Litigation, Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation, Commitments and Contingencies	Litigation, Commitments and Contingencies Litigation We are the subject of various pending or threatened legal actions in the ordinary course of our business. All such matters are subject to many uncertainties and outcomes that are not predictable with assurance. Additionally, our businesses are subject to allegations of patent infringement by our competitors as well as by non-practicing entities (NPEs), sometimes referred to as “patent trolls,” who may seek monetary settlements from us, our competitors, suppliers and resellers, including the One-Blue litigation described below. Consequently, as of June 30, 2013, we are unable to reasonably estimate the ultimate aggregate amount of any monetary liability or financial impact that we may incur with respect to these matters. It is reasonably possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters could materially affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. On May 22, 2013, Imation was sued in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware by five entities: One-Blue, LLC (One-Blue), which is an entity with licensing authority for a pool of patents relating to Blu-ray discs, and four members of One-Blue, Koninklijke Philips N.V., Panasonic Corporation, Pioneer Corporation and Sony Corporation. The plaintiffs allege that Imation's sales of certain Blu-ray discs infringe one or more of those patents and seek unspecified damages, treble damages and attorney's fees. On June 13, 2013, Imation filed an Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims, naming various defenses including that plaintiffs are barred, in whole or in part, from any recovery or relief by their refusal to license the patents-in-suit under fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory terms. Imation intends to vigorously defend the case. Discovery in this matter has not yet commenced. In addition, Imation has a dispute with One-Blue regarding One-Blue's refusal to license its Japanese Blu-ray patents under fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory terms and Imation Corporation Japan, Imation's Japanese subsidiary, has sued One-Blue in Japan regarding its unlawful interference with certain of our customer relationships. Imation has notified its manufacturers of indemnity obligations that it believes cover a portion of its liability, if any, to One-Blue and the other associated patent holders. Copyright Levies In many European Union (EU) member countries, the sale of recordable optical media is subject to a private copyright levy. The levies are intended to compensate copyright holders with "fair compensation" for the harm caused by private copies made by natural persons of protected works under the European Copyright Directive, which became effective in 2002 (Directive). Levies are generally charged directly to the importer of the product upon the sale of the products. Payers of levies remit levy payments to collecting societies which, in turn, are expected to distribute funds to copyright holders. Levy systems of EU member countries must comply with the Directive, but individual member countries are responsible for administering their own systems. Since implementation, the levy systems have been the subject of numerous litigation and law making activities. On October 21, 2010, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that fair compensation is an autonomous European law concept that was introduced by the Directive and must be uniformly applied in all EU member states. The ECJ stated that fair compensation must be calculated based on the harm caused to the authors of protected works by private copying. The ECJ also stated that the indiscriminate application of the private copying levy to devices not made available to private users and clearly reserved for uses other than private copying is incompatible with the Directive. The ECJ ruling made clear that copyright holders are only entitled to fair compensation payments (funded by levy payments made by importers of applicable products, including the Company) when sales of optical media are made to natural persons presumed to be making private copies. Within this disclosure, we use the term "commercial channel sales" when referring to products intended for uses other than private copying and "consumer channel sales" when referring to products intended for uses including private copying. Since the Directive was implemented in 2002, we estimate that we have paid in excess of $100 million in levies to various ongoing collecting societies related to commercial channel sales. Based on the ECJ's October 2010 ruling and subsequent litigation and law making activities, we believe that these payments were not consistent with the Directive and should not have been paid to the various collecting societies. Accordingly, subsequent to the October 21, 2010 ECJ ruling, we began withholding levy payments to the various collecting societies and, in 2011, we released our existing accruals (totaling $7.8 million) for unpaid levies related to commercial channel sales. However, we continue to accrue, but not pay, a liability for levies arising from consumer channel sales. As of March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, we had accrued liabilities of $29.1 million and $27.7 million, respectively, associated with levies related to consumer channel sales for which we are withholding payment. Since the October 2010 ECJ ruling, we evaluate quarterly on a country-by-country basis whether: (i) levies should be accrued on current period commercial and/or consumer channel sales; and, (ii) accrued, but unpaid, copyright levies on prior period consumer channel sales should be reversed. Our evaluation is made on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis and considers ongoing and cumulative developments related to levy litigation and law making activities within each jurisdiction as well as throughout the EU. For the three months ended March 31, 2013 and the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 we did not reverse any amounts associated with prior period copyright levies. To the extent any reversals were to occur, they would be recorded as a reduction to costs of sales, which is the same income statement account in which our levy expense is initially recorded. During the second quarter of 2013, an Italian court rendered a decision associated with a copyright levy matter to which Imation was not a party. This decision (i) confirmed and provided further specificity to the October 21, 2010 ruling of the ECJ that levies should not be paid on commercial channel sales and (ii) evaluated, via audit, the plaintiff's documentation and evidence for distinguishing between levies paid on commercial and consumer channel sales. Based on the ruling of this Italian court, in combination with other applicable levy and law-making activities within the EU, including Italy, we believe there is sufficient evidence that we may offset with the Italian collecting society the estimated $39 million we have overpaid for copyright levies in Italy (due to us paying levies on commercial channel sales prior to the October 21, 2010 ECJ ruling) against the amounts owed to the Italian collecting society for unpaid levies on consumer channel sales. As such, our liability for Italian copyright levies in the amount of $13.6 million (existing at the time of the of the second quarter 2013 Italian court decision) that arose from consumer channel sales that had been accrued but not paid was reversed and recorded as a reduction of cost of sales. We did not record a receivable for the remaining estimated $25.4 million that we believe is owed to us by the Italian collection society for our historical over payment on levies associated with commercial channel sales as we are not assured of its collectability. Rather, going forward, such amount will be realized as a reduction to cost of sales upon the incurrence of (and for the same amount of) valid levies for consumer channel sales. Our annual expense for copyright levies in Italy was $5.1 million and $7.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. The Italian court decision placed the burden of proof on the payer of levies to provide sufficient documentation and evidence to support the determination of levies between those paid on commercial versus consumer channel sales. We believe that we have utilized a methodology, and have sufficient documentation and evidence, to fully support our estimates that we have overpaid $39 million to the Italian collection society of levies on commercial channel sales and that we have incurred (but not paid) $13.6 million of levies on consumer channel sales in Italy. However, such amounts could be subject to challenge in court and there is no certainty that our estimates would be upheld and supported. Additionally, due to the expected continued decline in our sales associated with optical media products, we cannot be assured that we will ever be able to fully realize the estimated amounts owed to us by the Italian collection society through offsetting such amounts against levies incurred on future consumer channel sales. At June 30, 2013, the recovery of some or all of the copyright levies previously paid on commercial sales in EU jurisdictions other than Italy represents a gain contingency that has not yet met the required criteria for recognition in our financial statements. There is no assurance that we will realize any of this gain contingency. We also have an estimated $17.6 million of accrued but unpaid levies associated with consumer sales in EU jurisdictions other than Italy that we continue to carry on our books. We are subject to several pending or threatened legal actions by the individual European national levy collecting societies in relation to private copyright levies under the Directive. Those actions generally seek payment of the commercial and consumer optical levies withheld by Imation. Imation has corresponding claims in those actions seeking reimbursement of levies improperly collected by those collecting societies. Although these actions are subject to the uncertainties inherent in the litigation process, based on the information presently available to us, management does not expect that the ultimate resolution of these actions will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Litigation, Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation

