Note 15 - Litigation	9 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2017
Disclosure Text Block Supplement [Abstract]
Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]	Note 15 – Litigation Contingencies are recorded in the consolidated financial statements when it is probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount of the loss is reasonably estimable, or otherwise disclosed, in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification 450, Contingencies (“ASC 450”). Significant judgment is required in both the determination of probability and the determination as to whether a loss is reasonably estimable. In the event the Company determines that a loss is not probable, but is reasonably possible, and it becomes possible to develop what the Company believes to be a reasonable range of possible loss, then the Company will include disclosures related to such matter as appropriate and in compliance with ASC 450. To the extent there is a reasonable possibility that the losses could exceed the amounts already accrued, the Company will, when applicable, adjust the accrual in the period the determination is made, disclose an estimate of the additional loss or range of loss or if the amount of such adjustment cannot be reasonably estimated, disclose that an estimate cannot be made. On March 24, 2009, Aeroflex Wichita, Inc. (“Aeroflex”) filed a petition against the Company and two of its employees in the District Court located in 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, to develop new Mode-5 radar test sets and kits to upgrade the existing TS-4530 radar test sets to Mode 5 (the “Award”). Aeroflex’s petition, seeking injunctive relief and damages, alleges that in connection with the Award, the Company and its named employees misappropriated Aeroflex’s trade secrets; tortiously interfered with Aeroflex’s business relationship; conspired to harm Aeroflex and tortiously interfered with Aeroflex’s contract. The central basis of all the claims in the Aeroflex Action is that the Company misappropriated and used Aeroflex proprietary technology and confidential information in winning the Award. In February 2009, subsequent to the Company winning the Award, 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 U.S. Army Contracts Attorney and the U.S. Army Contracting Officer each filed a statement with the GAO, expressly rejecting Aeroflex’s allegations that the Company used or infringed on Aeroflex’s 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 District Court dismissed the Aeroflex Action on jurisdiction grounds. Aeroflex appealed this decision. In May 2012, the Kansas Supreme Court reversed the decision and remanded the Aeroflex Action to the Kansas District Court for further proceedings. On May 23, 2016, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment based on Aeroflex’s lack of jurisdictional standing to bring the case. The motion asserts that Aeroflex does not own the intellectual property at issue since it is a bare licensee of Northrop Grumman. Northrop Grumman has declined to join this suit as plaintiff. Aeroflex lacks standing to sue alone. Also, the motion raises the fact that Aeroflex allowed the license to expire, Aeroflex’s claims are either moot or Aeroflex lacks standing to sue for damages alleged to have accrued after the license ended in 2011. The motion for summary judgment was denied. The Aeroflex trial on remand in the Kansas District Court began in March 2017. After a nine-week trial, the jury rendered its verdict. The jury found no misappropriation of Aeroflex trade secrets but it did rule that the Company tortiously interfered with a prospective business opportunity and awarded damages of $1.3 million for lost profits. The jury also ruled that Tel tortiously interfered with Aeroflex’s non-disclosure agreements with two former Aeroflex employees and awarded damages of $1.5 million for lost profits, resulting in total damages against the Company of $2.8 million. The jury also found that the former Aeroflex employees breached their non-disclosure agreements with Aeroflex and awarded damages against these two individuals totaling $525,000. The jury also decided that punitive damages should be allowed against the Company. Following the verdict, the Company filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law. In the motion, the Company renewed its motion for judgment on Aeroflex’s tortious interference with prospective business opportunity claim arguing that such claim is barred by the statute of limitations. Alternatively, the motion asserts there is insufficient evidence supporting the lost profit award on that claim. Additionally, the motion for judgment addresses inconsistency between the awards against the former Aeroflex employees for breach of the non-disclosure agreements and the award against the Company for interfering with those agreements. Alternatively, the motion asserts there is insufficient evidence supporting the lost profit award on that claim. During July 2017, the Court heard the Company’s motion for judgment as well as conducting a hearing as to the amount of a punitive damages award. Kansas statutes limit punitive damages to a maximum of $5 million. Aeroflex submitted a motion to the Court requesting that the judge award punitive damages at the maximum $5 million amount. In October 2017, the Court denied the Company’s motions and awarded Aeroflex an additional $2.1 million of punitive damages, which brings the total Tel damages awarded in this case to approximately $4.9 million. The Company has filed motions in January 2018 for the Court to reconsider the amount of damages on the grounds that they are duplicative and not legally supportable. A hearing on this motion is expected within the next 30 days and a final decision is expected within the next two to three months. The Judge could deny our motions, reduce the amount of damages or even order a new trial. Once a final decision has been rendered, the Company has 30 days to file an appeal. The Company has posted a $2,000,000 bond to prevent Aeroflex from enforcement actions until a final decision has been rendered by the Court. This $2 million bond amount would remain in place during the appeal process (See Note 5). The Company believes it has excellent grounds to appeal this verdict. The appeal process would be expected to take several years to complete. Other than the matters outlined above, we are currently not involved in any litigation that we believe could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations. There is no action, suit, proceeding, inquiry or investigation before any court, public board, government agency, self-regulatory organization or body pending or, to the knowledge of executive officers of our Company, threatened against or affecting our Company, or our common stock in which an adverse decision could have a material effect.

