LITIGATION	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2015
LITIGATION [Abstract]
LITIGATION	NOTE 13: LITIGATION Pending Litigation Diana Anselmo and New Day Today Corporation v. Mannatech, Incorporated, Case No. DC-15-01904, Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas On February 18, 2015 Ms. Diana Anselmo and New Day Today Corporation (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) filed suit against Mannatech alleging breach of contract pertaining to a portion of proceeds from a Mannatech Associate position once held by Ms. Anselmo’s former husband, Ray Gebauer. Plaintiffs are seeking damages in excess of $1,000,000 plus legal fees and expenses and a declaration that the Company continue to pay Plaintiffs proceeds from Mr. Gebauer’s former account. The Company retained counsel and Company filed its answer on March 23, 2015 denying Plaintiff’s allegations. The trial was scheduled for March 7, 2016; however, on December 7, 2015 the Court granted the parties Agreed Motion for Continuation and reset the trial for July 11, 2016. The Court issued a mediation order on April 20, 2015. Mediation must be conducted no later than June 17, 2016. The parties remain engaged in the discovery process. It is not possible at this time to predict whether the Company will incur any liability, or to estimate the ranges of damages, if any, which may be incurred in connection with this matter. However, the Company believes it has a valid defense and will vigorously defend this claim. This matter remains open. Mannatech Korea, Ltd. v. Busan Custom Office, Busan District Court, Korea On or before April 12, 2015, Mannatech Korea, Ltd. filed a suit against the Busan Custom Office (“BCO”) to challenge BCO’s method of calculation regarding its assessment notice issued on July 11, 2013. The assessment notice included an audit of the Company’s imported goods covering fiscal years 2008 through 2012 and required the Company to pay $1.0 million for this assessment, all of which has been accrued to date. The Court ordered both parties to submit a response to its inquiry by January 15, 2016, and upon the response by both parties, the Court will determine whether to issue a decision without additional hearing or conduct additional hearing. This matter remains open. Patent Litigation Mannatech, Incorporated v. Wellness Quest, LLC and Harley Reginald McDaniel, Case No. 3:14-cv-2497, U.S. District Court, for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division On July 11, 2014 the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Wellness Quest, LLC and Dr. H. Reginald McDaniel (“Defendants”) alleging the Defendants infringe United States Patent Nos. 7,157,431 and 7,202,220, both entitled “Compositions of Plant Carbohydrates as Dietary Supplements,” (the “Patents”) and seeking to stop their manufacture, offer, and sale of infringing glyconutritional dietary supplement products. On July 16, 2014, the Company filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction preventing Defendants from infringing the Patents pending a final decision on the merits. On August 29, 2014, the Defendants filed their Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Brief in Support along with their Answer and Affirmative Defenses. On November 4, 2014, the Court denied the Company’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Motion to Expedite Discovery. On December 15, 2014, the Company deposed Dr. Reginald McDaniel. Each party submitted its list of claim constructions/definitions and a list of the supporting authority. Each party filed its opening brief and their respective responsive briefs. Defendants have designated an expert and the Company deposed the expert on January 27, 2015 regarding his claim construction opinions while reserving the right to examine him later regarding other matters. The parties remain engaged in the claim construction process. Mediation on this matter was held on April 24, 2015 and a settlement was not reached. On May 12, 2015 the Company received notice of an Order of Transfer advising that the case had been reassigned from Judge Ed Kinkeade to Judge David C. Godbey for all further proceedings. On July 20, 2015, the Court issued its Markman ruling adopting the Company’s proposed claim construction for all disputed terms except for “dietary supplement composition” which it found needed no construction. On August 20, 2015, Defendants filed a request for an interlocutory appeal, and the Company filed a reply on October 6, 2015. The Company also filed a separate motion requesting entry of a final judgment and permanent injunction on September 8, 2015. On November 5, 2015 the Court issued an Order accepting Defendant’s stipulation of infringement under the Court’s claim interpretation and granted the Company’s partial motion for summary judgment and issued a permanent injunction against Defendants’ infringement of the Patents. The Court stayed the permanent injunction until the conclusion of Defendants’ appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Court of Appeals”). On December 3, 2015, Defendants filed their Notice of Appeal which was docketed by the Court of Appeals on December 8, 2015. This matter remains open. Mannatech, Incorporated v. RBC Life Sciences, Inc. and RBC Life Sciences USA, Inc,. Case No. 3:15-cv-01321-N, U.S. District Court, for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division On April 28, 2015 the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit against RBC Life Sciences, Inc. and RBC Life Sciences USA, Inc. (“Defendants”) alleging the Defendants infringe upon the Patents and seeking to stop their manufacture, offer, and sale of infringing glyconutritional dietary supplement products. The Defendants asserted counterclaims alleging, among other things, invalidity and non-infringement. On May 12, 2015 the Company received notice of an Order of Transfer advising that the case had been reassigned from Judge Ed Kinkeade to Judge David C. Godbey for all further proceedings. The parties