Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2015
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	NOTE 10. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Litigation In May 2009, inContact was served in a lawsuit titled California College, Inc., et al., v. UCN, Inc., et al. In the lawsuit, California College alleges that (1) inContact made fraudulent and/or negligent misrepresentations in connection with the sale of its services with those of Insidesales.com, Inc., another defendant in the lawsuit, (2) that inContact breached its service contract with California College and an alleged oral contract between the parties by failing to deliver contracted services and product and failing to abide by implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, and (3) the conduct of inContact interfered with prospective economic business relations of California College with respect to enrolling students. California College filed an amended complaint that has been answered by Insidesales.com and inContact. California College originally sought damages in excess of $20.0 million. Furthermore, Insidesales.com and inContact filed cross-claims against one another, which they subsequently agreed to dismiss with prejudice. In October 2011, California College reached a settlement with Insidesales.com, the terms of which have not been disclosed and remain confidential. In June of 2013, California College amended its damages claim to $14.4 million, of which approximately $5.0 million was alleged pre-judgment interest. On September 10, 2013, the court issued an order on inContact's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The court determined that factual disputes exist as to several of the claims, but dismissed California College's cause of action for intentional interference with prospective economic relations and the claim for prejudgment interest. Dismissing the claim for prejudgment interest effectively reduced the claim for damages to approximately $9.2 million. inContact filed a motion to exclude the statistical and economic experts on damages retained by California College, which was partially granted by excluding California College’s statistical expert due to unreliable data provided by California College to perform the statistical analysis related to alleged damages. The trial scheduled for June 11, 2015 was rescheduled due to judicial transfers. The new trial date is scheduled for February 25, 2016. inContact has denied all of the substantive allegations of the complaint and continues to defend the claims. Management believes the claims against inContact are without merit. We cannot determine at this time whether the chance of success on one or more of inContact’s defenses or claims is either probable or remote, and are unable to estimate the potential loss or range of loss should it not be successful. The Company believes that this matter will not have a material impact on our financial position, liquidity or results of operations. On January 15, 2014, Microlog Corporation (“Microlog”) filed a patent infringement suit against inContact in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 1:99-mc-09999, alleging that we are infringing one or more claims made in U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509 (the “’509 Patent”), entitled “Contact Center System Capable of Handling Multiple Media Types of Contacts and Method for Using the Same.” Microlog is seeking a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, damages and an ongoing royalty, and costs, including attorney’s fees and expenses. In December 2014 we filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings which is pending before the Court. We also filed a petition for Inter Partes Review of the 509 Patent in January 2015 which is pending before the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal board. We are defending the claims vigorously. However, no estimate of the loss or range of loss can be made. On March 20, 2014, Pragmatus Telecom, LLC (“Pragmatus”) filed a patent infringement suit against inContact in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 14-360, alleging that we are infringing one or more claims made in U.S. Patent No. 6,311,231 (the “’231 Patent”), entitled “Method and System for Coordinating Data and Voice Communications Via Customer Contact Channel Changing System Using Voice over IP”; U.S. Patent No. 6,668,286 (the “’286 Patent”), entitled “Method and System for Coordinating Data and Voice Communications Via Customer Contact Channel Changing System Using Voice over IP”; U.S. Patent No. 7,159,043 (the “’043 Patent”), entitled “Method and System for Coordinating Data and Voice Communications Via Customer Contact Channel Changing System”; and U.S. Patent No. 8,438,314 (the “’314 Patent”), entitled “Method and System for Coordinating Data and Voice Communications Via Customer Contract Channel Changing System”. Pragmatus is seeking a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, damages and costs, including attorney’s fees and expenses. We are defending the claims vigorously. On July 9, 2015 defendants Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint for failing to claim patent-eligible subject matter was granted in relation to one of the four patent claims. At this time, no estimate of loss or range of loss can be made. On May 2, 2014, Info Directions, Inc. (“IDI”) notified inContact of a Demand for Arbitration regarding a dispute related to the Software as a Service Agreement between IDI and inContact dated December 19, 2012 pursuant to which IDI was to provide inContact with billing systems software. IDI has asserted damages totaling at least $3.6 million. inContact has asserted counterclaims and is defending this arbitration vigorously. Management believes the allegations and alleged damages set forth in IDI's Arbitration Demand to be without merit. We are at the early stages of this dispute and presently intend to defend the claims vigorously. However, no estimate of loss or range of loss can be made. We are the subject of certain legal matters, which we consider incidental to our business activities. It is the opinion of management that the ultimate disposition of these other matters will not have a material impact on our financial position, liquidity or results of operations.

