Note L - Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2014
Disclosure Text Block Supplement [Abstract]
Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]	L. Contingencies From time to time, we become involved in various investigations, claims and legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of our business. These matters may relate to product liability, employment, intellectual property, tax, regulation, contract or other matters. The resolution of these matters as they arise will be subject to various uncertainties and, even if such claims are without merit, could result in the expenditure of significant financial and managerial resources. While unfavorable outcomes are possible, based on available information, we generally do not believe the resolution of these matters will result in a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial condition, or results of operation. However, a settlement payment or unfavorable outcome could adversely impact our results of operation. Our evaluation of the likely impact of these actions could change in the future and we could have unfavorable outcomes that we do not expect. On September 8, 2011, NAI and CSI filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against DNP International Co., Inc. (DNP) alleging claims of unfair competition, violation of the Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act and interference with business relations. On December 22, 2011, DNP filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against NAI and CSI for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of three of NAI’s patents. On January 27, 2012, DNP amended its complaint to add declaratory judgment claims against a fourth NAI patent (‘381 patent). On February 6, 2012, the Company and CSI moved to dismiss the cases related to the three previously asserted patents for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On the same day, the Company filed its answer and counterclaims for infringement by DNP of the ‘381 patent. DNP subsequently agreed to voluntarily dismiss CSI from the lawsuit. On March 2, 2012, the Court ordered the dismissal of CSI. On April 15, 2013, the Court consolidated the two lawsuits referenced above for purposes of pretrial matters. The Court also entered a Scheduling Order setting a trial date in April 2015. On July 6, 2014, the Court partially stayed the case. NAI, CSI and DNP settled the case, which was dismissed with prejudice on July 29, 2014. As part of the settlement, DNP agreed to exit the beta-alanine business. On December 21, 2011, NAI filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, alleging infringement by Woodbolt Distribution, LLC, also known as Cellucor (Woodbolt), Vitaquest International, Inc., d/b/a Garden State Nutritionals (Garden State) and F.H.G. Corporation, d/b/a Integrity Nutraceuticals (Integrity), of NAI’s ’381 patent. The complaint alleges that Woodbolt sells nutritional supplements, including supplements containing beta-alanine such as C4 Extreme™, M5 Extreme™, and N-Zero Extreme™, that infringe the ‘381 patent. Woodbolt, in turn, filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the ’381 patent in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. On February 17, 2012, Woodbolt filed a First Amended Complaint, realleging its original claims against the Company and asserting new claims of violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act (15 U.S.C. § 2) and Unfair Competition. The Company reasserted the arguments in its prior motion to dismiss and moved to dismiss the new claims asserted by Woodbolt. On January 23, 2013, the Delaware Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss Woodbolt’s case. On June 5, 2012, the Court in the above-referenced Texas case consolidated the pending suit with a second patent infringement case filed against Woodbolt by the Company on May 3, 2012, asserting infringement its ‘422 patent. On November 9, 2012, NAI filed a supplemental complaint adding allegations of infringement of Woodbolt’s Cellucor Cor –Performance ß-BCAA™ and Cellucor Cor –Performance™ Creatine products. On June 14, 2013, NAI filed a third patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, against Woodbolt, BodyBuilding.com and GNC Corporation alleging infringement of the ‘381 and ‘422 patents by Woodbolt’s Neon Sport Volt™ product. Woodbolt asserted the same defenses and counterclaims as set forth in the earlier lawsuits. On June 24, 2013, the Court consolidated the case with the earlier-filed lawsuits identified above. On June 25, 2013, Woodbolt filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, against a newly-issued NAI U.S. patent no. 8,470,865, asserting declaratory judgment claims of non-infringement, invalidity and unenforceability. On July 1, 2013, Woodbolt’s lawsuit was consolidated with the three pending lawsuits filed by NAI. On July 24, 2013, NAI filed its Answer and Amended Counterclaims against Woodbolt alleging infringement of the ‘865 patent by the products accused in the pending cases previously filed by NAI. On August 14, 2013, Woodbolt filed a counterclaim to NAI’s counterclaim asserting violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act (15 U.S.C. § 2) and Unfair Competition. On September 4, 2013, NAI moved to have Woodbolt’s counterclaims dismissed from the case. All of the consolidated cases remain pending. Woodbolt has also requested inter partes re-examination of the ’381 and ’422 patents by the USPTO. On July 26, 2012, the USPTO accepted the request to re-examine the ’381 patent. On August 17, 2012, the USPTO accepted the request to re-exam the ’422 patent. On December 6, 2013, the USPTO rejected the claims of the ‘381 patent and issued a right of appeal