Note 13 - Litigation	3 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2019
Disclosure Text Block Supplement [Abstract]
Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]	Note 13 – 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. The case then entered an extended discovery period in the District Court. 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 Journal Entry of Judgment including judgment against the Company in the amount of $1,300,000 for tortious interference with prospective business advantage, of $1,500,000 for tortious interference with existing contracts, and $2.1 million in punitive damages was entered on November 22, 2017. Pursuant to K.S.A. 16-204(d) “any judgment rendered by a court of this state on or after July 1, 1986, shall bear interest on and after the day on which judgment is rendered at the rate provided by subsection (e). The Kansas Secretary of State publishes the rate amount. The amount published for July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018 is 5.75% and 6.5% July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019. Interest on the $4,900,000 judgment started to accrue on November 22, 2017, the date the judgment was entered. The Company 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 was held. The Judge rejected all of our arguments and declined to order a new trial. We filed the appeal document the week of May 28. The Company has posted a $2,000,000 bond. This $2 million bond amount will remain in place during the appeal process (See Note 5). The Company believes it has solid grounds to appeal this verdict. The appeal process is anticipated to take several years to complete. On July 5, 2018, Plaintiff Aeroflex Wichita, Inc. filed a Notice of Cross-Appeal which is contingent in nature in that it seeks a review of all adverse rulings relating to its Motion for Relief and Sanctions; Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment; determining that certain matters were not trade secrets; Defendants’ joint and several liability; preemption under the Kansas Uniform Trade Secrets Act; motions in limine; motions for judgment as a matter of law; jury instructions; admission of evidence over its objections; and all other ruling adverse to it only if the court reverses the jury verdict and judgment. Aeroflex Wichita also reserved the right to ask the reviewing court to order a new trial either on damages alone or on liability for all claims. This reservation of rights is also contingent upon a finding of the appellate court which would reverse the jury verdict and judgment. Aeroflex Wichita filed its Docketing Statement the same day. On July 11, 2018, the Court of Appeals entered an Order of Referral to Mediation and Order to Stay. The Company’s case was selected to participate in the Kansas Court of Appeals Appellate Mediation pilot program. Participation in the program is voluntary, either party may opt out of participation. If either party opts out, the order staying the case would be lifted and the appeal would proceed under normal procedures. On July 13, 2018, the order staying the case was lifted because Aeroflex Wichita, Inc. opted out, and as a result the appeal will proceed under normal procedures. The Company is continuing with its appeal against this adverse decision. The parties had been having ongoing discussions with the Court regarding how to protect both the confidential, proprietary information of the parties and any export controlled information while meeting the needs of the Court to allow the public access to filings and its rulings. The Company filed its Motion to Conventionally File Appellant’s Opening Brief under Seal Along with an Electronically Filed Public Redacted Version on February 21, 2019 and filed its Response to Order to Show Cause on February 26, 2019. The Court entered an Order setting the Prehearing Conference for March 5, 2019. The Prehearing Conference took place as scheduled and the Court entered an Order memorializing the conference on March 13, 2019. In the Order the Court appointed a Court Security Officer, allowed the parties to file private un-redacted briefs only available to the Judges and necessary court staff and redacted public briefs. The private briefs were due on March 27, 2019 with redacted briefs due 45 days following the filing of the private brief and extending all briefing page limitations by 10 pages. The Company filed its private brief on March 22, 2019. Aeroflex filed its response in July 2019. The reply to Aeroflex’s response and the response to the cross-appeal are due on August 14. The Company decided to file a motion for extension of time that moves the due date to September 7. We believe that the trial judge erred in his legal rulings on standing and other issues during the trial and that we have strong grounds for appeal. Our attorneys estimate that it will take several years for this appeal to work its way through the Kansas court system, but that ongoing future legal expenses will be nominal. We believe that we will have approximately two to three years to generate sufficient cash or secure additional financing to support the repayment of the remaining $2.9 million plus accrued interest not covered by the $2 million appeal bond, if we do not prevail with the appeal. 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 13 – 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. The case then entered an extended discovery period in the District Court.