filed the Case Management Report with the Court on June 24, 2015. The Company filed its answer to Defendants’ counterclaims on June 29, 2015. Defendants also asserted that they plan to seek re-examination of the Patents with United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). The parties reached a settlement on July 28, 2015, and the final judgment and permanent injunction was entered on August 5, 2015. This matter is closed. These lawsuits continue the Company’s enforcement of its patent rights, and the Company intends to vigorously prosecute these matters. Based on the previous successful patent infringement lawsuits against Country Life, LLC, Glycobiotics International, Inc., Techmedica Health, Inc., IonX Holdings, Inc., Boston Mountain Laboratories, Inc., Green Life, LLC, and Xiong Lo and the recent success against RBC Life Sciences, Inc. and RBC Life Sciences USA, Inc. described above, the Company believes there is a strong likelihood that it will obtain permanent injunctions against the manufacture and sale of any infringing products for the duration of the Company’s patents. Investigation of Potential Claims In re: Mannatech, Inc., Case No. DC-15-01784, 116-th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas The Company engaged outside counsel to initiate an investigation regarding certain activities conducted by Samuel L. Caster. On February 12, 2015, the Company petitioned the Court pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202 to depose Mr. Caster to investigate potential claims the Company may have against him. A hearing on the petition was held on March 17, 2015. The Court granted the Company the opportunity to depose Mr. Caster. An Agreed Order was filed with the Court on April 1, 2015. The Company deposed Mr. Caster on April 29, 2015. Following the deposition, the Company moved forward with exercising its rights under the consulting agreement between the Company and Mr. Caster’s company, Wonder, and initiated arbitration proceedings, which are described below. Arbitration Proceeding Mannatech v. Samuel L. Caster and Wonder Enterprises, LLC, Demand for Arbitration, Case No. 01-15-0003-6812 On May 29, 2015 the Company initiated arbitration proceedings against Samuel L. Caster and Wonder (“Respondents”) alleging breach of contract by Mr. Caster and his company, Wonder, in a series of consulting agreements entered into by the parties. Mannatech seeks to recover actual damages, costs of court and prejudgment interest together with disgorgement of all benefits received by Caster and Wonder. The Company estimates its damages to be between $500,000.00 and $3,500,000.00. On June 12, 2015 Respondents contacted the Company’s counsel to request mediation. The parties have agreed to mediate this dispute; mediation was held on August 17, 2015, and a settlement was not reached. A preliminary hearing for arbitration was held on September 18, 2015, and a final hearing will commence on April 25, 2016. A Scheduling Order has been entered and depositions and discovery must be completed by March 25, 2016. The parties are currently engaged in the discovery process. This matter remains open. Trademark Opposition – U.S. Patent and Trademark Office United States Trademark Opposition No. 91221493, Shaklee Corporation v. Mannatech, Incorporated re: UTH On April 15, 2015 the Company received notice that Shaklee Corporation (“Shaklee”) filed a Notice of Opposition to the Company’s trademark application for UTH (stylized as Ū^th) with the USPTO. On May 19, 2015, the Company filed an answer to the opposition and also filed a counterclaim seeking to cancel Shaklee’s registration of its YOUTH mark. Shaklee filed an extension to oppose the UTH mark on June 18, 2015, and the request to extend time to oppose was granted until July 18, 2015. Shaklee filed a second extension on July 17, 2015, and the request to extend time to oppose was granted until September 16, 2015. Shaklee filed motions to strike the Company’s Affirmative Defenses to the Opposition and Counterclaim to cancel their registrations. The Company filed responses and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ruled in Shaklee’s favor. The Company filed an amended Answer to the Opposition and Amended Counterclaim on November 18, 2015. Shaklee then filed an answer to the Company’s Counterclaim on December 30, 2015. On September 15, 2015, Shaklee filed two more Notices of Opposition for the UTH & Design and ŪTH applications. The Company filed Answers and Counterclaims on November 20, 2015. This matter remains ongoing. It is not possible at this time to predict the outcome of this office action or whether the Company will incur any liability, or to estimate the ranges of damages, if any, which may be incurred in connection with this matter. However, the Company believes it has a valid defense and will vigorously defend this claim. This matter will remain open until it is resolved. Litigation in General The Company has incurred several claims in the normal course of business. The Company believes such claims can be resolved without any material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. The Company maintains certain liability insurance; however, certain costs of defending lawsuits are not covered by or only partially covered by its insurance policies, including claims that are below insurance deductibles. Additionally, insurance carriers could refuse to cover certain claims, in whole or in part. The Company accrues costs to defend itself from litigation as they are incurred or as they become determinable. The outcome of litigation is uncertain, and despite management’s views of the merits of any litigation, or the reasonableness of the Company’s estimates and reserves, the Company’s financial statements could nonetheless be materially affected by an adverse judgment. The Company believes it has adequately reserved for the contingencies arising from current legal matters where an outcome was deemed to be probable, and the loss amount could be reasonably estimated.