notice. On January 6, 2014, the Company filed its notice of appeal. The parties have filed briefs with the USPTO and the '381 reexamination is pending. On August 8, 2014, the USPTO rejected the claims of the ‘422 patent and issued a right of appeal notice. A declaration of non-infringement, invalidity or unenforceability of certain of our patents could have a material adverse impact upon our business results, operations, and financial condition. On February 13, 2013, several entities, including the Company, were sued for various causes of action pertaining to product liability in Superior Court for the State of California (County of San Diego) captioned Sparling v. USPLabs, LLC, et al. Case No. 37-2013-00034663-CU-PL-CTL. On March 21, 2013, co-defendant USP Labs LLC filed a Notice of Removal to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-00667-JLS-DHB. Specific allegations against the Company are for negligence, strict products liability, breach of express and implied warranties and wrongful death. The Company has been provided with defense counsel by CSI’s insurance company. Additionally, the Company has sought indemnification from co-defendant USPLabs, LLC. The Company is not involved in the formulation, manufacture, distribution or sale of the product at issue in the lawsuit. On April 19, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the allegations against it. On October 11, 2013, the Court granted a motion by co-defendant, USPLabs’, to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The Court has set a trial date for March 26, 2015. The Company moved to dismiss the case. On May 28, 2014, the claims against the Company were dismissed with prejudice. On May 8, 2013, several entities, including the Company, were sued for various causes of action pertaining to product liability in Superior Court for the State of California (County of Los Angeles) captioned Carolyne v. USPLabs, LLC, Case No. BC 508212. Specific allegations against the Company are for negligence, strict products liability, breach of express and implied warranties. The Company has been provided with defense counsel by CSI’s insurance company. Additionally, the Company has sought indemnification from co-defendant USPLabs. The Company is not involved in the formulation, manufacture, distribution or sale of the product at issue in the lawsuit. On June 28, 2013, the Company filed a demurrer seeking dismissal of the allegations against it. On May 27, 2014, the claims against the Company were dismissed with prejudice. On November 1, 2013, several entities, including the Company, were sued for various causes of action pertaining to product liability in Superior Court for the State of California (County of San Diego) captioned Reed v. USPLabs, LLC, Case No. 37-2013-00074052. Specific allegations against the Company are for negligence, strict products liability, and breach of express and implied warranties. The Company has been provided with defense counsel by CSI’s insurance company. Additionally, the Company has sought indemnification from co-defendant USPLabs. The Company is not involved in the formulation, manufacture, distribution or sale of the product at issue in the lawsuit. The case has been removed to U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. On December 27, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the allegations against it. On June 13, 2014, the claims against the Company were dismissed with prejudice. On November 1, 2013, several entities, including the Company, were sued for various causes of action pertaining to product liability in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas captioned Ogbonna v. USPLabs, LLC, Case No. 13-cv-340. While the Company is named in the caption, the complaint does not contain any specific allegations against the Company. The Company has been provided with defense counsel by CSI’s insurance company. Additionally, the Company has sought indemnification from co-defendant USPLabs. The Company is not involved in the formulation, manufacture, distribution or sale of the product at issue in the lawsuit. The case has been removed to U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. On January 28, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the allegations against it. On February 19, 2014, the Company’s motion to dismiss was granted by the Court. On January 24, 2014, several entities, including the Company, were sued for various causes of action pertaining to product liability in Superior Court for the State of California (County of Los Angeles) captioned Little v. USPLabs, LLC, Case No. BC534065. Specific allegations against the Company are for negligence, strict products liability, and breach of express and implied warranties. The Company has been provided with defense counsel by CSI’s insurance company. Additionally, the Company has sought indemnification from co-defendant USPLabs. The Company is not involved in the formulation, manufacture, distribution or sale of the product at issue in the lawsuit. The Company is not involved in the formulation, manufacture, distribution or sale of the product at issue in the lawsuit. On February 28, 2014, USPLabs filed a Notice of Removal from the Superior Court for the State of California to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On March 7, 2014, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss. On March 17, 2014, plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand the case back to Superior Court. On April 25, 2014, the District Court granted plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and therefore also denied the Company’s Motion to Dismiss as moot. On May 27, 2014, the claims against the Company were dismissed with prejudice.