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 Journal Entry of Judgment including judgment against the Company in the amount of $1,300,000 for tortious interference with prospective business advantage, of $1,500,000 for tortious interference with existing contracts, and $2.1 million in punitive damages was entered on November 22, 2017. Pursuant to K.S.A. 16-204(d) “any judgment rendered by a court of this state on or after July 1, 1986, shall bear interest on and after the day on which judgment is rendered at the rate provided by subsection (e). The Kansas Secretary of State publishes the rate amount. The amount published for July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018 is 5.75% and 6.5% July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019. Interest on the $4,900,000 judgment started to accrue on November 22, 2017, the date the judgment was entered.

The Company 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 was held. The Judge rejected all of our arguments and declined to order a new trial. We filed the appeal document the week of May 28. The Company has posted a $2,000,000 bond. This $2 million bond amount will remain in place during the appeal process (See Note 5). The Company believes it has solid grounds to appeal this verdict. The appeal process is anticipated to take several years to complete.

On July 5, 2018, Plaintiff Aeroflex Wichita, Inc. filed a Notice of Cross-Appeal which is contingent in nature in that it seeks a review of all adverse rulings relating to its Motion for Relief and Sanctions; Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment; determining that certain matters were not trade secrets; Defendants’ joint and several liability; preemption under the Kansas Uniform Trade Secrets Act; motions in limine; motions for judgment as a matter of law; jury instructions; admission of evidence over its objections; and all other ruling adverse to it only if the court reverses the jury verdict and judgment. Aeroflex Wichita also reserved the right to ask the reviewing court to order a new trial either on damages alone or on liability for all claims. This reservation of rights is also contingent upon a finding of the appellate court which would reverse the jury verdict and judgment. Aeroflex Wichita filed its Docketing Statement the same day.

On July 11, 2018, the Court of Appeals entered an Order of Referral to Mediation and Order to Stay. The Company’s case was selected to participate in the Kansas Court of Appeals Appellate Mediation pilot program. Participation in the program is voluntary, either party may opt out of participation. If either party opts out, the order staying the case would be lifted and the appeal would proceed under normal procedures. On July 13, 2018, the order staying the case was lifted because Aeroflex Wichita, Inc. opted out, and as a result the appeal will proceed under normal procedures.

The Company is continuing with its appeal against this adverse decision. The parties had been having ongoing discussions with the Court regarding how to protect both the confidential, proprietary information of the parties and any export controlled information while meeting the needs of the Court to allow the public access to filings and its rulings.

The Company filed its Motion to Conventionally File Appellant’s Opening Brief under Seal Along with an Electronically Filed Public Redacted Version on February 21, 2019 and filed its Response to Order to Show Cause on February 26, 2019. The Court entered an Order setting the Prehearing Conference for March 5, 2019. The Prehearing Conference took place as scheduled and the Court entered an Order memorializing the conference on March 13, 2019. In the Order the Court appointed a Court Security Officer, allowed the parties to file private un-redacted briefs only available to the Judges and necessary court staff and redacted public briefs. The private briefs were due on March 27, 2019 with redacted briefs due 45 days following the filing of the private brief and extending all briefing page limitations by 10 pages. The Company filed its private brief on March 22, 2019. Aeroflex filed its response in July 2019.

The reply to Aeroflex’s response and the response to the cross-appeal are due on August 14. The Company decided to file a motion for extension of time that moves the due date to September 7.

We believe that the trial judge erred in his legal rulings on standing and other issues during the trial and that we have strong grounds for appeal. Our attorneys estimate that it will take several years for this appeal to work its way through the Kansas court system, but that ongoing future legal expenses will be nominal. We believe that we will have approximately two to three years to generate sufficient cash or secure additional financing to support the repayment of the remaining $2.9 million plus accrued interest not covered by the $2 million appeal bond, if we do not prevail with the appeal.

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.