NOTE 10. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Litigation

In May 2009, inContact was served in a lawsuit titled California College, Inc., et al., v. UCN, Inc., et al. In the lawsuit, California College alleges that (1) inContact made fraudulent and/or negligent misrepresentations in connection with the sale of its services with those of Insidesales.com, Inc., another defendant in the lawsuit, (2) that inContact breached its service contract with California College and an alleged oral contract between the parties by failing to deliver contracted services and product and failing to abide by implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, and (3) the conduct of inContact interfered with prospective economic business relations of California College with respect to enrolling students. California College filed an amended complaint that has been answered by Insidesales.com and inContact. California College originally sought damages in excess of $20.0 million. Furthermore, Insidesales.com and inContact filed cross-claims against one another, which they subsequently agreed to dismiss with prejudice. In October 2011, California College reached a settlement with Insidesales.com, the terms of which have not been disclosed and remain confidential. In June of 2013, California College amended its damages claim to $14.4 million, of which approximately $5.0 million was alleged pre-judgment interest. On September 10, 2013, the court issued an order on inContact's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The court determined that factual disputes exist as to several of the claims, but dismissed California College's cause of action for intentional interference with prospective economic relations and the claim for prejudgment interest. Dismissing the claim for prejudgment interest effectively reduced the claim for damages to approximately $9.2 million. inContact filed a motion to exclude the statistical and economic experts on damages retained by California College, which was partially granted by excluding California College’s statistical expert due to unreliable data provided by California College to perform the statistical analysis related to alleged damages. The trial scheduled for June 11, 2015 was rescheduled due to judicial transfers. The new trial date is scheduled for February 25, 2016. inContact has denied all of the substantive allegations of the complaint and continues to defend the claims. Management believes the claims against inContact are without merit. We cannot determine at this time whether the chance of success on one or more of inContact’s defenses or claims is either probable or remote, and are unable to estimate the potential loss or range of loss should it not be successful. The Company believes that this matter will not have a material impact on our financial position, liquidity or results of operations.

On January 15, 2014, Microlog Corporation (“Microlog”) filed a patent infringement suit against inContact in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 1:99-mc-09999, alleging that we are infringing one or more claims made in U.S. Patent No. 7,092,509 (the “’509 Patent”), entitled “Contact Center System Capable of Handling Multiple Media Types of Contacts and Method for Using the Same.” Microlog is seeking a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, damages and an ongoing royalty, and costs, including attorney’s fees and expenses. In December 2014 we filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings which is pending before the Court. We also filed a petition for Inter Partes Review of the 509 Patent in January 2015 which is pending before the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal board. We are defending the claims vigorously. However, no estimate of the loss or range of loss can be made.

On March 20, 2014, Pragmatus Telecom, LLC (“Pragmatus”) filed a patent infringement suit against inContact in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 14-360, alleging that we are infringing one or more claims made in U.S. Patent No. 6,311,231 (the “’231 Patent”), entitled “Method and System for Coordinating Data and Voice Communications Via Customer Contact Channel Changing System Using Voice over IP”; U.S. Patent No. 6,668,286 (the “’286 Patent”), entitled “Method and System for Coordinating Data and Voice Communications Via Customer Contact Channel Changing System Using Voice over IP”; U.S. Patent No. 7,159,043 (the “’043 Patent”), entitled “Method and System for Coordinating Data and Voice Communications Via Customer Contact Channel Changing System”; and U.S. Patent No. 8,438,314 (the “’314 Patent”), entitled “Method and System for Coordinating Data and Voice Communications Via Customer Contract Channel Changing System”. Pragmatus is seeking a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, damages and costs, including attorney’s fees and expenses. We are defending the claims vigorously. On July 9, 2015 defendants Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint for failing to claim patent-eligible subject matter was granted in relation to one of the four patent claims. At this time, no estimate of loss or range of loss can be made.

On May 2, 2014, Info Directions, Inc. (“IDI”) notified inContact of a Demand for Arbitration regarding a dispute related to the Software as a Service Agreement between IDI and inContact dated December 19, 2012 pursuant to which IDI was to provide inContact with billing systems software. IDI has asserted damages totaling at least $3.6 million. inContact has asserted counterclaims and is defending this arbitration vigorously. Management believes the allegations and alleged damages set forth in IDI's Arbitration Demand to be without merit. We are at the early stages of this dispute and presently intend to defend the claims vigorously. However, no estimate of loss or range of loss can be made.

We are the subject of certain legal matters, which we consider incidental to our business activities. It is the opinion of management that the ultimate disposition of these other matters will not have a material impact on our financial position, liquidity or results of operations.