We are the subject of various pending or threatened legal actions in the ordinary course of our business. All such matters are subject to many uncertainties and outcomes that are not predictable with assurance. Additionally, our businesses are subject to allegations of patent infringement by our competitors as well as by non-practicing entities (NPEs), sometimes referred to as “patent trolls,” who may seek monetary settlements from us, our competitors, suppliers and resellers, including the One-Blue litigation described below. Consequently, as of June 30, 2013, we are unable to reasonably estimate the ultimate aggregate amount of any monetary liability or financial impact that we may incur with respect to these matters. It is reasonably possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters could materially affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

On May 22, 2013, Imation was sued in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware by five entities: One-Blue, LLC (One-Blue), which is an entity with licensing authority for a pool of patents relating to Blu-ray discs, and four members of One-Blue, Koninklijke Philips N.V., Panasonic Corporation, Pioneer Corporation and Sony Corporation. The plaintiffs allege that Imation's sales of certain Blu-ray discs infringe one or more of those patents and seek unspecified damages, treble damages and attorney's fees. On June 13, 2013, Imation filed an Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims, naming various defenses including that plaintiffs are barred, in whole or in part, from any recovery or relief by their refusal to license the patents-in-suit under fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory terms. Imation intends to vigorously defend the case. Discovery in this matter has not yet commenced. In addition, Imation has a dispute with One-Blue regarding One-Blue's refusal to license its Japanese Blu-ray patents under fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory terms and Imation Corporation Japan, Imation's Japanese subsidiary, has sued One-Blue in Japan regarding its unlawful interference with certain of our customer relationships. Imation has notified its manufacturers of indemnity obligations that it believes cover a portion of its liability, if any, to One-Blue and the other associated patent holders.

In many European Union (EU) member countries, the sale of recordable optical media is subject to a private copyright levy. The levies are intended to compensate copyright holders with "fair compensation" for the harm caused by private copies made by natural persons of protected works under the European Copyright Directive, which became effective in 2002 (Directive). Levies are generally charged directly to the importer of the product upon the sale of the products. Payers of levies remit levy payments to collecting societies which, in turn, are expected to distribute funds to copyright holders. Levy systems of EU member countries must comply with the Directive, but individual member countries are responsible for administering their own systems. Since implementation, the levy systems have been the subject of numerous litigation and law making activities. On October 21, 2010, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that fair compensation is an autonomous European law concept that was introduced by the Directive and must be uniformly applied in all EU member states. The ECJ stated that fair compensation must be calculated based on the harm caused to the authors of protected works by private copying. The ECJ also stated that the indiscriminate application of the private copying levy to devices not made available to private users and clearly reserved for uses other than private copying is incompatible with the Directive. The ECJ ruling made clear that copyright holders are only entitled to fair compensation payments (funded by levy payments made by importers of applicable products, including the Company) when sales of optical media are made to natural persons presumed to be making private copies. Within this disclosure, we use the term "commercial channel sales" when referring to products intended for uses other than private copying and "consumer channel sales" when referring to products intended for uses including private copying.

