Commitments And Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2011
Commitments And Contingencies
Commitments And Contingencies	8. Commitments and Contingencies Contingent Consideration We are liable to make payments to acquired company stockholders based on the achievement of specified performance targets. The fair value of these earnouts is estimated to be $6.3 and $2.7 million as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively, by applying the income approach in accordance with ASC 805-30-25-5. That measure relies on significant inputs that are not observable in the market, which ASC 820-10-35 refers to as Level 3 inputs. Key assumptions include discount rates between 5.8% and 6.3% and probability-adjusted revenue levels. These contingent liabilities have been reflected in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as a current liability of $4.2 million and a noncurrent liability of $2.1 million. The potential undiscounted amount of all future contingent consideration cash payments that we could be required to make, beyond amounts currently accrued, is $0.3 million as of September 30, 2011. Lease Commitments As of September 30, 2011, we have leased certain of our current facilities under noncancellable operating lease agreements. We are required to pay property taxes, insurance, and nominal maintenance costs for certain of these facilities and any increases over the base year of these expenses on the remainder of our facilities. Self-Insurance Beginning in 2011, we are partially self-insured for certain losses related to employee medical and dental coverage, excluding employees covered by health maintenance organizations. We generally have an individual stop loss deductible of $125,000 per enrollee unless specific exposures are separately insured. We are recognizing our self-insurance expense for interim reporting purposes on a pro rata basis over the year in accordance with ASC 720-20-35-3, Insurance Costs. This approach treats usual recurring self-insurance losses as integral to annual reporting and, therefore, any expected changes in the incurred but not reported liability and related insurance recoverables that are not related to specific events can be spread over the entire year. We have accrued a contingent liability of $1.5 million as of September 30, 2011, which represents an allocation of the ultimate claims cost that will be incurred through year end. The estimated liability is not discounted and is established based upon analysis of historical data supplied by the insurance carrier that was previously providing coverage. We will further refine our accrual at year end based upon appropriate actuarial analysis and estimates. The primary estimates used in the development of our accrual at September 30, 2011 include total enrollment, employee contributions, population demographics, and historical claims costs incurred. While we believe these estimates are reasonable based on the information currently available, if actual trends, including the severity of claims and medical cost inflation, differ from our estimates, our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows could be impacted. Legal Proceedings We may be involved, from time to time, in a variety of claims, lawsuits, investigations, or proceedings relating to contractual disputes, securities laws, intellectual property rights, employment, or other matters that may arise in the normal course of business. We assess our potential liability in each of these matters by using the information available to us. We develop our views on estimated losses in consultation with inside and outside counsel, which involves a subjective analysis of potential results and various combinations of appropriate litigation and settlement strategies. We accrue estimated losses from contingencies if a loss is deemed probable and can be reasonably estimated. As of September 30, 2011, we are subject to the various claims, lawsuits, investigations, or proceedings discussed below. Durst Fototechnik Technology GmbH ("Durst") v. Electronics for Imaging GmbH ("EFI GmbH") and EFI, et al. – Mannheim Litigation On February 23, 2007, Durst brought an action to enforce a utility model patent right against EFI GmbH in the Mannheim District Court in Germany. On May 10, 2007, EFI GmbH filed its Statement of Defenses. These defenses include lack of jurisdiction, non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability based on Durst's improper actions before the German patent office. EFI filed its Statement of Defense on August 29, 2007. EFI's defenses include those for EFI GmbH, as well as an additional defense for prior use based on EFI's own European patent rights. The Mannheim court conducted a trial on November 30, 2008, and following a recess to receive additional expert testimony, finished the trial on August 28, 2009. In a subsequent decision, the Mannheim court invalidated Durst's utility model registration patent and dismissed Durst's actions against EFI on February 26, 2010. Durst has appealed the decision and the appeal is currently pending at the court of appeal in Karlsruhe, Germany. The appeal hearing took place on October 26, 2011, and the court of appeal took the matter under submission without issuing a decision. Although we do not believe it is probable that we will incur a loss, it is reasonably possible that our financial statements could be materially affected by the unfavorable resolution of this matter. Because the action was dismissed and Durst's patent was invalidated in the Mannheim court, among other reasons, we are unable to estimate the amount or range of loss that may be incurred. Durst v. EFI GmbH and EFI, et al. – Duesseldorf Litigation On or about June 14, 2011, Durst filed an action against EFI GmbH and EFI in the Regional Court of Dusseldorf, Germany, alleging infringement of a German patent. EFI and EFI GmbH have been served, and we are continuing to evaluate the allegations. Because this proceeding is in the preliminary stages and we have not had an opportunity to complete our evaluation of the allegations, we are not yet in a position to determine whether the loss is probable or reasonably possible, and if it is probable or reasonably possible, the estimate of the amount or range of loss that may be incurred. N.V. Perfectproof Europe v. BEST GmbH On December 31, 2001, N.V. Perfectproof Europe ("Perfectproof") filed a complaint against BEST GmbH, currently Electronics For Imaging, GmbH ("BEST") in the Tribunal de Commerce of Brussels, in Belgium (the "Commercial Court"), alleging unlawful unilateral termination of an alleged "exclusive" distribution agreement and claiming damages of approximately EUR 599,946 for such termination and additional damages of EUR 247,894, or a total of approximately $1.2 million. In a judgment issued by the Commercial Court on June 24, 2002, the court declared that the distribution agreement was not "exclusive" and challenged its jurisdiction over the claim. Perfectproof appealed the judgment, and by decision dated November 30, 2004, the Court d'Appel of Brussels (the "Court of Appeal") rejected the appeal and sent the case back to the Commercial Court. Subsequently, by judgment dated November 17, 2009, the Commercial Court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction of Belgian courts over the claim. On March 25, 2009, Perfectproof appealed to the Court of Appeal. On November 16, 2010, the Court of Appeal declared, among other things, that the Commercial Court was competent to hear the case and that the agreement between BEST and Perfectproof should be analyzed as an "exclusive" distribution agreement and as such, was subject to reasonable notice prior to termination. The court further determined that Perfectproof is entitled to damages, for lack of receiving such notice, and appointed an expert to review accounting and other records of the parties and address certain questions relevant in assessing the amount of total damages that Perfectproof claimed it suffered. We received the expert's preliminary report on July 14, 2011 and filed, on August 16, 2011, a response to the expert's report. On October 14, 2011, the expert issued the final report, in which the expert's analysis of itemized damages are, in the aggregate, significantly less than the amount of damages claimed by Perfectproof. Although we do not believe that Perfectproof's claims are founded and we do not believe it is probable that we will incur a material loss in this matter, it is reasonably possible that our financial statements could be materially affected by the court's decision regarding the assessment of damages. Upon filing the final report with the court, the court may approve the report and pronounce the final amount of damages to be paid by us, or require additional analysis or consider further challenges to the final damages determination. Accordingly, it is reasonably possible that we could incur a material loss in this matter. We estimate the range of loss to be between one dollar and $1.2 million. As of September 30, 2011, we are also subject to various other claims, lawsuits, investigations, and proceedings in addition to those discussed above. There is at least a reasonable possibility that additional losses may be incurred in excess of the amounts that we have accrued. However, we believe that certain of these claims are not material with respect to our financial statements and that for the other claims a range of reasonably possible losses is not reasonably estimable. Litigation is inherently unpredictable, and while we believe that we have valid defenses with respect to legal matters pending against us, our financial statements could be materially affected in any particular period by the unfavorable resolution of one or more of these contingencies or because of the diversion of management's attention and the incurrence of significant expenses.

