Commitments And Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 30, 2012

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments And Contingencies

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

We lease certain production facilities, offices, distribution centers, and equipment. Rental expense for all operating leases approximated $15.4 million, $17.3 million, and $16.9 million, in 2012, 2011, and 2010, respectively.

Future minimum payments for operating leases and capital leases having non-cancelable terms in excess of one year at December 30, 2012 are:

(amounts in thousands)	Capital Leases		Operating Leases		Total
2013	$	319	$	11,150	$	11,469
2014	146		7,781		7,927
2015	61		5,081		5,142
2016	16		3,862		3,878
2017	2		3,152		3,154
Thereafter	—		3,631		3,631
Total minimum lease payments	$	544	$	34,657	$	35,201
Less: amounts representing interest	62
Present value of minimum lease payments	$	482

Contingencies

We are involved in certain legal and regulatory actions, all of which have arisen in the ordinary course of business. Management believes that the ultimate resolution of such matters is unlikely to have a material adverse effect on our Consolidated Results of Operations and/or Financial Condition, except as described below.

Matter related to All-Tag Security S.A., et al

We originally filed suit on May 1, 2001, alleging that the disposable, deactivatable radio frequency security tag manufactured by All-Tag Security S.A. and All-Tag Security Americas, Inc.’s (jointly “All-Tag”) and sold by Sensormatic Electronics Corporation (Sensormatic) infringed on a U.S. Patent No. 4,876,555 (Patent) owned by us. On April 22, 2004, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment to defendants All-Tag and Sensormatic on the ground that our Patent was invalid for incorrect inventorship. We appealed this decision. On June 20, 2005, we won an appeal when the Federal Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. On January 29, 2007 the case went to trial, and on February 13, 2007, a jury found in favor of the defendants on infringement, the validity of the Patent and the enforceability of the Patent. On June 20, 2008, the Court entered judgment in favor of defendants based on the jury’s infringement and enforceability findings. On February 10, 2009, the Court granted defendants’ motions for attorneys’ fees designating the case as an exceptional case and awarding an unspecified portion of defendants’ attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Defendants are seeking approximately $5.7 million plus interest. We recognized this amount during the fourth fiscal quarter ended December 28, 2008 in litigation settlements on the Consolidated Statement of Operations. On March 6, 2009, we filed objections to the defendants’ bill of attorneys’ fees. On November 2, 2011, the Court finalized the decision to order the Company to pay the attorneys’ fees and costs of the defendants in the amount of $6.6 million. The additional amount of $0.9 million was recorded in the fourth quarter ended December 25, 2011 in the Consolidated Statement of Operations. On November 15, 2011, we filed objections to and appealed the Court's award of attorneys' fees to the defendants.