Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 27, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	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. Additionally, 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. Matters related to All-Tag Security S.A. and All-Tag Security Americas, Inc. 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 (the 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 the 555 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 555 Patent and the enforceability of the 555 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. The Appellate Court decision was appealed by All-Tag and Sensormatic to the U.S. Supreme Court. While the appeal was still pending, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases (Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. and Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Management Systems) arguing that the governing standard for finding a case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 was too rigid. On December 30, 2013, based on the Supreme Court’s willingness to re-evaluate the exceptional case standard, defendants requested that the Supreme Court also hear our case. On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its rulings in Octane Fitness and Highmark and relaxed the standard for determining when a case is exceptional. As a result, on May 5, 2014, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Appellate Court in our case (reinstating the Pennsylvania Court’s exceptional case finding) and sent the case back to the Appellate Court for further consideration in light of the new standards set forth in Octane Fitness and Highmark. On June 10, 2014, defendants filed a motion in the Appellate Court asking that the Appellate Court either affirm the Pennsylvania Court’s exceptional case finding outright or send the case back to the Pennsylvania Court so that it could consider the case again under the new exceptional case standard. On June 23, 2014, we filed our opposition to the motion to remand and moved the Appellate Court to once again reverse the Pennsylvania Court’s exceptional case finding. On October 14, 2014, the Appellate Court remanded the case to the Pennsylvania Court for further proceedings. On August 18, 2015, the Pennsylvania Court granted defendants' motions for attorney fees designating the case as an exceptional case under the new exceptional case standard. The Pennsylvania Court reinstated the original award in the amount of $6.6 million and awarded an unspecified portion of defendants' attorney fees, including appellate fees, and post-judgment interest under 35 U.S.C. § 285. We recorded a legal contingency accrual of $6.6 million equal to the amount of the reinstated original award during the third quarter ended September 27, 2015 within Other Accrued Expenses on the Consolidated Balance Sheet and in Litigation Matters on the Consolidated Statement of Operations. The defendants are seeking approximately $11.0 million. The range of possible loss is between $6.6 million and $11.0 million. The final amount of the award for the defendants is pending the Pennsylvania Court proceeding and ruling on the parties' submissions. We intend to again appeal the Pennsylvania Court's ruling and award of attorneys' fees to the defendants. 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. 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. Our legal fees related to the USS matter were being paid pursuant to our coverage under insurance policies with American Home Assurance Company and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa. (AIG). On July 9, 2014, AIG filed a complaint against us in the Superior Court of New Jersey (the New Jersey Court) claiming that AIG has no duty to defend or indemnify us under the insurance policies as they relate to the USS matter. AIG also claims reimbursement of legal fees, costs, and expenses previously paid by AIG on our behalf that are not covered by insurance as well as our reimbursement of AIG’s legal costs related to this matter. AIG continued to pay on our behalf most of our legal fees, costs, and expenses related to this matter. In May 2015, we engaged in formal discussions with AIG regarding the possibility of reaching a settlement of this matter in advance of the scheduled hearing in July 2015. In early June, we discussed the possibility of settling this matter with our Board of Directors and, on June 3, 2015, we obtained their approval to make a settlement offer. On June 26, 2015, we entered into a settlement with AIG. Pursuant to the settlement, we paid approximately $9.0 million to AIG in exchange for full and final resolution of this matter between the parties. Further pursuant to this settlement, each party will be responsible for a portion of the legal fees, costs, and expenses at issue in the litigation, and AIG is released from any further obligation with respect to future defense costs and indemnity in connection with the USS litigation. Matter related to Zucker Derivative Suit On June 24, 2014, a complaint was filed by Lawrence Zucker in a shareholder derivative suit on behalf of himself, others who are similarly situated and derivatively on behalf of us, of which we are also a nominal defendant, against our Board of Directors (the Board of Directors) in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, under the caption Zucker v. Checkpoint Systems, Inc., et al., No. GD-14-11035. The plaintiff generally asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment against our Board of Directors for allegedly exceeding its authority under our Amended and Restated 2004 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan (the Plan). The plaintiff sought, in addition to other relief, (i) a declaration that certain of the awards granted under the Plan in 2013 were ultra vires; (ii) rescission of awards allegedly granted in violation of the Plan; (iii) monetary damages; (iv) equitable or injunctive relief; (v) direction by the court that we reform our corporate governance and internal procedures and (vi) an award of attorneys’ fees and other fees and costs. The parties agreed to a dismissal of the case with prejudice on October 21, 2015.

