Note 12. Litigation	3 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2010
Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]	Note 12 Litigation On March 24, 2009, Aeroflex Wichita, Inc. (“Aeroflex”) filed a petition against the Company and two of its employees in the District Court, Sedgwick County, Kansas, Case No. 09 CV 1141 (the “Aeroflex Action”), alleging that the Company and its two employees misappropriated Aeroflex’s proprietary technology in connection with the Company winning a substantial contract from the U.S. Army (the “Award”), to develop new Mode-5 radar test sets and kits to upgrade the existing TS-4530 radar test sets to Mode 5. Aeroflex’s petition alleges that in connection with the award, the Company and its named employees misappropriated Aeroflex’s trade secrets; tortuously interfered with its business relationship; conspired to harm Aeroflex and tortuously interfered with its contract and seeks injunctive relief and damages. The crux of all the claims in the Aeroflex Action is that the Company misappropriated and used Aeroflex proprietary technology in winning the Award. In February 2009, subsequent to the Award to the Company, Aeroflex filed a protest of the Award with the Government Accounting Office (“GAO”). In its protest, Aeroflex alleged, inter alia, that the Company used Aeroflex’s proprietary technology in order to win the Award, the same material allegations as were later alleged in the Aeroflex Action. On or about March 17, 2009, the Army Contracts Attorney and the Army Contracting Officer each filed a statement with the GAO, expressly rejecting Aeroflex’s allegations that the Company used or infringed Aeroflex proprietary technology in winning the Award, and concluding that the Company had used only its own proprietary technology. On April 6, 2009, Aeroflex withdrew its protest. In December 2009, the Kansas court dismissed the Aeroflex civil suit against the Company. While this decision was based on jurisdictional issues, the ruling did note that Aeroflex, after discovery proceedings, did not provide any evidence that Tel or its employees misappropriated Aeroflex trade secrets. The Kansas ruling also referenced the Army’s findings, in its response to the General Accountability Office (“GAO”), which rejected Aeroflex’s claims and determined that Tel used its own proprietary technology on this program. Aeroflex has elected to appeal this Kansas decision and has agreed to stay any action against the two former employees until a decision is reached. The appeal was argued in the Kansas Supreme Court in January 2011 and the Company does not anticipate a decision for some time. Tel remains confident as to the outcome of this appeal and any potential follow-on litigation. An estimate of possible loss, if any cannot be made in view of, among other things, the Army findings and the decision of the Kansas Court, discussed above, as well as the fact that there has not yet been discovery of the merits of the claims and defenses.

Note 12. Litigation

3 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2010

Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]

Note 12 Litigation

On March 24, 2009, Aeroflex Wichita, Inc. (“Aeroflex”) filed a petition against the Company and two of its employees in the District Court, Sedgwick County, Kansas, Case No. 09 CV 1141 (the “Aeroflex Action”), alleging that the Company and its two employees misappropriated Aeroflex’s proprietary technology in connection with the Company winning a substantial contract from the U.S. Army (the “Award”), to develop new Mode-5 radar test sets and kits to upgrade the existing TS-4530 radar test sets to Mode 5. Aeroflex’s petition alleges that in connection with the award, the Company and its named employees misappropriated Aeroflex’s trade secrets; tortuously interfered with its business relationship; conspired to harm Aeroflex and tortuously interfered with its contract and seeks injunctive relief and damages. The crux of all the claims in the Aeroflex Action is that the Company misappropriated and used Aeroflex proprietary technology in winning the Award.

In February 2009, subsequent to the Award to the Company, Aeroflex filed a protest of the Award with the Government Accounting Office (“GAO”). In its protest, Aeroflex alleged, inter alia, that the Company used Aeroflex’s proprietary technology in order to win the Award, the same material allegations as were later alleged in the Aeroflex Action. On or about March 17, 2009, the Army Contracts Attorney and the Army Contracting Officer each filed a statement with the GAO, expressly rejecting Aeroflex’s allegations that the Company used or infringed Aeroflex proprietary technology in winning the Award, and concluding that the Company had used only its own proprietary technology. On April 6, 2009, Aeroflex withdrew its protest.

In December 2009, the Kansas court dismissed the Aeroflex civil suit against the Company. While this decision was based on jurisdictional issues, the ruling did note that Aeroflex, after discovery proceedings, did not provide any evidence that Tel or its employees misappropriated Aeroflex trade secrets. The Kansas ruling also referenced the Army’s findings, in its response to the General Accountability Office (“GAO”), which rejected Aeroflex’s claims and determined that Tel used its own proprietary technology on this program. Aeroflex has elected to appeal this Kansas decision and has agreed to stay any action against the two former employees until a decision is reached. The appeal was argued in the Kansas Supreme Court in January 2011 and the Company does not anticipate a decision for some time. Tel remains confident as to the outcome of this appeal and any potential follow-on litigation. An estimate of possible loss, if any cannot be made in view of, among other things, the Army findings and the decision of the Kansas Court, discussed above, as well as the fact that there has not yet been discovery of the merits of the claims and defenses.