Note L - Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2015
Notes to Financial Statements
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 we do not expect. 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 ®-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, BodyBuil ding.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. On January 13, 2015, the USPTO issued a notification of appeal hearing in the '381 reexamination, which took place on April 15, 2015, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at the USPTO. On July 17, 2015, the PTAB issued its decision affirming the USPTO's prior rejection of the '381 patent claims. On August 13, 2015, the Company filed a Request for Rehearing regarding the PTAB's decision. The request is currently pending. On August 8, 2014, the USPTO rejected the claims of the ‘422 patent and issued a right of appeal notice. On September 8, 2014, NAI filed its notice of appeal. The parties have filed briefs with the USPTO and the ‘422 reexamination is pending. On January 13, 2016, the USPTO noticed the hearing on the '422 reexamination for March 16, 2016. On September 18, 2015, the Company filed a complaint against Creative Compounds, Inc., alleging various claims including (1) violation of Section 43 of the Lanham Act, (2) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, (3) violation of California's False Advertising Law, (4) Trade Libel and Business Disparagement and (5) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage. On October 23, 2015, Creative Compounds filed its answer to the Company's complaint denying the Company's allegations. No trial date has been set by the Court. 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. Although we believe the above litigation matters are supported by valid claims, there is no assurance NAI will prevail in these litigation matters or in similar proceedings it may initiate or that litigation expenses will be as anticipated.

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 we do not expect.

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 ®-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, BodyBuil

ding.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.

On January 13, 2015, the USPTO issued a notification of appeal hearing in the '381 reexamination, which took place on April 15, 2015, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at the USPTO. On July 17, 2015, the PTAB issued its decision affirming the USPTO's prior rejection of the '381 patent claims. On August 13, 2015, the Company filed a Request for Rehearing regarding the PTAB's decision. The request is currently pending. On August 8, 2014, the USPTO rejected the claims of the ‘422 patent and issued a right of appeal notice. On September 8, 2014, NAI filed its notice of appeal.

The parties have filed briefs with the USPTO and the ‘422 reexamination is pending. On January 13, 2016, the USPTO noticed the hearing on the '422 reexamination for March 16, 2016.

On September 18, 2015, the Company filed a complaint against Creative Compounds, Inc., alleging various claims including (1) violation of Section 43 of the Lanham Act, (2) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, (3) violation of California's False Advertising Law, (4) Trade Libel and Business Disparagement and (5) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage. On October 23, 2015, Creative Compounds filed its answer to the Company's complaint denying the Company's allegations. No trial date has been set by the Court.

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.

Although we believe the above litigation matters are supported by valid claims, there is no assurance NAI will prevail in these litigation matters or in similar proceedings it may initiate or that litigation expenses will be as anticipated.