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.

Additionally, 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.

Matters related to All-Tag Security S.A. and All-Tag Security Americas, Inc.

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 (the 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 the 555 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 555 Patent and the enforceability of the 555 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. The Appellate Court decision was appealed by All-Tag and Sensormatic to the U.S. Supreme Court.

While the appeal was still pending, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases (Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. and Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Management Systems) arguing that the governing standard for finding a case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 was too rigid. On December 30, 2013, based on the Supreme Court’s willingness to re-evaluate the exceptional case standard, defendants requested that the Supreme Court also hear our case. On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its rulings in Octane Fitness and Highmark and relaxed the standard for determining when a case is exceptional. As a result, on May 5, 2014, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Appellate Court in our case (reinstating the Pennsylvania Court’s exceptional case finding) and sent the case back to the Appellate Court for further consideration in light of the new standards set forth in Octane Fitness and Highmark. On June 10, 2014, defendants filed a motion in the Appellate Court asking that the Appellate Court either affirm the Pennsylvania Court’s exceptional case finding outright or send the case back to the Pennsylvania Court so that it could consider the case again under the new exceptional case standard. On June 23, 2014, we filed our opposition to the motion to remand and moved the Appellate Court to once again reverse the Pennsylvania Court’s exceptional case finding. On October 14, 2014, the Appellate Court remanded the case to the Pennsylvania Court for further proceedings.

On August 18, 2015, the Pennsylvania Court granted defendants' motions for attorney fees designating the case as an exceptional case under the new exceptional case standard. The Pennsylvania Court reinstated the original award in the amount of $6.6 million and awarded an unspecified portion of defendants' attorney fees, including appellate fees, and post-judgment interest under 35 U.S.C. § 285. We recorded a legal contingency accrual of $6.6 million equal to the amount of the reinstated original award during the third quarter ended September 27, 2015 within Other Accrued Expenses on the Consolidated Balance Sheet and in Litigation Matters on the Consolidated Statement of Operations. The defendants are seeking approximately $11.0 million. The range of possible loss is between $6.6 million and $11.0 million. The final amount of the award for the defendants is pending the Pennsylvania Court proceeding and ruling on the parties' submissions. We intend to again appeal the Pennsylvania Court's ruling and award of attorneys' fees to the defendants.

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. 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.

Our legal fees related to the USS matter were being paid pursuant to our coverage under insurance policies with American Home Assurance Company and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa. (AIG). On July 9, 2014, AIG filed a complaint against us in the Superior Court of New Jersey (the New Jersey Court) claiming that AIG has no duty to defend or indemnify us under the insurance policies as they relate to the USS matter. AIG also claims reimbursement of legal fees, costs, and expenses previously paid by AIG on our behalf that are not covered by insurance as well as our reimbursement of AIG’s legal costs related to this matter. AIG continued to pay on our behalf most of our legal fees, costs, and expenses related to this matter. In May 2015, we engaged in formal discussions with AIG regarding the possibility of reaching a settlement of this matter in advance of the scheduled hearing in July 2015. In early June, we discussed the possibility of settling this matter with our Board of Directors and, on June 3, 2015, we obtained their approval to make a settlement offer. On June 26, 2015, we entered into a settlement with AIG. Pursuant to the settlement, we paid approximately $9.0 million to AIG in exchange for full and final resolution of this matter between the parties. Further pursuant to this settlement, each party will be responsible for a portion of the legal fees, costs, and expenses at issue in the litigation, and AIG is released from any further obligation with respect to future defense costs and indemnity in connection with the USS litigation.

Matter related to Zucker Derivative Suit

On June 24, 2014, a complaint was filed by Lawrence Zucker in a shareholder derivative suit on behalf of himself, others who are similarly situated and derivatively on behalf of us, of which we are also a nominal defendant, against our Board of Directors (the Board of Directors) in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, under the caption Zucker v. Checkpoint Systems, Inc., et al., No. GD-14-11035. The plaintiff generally asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment against our Board of Directors for allegedly exceeding its authority under our Amended and Restated 2004 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan (the Plan).

The plaintiff sought, in addition to other relief, (i) a declaration that certain of the awards granted under the Plan in 2013 were ultra vires; (ii) rescission of awards allegedly granted in violation of the Plan; (iii) monetary damages; (iv) equitable or injunctive relief; (v) direction by the court that we reform our corporate governance and internal procedures and (vi) an award of attorneys’ fees and other fees and costs. The parties agreed to a dismissal of the case with prejudice on October 21, 2015.