Litigation, Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2014
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 March 31, 2014, 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 six 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. This matter is now in the discovery phase for issues relating to determination of a fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory royalty rate. 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 in Japan, where Imation's sales of Blu-ray discs are substantially greater than in the U.S. 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 their indemnity obligations that it believes cover a portion of its liability, if any, to One-Blue and the other plaintiffs. 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, in all applicable jurisdictions except Italy and France due to recent court rulings that are discussed in Note 15 - Litigation, Commitments and Contingencies in our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013. As of March 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, we had accrued liabilities of $9.5 million and $10.0 million, respectively, associated with levies related to consumer channel sales in EU jurisdictions other than Italy and France 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. Any reversals that would occur, are recorded as a reduction to costs of sales, which is the same income statement account in which our levy expense is initially recorded. For the three months ended March 31, 2014 and 2013 we did not reverse any amounts associated with prior period copyright levies. See Note 15 - Litigation, Commitments and Contingencies in our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 for discussion of reversals of copyright levies in 2013. At March 31, 2014, the recovery of some or all of the copyright levies previously paid on commercial sales in EU jurisdictions other than Italy and France 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 $9.5 million of accrued but unpaid levies associated with consumer sales in EU jurisdictions other than Italy and France 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. We are also subject to threatened actions by certain customers of Imation seeking reimbursement of funds they allege relate to commercial levies that they claim they should not have paid. 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. We anticipate that additional court decisions may be rendered in 2014 that may directly or indirectly impact our levy exposure in specific European countries which could trigger a review of our levy exposure in those countries.

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 March 31, 2014, 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 six 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. This matter is now in the discovery phase for issues relating to determination of a fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory royalty rate. 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 in Japan, where Imation's sales of Blu-ray discs are substantially greater than in the U.S. 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 their indemnity obligations that it believes cover a portion of its liability, if any, to One-Blue and the other plaintiffs.

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, in all applicable jurisdictions except Italy and France due to recent court rulings that are discussed in Note 15 - Litigation, Commitments and Contingencies in our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013. As of March 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, we had accrued liabilities of $9.5 million and $10.0 million, respectively, associated with levies related to consumer channel sales in EU jurisdictions other than Italy and France 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. Any reversals that would occur, are recorded as a reduction to costs of sales, which is the same income statement account in which our levy expense is initially recorded. For the three months ended March 31, 2014 and 2013 we did not reverse any amounts associated with prior period copyright levies. See Note 15 - Litigation, Commitments and Contingencies in our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 for discussion of reversals of copyright levies in 2013.

At March 31, 2014, the recovery of some or all of the copyright levies previously paid on commercial sales in EU jurisdictions other than Italy and France 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 $9.5 million of accrued but unpaid levies associated with consumer sales in EU jurisdictions other than Italy and France 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. We are also subject to threatened actions by certain customers of Imation seeking reimbursement of funds they allege relate to commercial levies that they claim they should not have paid. 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. We anticipate that additional court decisions may be rendered in 2014 that may directly or indirectly impact our levy exposure in specific European countries which could trigger a review of our levy exposure in those countries.