8. Commitments and Contingencies

Contingent Consideration

We are liable to make payments to acquired company stockholders based on the achievement of specified performance targets. The fair value of these earnouts is estimated to be $6.3 and $2.7 million as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively, by applying the income approach in accordance with ASC 805-30-25-5. That measure relies on significant inputs that are not observable in the market, which ASC 820-10-35 refers to as Level 3 inputs. Key assumptions include discount rates between 5.8% and 6.3% and probability-adjusted revenue levels. These contingent liabilities have been reflected in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as a current liability of $4.2 million and a noncurrent liability of $2.1 million. The potential undiscounted amount of all future contingent consideration cash payments that we could be required to make, beyond amounts currently accrued, is $0.3 million as of September 30, 2011.

Lease Commitments

As of September 30, 2011, we have leased certain of our current facilities under noncancellable operating lease agreements. We are required to pay property taxes, insurance, and nominal maintenance costs for certain of these facilities and any increases over the base year of these expenses on the remainder of our facilities.

Self-Insurance

Beginning in 2011, we are partially self-insured for certain losses related to employee medical and dental coverage, excluding employees covered by health maintenance organizations. We generally have an individual stop loss deductible of $125,000 per enrollee unless specific exposures are separately insured. We are recognizing our self-insurance expense for interim reporting purposes on a pro rata basis over the year in accordance with ASC 720-20-35-3, Insurance Costs. This approach treats usual recurring self-insurance losses as integral to annual reporting and, therefore, any expected changes in the incurred but not reported liability and related insurance recoverables that are not related to specific events can be spread over the entire year.

We have accrued a contingent liability of $1.5 million as of September 30, 2011, which represents an allocation of the ultimate claims cost that will be incurred through year end. The estimated liability is not discounted and is established based upon analysis of historical data supplied by the insurance carrier that was previously providing coverage. We will further refine our accrual at year end based upon appropriate actuarial analysis and estimates. The primary estimates used in the development of our accrual at September 30, 2011 include total enrollment, employee contributions, population demographics, and historical claims costs incurred. While we believe these estimates are reasonable based on the information currently available, if actual trends, including the severity of claims and medical cost inflation, differ from our estimates, our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows could be impacted.

Legal Proceedings

We may be involved, from time to time, in a variety of claims, lawsuits, investigations, or proceedings relating to contractual disputes, securities laws, intellectual property rights, employment, or other matters that may arise in the normal course of business. We assess our potential liability in each of these matters by using the information available to us. We develop our views on estimated losses in consultation with inside and outside counsel, which involves a subjective analysis of potential results and various combinations of appropriate litigation and settlement strategies. We accrue estimated losses from contingencies if a loss is deemed probable and can be reasonably estimated.

