| CONTINGENCIES | 9 Months Ended |
| Sep. 30, 2013 |
| Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | ' |
| CONTINGENCIES | ' |
| NOTE 8 – CONTINGENCIES |
| On July 7, 2009, Southwire Company, a Delaware corporation (“Southwire”), filed a complaint for patent infringement against the Company and Cerro Wire, Inc. (“Cerro”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. In the complaint, Southwire alleged that the Company infringed one or more claims of United States Patent No. 7,557,301 (the “’301 patent”), entitled “Method of Manufacturing Electrical Cable Having Reduced Required Force for Installation,” by making and selling electrical cables, including the Company’s Super Slick cables. The case has been transferred to the Northern District of Georgia and the parties have agreed to stay it pending reexamination of the ’301 patent by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”). On June 23, 2011, the USPTO issued an office action in the reexamination finally rejecting all the claims of the ’301 patent. Southwire responded to these final rejections on August 8, 2011 by submitting substantially amended claims. The examiner determined that the amended claims captured patentable subject matter and on September 21, 2011 issued a notice that a reexamination certificate would be issued evidencing the patentability of the amended claims. The reexamination certificate was issued on the ‘301 patent on December 27, 2011. Subsequent to the issuance of the ‘301 reexamination certificate, a new inter partes reexamination proceeding was instituted by Cerro Wire against the reexamined ‘301 patent. At this time all of the claims of the reexamined ‘301 patent have been rejected by the USPTO. This decision is not final. |
| On July 2, 2010, the Company filed a complaint against Southwire in the Northern District of Georgia. The complaint alleged that Southwire was using a deceptively misdescriptive trademark on its SimPull products, and that Southwire had made false statements about the Company’s Slick Wire products. Southwire’s United States Patent No. 7,749,024 (“the ’024 patent”) issued on July 6, 2010. The morning the patent issued, the Company amended its complaint to seek a declaratory judgment that the Company’s Slick Wire products do not infringe the ’024 patent. Later that same day, Southwire filed a separate complaint against the Company and Cerro Wire in the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of the ’024 patent. The Company’s complaint against Southwire was stayed by agreement on April 11, 2011. The case will remain stayed until the USPTO issues a certificate of reexamination of the ‘024 patent. The complaint filed by Southwire in the Eastern District of Texas has been voluntarily dismissed and Southwire will have the option to pursue its claims against the Company in the Northern District of Georgia, once the reexamination is completed. On October 8, 2010, the Company filed a request with the USPTO for an inter partes reexamination of the ’024 patent. On November 9, 2010, the USPTO ordered the reexamination of the ’024 patent. In ordering reexamination of Southwire’s ’024 patent, the USPTO determined that the Company’s submission of prior art raised a substantial new question of patentability of the claims of the ’024 patent. On December 3, 2010, the USPTO issued a non-final office action rejecting all of the claims of the ’024 Patent. Southwire filed a response to the non-final office action on February 3, 2011, which included legal arguments and supporting technical declarations. The Company filed its comments to the Southwire response on March 3, 2011, including points and authorities, legal arguments, and supporting technical declarations. On July 9, 2012, the Examiner issued an Action Closing Prosecution (“ACP”) finally rejecting patent claims 4-7 and 9-12 in the reexamination of the ‘024 patent. On August 15, 2012, Southwire filed a response to the ACP, which included extensive proposed claim amendments and arguments supporting the patentability of the proposed amended claims. The Company filed its comments to the Southwire response to the ACP on September 13, 2012, including points and authorities, legal arguments, and a supporting technical declaration. The Examiner refused entry of Southwire’s proposed amendments and maintained the rejection of all the claims under reexamination in a Right of Appeal Notice mailed September 28, 2012. On October 17, 2012 Southwire filed two petitions requesting that the reexamination be reopened or, in the alternative, that the proposed amendments presented in its September 13, 2012 response to ACP be entered into the record. These petitions were denied by the USPTO in a decision mailed April 5, 2013. Southwire filed a Notice of Appeal on October 29, 2012 and its Appellant’s Brief on December 31, 2012, followed by the Company filing its Respondent’s Brief on January 25, 2013. The Examiner’s Brief was mailed on July 16, 2013. Southwire filed its Rebuttal Brief, on August 16, 2013, and the case now stands in front of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board awaiting a decision. |