NOTE 13: LITIGATION

Pending Litigation

Diana Anselmo and New Day Today Corporation v. Mannatech, Incorporated, Case No. DC-15-01904, Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas

On February 18, 2015 Ms. Diana Anselmo and New Day Today Corporation (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) filed suit against Mannatech alleging breach of contract pertaining to a portion of proceeds from a Mannatech Associate position once held by Ms. Anselmo’s former husband, Ray Gebauer. Plaintiffs are seeking damages in excess of $1,000,000 plus legal fees and expenses and a declaration that the Company continue to pay Plaintiffs proceeds from Mr. Gebauer’s former account.

The Company retained counsel and Company filed its answer on March 23, 2015 denying Plaintiff’s allegations. The trial was scheduled for March 7, 2016; however, on December 7, 2015 the Court granted the parties Agreed Motion for Continuation and reset the trial for July 11, 2016. The Court issued a mediation order on April 20, 2015. Mediation must be conducted no later than June 17, 2016. The parties remain engaged in the discovery process. It is not possible at this time to predict whether the Company will incur any liability, or to estimate the ranges of damages, if any, which may be incurred in connection with this matter. However, the Company believes it has a valid defense and will vigorously defend this claim. This matter remains open.

Mannatech Korea, Ltd. v. Busan Custom Office, Busan District Court, Korea

On or before April 12, 2015, Mannatech Korea, Ltd. filed a suit against the Busan Custom Office (“BCO”) to challenge BCO’s method of calculation regarding its assessment notice issued on July 11, 2013. The assessment notice included an audit of the Company’s imported goods covering fiscal years 2008 through 2012 and required the Company to pay $1.0 million for this assessment, all of which has been accrued to date. The Court ordered both parties to submit a response to its inquiry by January 15, 2016, and upon the response by both parties, the Court will determine whether to issue a decision without additional hearing or conduct additional hearing. This matter remains open.