As of September 30, 2011, we are subject to the various claims, lawsuits, investigations, or proceedings discussed below.

Durst Fototechnik Technology GmbH ("Durst") v. Electronics for Imaging GmbH ("EFI GmbH") and EFI, et al. – Mannheim Litigation

On February 23, 2007, Durst brought an action to enforce a utility model patent right against EFI GmbH in the Mannheim District Court in Germany. On May 10, 2007, EFI GmbH filed its Statement of Defenses. These defenses include lack of jurisdiction, non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability based on Durst's improper actions before the German patent office. EFI filed its Statement of Defense on August 29, 2007. EFI's defenses include those for EFI GmbH, as well as an additional defense for prior use based on EFI's own European patent rights. The Mannheim court conducted a trial on November 30, 2008, and following a recess to receive additional expert testimony, finished the trial on August 28, 2009.

In a subsequent decision, the Mannheim court invalidated Durst's utility model registration patent and dismissed Durst's actions against EFI on February 26, 2010. Durst has appealed the decision and the appeal is currently pending at the court of appeal in Karlsruhe, Germany. The appeal hearing took place on October 26, 2011, and the court of appeal took the matter under submission without issuing a decision.

Although we do not believe it is probable that we will incur a loss, it is reasonably possible that our financial statements could be materially affected by the unfavorable resolution of this matter. Because the action was dismissed and Durst's patent was invalidated in the Mannheim court, among other reasons, we are unable to estimate the amount or range of loss that may be incurred.

Durst v. EFI GmbH and EFI, et al. – Duesseldorf Litigation

On or about June 14, 2011, Durst filed an action against EFI GmbH and EFI in the Regional Court of Dusseldorf, Germany, alleging infringement of a German patent. EFI and EFI GmbH have been served, and we are continuing to evaluate the allegations. Because this proceeding is in the preliminary stages and we have not had an opportunity to complete our evaluation of the allegations, we are not yet in a position to determine whether the loss is probable or reasonably possible, and if it is probable or reasonably possible, the estimate of the amount or range of loss that may be incurred.

N.V. Perfectproof Europe v. BEST GmbH

On December 31, 2001, N.V. Perfectproof Europe ("Perfectproof") filed a complaint against BEST GmbH, currently Electronics For Imaging, GmbH ("BEST") in the Tribunal de Commerce of Brussels, in Belgium (the "Commercial Court"), alleging unlawful unilateral termination of an alleged "exclusive" distribution agreement and claiming damages of approximately EUR 599,946 for such termination and additional damages of EUR 247,894, or a total of approximately $1.2 million. In a judgment issued by the Commercial Court on June 24, 2002, the court declared that the distribution agreement was not "exclusive" and challenged its jurisdiction over the claim. Perfectproof appealed the judgment, and by decision dated November 30, 2004, the Court d'Appel of Brussels (the "Court of Appeal") rejected the appeal and sent the case back to the Commercial Court. Subsequently, by judgment dated November 17, 2009, the Commercial Court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction of Belgian courts over the claim. On March 25, 2009, Perfectproof appealed to the Court of Appeal. On November 16, 2010, the Court of Appeal declared, among other things, that the Commercial Court was competent to hear the case and that the agreement between BEST and Perfectproof should be analyzed as an "exclusive" distribution agreement and as such, was subject to reasonable notice prior to termination. The court further determined that Perfectproof is entitled to damages, for lack of receiving such notice, and appointed an expert to review accounting and other records of the parties and address certain questions relevant in assessing the amount of total damages that Perfectproof claimed it suffered. We received the expert's preliminary report on July 14, 2011 and filed, on August 16, 2011, a response to the expert's report. On October 14, 2011, the expert issued the final report, in which the expert's analysis of itemized damages are, in the aggregate, significantly less than the amount of damages claimed by Perfectproof.

Although we do not believe that Perfectproof's claims are founded and we do not believe it is probable that we will incur a material loss in this matter, it is reasonably possible that our financial statements could be materially affected by the court's decision regarding the assessment of damages. Upon filing the final report with the court, the court may approve the report and pronounce the final amount of damages to be paid by us, or require additional analysis or consider further challenges to the final damages determination. Accordingly, it is reasonably possible that we could incur a material loss in this matter. We estimate the range of loss to be between one dollar and $1.2 million.

As of September 30, 2011, we are also subject to various other claims, lawsuits, investigations, and proceedings in addition to those discussed above. There is at least a reasonable possibility that additional losses may be incurred in excess of the amounts that we have accrued. However, we believe that certain of these claims are not material with respect to our financial statements and that for the other claims a range of reasonably possible losses is not reasonably estimable. Litigation is inherently unpredictable, and while we believe that we have valid defenses with respect to legal matters pending against us, our financial statements could be materially affected in any particular period by the unfavorable resolution of one or more of these contingencies or because of the diversion of management's attention and the incurrence of significant expenses.