XML 25 R13.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT  v2.3.0.11
Note 8 - Commitments and Contingencies
6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]
8.
Commitments and Contingencies Please refer to Note 7 in the Consolidated Financial Statements included in our 2010 Form 10-K for a description of our commitments and contingencies in addition to those disclosed here.

Legal Matters – ChemFree Patent Matter – As explained in detail in Part II, Item 1 of this report, our ChemFree subsidiary has been involved since 2004 in a legal matter related to a patent infringement action brought against J. Walter Co. Ltd. and J. Walter, Inc. (“J. Walter”) in the United States Court for the Northern District of Georgia.  The complaint alleged that certain of the defendants’ products infringed four U.S. patents held by ChemFree and sought a ruling to compel the defendants to cease their infringing activities. On June 18, 2010, the judge issued his Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law which found (i) that certain of J. Walter’s products did infringe on ChemFree’s four patents-in-suit; (ii) in ChemFree’s favor on the issue of the patents’ named co-inventors and (iii) in J. Walter’s favor on the issue of invalidity of the four patents-in-suit for “obviousness”. ChemFree filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the judge’s findings and conclusions. In October 2010, the judge hearing the case was arrested on criminal charges by the FBI, subsequently resigned and ChemFree’s case was reassigned to a new judge.  On June 6, 2011, the new judge issued a final ruling in J. Walter’s favor upholding the invalidity finding of the first judge and awarding recovery of allowable taxable costs from ChemFree. On July 1, 2011, ChemFree appealed the ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Court. ChemFree also filed a motion to disallow the clerk’s award for the recovery of allowable taxable costs. While the company presently believes it will prevail in its appeal, there can be no certainty that the Court of Appeals will find in its favor. If ChemFree does not prevail in the appeal, there is at least a reasonable possibility that ChemFree would incur some expenses for certain allowable taxable costs (which do not include attorney fees) in an amount to be determined by the court at the time.

In the ordinary course of business, we may be from time to time involved in various pending or threatened legal actions.  The litigation process is inherently uncertain and it is possible that the resolution of such matters might have a material adverse effect upon our financial condition and/or results of operations.

Except as noted above, other commitments and contingencies described in Note 7 to our Consolidated Financial Statements included in our 2010 Form 10-K are unchanged.