| The ‘024 patent was also subject to parallel Inter Partes Reexamination Control No. 95/000,594, instituted by Cerro on November 11, 2010 (“the ‘594 reexamination”). The ‘024 patent exam proceeded with the ‘594 reexamination and ultimately all the claims were finally rejected by the Examiner in an ACP mailed August 10, 2012. In response to a right of appeal notice mailed by the Examiner on October 25, 2012, Southwire filed a notice of appeal on November 26, 2012 and filed an appeal brief on January 28, 2013. Southwire’s appeal brief exceeded the page limitations allowed for patent owner’s appeal briefs during reexaminations, and therefore the USPTO mailed a notice of defective appeal brief on February 20, 2013. Even though Southwire was given at least one month to file a corrected appeal brief, Southwire failed to do so. Instead, Southwire filed a petition with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) on March 5, 2013, requesting a waiver of the page limit on appeal brief length. On June 24, 2013, the PTAB denied the petition to waive the appeal brief page limit and, since the time limit to file a corrected appeal brief had expired, also dismissed Southwire’s appeal. On July 12, 2013, the Examiner mailed a Notice of Intent to Issue Inter Partes Reexamination Certificate, cancelling all claims of the ‘024 patent. |
| Southwire’s complaints sought unspecified damages and injunctive relief. At this time, all pending litigation between Encore and Southwire has been dismissed or stayed by agreement of the parties. |
| The parties convened on March 21, 2012 and August 27, 2012 for settlement conferences regarding the ‘301 patent lawsuit. Such settlement conferences did not result in any negotiation, agreement, decision or other development that the Company believed is material to such lawsuit. Settlement discussions continue between the parties. |
| The potentially applicable factual and legal issues related to the above claims asserted against the Company have not been resolved. The Company disputes all of Southwire’s claims and alleged damages and intends to vigorously defend the lawsuits and vigorously pursue its own claims against Southwire if and when the litigation resumes. |
| The Company is from time to time involved in litigation, certain other claims and arbitration matters arising in the ordinary course of its business. The Company accrues for a liability when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Significant judgment is required in both the determination of the probability of a loss and the determination as to whether a loss is reasonably estimable. Any such accruals are reviewed at least quarterly and adjusted to reflect the effects of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel and technical experts and other information and events pertaining to a particular matter. To the extent there is a reasonable possibility (within the meaning of ASC 450) that probable losses could exceed amounts already accrued, if any, and the additional loss or range of loss is able to be estimated, management discloses the additional loss or range of loss. |
| For matters where the Company has evaluated that a loss is not probable, but is reasonably possible, the Company will disclose an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss or make a statement that such an estimate cannot be made. In some instances, for reasonably possible losses, the Company cannot estimate the possible loss or range of loss. The nature and progression of litigation can make it difficult to predict the impact a particular lawsuit will have on the Company. There are many reasons that the Company cannot make these assessments, including, among others, one or more of the following: the early stages of a proceeding; damages sought that are unspecified, unsupportable, unexplained or uncertain; discovery is incomplete; the complexity of the facts that are in dispute; the difficulty of assessing novel claims; the parties not having engaged in any meaningful settlement discussions; the possibility that other parties may share in any ultimate liability; and/or the often slow pace of litigation. |
| At this time, given the status of the proceedings, the complexities of the facts in dispute and the multiple claims involved, the Company has not concluded that a probable loss exists with respect to the Southwire litigation. Accordingly, no accrual has been made. Additionally, given the aforementioned uncertainties, the Company is unable to estimate any possible loss or range of losses for disclosure purposes. |
