Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies We establish contingent liabilities when a particular contingency is both probable and estimable. The Company is not aware of any pending claims or assessments, other than as described below, which may have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. Outsource Manufacturers. We have manufacturing agreements with electronics manufacturing service ("EMS") providers related to the outsourced manufacturing of our products. Certain manufacturing agreements establish annual volume commitments. We are also obligated to repurchase Company-forecasted but unused materials. The Company has non-cancellable, non-returnable, and long-lead time commitments with its EMS providers and certain suppliers for inventory components that will be used in production. The Company’s purchase commitments under such agreements is approximately $3,830 as of December 31, 2014. Uncertain Tax Positions. As further discussed in Note 12, we had $1,678 of uncertain tax positions as of December 31, 2014. Due to the inherent uncertainty of the underlying tax positions, it is not possible to forecast the payment of this liability to any particular year. Legal Proceedings. In addition to the legal proceedings described below, we are also involved from time to time in various claims and other legal proceedings which arise in the normal course of our business. Such matters are subject to many uncertainties and outcomes that are not predictable. However, based on the information available to us, we do not believe any such proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial position, or liquidity, except as described below. Former Officer Indemnification In July 2007 and January 2008, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Utah indicted two of our former officers, Frances Flood (“Flood”) and Susie Strohm (“Strohm”), for allegedly causing us to issue materially misstated financial statements for our 2001 and 2002 fiscal years and for perjury in connection with the investigation by the SEC into the alleged misstatements. In December 2003, we entered into indemnification agreements with each former officer, requiring payment of all reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defending against the charges in certain circumstances consistent with and subject to limitations imposed by our bylaws and applicable law. In total, we paid approximately $3,630 in attorneys’ fees and costs to defend against the charges. In February 2009, Flood was convicted on nine counts and Strohm was convicted on one count. In June 2010, Flood was sentenced to four years in prison and three years of probation and Strohm was sentenced to two years of probation plus 150 hours of community service. In April 2011, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver affirmed Flood’s conviction, but has allowed her to assert in a collateral proceeding her claim that she received ineffective assistance of counsel. In November 2011, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Strohm’s perjury conviction as well. Flood: In August 2008, Flood filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court for the District of Utah, seeking to compel us to pay her attorneys’ fees and costs to defend against the criminal charges. The District Court issued a preliminary injunction in January 2009 requiring us to pay Flood’s criminal legal fees and costs through trial. Pursuant to the Court’s order, ClearOne paid approximately $373 to Flood’s attorneys and approximately $248 into the Court’s escrow. In July 2009, ClearOne asserted counterclaims against Flood and sought to recover $3,390 plus interest, costs and attorneys' fees. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in August 2010 vacating the District Court’s preliminary injunction on the grounds that it rested on a legally erroneous interpretation of Flood’s Employment Separation Agreement. ClearOne filed a motion in the United States District Court for the District of Utah seeking a return of the monies paid by ClearOne pursuant to the Court’s order. The District Court granted ClearOne’s motion in January 2012 for return of the $248 held in the Court’s escrow, but denied ClearOne’s motion with respect to the $373 paid to Flood’s attorneys. On or about March 1, 2013, Flood filed for personal bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. On March 19, 2013, the US District Court for the District of Utah issued an order staying this case. On June 2, 2014, on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, the bankruptcy judge ruled that Flood’s debt to ClearOne for the criminal defense fees advanced on her behalf is dischargeable in bankruptcy. On August 5, 2014, ClearOne and Flood entered into a settlement agreement whereby ClearOne released Flood from any claims in exchange for Flood’s release of ClearOne. Theft of Intellectual Property and Related Cases In January 2007, we filed a lawsuit in the Third Judicial District Court, Salt Lake County, Utah against WideBand Solutions, Inc. (“WideBand”) and two of its principals, Dr. Jun Yang, and Andrew Chiang for misappropriation of our trade secrets (the “Trade Secret Case”). We also brought claims against Biamp Systems Corporation, Inc. (“Biamp”). The litigation eventually included other defendants, namely Lonny Bowers, Donald Bowers, David Sullivan, Dial HD and Versatile DSP. The matter was subsequently removed to federal court. The United States District Court, District of Utah, Central Division. The litigation involved various appeals filed by all parties extended to various state courts, federal courts and the federal appeal court. The court found the defendants guilty of willfully and maliciously misappropriating our trade secrets. Various awards were made in ClearOne's favor and against the defendants. Biamp settled with us and paid $3,860 after we won the appeal in the Tenth Circuit court. We also settled with one of the defendants and received $250 in February 2012. We have various awards against other defendants amounting to approximately $7,658 owed jointly and severally by them. While we intend to vigorously pursue collection of these outstanding awards, there can be no assurance that we will ultimately collect on all or a portion of these awards. Conclusion These legal proceedings are subject to all of the risks and uncertainties of legal proceedings and there can be no assurance as to the probable result of the legal proceedings. The Company believes it is adequately accrued for the aforementioned contingent liabilities. While we intend to defend ourselves in the above matters vigorously and diligently, there exists the possibility of adverse outcomes that we estimate could be up to $1,000 over and above amounts already provided for. If these adverse outcomes were to occur, our financial position, results of operations and cash flows could be negatively affected materially for the period in which the adverse outcomes are known.

