7. Commitments and contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	7. Commitments and contingencies On June 8, 2012, Avery Dennison Corporation (“AD”) filed a civil complaint against us and a former employee of ours and of AD, in the Court of Common Pleas (the “Court”) in Lake County, Ohio. The complaint alleged that we and this former employee misappropriated unspecified trade secrets and confidential information from AD related to the design of our food safety terminals. The complaint requested a preliminary and permanent injunction against us from manufacturing and selling our Ithaca® 9700 and 9800 food safety terminals. On July 16, 2012, we filed our 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 our further sale and marketing of the food safety terminals, pending the Court of Appeals’ decision. On July 29, 2013, we opposed this request. On October 15, 2013, the Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision in our favor and denied AD’s further request of an injunction pending the Court of Appeals’ decision. On October 24, 2013, AD filed a motion seeking that the Court of Appeals reconsider its decision. On April 16, 2014, the Court of Appeals denied AD’s motion to reconsider its decision. On July 28, 2014, AD filed a motion requesting leave from the Court to file an amended complaint and indicating that it has elected to pursue only its claim for damages, dropping its claim for injunctive relief. On September 4, 2014, the Court granted AD’s motion to file an amended complaint. On September 25, 2014, we filed our answer, affirmative defenses and counterclaims with respect to the amended complaint, seeking all available damages including legal fees. On January 30, 2015, we filed a motion for summary judgment seeking judgment in our favor on all counts as to the Company. On the same day, AD filed two motions for partial summary judgment. On February 17, 2015, we opposed both of AD’s motions, and AD opposed our motion. On February 23, 2015, the Company filed a reply brief in support of its motion for summary judgment. A trial was scheduled to begin on April 21, 2015, however, on March 25, 2015 the parties executed a confidential settlement agreement and release (the “Settlement Agreement”) in which the parties mutually agreed to resolve the dispute that was the subject of the lawsuit filed by AD against the Company to the parties’ mutual satisfaction. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, we agreed to pay AD $3,600,000 payable on or before April 8, 2015 and also to qualify certain AD labels for use on our food safety terminals at an estimated cost of $25,000. We made the $3,600,000 payment to AD on April 8, 2015 and borrowed $2,500,000 under our revolving credit facility with TD Bank to fund the payment. We recorded the total expense of $3,625,000 in the fourth quarter 2014 as an operating expense included in the line item “Legal fees and settlement expenses associated with lawsuit” on the Consolidated Statement of Operations and as a current liability included in the line item “Accrued lawsuit settlement expenses” on the Consolidated Balance Sheet. In the second quarter of 2015, we reversed $25,000 of this expense because AD did not provide the label testing information by the due date required per the settlement agreement.

On June 8, 2012, Avery Dennison Corporation (“AD”) filed a civil complaint against us and a former employee of ours and of AD, in the Court of Common Pleas (the “Court”) in Lake County, Ohio. The complaint alleged that we and this former employee misappropriated unspecified trade secrets and confidential information from AD related to the design of our food safety terminals. The complaint requested a preliminary and permanent injunction against us from manufacturing and selling our Ithaca® 9700 and 9800 food safety terminals. On July 16, 2012, we filed our 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 our further sale and marketing of the food safety terminals, pending the Court of Appeals’ decision. On July 29, 2013, we opposed this request. On October 15, 2013, the Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision in our favor and denied AD’s further request of an injunction pending the Court of Appeals’ decision. On October 24, 2013, AD filed a motion seeking that the Court of Appeals reconsider its decision. On April 16, 2014, the Court of Appeals denied AD’s motion to reconsider its decision. On July 28, 2014, AD filed a motion requesting leave from the Court to file an amended complaint and indicating that it has elected to pursue only its claim for damages, dropping its claim for injunctive relief. On September 4, 2014, the Court granted AD’s motion to file an amended complaint. On September 25, 2014, we filed our answer, affirmative defenses and counterclaims with respect to the amended complaint, seeking all available damages including legal fees. On January 30, 2015, we filed a motion for summary judgment seeking judgment in our favor on all counts as to the Company. On the same day, AD filed two motions for partial summary judgment. On February 17, 2015, we opposed both of AD’s motions, and AD opposed our motion. On February 23, 2015, the Company filed a reply brief in support of its motion for summary judgment. A trial was scheduled to begin on April 21, 2015, however, on March 25, 2015 the parties executed a confidential settlement agreement and release (the “Settlement Agreement”) in which the parties mutually agreed to resolve the dispute that was the subject of the lawsuit filed by AD against the Company to the parties’ mutual satisfaction. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, we agreed to pay AD $3,600,000 payable on or before April 8, 2015 and also to qualify certain AD labels for use on our food safety terminals at an estimated cost of $25,000. We made the $3,600,000 payment to AD on April 8, 2015 and borrowed $2,500,000 under our revolving credit facility with TD Bank to fund the payment. We recorded the total expense of $3,625,000 in the fourth quarter 2014 as an operating expense included in the line item “Legal fees and settlement expenses associated with lawsuit” on the Consolidated Statement of Operations and as a current liability included in the line item “Accrued lawsuit settlement expenses” on the Consolidated Balance Sheet. In the second quarter of 2015, we reversed $25,000 of this expense because AD did not provide the label testing information by the due date required per the settlement agreement.