Litigation, Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2015
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, 2015, 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. Proceedings in the case have been bifurcated, and the matter is now in the pretrial phase for issues relating to determination of a fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory royalty rate. 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 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, sued One-Blue in Japan regarding its unlawful interference with certain of our customer relationships. On February 18, 2015, the Tokyo District Court rendered a decision in favor of Imation that held One-Blue's sending of warning letters to Imation customers that threatened those customers with certain patent-related actions constituted an illegal "unfair competition practice" and issued a permanent injunction prohibiting One-Blue from sending any such warning letters in the future. One-Blue did not appeal that decision. SpearPoint Capital Fund LP et al. v. Mark E. Lucas, et al. This shareholder derivative action was filed in Delaware Chancery Court on February 9, 2015. It names as defendants the Company and the members of its Board of Directors. Plaintiffs contend that the defendants paid excessive compensation to the directors. They seek damages for breaches of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. They also seek corporate governance reforms related to the Company’s compensation practices. The Directors have responded to the complaint denying all the allegations; the Company, as the nominal defendant, has responded denying the allegations as well. The parties are now engaged in discovery. Trial, should it be necessary, has been scheduled for June 2016. Following the May 2015 Change of Control Event, on July 6, 2015, Mark Lucas, the Chief Executive Officer of Imation, provided notice to the Company indicating that he believes that his removal from the Company’s Board of Directors as a result of the shareholder vote constitutes “Good Reason” for the termination of his employment under the terms of his Amended and Restated Severance and Change in Control Agreement with the Company dated November 24, 2014 (the “Agreement”) and his performance award agreements with the Company, and that he intends to terminate his employment at an unspecified date not earlier than September 21, 2015. The Company is currently analyzing its planned actions in response to this claim. Under the terms of his Agreement and performance awards, a Change of Control followed by a termination of Mr. Lucas’s employment by the Company without “Cause” or by Mr. Lucas for “Good Reason” would result in a severance payment of $3.6 million. The Company has not recorded a charge or established a liability for this claim as of June 30, 2015. Copyright Levies Background and historical developments associated with our copyright levies 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, 2014. As of June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, we had accrued liabilities of $5.8 million and $9.3 million, respectively, associated with levies for which we are withholding payment. In the first quarter of 2015, we reversed a $2.8 million accrual for copyright levies on optical products as the result of a favorable German court decision retroactively setting levy rates at a level much lower than the rates sought by the German collecting society. 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. For example, in the first quarter of 2015, the French levy society, Copie France, filed a new summary proceeding, seeking $8.7 million in withheld levies. Imation believed this claim was without merit, and Copie France voluntarily dismissed the claim in the second quarter of 2015. Imation has corresponding claims in those actions seeking reimbursement of levies improperly collected by those collecting societies. We are 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 2015 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 June 30, 2015, 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. Proceedings in the case have been bifurcated, and the matter is now in the pretrial phase for issues relating to determination of a fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory royalty rate. 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 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, sued One-Blue in Japan regarding its unlawful interference with certain of our customer relationships. On February 18, 2015, the Tokyo District Court rendered a decision in favor of Imation that held One-Blue's sending of warning letters to Imation customers that threatened those customers with certain patent-related actions constituted an illegal "unfair competition practice" and issued a permanent injunction prohibiting One-Blue from sending any such warning letters in the future. One-Blue did not appeal that decision.

SpearPoint Capital Fund LP et al. v. Mark E. Lucas, et al. This shareholder derivative action was filed in Delaware Chancery Court on February 9, 2015. It names as defendants the Company and the members of its Board of Directors. Plaintiffs contend that the defendants paid excessive compensation to the directors. They seek damages for breaches of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. They also seek corporate governance reforms related to the Company’s compensation practices. The Directors have responded to the complaint denying all the allegations; the Company, as the nominal defendant, has responded denying the allegations as well. The parties are now engaged in discovery. Trial, should it be necessary, has been scheduled for June 2016.

Following the May 2015 Change of Control Event, on July 6, 2015, Mark Lucas, the Chief Executive Officer of Imation, provided notice to the Company indicating that he believes that his removal from the Company’s Board of Directors as a result of the shareholder vote constitutes “Good Reason” for the termination of his employment under the terms of his Amended and Restated Severance and Change in Control Agreement with the Company dated November 24, 2014 (the “Agreement”) and his performance award agreements with the Company, and that he intends to terminate his employment at an unspecified date not earlier than September 21, 2015. The Company is currently analyzing its planned actions in response to this claim. Under the terms of his Agreement and performance awards, a Change of Control followed by a termination of Mr. Lucas’s employment by the Company without “Cause” or by Mr. Lucas for “Good Reason” would result in a severance payment of $3.6 million. The Company has not recorded a charge or established a liability for this claim as of June 30, 2015.

Background and historical developments associated with our copyright levies 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, 2014. As of June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, we had accrued liabilities of $5.8 million and $9.3 million, respectively, associated with levies for which we are withholding payment. In the first quarter of 2015, we reversed a $2.8 million accrual for copyright levies on optical products as the result of a favorable German court decision retroactively setting levy rates at a level much lower than the rates sought by the German collecting society.

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. For example, in the first quarter of 2015, the French levy society, Copie France, filed a new summary proceeding, seeking $8.7 million in withheld levies. Imation believed this claim was without merit, and Copie France voluntarily dismissed the claim in the second quarter of 2015. Imation has corresponding claims in those actions seeking reimbursement of levies improperly collected by those collecting societies. We are 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 2015 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.