Commitments and Contingencies

We establish contingent liabilities when a particular contingency is both probable and estimable. The Company is not aware of any pending claims or assessments, other than as described below, which may have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

Outsource Manufacturers. We have manufacturing agreements with electronics manufacturing service ("EMS") providers related to the outsourced manufacturing of our products. Certain manufacturing agreements establish annual volume commitments. We are also obligated to repurchase Company-forecasted but unused materials. The Company has non-cancellable, non-returnable, and long-lead time commitments with its EMS providers and certain suppliers for inventory components that will be used in production. The Company’s purchase commitments under such agreements is approximately $3,830 as of December 31, 2014.

Uncertain Tax Positions. As further discussed in Note 12, we had $1,678 of uncertain tax positions as of December 31, 2014. Due to the inherent uncertainty of the underlying tax positions, it is not possible to forecast the payment of this liability to any particular year.

Legal Proceedings. In addition to the legal proceedings described below, we are also involved from time to time in various claims and other legal proceedings which arise in the normal course of our business. Such matters are subject to many uncertainties and outcomes that are not predictable. However, based on the information available to us, we do not believe any such proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial position, or liquidity, except as described below.

Former Officer Indemnification

In July 2007 and January 2008, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Utah indicted two of our former officers, Frances Flood (“Flood”) and Susie Strohm (“Strohm”), for allegedly causing us to issue materially misstated financial statements for our 2001 and 2002 fiscal years and for perjury in connection with the investigation by the SEC into the alleged misstatements. In December 2003, we entered into indemnification agreements with each former officer, requiring payment of all reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defending against the charges in certain circumstances consistent with and subject to limitations imposed by our bylaws and applicable law. In total, we paid approximately $3,630 in attorneys’ fees and costs to defend against the charges. In February 2009, Flood was convicted on nine counts and Strohm was convicted on one count. In June 2010, Flood was sentenced to four years in prison and three years of probation and Strohm was sentenced to two years of probation plus 150 hours of community service. In April 2011, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver affirmed Flood’s conviction, but has allowed her to assert in a collateral proceeding her claim that she received ineffective assistance of counsel. In November 2011, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Strohm’s perjury conviction as well.

Flood: In August 2008, Flood filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court for the District of Utah, seeking to compel us to pay her attorneys’ fees and costs to defend against the criminal charges. The District Court issued a preliminary injunction in January 2009 requiring us to pay Flood’s criminal legal fees and costs through trial. Pursuant to the Court’s order, ClearOne paid approximately $373 to Flood’s attorneys and approximately $248 into the Court’s escrow. In July 2009, ClearOne asserted counterclaims against Flood and sought to recover $3,390 plus interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in August 2010 vacating the District Court’s preliminary injunction on the grounds that it rested on a legally erroneous interpretation of Flood’s Employment Separation Agreement. ClearOne filed a motion in the United States District Court for the District of Utah seeking a return of the monies paid by ClearOne pursuant to the Court’s order. The District Court granted ClearOne’s motion in January 2012 for return of the $248 held in the Court’s escrow, but denied ClearOne’s motion with respect to the $373 paid to Flood’s attorneys.

On or about March 1, 2013, Flood filed for personal bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. On March 19, 2013, the US District Court for the District of Utah issued an order staying this case. On June 2, 2014, on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, the bankruptcy judge ruled that Flood’s debt to ClearOne for the criminal defense fees advanced on her behalf is dischargeable in bankruptcy. On August 5, 2014, ClearOne and Flood entered into a settlement agreement whereby ClearOne released Flood from any claims in exchange for Flood’s release of ClearOne.

Theft of Intellectual Property and Related Cases

In January 2007, we filed a lawsuit in the Third Judicial District Court, Salt Lake County, Utah against WideBand Solutions, Inc. (“WideBand”) and two of its principals, Dr. Jun Yang, and Andrew Chiang for misappropriation of our trade secrets (the “Trade Secret Case”). We also brought claims against Biamp Systems Corporation, Inc. (“Biamp”). The litigation eventually included other defendants, namely Lonny Bowers, Donald Bowers, David Sullivan, Dial HD and Versatile DSP. The matter was subsequently removed to federal court. The United States District Court, District of Utah, Central Division.

The litigation involved various appeals filed by all parties extended to various state courts, federal courts and the federal appeal court. The court found the defendants guilty of willfully and maliciously misappropriating our trade secrets. Various awards were made in ClearOne's favor and against the defendants. Biamp settled with us and paid $3,860 after we won the appeal in the Tenth Circuit court. We also settled with one of the defendants and received $250 in February 2012. We have various awards against other defendants amounting to approximately $7,658 owed jointly and severally by them. While we intend to vigorously pursue collection of these outstanding awards, there can be no assurance that we will ultimately collect on all or a portion of these awards.

Conclusion

These legal proceedings are subject to all of the risks and uncertainties of legal proceedings and there can be no assurance as to the probable result of the legal proceedings.

The Company believes it is adequately accrued for the aforementioned contingent liabilities. While we intend to defend ourselves in the above matters vigorously and diligently, there exists the possibility of adverse outcomes that we estimate could be up to $1,000 over and above amounts already provided for. If these adverse outcomes were to occur, our financial position, results of operations and cash flows could be negatively affected materially for the period in which the adverse outcomes are known.