Patent Litigation

Mannatech, Incorporated v. Wellness Quest, LLC and Harley Reginald McDaniel, Case No. 3:14-cv-2497, U.S. District Court, for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division

On July 11, 2014 the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Wellness Quest, LLC and Dr. H. Reginald McDaniel (“Defendants”) alleging the Defendants infringe United States Patent Nos. 7,157,431 and 7,202,220, both entitled “Compositions of Plant Carbohydrates as Dietary Supplements,” (the “Patents”) and seeking to stop their manufacture, offer, and sale of infringing glyconutritional dietary supplement products. On July 16, 2014, the Company filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction preventing Defendants from infringing the Patents pending a final decision on the merits. On August 29, 2014, the Defendants filed their Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Brief in Support along with their Answer and Affirmative Defenses. On November 4, 2014, the Court denied the Company’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Motion to Expedite Discovery. On December 15, 2014, the Company deposed Dr. Reginald McDaniel. Each party submitted its list of claim constructions/definitions and a list of the supporting authority. Each party filed its opening brief and their respective responsive briefs. Defendants have designated an expert and the Company deposed the expert on January 27, 2015 regarding his claim construction opinions while reserving the right to examine him later regarding other matters. The parties remain engaged in the claim construction process. Mediation on this matter was held on April 24, 2015 and a settlement was not reached.

On May 12, 2015 the Company received notice of an Order of Transfer advising that the case had been reassigned from Judge Ed Kinkeade to Judge David C. Godbey for all further proceedings. On July 20, 2015, the Court issued its Markman ruling adopting the Company’s proposed claim construction for all disputed terms except for “dietary supplement composition” which it found needed no construction. On August 20, 2015, Defendants filed a request for an interlocutory appeal, and the Company filed a reply on October 6, 2015. The Company also filed a separate motion requesting entry of a final judgment and permanent injunction on September 8, 2015.

On November 5, 2015 the Court issued an Order accepting Defendant’s stipulation of infringement under the Court’s claim interpretation and granted the Company’s partial motion for summary judgment and issued a permanent injunction against Defendants’ infringement of the Patents. The Court stayed the permanent injunction until the conclusion of Defendants’ appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Court of Appeals”). On December 3, 2015, Defendants filed their Notice of Appeal which was docketed by the Court of Appeals on December 8, 2015. This matter remains open.

Mannatech, Incorporated v. RBC Life Sciences, Inc. and RBC Life Sciences USA, Inc,. Case No. 3:15-cv-01321-N, U.S. District Court, for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division

On April 28, 2015 the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit against RBC Life Sciences, Inc. and RBC Life Sciences USA, Inc. (“Defendants”) alleging the Defendants infringe upon the Patents and seeking to stop their manufacture, offer, and sale of infringing glyconutritional dietary supplement products. The Defendants asserted counterclaims alleging, among other things, invalidity and non-infringement. On May 12, 2015 the Company received notice of an Order of Transfer advising that the case had been reassigned from Judge Ed Kinkeade to Judge David C. Godbey for all further proceedings. The parties filed the Case Management Report with the Court on June 24, 2015. The Company filed its answer to Defendants’ counterclaims on June 29, 2015. Defendants also asserted that they plan to seek re-examination of the Patents with United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). The parties reached a settlement on July 28, 2015, and the final judgment and permanent injunction was entered on August 5, 2015. This matter is closed.

These lawsuits continue the Company’s enforcement of its patent rights, and the Company intends to vigorously prosecute these matters. Based on the previous successful patent infringement lawsuits against Country Life, LLC, Glycobiotics International, Inc., Techmedica Health, Inc., IonX Holdings, Inc., Boston Mountain Laboratories, Inc., Green Life, LLC, and Xiong Lo and the recent success against RBC Life Sciences, Inc. and RBC Life Sciences USA, Inc. described above, the Company believes there is a strong likelihood that it will obtain permanent injunctions against the manufacture and sale of any infringing products for the duration of the Company’s patents.

