Legal Proceedings	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]	Note 9 – Legal Proceedings The Company is a party to certain proceedings incidental to the ordinary course of its business, none of which, in the current opinion of management, is likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. In addition, on June 19, 2012, K Tech Telecommunications, Inc. filed a patent infringement complaint against the Company and RLD in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, captioned as K Tech v. Blonder Tongue Laboratories, Inc. and R.L. Drake Holdings, LLC, CV12-05316 (the “Litigation”). K Tech subsequently filed an amended complaint to add Seller as an additional defendant. The Litigation alleges that the Company and RLD infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,785,903, 7,487,533, 7,761,893, and 7,984,469 (the “K Tech Patents”) and seeks (a) a finding of patent infringement; (b) an injunction against the Company and RLD from further alleged infringement; (c) an award of actual damage suffered by K Tech; and (d) an award of costs relating to the Litigation. The Litigation complaint alleges that Company products DQMx-01, DQMx-02, DQMx-03, DQMx-04, DQMx-10, DQMx-11, DQMx-12, DQMx-13, DQMx-20, DQMx-21, DQMx-22, DQMx-30, DQMx-31, DQMx-40, and MUX-2D-QAM infringe one or more of the K Tech Patents, and alleges that RLD products MQM6000l, MQM10000, DQT1000, and MEQ1000 infringe one or more of the K Tech Patents. All of the aforementioned products are part of the Company’s digital headend product category. At this time, based on the preliminary analysis performed by the Company to date, the full scope of the claims or available defenses, or the potential outcome of the alleged claims of infringement, have not been determined by the Company. However, based on its analysis to date, the Company does presently believe there are reasoned grounds for finding that the K Tech Patents are invalid or unenforceable. The Company intends to defend the Litigation instituted by K Tech, and has answered the complaint denying the allegations of infringement and asserting defenses of invalidity of the K Tech Patents. The Company has also commenced discussions with K Tech to potentially resolve the Litigation relating to the K Tech Patents.

Legal Proceedings

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2012

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]

Note 9 – Legal Proceedings

The Company is a party to certain proceedings incidental to the ordinary course of its business, none of which, in the current opinion of management, is likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. In addition, on June 19, 2012, K Tech Telecommunications, Inc. filed a patent infringement complaint against the Company and RLD in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, captioned as K Tech v. Blonder Tongue Laboratories, Inc. and R.L. Drake Holdings, LLC, CV12-05316 (the “Litigation”). K Tech subsequently filed an amended complaint to add Seller as an additional defendant. The Litigation alleges that the Company and RLD infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,785,903, 7,487,533, 7,761,893, and 7,984,469 (the “K Tech Patents”) and seeks (a) a finding of patent infringement; (b) an injunction against the Company and RLD from further alleged infringement; (c) an award of actual damage suffered by K Tech; and (d) an award of costs relating to the Litigation. The Litigation complaint alleges that Company products DQMx-01, DQMx-02, DQMx-03, DQMx-04, DQMx-10, DQMx-11, DQMx-12, DQMx-13, DQMx-20, DQMx-21, DQMx-22, DQMx-30, DQMx-31, DQMx-40, and MUX-2D-QAM infringe one or more of the K Tech Patents, and alleges that RLD products MQM6000l, MQM10000, DQT1000, and MEQ1000 infringe one or more of the K Tech Patents. All of the aforementioned products are part of the Company’s digital headend product category. At this time, based on the preliminary analysis performed by the Company to date, the full scope of the claims or available defenses, or the potential outcome of the alleged claims of infringement, have not been determined by the Company. However, based on its analysis to date, the Company does presently believe there are reasoned grounds for finding that the K Tech Patents are invalid or unenforceable. The Company intends to defend the Litigation instituted by K Tech, and has answered the complaint denying the allegations of infringement and asserting defenses of invalidity of the K Tech Patents. The Company has also commenced discussions with K Tech to potentially resolve the Litigation relating to the K Tech Patents.