LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2011
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS [Abstract]
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	11. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS The Company is, from time to time, a party to litigation arising in the normal course of its business, including various claims of patent infringement. See the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 for the details of Bel's material pending lawsuits. Updates to pending litigation since the Company's Form 10-K filing are described below. The Company is a defendant in a lawsuit captioned SynQor, Inc. v. Artesyn Technologies, Inc., et al. brought in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas in November 2007.The plaintiff alleged that eleven defendants, including Bel, infringed its patents covering certain power products. With respect to the Company, the plaintiff claimed that the Company infringed its patents related to unregulated bus converters and/or point-of-load (POL) converters used in intermediate bus architecture power supply systems. The case went to trial in December 2010 and a partial judgment was entered on December 29, 2010 based on the jury verdict. The jury found that certain products of the defendants directly and/or indirectly infringe the SynQor patents. The jury awarded damages of $8.1 million against the Company, which was recorded by the Company as a litigation charge in the statement of operations in the fourth quarter of 2010. On July 11, 2011, the Court awarded supplemental damages of $2.5 million against the Company. Of this amount, $1.9 million is covered through an indemnification agreement with one of Bel's customers and the remaining $0.6 million was recorded as an expense by the Company during the second quarter of 2011. During the third quarter of 2011, the Company recorded costs and interest associated with this lawsuit of $0.2 million. A final judgment in the case was entered on August 17, 2011. The Company is in the process of appealing the verdict and judgment and filed a notice of appeal with the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals on October 28, 2011. The Company was advised that the full amount of the damage award plus costs and interest would need to be posted as a supersedeas bond upon filing of the notice of appeal. In November 2011, the Company posted a $13.0 million supersedeas bond to the Court in the Eastern District of Texas while the case is on appeal to the Federal Circuit. In a related matter, on September 29, 2011, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas ordered SynQor, Inc.'s continuing causes of action for post-injunction damages to be severed from the original action and assigned to a new case number. The new action captioned SynQor, Inc. v. Artesyn Technologies, Inc., et al. (Case Number 2:11cv444) is a patent infringement action for damages in the form of lost profits and reasonable royalties for the period starting January 24, 2011. SynQor, Inc. also seeks enhanced damages. The Company has an indemnification agreement in place with one of its customers specifically covering post-injunction damages related to this case. As a result, the Company does not anticipate that its consolidated statement of operations will be materially impacted by any potential post-injunction damages. The Company was a defendant in a lawsuit captioned Halo Electronics, Inc. (“Halo”) v. Bel Fuse Inc., Pulse Engineering, Inc. and Technitrol, Inc. brought in Nevada Federal District Court. The plaintiff claimed that the Company had infringed its patents covering certain surface mount discrete magnetic products made by the Company. Halo sought unspecified damages, which it claimed should be trebled. In December 2007, this case was dismissed by the Nevada Federal District Court for lack of personal jurisdiction. Halo then re-filed this suit, with similar claims against the Company, in the Northern California Federal District Court, captioned Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Bel Fuse Inc., Elec & Eltek (USA) Corporation, Wurth Electronics Midcom, Inc., and Xfmrs, Inc. In August 2011, a settlement agreement was signed by the Company and Halo with regard to this lawsuit, whereby the Company has agreed to pay Halo a royalty on past sales. The Company recorded a $2.6 million liability related to past sales during the second quarter of 2011. This is included as a litigation charge in the accompanying condensed consolidated statement of operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2011. Bel has also agreed to take a license with respect to the Halo patents at issue in the lawsuit and pay an 8% royalty on all net worldwide sales of the above-mentioned products from June 7, 2011 through August 10, 2015. The Company was a plaintiff in a lawsuit captioned Bel Fuse Inc. v. Halo Electronics, Inc. brought in the United States District Court of New Jersey during June 2007. The Company claimed that Halo infringed a patent covering certain integrated connector modules made by Halo. The Company was seeking an unspecified amount of damages plus interest, costs and attorney fees. In August 2011, a settlement agreement was signed by the Company and Halo with regard to this lawsuit, whereby Halo has agreed to pay the Company a 10% royalty related to its net worldwide sales of its integrated connector modules in exchange for a fully paid-up license of the Bel patent. This royalty income has been included in net sales in the accompanying condensed consolidated statement of operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2011.

11. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

The Company is, from time to time, a party to litigation arising in the normal course of its business, including various claims of patent infringement. See the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 for the details of Bel's material pending lawsuits. Updates to pending litigation since the Company's Form 10-K filing are described below.

The Company is a defendant in a lawsuit captioned SynQor, Inc. v. Artesyn Technologies, Inc., et al. brought in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas in November 2007.The plaintiff alleged that eleven defendants, including Bel, infringed its patents covering certain power products. With respect to the Company, the plaintiff claimed that the Company infringed its patents related to unregulated bus converters and/or point-of-load (POL) converters used in intermediate bus architecture power supply systems. The case went to trial in December 2010 and a partial judgment was entered on December 29, 2010 based on the jury verdict. The jury found that certain products of the defendants directly and/or indirectly infringe the SynQor patents. The jury awarded damages of $8.1 million against the Company, which was recorded by the Company as a litigation charge in the statement of operations in the fourth quarter of 2010. On July 11, 2011, the Court awarded supplemental damages of $2.5 million against the Company. Of this amount, $1.9 million is covered through an indemnification agreement with one of Bel's customers and the remaining $0.6 million was recorded as an expense by the Company during the second quarter of 2011. During the third quarter of 2011, the Company recorded costs and interest associated with this lawsuit of $0.2 million. A final judgment in the case was entered on August 17, 2011. The Company is in the process of appealing the verdict and judgment and filed a notice of appeal with the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals on October 28, 2011. The Company was advised that the full amount of the damage award plus costs and interest would need to be posted as a supersedeas bond upon filing of the notice of appeal. In November 2011, the Company posted a $13.0 million supersedeas bond to the Court in the Eastern District of Texas while the case is on appeal to the Federal Circuit.

In a related matter, on September 29, 2011, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas ordered SynQor, Inc.'s continuing causes of action for post-injunction damages to be severed from the original action and assigned to a new case number. The new action captioned SynQor, Inc. v. Artesyn Technologies, Inc., et al. (Case Number 2:11cv444) is a patent infringement action for damages in the form of lost profits and reasonable royalties for the period starting January 24, 2011. SynQor, Inc. also seeks enhanced damages. The Company has an indemnification agreement in place with one of its customers specifically covering post-injunction damages related to this case. As a result, the Company does not anticipate that its consolidated statement of operations will be materially impacted by any potential post-injunction damages.

The Company was a defendant in a lawsuit captioned Halo Electronics, Inc. (“Halo”) v. Bel Fuse Inc., Pulse Engineering, Inc. and Technitrol, Inc. brought in Nevada Federal District Court. The plaintiff claimed that the Company had infringed its patents covering certain surface mount discrete magnetic products made by the Company. Halo sought unspecified damages, which it claimed should be trebled. In December 2007, this case was dismissed by the Nevada Federal District Court for lack of personal jurisdiction. Halo then re-filed this suit, with similar claims against the Company, in the Northern California Federal District Court, captioned Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Bel Fuse Inc., Elec & Eltek (USA) Corporation, Wurth Electronics Midcom, Inc., and Xfmrs, Inc. In August 2011, a settlement agreement was signed by the Company and Halo with regard to this lawsuit, whereby the Company has agreed to pay Halo a royalty on past sales. The Company recorded a $2.6 million liability related to past sales during the second quarter of 2011. This is included as a litigation charge in the accompanying condensed consolidated statement of operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2011. Bel has also agreed to take a license with respect to the Halo patents at issue in the lawsuit and pay an 8% royalty on all net worldwide sales of the above-mentioned products from June 7, 2011 through August 10, 2015.

The Company was a plaintiff in a lawsuit captioned Bel Fuse Inc. v. Halo Electronics, Inc. brought in the United States District Court of New Jersey during June 2007. The Company claimed that Halo infringed a patent covering certain integrated connector modules made by Halo. The Company was seeking an unspecified amount of damages plus interest, costs and attorney fees. In August 2011, a settlement agreement was signed by the Company and Halo with regard to this lawsuit, whereby Halo has agreed to pay the Company a 10% royalty related to its net worldwide sales of its integrated connector modules in exchange for a fully paid-up license of the Bel patent. This royalty income has been included in net sales in the accompanying condensed consolidated statement of operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2011.