Investigation of Potential Claims

In re: Mannatech, Inc., Case No. DC-15-01784, 116-th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas

The Company engaged outside counsel to initiate an investigation regarding certain activities conducted by Samuel L. Caster. On February 12, 2015, the Company petitioned the Court pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202 to depose Mr. Caster to investigate potential claims the Company may have against him. A hearing on the petition was held on March 17, 2015. The Court granted the Company the opportunity to depose Mr. Caster. An Agreed Order was filed with the Court on April 1, 2015. The Company deposed Mr. Caster on April 29, 2015. Following the deposition, the Company moved forward with exercising its rights under the consulting agreement between the Company and Mr. Caster’s company, Wonder, and initiated arbitration proceedings, which are described below.

Arbitration Proceeding

Mannatech v. Samuel L. Caster and Wonder Enterprises, LLC, Demand for Arbitration, Case No. 01-15-0003-6812

On May 29, 2015 the Company initiated arbitration proceedings against Samuel L. Caster and Wonder (“Respondents”) alleging breach of contract by Mr. Caster and his company, Wonder, in a series of consulting agreements entered into by the parties. Mannatech seeks to recover actual damages, costs of court and prejudgment interest together with disgorgement of all benefits received by Caster and Wonder. The Company estimates its damages to be between $500,000.00 and $3,500,000.00. On June 12, 2015 Respondents contacted the Company’s counsel to request mediation. The parties have agreed to mediate this dispute; mediation was held on August 17, 2015, and a settlement was not reached. A preliminary hearing for arbitration was held on September 18, 2015, and a final hearing will commence on April 25, 2016. A Scheduling Order has been entered and depositions and discovery must be completed by March 25, 2016. The parties are currently engaged in the discovery process. This matter remains open.

Trademark Opposition – U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

United States Trademark Opposition No. 91221493, Shaklee Corporation v. Mannatech, Incorporated re: UTH

On April 15, 2015 the Company received notice that Shaklee Corporation (“Shaklee”) filed a Notice of Opposition to the Company’s trademark application for UTH (stylized as Ū^th) with the USPTO. On May 19, 2015, the Company filed an answer to the opposition and also filed a counterclaim seeking to cancel Shaklee’s registration of its YOUTH mark. Shaklee filed an extension to oppose the UTH mark on June 18, 2015, and the request to extend time to oppose was granted until July 18, 2015. Shaklee filed a second extension on July 17, 2015, and the request to extend time to oppose was granted until September 16, 2015. Shaklee filed motions to strike the Company’s Affirmative Defenses to the Opposition and Counterclaim to cancel their registrations. The Company filed responses and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ruled in Shaklee’s favor. The Company filed an amended Answer to the Opposition and Amended Counterclaim on November 18, 2015. Shaklee then filed an answer to the Company’s Counterclaim on December 30, 2015.

On September 15, 2015, Shaklee filed two more Notices of Opposition for the UTH & Design and ŪTH applications. The Company filed Answers and Counterclaims on November 20, 2015. This matter remains ongoing.

It is not possible at this time to predict the outcome of this office action or whether the Company will incur any liability, or to estimate the ranges of damages, if any, which may be incurred in connection with this matter. However, the Company believes it has a valid defense and will vigorously defend this claim. This matter will remain open until it is resolved.

Litigation in General

The Company has incurred several claims in the normal course of business. The Company believes such claims can be resolved without any material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

The Company maintains certain liability insurance; however, certain costs of defending lawsuits are not covered by or only partially covered by its insurance policies, including claims that are below insurance deductibles. Additionally, insurance carriers could refuse to cover certain claims, in whole or in part. The Company accrues costs to defend itself from litigation as they are incurred or as they become determinable.

The outcome of litigation is uncertain, and despite management’s views of the merits of any litigation, or the reasonableness of the Company’s estimates and reserves, the Company’s financial statements could nonetheless be materially affected by an adverse judgment. The Company believes it has adequately reserved for the contingencies arising from current legal matters where an outcome was deemed to be probable, and the loss amount could be reasonably estimated.