Note 9 - Legal Settlement	6 Months Ended
Jul. 31, 2016
Notes to Financial Statements
Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]	9. Legal Settlement On March 10, 2014, we filed a lawsuit in federal court against Targus for patent infringement, breach of contract, intentional interference with contract, violation of business and professional codes, misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment. On March 26, 2016, we entered into a confidential settlement and license agreement with Targus that resolves all claims arising from the aforementioned litigation. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, we granted Targus a world-wide license to make, use, sell and distribute Licensed Products (as defined below), as well as a sublicense to have Licensed Products manufactured by third parties solely for the benefit of and sale to Targus. In addition, we granted Targus, for a limited number of units, the right to make, use, sell and distribute Licensed Products for third-party original equipment manufacturers (“OEMs”). “Licensed Products” means any power adaptor or power supply incorporating patents or other intellectual property owned or licensed by us. In exchange for the license granted under the settlement agreement, Targus paid us a one-time, lump-sum payment on April 1, 2016, plus the possibility of future per-unit royalty payments if Targus exceeds the limit on Licensed Products that Targus may sell to OEMs under the settlement agreement. We have been granted confidential treatment from the SEC related to the one-time payment, the calculation of royalty payments and the OEM unit limit pursuant to the confidential treatment request filed by us with the SEC. On April 26, 2011, Chicony, the contract manufacturer of the Bronx product that was the subject of a product recall, filed a complaint against us for breach of contract, seeking payment of $1.2 million for the alleged non-payment by us of amounts alleged by Chicony to be due it for products purchased from it by the Company. We denied liability and filed a cross-complaint on May 13, 2011 seeking the recovery of damages of $4.9 million caused by Chicony's failure to adhere to our technical specifications when manufacturing the Bronx product, which we believe resulted in the recall of the product. On April 16, 2013, the court approved our first-amended cross-complaint, which added intentional interference to our complaint and increased the damages we were seeking to at least $15.0 million. On February 4, 2014, a jury returned a verdict in our favor and awarded us damages of approximately $10.8 million, offset by previously accrued liabilities of $1.1 million for a net award of approximately $9.7 million. Effective as of May 15, 2014, Chicony entered into a settlement agreement with us that dismissed all claims between the parties arising from the litigation referenced above. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, Chicony agreed to pay us $7.6 million in lieu of the jury’s net award of $9.7 million or any other related costs or fees. $4.0 million of the settlement amount was paid to us on May 16, 2014, with the balance of $3.6 million paid to us on May 30, 2014. We recorded a gain of $7.6 million associated with this settlement in the quarter ended July 31, 2014. As a result of the settlement agreement, the $1.1 million payable to Chicony for contract manufacturing costs has been legally dismissed and discharged and recorded as an offset to Cost of Revenues in the quarter ended July 31, 2014. Further pursuant to the settlement agreement, each party released the other and its affiliates from any and all claims related to the subject matter of the litigation and we covenanted not to sue Chicony on the next 500,000 power adapters sold by Chicony after May 15, 2014 that we allege infringe on our intellectual property rights. The settlement agreement also contains other representations, warranties and covenants of both parties that are customary for an agreement of this type. On September 1, 2011, subsequent to receiving an infringement notification from us, Kensington filed a lawsuit against us alleging that five of our patents relating to power technology are invalid and/or not infringed by products made and/or sold by Kensington. On February 29, 2012, we denied these claims and filed a cross-complaint alleging infringement by Kensington of each of these five patents. On February 4, 2014, Kensington entered into a settlement and licensing agreement with the Company with an effective date of February 1, 2014 that dismissed all claims between the two parties arising from the litigation referenced above.

Legal Settlement

On March 10, 2014, we filed a lawsuit in federal court against Targus for patent infringement, breach of contract, intentional interference with contract, violation of business and professional codes, misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment. On March 26, 2016, we entered into a confidential settlement and license agreement with Targus that resolves all claims arising from the aforementioned litigation.

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, we granted Targus a world-wide license to make, use, sell and distribute Licensed Products (as defined below), as well as a sublicense to have Licensed Products manufactured by third parties solely for the benefit of and sale to Targus. In addition, we granted Targus, for a limited number of units, the right to make, use, sell and distribute Licensed Products for third-party original equipment manufacturers (“OEMs”). “Licensed Products” means any power adaptor or power supply incorporating patents or other intellectual property owned or licensed by us.

In exchange for the license granted under the settlement agreement, Targus paid us a one-time, lump-sum payment on April 1, 2016, plus the possibility of future per-unit royalty payments if Targus exceeds the limit on Licensed Products that Targus may sell to OEMs under the settlement agreement. We have been granted confidential treatment from the SEC related to the one-time payment, the calculation of royalty payments and the OEM unit limit pursuant to the confidential treatment request filed by us with the SEC.

On April 26, 2011, Chicony, the contract manufacturer of the Bronx product that was the subject of a product recall, filed a complaint against us for breach of contract, seeking payment of $1.2 million for the alleged non-payment by us of amounts alleged by Chicony to be due it for products purchased from it by the Company. We denied liability and filed a cross-complaint on May 13, 2011 seeking the recovery of damages of $4.9 million caused by Chicony's failure to adhere to our technical specifications when manufacturing the Bronx product, which we believe resulted in the recall of the product. On April 16, 2013, the court approved our first-amended cross-complaint, which added intentional interference to our complaint and increased the damages we were seeking to at least $15.0 million. On February 4, 2014, a jury returned a verdict in our favor and awarded us damages of approximately $10.8 million, offset by previously accrued liabilities of $1.1 million for a net award of approximately $9.7 million. Effective as of May 15, 2014, Chicony entered into a settlement agreement with us that dismissed all claims between the parties arising from the litigation referenced above. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, Chicony agreed to pay us $7.6 million in lieu of the jury’s net award of $9.7 million or any other related costs or fees. $4.0 million of the settlement amount was paid to us on May 16, 2014, with the balance of $3.6 million paid to us on May 30, 2014. We recorded a gain of $7.6 million associated with this settlement in the quarter ended July 31, 2014. As a result of the settlement agreement, the $1.1 million payable to Chicony for contract manufacturing costs has been legally dismissed and discharged and recorded as an offset to Cost of Revenues in the quarter ended July 31, 2014.

Further pursuant to the settlement agreement, each party released the other and its affiliates from any and all claims related to the subject matter of the litigation and we covenanted not to sue Chicony on the next 500,000 power adapters sold by Chicony after May 15, 2014 that we allege infringe on our intellectual property rights. The settlement agreement also contains other representations, warranties and covenants of both parties that are customary for an agreement of this type.

On September 1, 2011, subsequent to receiving an infringement notification from us, Kensington filed a lawsuit against us alleging that five of our patents relating to power technology are invalid and/or not infringed by products made and/or sold by Kensington. On February 29, 2012, we denied these claims and filed a cross-complaint alleging infringement by Kensington of each of these five patents. On February 4, 2014, Kensington entered into a settlement and licensing agreement with the Company with an effective date of February 1, 2014 that dismissed all claims between the two parties arising from the litigation referenced above.