Note L - Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2014

Disclosure Text Block Supplement [Abstract]

Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]

L. Contingencies

From time to time, we become involved in various investigations, claims and legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of our business. These matters may relate to product liability, employment, intellectual property, tax, regulation, contract or other matters. The resolution of these matters as they arise will be subject to various uncertainties and, even if such claims are without merit, could result in the expenditure of significant financial and managerial resources. While unfavorable outcomes are possible, based on available information, we generally do not believe the resolution of these matters will result in a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial condition, or results of operation. However, a settlement payment or unfavorable outcome could adversely impact our results of operation. Our evaluation of the likely impact of these actions could change in the future and we could have unfavorable outcomes that we do not expect.

On September 8, 2011, NAI and CSI filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against DNP International Co., Inc. (DNP) alleging claims of unfair competition, violation of the Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act and interference with business relations. On December 22, 2011, DNP filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against NAI and CSI for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of three of NAI’s patents. On January 27, 2012, DNP amended its complaint to add declaratory judgment claims against a fourth NAI patent (‘381 patent). On February 6, 2012, the Company and CSI moved to dismiss the cases related to the three previously asserted patents for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On the same day, the Company filed its answer and counterclaims for infringement by DNP of the ‘381 patent. DNP subsequently agreed to voluntarily dismiss CSI from the lawsuit. On March 2, 2012, the Court ordered the dismissal of CSI. On April 15, 2013, the Court consolidated the two lawsuits referenced above for purposes of pretrial matters. The Court also entered a Scheduling Order setting a trial date in April 2015. On July 6, 2014, the Court partially stayed the case. NAI, CSI and DNP settled the case, which was dismissed with prejudice on July 29, 2014. As part of the settlement, DNP agreed to exit the beta-alanine business.

On December 21, 2011, NAI filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, alleging infringement by Woodbolt Distribution, LLC, also known as Cellucor (Woodbolt), Vitaquest International, Inc., d/b/a Garden State Nutritionals (Garden State) and F.H.G. Corporation, d/b/a Integrity Nutraceuticals (Integrity), of NAI’s ’381 patent. The complaint alleges that Woodbolt sells nutritional supplements, including supplements containing beta-alanine such as C4 Extreme™, M5 Extreme™, and N-Zero Extreme™, that infringe the ‘381 patent. Woodbolt, in turn, filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the ’381 patent in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. On February 17, 2012, Woodbolt filed a First Amended Complaint, realleging its original claims against the Company and asserting new claims of violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act (15 U.S.C. § 2) and Unfair Competition. The Company reasserted the arguments in its prior motion to dismiss and moved to dismiss the new claims asserted by Woodbolt. On January 23, 2013, the Delaware Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss Woodbolt’s case. On June 5, 2012, the Court in the above-referenced Texas case consolidated the pending suit with a second patent infringement case filed against Woodbolt by the Company on May 3, 2012, asserting infringement its ‘422 patent. On November 9, 2012, NAI filed a supplemental complaint adding allegations of infringement of Woodbolt’s Cellucor Cor –Performance ß-BCAA™ and Cellucor Cor –Performance™ Creatine products. On June 14, 2013, NAI filed a third patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, against Woodbolt, BodyBuilding.com and GNC Corporation alleging infringement of the ‘381 and ‘422 patents by Woodbolt’s Neon Sport Volt™ product. Woodbolt asserted the same defenses and counterclaims as set forth in the earlier lawsuits. On June 24, 2013, the Court consolidated the case with the earlier-filed lawsuits identified above. On June 25, 2013, Woodbolt filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, against a newly-issued NAI U.S. patent no. 8,470,865, asserting declaratory judgment claims of non-infringement, invalidity and unenforceability. On July 1, 2013, Woodbolt’s lawsuit was consolidated with the three pending lawsuits filed by NAI. On July 24, 2013, NAI filed its Answer and Amended Counterclaims against Woodbolt alleging infringement of the ‘865 patent by the products accused in the pending cases previously filed by NAI. On August 14, 2013, Woodbolt filed a counterclaim to NAI’s counterclaim asserting violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act (15 U.S.C. § 2) and Unfair Competition. On September 4, 2013, NAI moved to have Woodbolt’s counterclaims dismissed from the case. All of the consolidated cases remain pending. Woodbolt has also requested inter partes re-examination of the ’381 and ’422 patents by the USPTO. On July 26, 2012, the USPTO accepted the request to re-examine the ’381 patent. On August 17, 2012, the USPTO accepted the request to re-exam the ’422 patent. On December 6, 2013, the USPTO rejected the claims of the ‘381 patent and issued a right of appeal notice. On January 6, 2014, the Company filed its notice of appeal. The parties have filed briefs with the USPTO and the '381 reexamination is pending. On August 8, 2014, the USPTO rejected the claims of the ‘422 patent and issued a right of appeal notice.

