austria and Luxembourg courts seeking the invalidation of the Patent. Proceedings were commenced before each of the national courts seeking revocation and declarations of invalidity of the Patent. On August 20, 2008, the Company entered into an agreement with Trebuchet Capital Partners, LLC (“Trebuchet”) under which Trebuchet agreed to pay substantially all of the litigation costs associated with validity proceedings in eight European countries relating to the Patent. The Company provided Trebuchet with the sole and exclusive right to manage infringement litigation relating to the Patent in Europe, including the right to initiate litigation in the name of the Company, Trebuchet or both and to choose whom and where to sue, subject to certain limitations set forth in the Trebuchet Agreement, and in consideration for Trebuchet's funding obligations, the Company assigned and transferred a 49% interest in the Company's rights, title and interest in the Patent to Trebuchet which allows Trebuchet to have a separate and distinct interest in and share of the Patent, along with the right to sue and recover in litigation, settlement or otherwise and to collect royalties or other payments under or on account of the Patent. In addition, the Company and Trebuchet have agreed to equally share all proceeds generated from litigation relating to the Patent, including judgments and licenses or other arrangements entered into in settlement of any such litigation. Trebuchet is also entitled to recoup any litigation expenses specifically awarded to the Company in such actions. On March 26, 2007, the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court in London, England ruled that the Patent was deemed invalid in the United Kingdom, and on March 19, 2008 this decision was upheld on appeal. As a result of these decisions, the Company paid the ECB costs for both court cases in the amount of ₤356,490. On March 27, 2007 the Bundespatentgericht of the Federal Republic of Germany ruled that the German part of the Patent was valid, having considered the English Court’s decision. However, on July 6, 2010, the Company was notified that the German Court had reversed the ruling on appeal and the Patent was deemed invalid in Germany. The Court of First Instance in Luxembourg ruled on September 5, 2007 that it does not have jurisdiction to rule on the patent infringement claim. On January 9, 2008 the French Court held that the Patent was invalid in France and on March 10, 2010, this decision was upheld on appeal. On March 12, 2008 the Dutch Court ruled that the Patent was valid in the Netherlands. However, on December 21, 2010 the Dutch Court reversed the ruling on appeal and the Patent was deemed invalid in the Netherlands. On November 3, 2009, the Belgium Court held that the Patent was invalid in Belgium. On November 17, 2009, the Austrian Court held that the Patent was invalid in Austria. On March 24, 2010 the Spanish Court ruled that the Patent was valid. The decision is being appealed by the ECB. In July 2010, the Company was notified that the Italian Court deemed the patent invalid. The decision was not appealed. In certain jurisdictions in the ECB Litigation, the losing party is responsible for the other party’s legal fees, subject to court approval. The Company paid a total of ₤356,490 to the ECB for the United Kingdom case. Trebuchet paid for the costs reimbursements due, if any, for all of the other jurisdictions involved, except for approximately €156,000 for the Germany case and approximately €175,000 for the Netherlands case, which are due as of June 30, 2011. In July 2011, Trebuchet transferred funds to the Company for disbursement of these amounts. In addition, the ECB formally requested the Company to pay attorneys and court fees for the Court of First Instance case in Luxembourg in the amount of €93,752 which, unless the amount is settled will be subject to an assessment procedure that has not been initiated. The Company will accrue the assessed amount, if any, as soon as it is reasonably estimable. On February 18, 2010, Trebuchet, on behalf of the Company, filed an infringement suit in the Netherlands against the ECB and two security printing entities with manufacturing operations in the Netherlands, Joh. Enschede Banknotes B.V and Koninklijke Joh. Enschede B.V. Upon determination on December 21, 2010, that the patent was invalid in the Netherlands, the infringement case was terminated by Trebuchet. Trebuchet will be responsible for costs reimbursement associated with the case, if any, when determined by the Dutch Court. There are no other material pending legal proceedings to which the Company or any of its subsidiaries is a party or of which any of its property is subject, other than ordinary routine litigation incidental to the Company’s business. Contingent Litigation Payment – In May 2005, the Company made an agreement with its legal counsel in charge of the Company’s litigation with the European Central Bank which capped the fees for all matters associated with that litigation at $500,000 plus expenses, and a $150,000 contingent payment upon a successful ruling or settlement on the Company’s behalf in that litigation. The Company will record the $150,000 in the period in which the Company has determined that a successful ruling or settlement is probable. In addition, pursuant to an agreement made in December 2004, the Company is required to share the economic benefit derived from settlements, licenses or subsequent business arrangements that the Company obtains from any infringer of patents formerly owned by the Wicker Family. For infringement matters involving certain U.S. patents, the Company will be required to disburse 30% of the settlement proceeds. For infringement matters involving certain foreign patents, the Company will be required to disburse 14% of the settlement proceeds. These payments do not apply to licenses or royalties to patents that the Company has developed or obtained from persons other than the Wicker Family. As of June 30, 2011, there has been no settlement amounts related to these agreements. Contingent Purchase Price -In December, 2008, the Company acquired substantially all of the assets of DPI of Rochester, LLC in which the Company guaranteed up to $50,000 to certain parties depending on whether certain conditions occurred within five years of the acquisition. As of June 30, 2011, the Company considers the likelihood that the payment will be required as remote.

7. Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Matters - On August 1, 2005, the Company commenced a suit in the European Court of First Instance in Luxembourg against the ECB alleging patent infringement by the ECB and claimed unspecified damages (the “ECB Litigation”). We brought the suit in the European Court of First Instance in Luxembourg. We alleged that all Euro banknotes in circulation infringe the Company European Patent 0 455 750B1 which covers a method of incorporating an anti-counterfeiting feature into banknotes or similar security documents to protect against forgeries by digital scanning and copying devices. In 2006, the Company received notices that the ECB had filed separate claims in each of the United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, France, Spain, Germany, Austria and Luxembourg courts seeking the invalidation of the Patent. Proceedings were commenced before each of the national courts seeking revocation and declarations of invalidity of the Patent. On August 20, 2008, the Company entered into an agreement with Trebuchet Capital Partners, LLC (“Trebuchet”) under which Trebuchet agreed to pay substantially all of the litigation costs associated with validity proceedings in eight European countries relating to the Patent. The Company provided Trebuchet with the sole and exclusive right to manage infringement litigation relating to the Patent in Europe, including the right to initiate litigation in the name of the Company, Trebuchet or both and to choose whom and where to sue, subject to certain limitations set forth in the Trebuchet Agreement, and in consideration for Trebuchet's funding obligations, the Company assigned and transferred a 49% interest in the Company's rights, title and interest in the Patent to Trebuchet which allows Trebuchet to have a separate and distinct interest in and share of the Patent, along with the right to sue and recover in litigation, settlement or otherwise and to collect royalties or other payments under or on account of the Patent. In addition, the Company and Trebuchet have agreed to equally share all proceeds generated from litigation relating to the Patent, including judgments and licenses or other arrangements entered into in settlement of any such litigation. Trebuchet is also entitled to recoup any litigation expenses specifically awarded to the Company in such actions.

On March 26, 2007, the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court in London, England ruled that the Patent was deemed invalid in the United Kingdom, and on March 19, 2008 this decision was upheld on appeal. As a result of these decisions, the Company paid the ECB costs for both court cases in the amount of ₤356,490. On March 27, 2007 the Bundespatentgericht of the Federal Republic of Germany ruled that the German part of the Patent was valid, having considered the English Court’s decision. However, on July 6, 2010, the Company was notified that the German Court had reversed the ruling on appeal and the Patent was deemed invalid in Germany. The Court of First Instance in Luxembourg ruled on September 5, 2007 that it does not have jurisdiction to rule on the patent infringement claim. On January 9, 2008 the French Court held that the Patent was invalid in France and on March 10, 2010, this decision was upheld on appeal. On March 12, 2008 the Dutch Court ruled that the Patent was valid in the Netherlands. However, on December 21, 2010 the Dutch Court reversed the ruling on appeal and the Patent was deemed invalid in the Netherlands. On November 3, 2009, the Belgium Court held that the Patent was invalid in Belgium. On November 17, 2009, the Austrian Court held that the Patent was invalid in Austria. On March 24, 2010 the Spanish Court ruled that the Patent was valid. The decision is being appealed by the ECB. In July 2010, the Company was notified that the Italian Court deemed the patent invalid. The decision was not appealed.

In certain jurisdictions in the ECB Litigation, the losing party is responsible for the other party’s legal fees, subject to court approval. The Company paid a total of ₤356,490 to the ECB for the United Kingdom case. Trebuchet paid for the costs reimbursements due, if any, for all of the other jurisdictions involved, except for approximately €156,000 for the Germany case and approximately €175,000 for the Netherlands case, which are due as of June 30, 2011. In July 2011, Trebuchet transferred funds to the Company for disbursement of these amounts. In addition, the ECB formally requested the Company to pay attorneys and court fees for the Court of First Instance case in Luxembourg in the amount of €93,752 which, unless the amount is settled will be subject to an assessment procedure that has not been initiated. The Company will accrue the assessed amount, if any, as soon as it is reasonably estimable.

On February 18, 2010, Trebuchet, on behalf of the Company, filed an infringement suit in the Netherlands against the ECB and two security printing entities with manufacturing operations in the Netherlands, Joh. Enschede Banknotes B.V and Koninklijke Joh. Enschede B.V. Upon determination on December 21, 2010, that the patent was invalid in the Netherlands, the infringement case was terminated by Trebuchet. Trebuchet will be responsible for costs reimbursement associated with the case, if any, when determined by the Dutch Court.

There are no other material pending legal proceedings to which the Company or any of its subsidiaries is a party or of which any of its property is subject, other than ordinary routine litigation incidental to the Company’s business.

Contingent Litigation Payment – In May 2005, the Company made an agreement with its legal counsel in charge of the Company’s litigation with the European Central Bank which capped the fees for all matters associated with that litigation at $500,000 plus expenses, and a $150,000 contingent payment upon a successful ruling or settlement on the Company’s behalf in that litigation. The Company will record the $150,000 in the period in which the Company has determined that a successful ruling or settlement is probable.

In addition, pursuant to an agreement made in December 2004, the Company is required to share the economic benefit derived from settlements, licenses or subsequent business arrangements that the Company obtains from any infringer of patents formerly owned by the Wicker Family. For infringement matters involving certain U.S. patents, the Company will be required to disburse 30% of the settlement proceeds. For infringement matters involving certain foreign patents, the Company will be required to disburse 14% of the settlement proceeds. These payments do not apply to licenses or royalties to patents that the Company has developed or obtained from persons other than the Wicker Family. As of June 30, 2011, there has been no settlement amounts related to these agreements.

Contingent Purchase Price -In December, 2008, the Company acquired substantially all of the assets of DPI of Rochester, LLC in which the Company guaranteed up to $50,000 to certain parties depending on whether certain conditions occurred within five years of the acquisition. As of June 30, 2011, the Company considers the likelihood that the payment will be required as remote.