Since the Directive was implemented in 2002, we estimate that we have paid in excess of $100 million in levies to various ongoing collecting societies related to commercial channel sales. Based on the ECJ's October 2010 ruling and subsequent litigation and law making activities, we believe that these payments were not consistent with the Directive and should not have been paid to the various collecting societies. Accordingly, subsequent to the October 21, 2010 ECJ ruling, we began withholding levy payments to the various collecting societies and, in 2011, we released our existing accruals (totaling $7.8 million) for unpaid levies related to commercial channel sales. However, we continue to accrue, but not pay, a liability for levies arising from consumer channel sales. As of March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, we had accrued liabilities of $29.1 million and $27.7 million, respectively, associated with levies related to consumer channel sales for which we are withholding payment.

Since the October 2010 ECJ ruling, we evaluate quarterly on a country-by-country basis whether: (i) levies should be accrued on current period commercial and/or consumer channel sales; and, (ii) accrued, but unpaid, copyright levies on prior period consumer channel sales should be reversed. Our evaluation is made on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis and considers ongoing and cumulative developments related to levy litigation and law making activities within each jurisdiction as well as throughout the EU. For the three months ended March 31, 2013 and the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 we did not reverse any amounts associated with prior period copyright levies. To the extent any reversals were to occur, they would be recorded as a reduction to costs of sales, which is the same income statement account in which our levy expense is initially recorded.

During the second quarter of 2013, an Italian court rendered a decision associated with a copyright levy matter to which Imation was not a party. This decision (i) confirmed and provided further specificity to the October 21, 2010 ruling of the ECJ that levies should not be paid on commercial channel sales and (ii) evaluated, via audit, the plaintiff's documentation and evidence for distinguishing between levies paid on commercial and consumer channel sales. Based on the ruling of this Italian court, in combination with other applicable levy and law-making activities within the EU, including Italy, we believe there is sufficient evidence that we may offset with the Italian collecting society the estimated $39 million we have overpaid for copyright levies in Italy (due to us paying levies on commercial channel sales prior to the October 21, 2010 ECJ ruling) against the amounts owed to the Italian collecting society for unpaid levies on consumer channel sales. As such, our liability for Italian copyright levies in the amount of $13.6 million (existing at the time of the of the second quarter 2013 Italian court decision) that arose from consumer channel sales that had been accrued but not paid was reversed and recorded as a reduction of cost of sales. We did not record a receivable for the remaining estimated $25.4 million that we believe is owed to us by the Italian collection society for our historical over payment on levies associated with commercial channel sales as we are not assured of its collectability. Rather, going forward, such amount will be realized as a reduction to cost of sales upon the incurrence of (and for the same amount of) valid levies for consumer channel sales. Our annual expense for copyright levies in Italy was $5.1 million and $7.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

The Italian court decision placed the burden of proof on the payer of levies to provide sufficient documentation and evidence to support the determination of levies between those paid on commercial versus consumer channel sales. We believe that we have utilized a methodology, and have sufficient documentation and evidence, to fully support our estimates that we have overpaid $39 million to the Italian collection society of levies on commercial channel sales and that we have incurred (but not paid) $13.6 million of levies on consumer channel sales in Italy. However, such amounts could be subject to challenge in court and there is no certainty that our estimates would be upheld and supported. Additionally, due to the expected continued decline in our sales associated with optical media products, we cannot be assured that we will ever be able to fully realize the estimated amounts owed to us by the Italian collection society through offsetting such amounts against levies incurred on future consumer channel sales.

At June 30, 2013, the recovery of some or all of the copyright levies previously paid on commercial sales in EU jurisdictions other than Italy represents a gain contingency that has not yet met the required criteria for recognition in our financial statements. There is no assurance that we will realize any of this gain contingency. We also have an estimated $17.6 million of accrued but unpaid levies associated with consumer sales in EU jurisdictions other than Italy that we continue to carry on our books.

We are subject to several pending or threatened legal actions by the individual European national levy collecting societies in relation to private copyright levies under the Directive. Those actions generally seek payment of the commercial and consumer optical levies withheld by Imation. Imation has corresponding claims in those actions seeking reimbursement of levies improperly collected by those collecting societies. Although these actions are subject to the uncertainties inherent in the litigation process, based on the information presently available to us, management does not expect that the ultimate resolution of these actions will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.