A declaration of non-infringement, invalidity or unenforceability of certain of our patents could have a material adverse impact upon our business results, operations, and financial condition.

On February 13, 2013, several entities, including the Company, were sued for various causes of action pertaining to product liability in Superior Court for the State of California (County of San Diego) captioned Sparling v. USPLabs, LLC, et al. Case No. 37-2013-00034663-CU-PL-CTL. On March 21, 2013, co-defendant USP Labs LLC filed a Notice of Removal to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-00667-JLS-DHB. Specific allegations against the Company are for negligence, strict products liability, breach of express and implied warranties and wrongful death. The Company has been provided with defense counsel by CSI’s insurance company. Additionally, the Company has sought indemnification from co-defendant USPLabs, LLC. The Company is not involved in the formulation, manufacture, distribution or sale of the product at issue in the lawsuit. On April 19, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the allegations against it. On October 11, 2013, the Court granted a motion by co-defendant, USPLabs’, to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The Court has set a trial date for March 26, 2015. The Company moved to dismiss the case. On May 28, 2014, the claims against the Company were dismissed with prejudice.

On May 8, 2013, several entities, including the Company, were sued for various causes of action pertaining to product liability in Superior Court for the State of California (County of Los Angeles) captioned Carolyne v. USPLabs, LLC, Case No. BC 508212. Specific allegations against the Company are for negligence, strict products liability, breach of express and implied warranties. The Company has been provided with defense counsel by CSI’s insurance company. Additionally, the Company has sought indemnification from co-defendant USPLabs. The Company is not involved in the formulation, manufacture, distribution or sale of the product at issue in the lawsuit. On June 28, 2013, the Company filed a demurrer seeking dismissal of the allegations against it. On May 27, 2014, the claims against the Company were dismissed with prejudice.

On November 1, 2013, several entities, including the Company, were sued for various causes of action pertaining to product liability in Superior Court for the State of California (County of San Diego) captioned Reed v. USPLabs, LLC, Case No. 37-2013-00074052. Specific allegations against the Company are for negligence, strict products liability, and breach of express and implied warranties. The Company has been provided with defense counsel by CSI’s insurance company. Additionally, the Company has sought indemnification from co-defendant USPLabs. The Company is not involved in the formulation, manufacture, distribution or sale of the product at issue in the lawsuit. The case has been removed to U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. On December 27, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the allegations against it. On June 13, 2014, the claims against the Company were dismissed with prejudice.

On November 1, 2013, several entities, including the Company, were sued for various causes of action pertaining to product liability in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas captioned Ogbonna v. USPLabs, LLC, Case No. 13-cv-340. While the Company is named in the caption, the complaint does not contain any specific allegations against the Company. The Company has been provided with defense counsel by CSI’s insurance company. Additionally, the Company has sought indemnification from co-defendant USPLabs. The Company is not involved in the formulation, manufacture, distribution or sale of the product at issue in the lawsuit. The case has been removed to U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. On January 28, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the allegations against it. On February 19, 2014, the Company’s motion to dismiss was granted by the Court.

On January 24, 2014, several entities, including the Company, were sued for various causes of action pertaining to product liability in Superior Court for the State of California (County of Los Angeles) captioned Little v. USPLabs, LLC, Case No. BC534065. Specific allegations against the Company are for negligence, strict products liability, and breach of express and implied warranties. The Company has been provided with defense counsel by CSI’s insurance company. Additionally, the Company has sought indemnification from co-defendant USPLabs. The Company is not involved in the formulation, manufacture, distribution or sale of the product at issue in the lawsuit. The Company is not involved in the formulation, manufacture, distribution or sale of the product at issue in the lawsuit. On February 28, 2014, USPLabs filed a Notice of Removal from the Superior Court for the State of California to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On March 7, 2014, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss. On March 17, 2014, plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand the case back to Superior Court. On April 25, 2014, the District Court granted plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and therefore also denied the Company’s Motion to Dismiss as moot. On May 27, 2014, the claims against the Company were dismissed with prejudice.