CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS AND CONTINGENCIES	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2014
CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS AND CONTINGENCIES [Abstract]
CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS AND CONTINGENCIES	13. CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS AND CONTINGENCIES As of March 31, 2014, CTI and its majority owned subsidiary, VVI, have remaining obligations, contingent upon receipt of certain revenues, to repay up to $165,701 and $198,365, respectively, in consideration of grant funding received in 1994 and 1995. CTI also is obligated to pay at the rate of 7.5% of its revenues, if any, from transferring rights to certain inventions supported by the grant funds. VVI is obligated to pay at rates of 1.5% of its net sales of supported products or 15% of its revenues from licensing supported products, if any. We have engaged R.F. Lafferty & Co. to seek an acquisition partner from a limited number of companies for our nanoparticle bone biomaterial patents, among other assets and/or securities. The Company would pay Lafferty a 10% finder's fee in the event an acquisition partner is found, which management has deemed to be an immaterial and contingent obligation. Contingencies - Litigation Carolina Liquid Chemistries Corporation, et al. (case pending) - On August 29, 2005, we filed a complaint against Carolina Liquid Chemistries Corporation ("Carolina Liquid") in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, alleging patent infringement of our patent covering homocysteine assays, and seeking monetary damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, court costs and other remuneration at the option of the court. As we became aware of other infringers, we amended our complaint to add as defendants Catch, Inc. ("Catch") and the Diazyme Laboratories Division of General Atomics ("Diazyme"). On September 6, 2006, Diazyme filed for declaratory judgment in the Southern District of California for a change in venue and a declaration of non-infringement and invalidity. On September 12, 2006, the District Court in Colorado ruled that both Catch and Diazyme be added as defendants to the Carolina Liquid case. On October 23, 2006, Diazyme requested the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the "USPTO") to re-evaluate the validity of our patent and this request was granted by the USPTO on December 14, 2006. On July 30, 2009, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences ("BPAI") upheld the homocysteine patent. In September 2008, the examiner had denied the patent, but that denial was overruled by the BPAI. While the examiner had appealed that BPAI decision, delaying further action, that appeal was also denied by the BPAI on December 13, 2010. In June 2011, the examiner once again appealed the BPAI decision. In addition to responding to this new appeal, the Company petitioned the Director of the USPTO to help expedite further action on the case within the USPTO, which was to have been handled with special dispatch according to USPTO requirements for handling reexamination proceedings of patents involved in litigation. On March 13, 2012, the USPTO issued the Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate confirming the patentability of claims examined. The company has begun collecting unpaid amounts from various obligated companies. Employment matters - former employee (case pending) - In September 2003, a former employee filed a whistleblower complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the Department of Labor (OSHA) alleging that the employee had been terminated for engaging in conduct protected under the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX). In February 2005, OSHA found probable cause to support the employee's complaint and the Secretary of Labor ordered reinstatement and back wages since the date of termination and CTCC requested de novo review and a hearing before an administrative law judge ("ALJ"). In July 2005, after the close of the hearing on CTI's appeal, the U.S. district court for Connecticut enforced the Secretary's preliminary order of reinstatement and back pay under threat of contempt and the Company rehired the employee with back pay. On October 5, 2005, the ALJ who conducted the hearing on CTI's appeal of the OSHA findings ruled in CTI's favor and recommended dismissal of the employee's complaint. Although the employee abandoned his position upon notice of the ALJ's decision, he nevertheless filed a request for review by the DOL Administrative Review Board ("ARB"). In May 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the order of the district court enforcing the Secretary's preliminary order of reinstatement and back pay. The employee also filed a new SOX retaliation complaint with OSHA based on alleged black listing action by CTI following his termination. OSHA dismissed the complaint and the employee filed a request for a hearing by an administrative law judge. Ultimately, the employee voluntarily dismissed the appeal. In March 2008, the ARB issued an order of remand in the employee's appeal of the October 2005 dismissal of his termination complaint, directing the ALJ to clarify her analysis utilizing the burden-shifting standard articulated by the ARB. In January 2009, the ALJ issued a revised decision again recommending dismissal and once again the employee appealed the ruling to the ARB. On September 30, 2011, the ARB issued a final decision and order affirming the ALJ's decision on remand and dismissing the employee's complaint. The employee has appealed the ARB's decision before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which has ordered the employee to file his opening brief by May 31, 2012. Response briefs by the Solicitor's Office of the U.S. Department of Labor and CTI were submitted in August 2012. In March 2013, the U.S Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the ARB's decision dismissing the former employee's complaint and denied the employee's appeal from that order. In April 2013, the Second Circuit terminated proceedings in that court. Summary - We may be a party to other legal actions and proceedings from time to time. We are unable to estimate legal expenses or losses we may incur, if any, or possible damages we may recover, and we have not recorded any potential judgment losses or proceeds in our financial statements to date. We record expenses in connection with these suits as incurred. We believe that we carry adequate liability insurance, directors and officers insurance, casualty insurance, for owned or leased tangible assets, and other insurance as needed to cover us against potential and actual claims and lawsuits that occur in the ordinary course of our business. However, an unfavorable resolution of any or all matters, and/or our incurrence of significant legal fees and other costs to defend or prosecute any of these actions and proceedings may, depending on the amount and timing, have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows in a particular period.

13. CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS AND CONTINGENCIES

As of March 31, 2014, CTI and its majority owned subsidiary, VVI, have remaining obligations, contingent upon receipt of certain revenues, to repay up to $165,701 and $198,365, respectively, in consideration of grant funding received in 1994 and 1995. CTI also is obligated to pay at the rate of 7.5% of its revenues, if any, from transferring rights to certain inventions supported by the grant funds. VVI is obligated to pay at rates of 1.5% of its net sales of supported products or 15% of its revenues from licensing supported products, if any.

We have engaged R.F. Lafferty & Co. to seek an acquisition partner from a limited number of companies for our nanoparticle bone biomaterial patents, among other assets and/or securities. The Company would pay Lafferty a 10% finder's fee in the event an acquisition partner is found, which management has deemed to be an immaterial and contingent obligation.

Contingencies - Litigation

Carolina Liquid Chemistries Corporation, et al. (case pending) - On August 29, 2005, we filed a complaint against Carolina Liquid Chemistries Corporation ("Carolina Liquid") in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, alleging patent infringement of our patent covering homocysteine assays, and seeking monetary damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, court costs and other remuneration at the option of the court. As we became aware of other infringers, we amended our complaint to add as defendants Catch, Inc. ("Catch") and the Diazyme Laboratories Division of General Atomics ("Diazyme"). On September 6, 2006, Diazyme filed for declaratory judgment in the Southern District of California for a change in venue and a declaration of non-infringement and invalidity. On September 12, 2006, the District Court in Colorado ruled that both Catch and Diazyme be added as defendants to the Carolina Liquid case.

On October 23, 2006, Diazyme requested the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the "USPTO") to re-evaluate the validity of our patent and this request was granted by the USPTO on December 14, 2006. On July 30, 2009, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences ("BPAI") upheld the homocysteine patent. In September 2008, the examiner had denied the patent, but that denial was overruled by the BPAI. While the examiner had appealed that BPAI decision, delaying further action, that appeal was also denied by the BPAI on December 13, 2010. In June 2011, the examiner once again appealed the BPAI decision. In addition to responding to this new appeal, the Company petitioned the Director of the USPTO to help expedite further action on the case within the USPTO, which was to have been handled with special dispatch according to USPTO requirements for handling reexamination proceedings of patents involved in litigation.

On March 13, 2012, the USPTO issued the Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate confirming the patentability of claims examined. The company has begun collecting unpaid amounts from various obligated companies.

Employment matters - former employee (case pending) - In September 2003, a former employee filed a whistleblower complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the Department of Labor (OSHA) alleging that the employee had been terminated for engaging in conduct protected under the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX). In February 2005, OSHA found probable cause to support the employee's complaint and the Secretary of Labor ordered reinstatement and back wages since the date of termination and CTCC requested de novo review and a hearing before an administrative law judge ("ALJ"). In July 2005, after the close of the hearing on CTI's appeal, the U.S. district court for Connecticut enforced the Secretary's preliminary order of reinstatement and back pay under threat of contempt and the Company rehired the employee with back pay.

On October 5, 2005, the ALJ who conducted the hearing on CTI's appeal of the OSHA findings ruled in CTI's favor and recommended dismissal of the employee's complaint. Although the employee abandoned his position upon notice of the ALJ's decision, he nevertheless filed a request for review by the DOL Administrative Review Board ("ARB").

In May 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the order of the district court enforcing the Secretary's preliminary order of reinstatement and back pay. The employee also filed a new SOX retaliation complaint with OSHA based on alleged black listing action by CTI following his termination. OSHA dismissed the complaint and the employee filed a request for a hearing by an administrative law judge. Ultimately, the employee voluntarily dismissed the appeal.

In March 2008, the ARB issued an order of remand in the employee's appeal of the October 2005 dismissal of his termination complaint, directing the ALJ to clarify her analysis utilizing the burden-shifting standard articulated by the ARB. In January 2009, the ALJ issued a revised decision again recommending dismissal and once again the employee appealed the ruling to the ARB. On September 30, 2011, the ARB issued a final decision and order affirming the ALJ's decision on remand and dismissing the employee's complaint. The employee has appealed the ARB's decision before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which has ordered the employee to file his opening brief by May 31, 2012. Response briefs by the Solicitor's Office of the U.S. Department of Labor and CTI were submitted in August 2012. In March 2013, the U.S Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the ARB's decision dismissing the former employee's complaint and denied the employee's appeal from that order. In April 2013, the Second Circuit terminated proceedings in that court.

Summary - We may be a party to other legal actions and proceedings from time to time. We are unable to estimate legal expenses or losses we may incur, if any, or possible damages we may recover, and we have not recorded any potential judgment losses or proceeds in our financial statements to date. We record expenses in connection with these suits as incurred.

We believe that we carry adequate liability insurance, directors and officers insurance, casualty insurance, for owned or leased tangible assets, and other insurance as needed to cover us against potential and actual claims and lawsuits that occur in the ordinary course of our business. However, an unfavorable resolution of any or all matters, and/or our incurrence of significant legal fees and other costs to defend or prosecute any of these actions and proceedings may, depending on the amount and timing, have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows in a particular period.