Commitments And Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 29, 2013

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 $10.9 million, $15.4 million, and $17.3 million, in 2013, 2012, and 2011, respectively.

Future minimum payments for operating leases and capital leases having non-cancelable terms in excess of one year at December 29, 2013 are:

(amounts in thousands)	Capital Leases		Operating Leases		Total
2014	$	366	$	9,610	$	9,976
2015	342		6,641		6,983
2016	343		5,021		5,364
2017	284		2,875		3,159
2018	282		2,429		2,711
Thereafter	—		1,578		1,578
Total minimum lease payments	$	1,617	$	28,154	$	29,771
Less: amounts representing interest	252
Present value of minimum lease payments	$	1,365

Contingencies

We are involved in certain legal and regulatory actions, all of which have arisen in the ordinary course of business, except for the matters described in the following paragraphs.

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 (the “ Pennsylvania Court”) 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 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Appellate Court”) reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded the case to the Pennsylvania 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 Pennsylvania Court entered judgment in favor of defendants based on the jury's infringement and enforceability findings. On February 10, 2009, the Pennsylvania 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 sought 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 Pennsylvania Court finalized the decision to order us 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 Pennsylvania Court's award of attorneys' fees to the defendants. Following the filing of briefs and the completion of oral arguments, the Appellate Court reversed the decision of the Pennsylvania Court on March 25, 2013. As a result of the final decision, we reversed the All-Tag reserve of $6.6 million in the first quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Matter related to Universal Surveillance Corporation EAS RF Anti-trust Litigation

Universal Surveillance Corporation (“USS”) filed a complaint against us in the United States Federal District Court of the Northern District of Ohio (the “Ohio Court”) on August 19, 2011. USS claims that, in connection with our competition in the electronic article surveillance market, we violated the federal antitrust laws (Sherman Act and Clayton Act) and state antitrust laws (Ohio Valentine Act). USS also claims that we violated the federal Lanham Act, the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the Ohio Trade Secrets Act, and engaged in conduct that allegedly disparaged USS and tortiously interfered with USS's business relationships and contracts. USS is seeking injunctive relief as well as approximately $65 million in claimed damages for alleged lost profits, plus treble damages and attorney's fees under the Sherman Act. As of December 29, 2013, we have neither recorded a reserve for this matter nor do we believe that there is a reasonable possibility that a loss has been incurred.