Note 15 – Litigation

Contingencies are recorded in the consolidated financial statements when it is probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount of the loss is reasonably estimable, or otherwise disclosed, in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification 450, Contingencies (“ASC 450”). Significant judgment is required in both the determination of probability and the determination as to whether a loss is reasonably estimable. In the event the Company determines that a loss is not probable, but is reasonably possible, and it becomes possible to develop what the Company believes to be a reasonable range of possible loss, then the Company will include disclosures related to such matter as appropriate and in compliance with ASC 450. To the extent there is a reasonable possibility that the losses could exceed the amounts already accrued, the Company will, when applicable, adjust the accrual in the period the determination is made, disclose an estimate of the additional loss or range of loss or if the amount of such adjustment cannot be reasonably estimated, disclose that an estimate cannot be made.

On March 24, 2009, Aeroflex Wichita, Inc. (“Aeroflex”) filed a petition against the Company and two of its employees in the District Court located in 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, to develop new Mode-5 radar test sets and kits to upgrade the existing TS-4530 radar test sets to Mode 5 (the “Award”). Aeroflex’s petition, seeking injunctive relief and damages, alleges that in connection with the Award, the Company and its named employees misappropriated Aeroflex’s trade secrets; tortiously interfered with Aeroflex’s business relationship; conspired to harm Aeroflex and tortiously interfered with Aeroflex’s contract. The central basis of all the claims in the Aeroflex Action is that the Company misappropriated and used Aeroflex proprietary technology and confidential information in winning the Award. In February 2009, subsequent to the Company winning the Award, 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 U.S. Army Contracts Attorney and the U.S. Army Contracting Officer each filed a statement with the GAO, expressly rejecting Aeroflex’s allegations that the Company used or infringed on Aeroflex’s 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 District Court dismissed the Aeroflex Action on jurisdiction grounds. Aeroflex appealed this decision. In May 2012, the Kansas Supreme Court reversed the decision and remanded the Aeroflex Action to the Kansas District Court for further proceedings.

On May 23, 2016, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment based on Aeroflex’s lack of jurisdictional standing to bring the case. The motion asserts that Aeroflex does not own the intellectual property at issue since it is a bare licensee of Northrop Grumman. Northrop Grumman has declined to join this suit as plaintiff. Aeroflex lacks standing to sue alone. Also, the motion raises the fact that Aeroflex allowed the license to expire, Aeroflex’s claims are either moot or Aeroflex lacks standing to sue for damages alleged to have accrued after the license ended in 2011. The motion for summary judgment was denied.

The Aeroflex trial on remand in the Kansas District Court began in March 2017. After a nine-week trial, the jury rendered its verdict. The jury found no misappropriation of Aeroflex trade secrets but it did rule that the Company tortiously interfered with a prospective business opportunity and awarded damages of $1.3 million for lost profits. The jury also ruled that Tel tortiously interfered with Aeroflex’s non-disclosure agreements with two former Aeroflex employees and awarded damages of $1.5 million for lost profits, resulting in total damages against the Company of $2.8 million. The jury also found that the former Aeroflex employees breached their non-disclosure agreements with Aeroflex and awarded damages against these two individuals totaling $525,000. The jury also decided that punitive damages should be allowed against the Company.

Following the verdict, the Company filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law. In the motion, the Company renewed its motion for judgment on Aeroflex’s tortious interference with prospective business opportunity claim arguing that such claim is barred by the statute of limitations. Alternatively, the motion asserts there is insufficient evidence supporting the lost profit award on that claim. Additionally, the motion for judgment addresses inconsistency between the awards against the former Aeroflex employees for breach of the non-disclosure agreements and the award against the Company for interfering with those agreements. Alternatively, the motion asserts there is insufficient evidence supporting the lost profit award on that claim.

During July 2017, the Court heard the Company’s motion for judgment as well as conducting a hearing as to the amount of a punitive damages award. Kansas statutes limit punitive damages to a maximum of $5 million.

Aeroflex submitted a motion to the Court requesting that the judge award punitive damages at the maximum $5 million amount. In October 2017, the Court denied the Company’s motions and awarded Aeroflex an additional $2.1 million of punitive damages, which brings the total Tel damages awarded in this case to approximately $4.9 million.

The Company has filed motions in January 2018 for the Court to reconsider the amount of damages on the grounds that they are duplicative and not legally supportable. A hearing on this motion is expected within the next 30 days and a final decision is expected within the next two to three months. The Judge could deny our motions, reduce the amount of damages or even order a new trial. Once a final decision has been rendered, the Company has 30 days to file an appeal. The Company has posted a $2,000,000 bond to prevent Aeroflex from enforcement actions until a final decision has been rendered by the Court. This $2 million bond amount would remain in place during the appeal process (See Note 5). The Company believes it has excellent grounds to appeal this verdict. The appeal process would be expected to take several years to complete.

Other than the matters outlined above, we are currently not involved in any litigation that we believe could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations. There is no action, suit, proceeding, inquiry or investigation before any court, public board, government agency, self-regulatory organization or body pending or, to the knowledge of executive officers of our Company, threatened against or affecting our Company, or our common stock in which an adverse decision could have a material effect.