9. Commitments and contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2013

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

9. Commitments and contingencies

On June 8, 2012, Avery Dennison Corporation (“AD”) filed a civil complaint against the Company and a former employee of the Company and of AD, in the Court of Common Pleas (the “Court”) in Lake County, Ohio.  The complaint alleges that this former employee and the Company misappropriated unspecified trade secrets and confidential information related to the design of our food safety terminals from AD.  The complaint requests a preliminary and permanent injunction against the Company from manufacturing and selling our Ithaca® 9700 and 9800 food safety terminals.  On July 16, 2012, the Company filed its answer, affirmative defenses and counterclaims, seeking all available damages including legal fees.  A hearing on the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction took place in August 2012, and in November 2012, the Court denied this request. AD filed an appeal of the Court’s ruling to the Eleventh Appellate District, which heard oral arguments on the appeal on July 16, 2013.  On July 23, 2013, AD requested that the Eleventh Appellate District enjoin the Company’s further sale and marketing of the food safety terminals, pending the appeals court's decision. On July 29, 2013, TransAct opposed this request. On October 15, 2013, the Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision in the Company’s favor and denied AD’s further request for an injunction pending the Court of Appeal’s decision.  On October 24, 2013, AD filed a motion seeking that the Court of Appeals reconsider its decision.

On June 8, 2012, Avery Dennison Corporation (“AD”) filed a civil complaint against the Company and a former employee of the Company and of AD, in the Court of Common Pleas (the “Court”) in Lake County, Ohio.  The complaint alleges that this former employee and the Company misappropriated unspecified trade secrets and confidential information related to the design of our food safety terminals from AD.  The complaint requests a preliminary and permanent injunction against the Company from manufacturing and selling our Ithaca® 9700 and 9800 food safety terminals.  On July 16, 2012, the Company filed its answer, affirmative defenses and counterclaims, seeking all available damages including legal fees.  A hearing on the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction took place in August 2012, and in November 2012, the Court denied this request. AD filed an appeal of the Court’s ruling to the Eleventh Appellate District, which heard oral arguments on the appeal on July 16, 2013.  On July 23, 2013, AD requested that the Eleventh Appellate District enjoin the Company’s further sale and marketing of the food safety terminals, pending the appeals court's decision. On July 29, 2013, TransAct opposed this request. On October 15, 2013, the Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision in the Company’s favor and denied AD’s further request for an injunction pending the Court of Appeal’s decision.  On October 24, 2013, AD filed a motion seeking that the Court of Appeals reconsider its decision.