Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2016
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. In February 2016 the trial court granted the inContact motion to stay the trial without date pending an interlocutory appeal to the Utah Supreme Court of the trial court’s December 2015 ruling with respect to allowing California College’s experts to testify at trial. The interlocutory appeal was referred to the Utah Court of Appeals and the briefs will be filed in the matter in December 2016 and January 2017. 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 inContact filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings which is pending before the Court. inContact also filed a petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of the ‘509 Patent in January 2015 before the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal board, and the PTAB instituted the IPR for the ‘509 Patent on all claims included in our petition. In a Final Written Decision entered on July 28, 2016 pursuant to the IPR rules, the PTAB held that all claims included in our IPR petition are invalid, meaning that the claims in the ‘509 Patent that Microlog alleged that we infringed cannot be enforced. Microlog has 30 days in which to file a request for rehearing of the PTAB Final Written Decision or 63 days in which to file an appeal of the Final Written Decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The 30-day period for Microlog to file a request for rehearing of the PTAB Final Written Decision has expired and the Microlog claims are no longer actionable. 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 asserted claims for breach of contract and is seeking compensatory and punitive damages totaling $3.6 million. inContact denied the claims by IDI and asserted its own counterclaims for breach of contract. The Arbitration Hearing in this matter was held in Rochester, New York in April 2016. In August 2016, the arbitrator awarded IDI $3.2 million in liquidated damages and denied the counterclaims asserted by inContact. All payments due IDI as a result of the arbitration were paid in full in September 2016. On June 10, 2016, a complaint captioned Natalie Gordon v. inContact, Inc., et al., Case No. 160903695 was filed in the Third Judicial District Court of Salt Lake County, State of Utah (the “Court”) naming as defendants inContact and its Board of Directors (the “Gordon Action”). The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the Gordon Action on July 1, 2016. On July 5, 2016, a complaint captioned David Stern v. inContact, Inc., et al., Case No. 160904200 was filed in the same Court naming as defendants inContact and its Board of Directors (the “Stern Action”). On July 8, 2016, a complaint captioned Andre Davis v. inContact. Inc., et al., Case No. 160904272 was filed in the same Court naming as defendants inContact, its Board of Directors, Parent and Merger Subsidiary (the “Davis Action”). On July 14, 2016 the Court ordered the three actions consolidated and designated the amended complaint in the Gordon action as the operative complaint. The consolidated action purports to be a class action brought by shareholders alleging that inContact’s Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Merger Agreement with NICE pursuant to which the Company would be acquired as a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of NICE. The complaint seeks, among other things, either to enjoin the proposed transaction or to rescind the transaction in the event it is consummated. Without admitting to any fault, inContact and the Board of Directors have entered into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs regarding settling the consolidated action. The parties are conducting confirmatory discovery prior to finalizing the settlement. We have established liabilities of $377,000 relative to all contingent matters above. We believe the amounts provided in our consolidated financial statements are adequate in light of the probable and estimable liabilities. We have certain contingencies which are reasonably possible, with exposures to loss which are in excess of the amount accrued. However, the remaining reasonably possible exposure to loss cannot currently be estimated. We are the subject of certain additional 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. In February 2016 the trial court granted the inContact motion to stay the trial without date pending an interlocutory appeal to the Utah Supreme Court of the trial court’s December 2015 ruling with respect to allowing California College’s experts to testify at trial. The interlocutory appeal was referred to the Utah Court of Appeals and the briefs will be filed in the matter in December 2016 and January 2017. 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 inContact filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings which is pending before the Court. inContact also filed a petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of the ‘509 Patent in January 2015 before the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal board, and the PTAB instituted the IPR for the ‘509 Patent on all claims included in our petition. In a Final Written Decision entered on July 28, 2016 pursuant to the IPR rules, the PTAB held that all claims included in our IPR petition are invalid, meaning that the claims in the ‘509 Patent that Microlog alleged that we infringed cannot be enforced. Microlog has 30 days in which to file a request for rehearing of the PTAB Final Written Decision or 63 days in which to file an appeal of the Final Written Decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The 30-day period for Microlog to file a request for rehearing of the PTAB Final Written Decision has expired and the Microlog claims are no longer actionable.

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 asserted claims for breach of contract and is seeking compensatory and punitive damages totaling $3.6 million. inContact denied the claims by IDI and asserted its own counterclaims for breach of contract. The Arbitration Hearing in this matter was held in Rochester, New York in April 2016. In August 2016, the arbitrator awarded IDI $3.2 million in liquidated damages and denied the counterclaims asserted by inContact. All payments due IDI as a result of the arbitration were paid in full in September 2016.

On June 10, 2016, a complaint captioned Natalie Gordon v. inContact, Inc., et al., Case No. 160903695 was filed in the Third Judicial District Court of Salt Lake County, State of Utah (the “Court”) naming as defendants inContact and its Board of Directors (the “Gordon Action”). The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the Gordon Action on July 1, 2016. On July 5, 2016, a complaint captioned David Stern v. inContact, Inc., et al., Case No. 160904200 was filed in the same Court naming as defendants inContact and its Board of Directors (the “Stern Action”). On July 8, 2016, a complaint captioned Andre Davis v. inContact. Inc., et al., Case No. 160904272 was filed in the same Court naming as defendants inContact, its Board of Directors, Parent and Merger Subsidiary (the “Davis Action”). On July 14, 2016 the Court ordered the three actions consolidated and designated the amended complaint in the Gordon action as the operative complaint. The consolidated action purports to be a class action brought by shareholders alleging that inContact’s Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Merger Agreement with NICE pursuant to which the Company would be acquired as a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of NICE. The complaint seeks, among other things, either to enjoin the proposed transaction or to rescind the transaction in the event it is consummated. Without admitting to any fault, inContact and the Board of Directors have entered into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs regarding settling the consolidated action. The parties are conducting confirmatory discovery prior to finalizing the settlement.

We have established liabilities of $377,000 relative to all contingent matters above. We believe the amounts provided in our consolidated financial statements are adequate in light of the probable and estimable liabilities. We have certain contingencies which are reasonably possible, with exposures to loss which are in excess of the amount accrued. However, the remaining reasonably possible exposure to loss cannot currently be estimated.

We are the subject of certain additional 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.