Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies	6. Commitments and Contingencies *Legal Matters- On August 1, 2005, the Company commenced a suit in the European Court of First Instance in Luxembourg against the ECB alleging patent infringement by the ECB and claimed unspecified damages (the “ECB Litigation”). The Company brought the suit in the European Court of First Instance in Luxembourg. The Company alleged that all Euro banknotes in circulation infringe the Company European Patent 0 455 750B1 which covers a method of incorporating an anti-counterfeiting feature into banknotes or similar security documents to protect against forgeries by digital scanning and copying devices. The Court of First Instance in Luxembourg ruled on September 5, 2007 that it does not have jurisdiction to rule on the patent infringement claim. In 2006, the Company received notices that the ECB had filed separate claims in each of the United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, France, Spain, Germany, Austria and Luxembourg courts seeking the invalidation of the Patent. Proceedings were commenced before each of the national courts seeking revocation and declarations of invalidity of the Patent. On August 20, 2008, the Company entered into an agreement with Trebuchet Capital Partners, LLC (“Trebuchet”) under which Trebuchet agreed to pay substantially all of the litigation costs associated with validity proceedings in eight European countries relating to the Patent. The Company provided Trebuchet with the sole and exclusive right to manage infringement litigation relating to the Patent in Europe, including the right to initiate litigation in the name of the Company, Trebuchet or both and to choose whom and where to sue, subject to certain limitations set forth in the Trebuchet Agreement. In consideration for Trebuchet's funding obligations, the Company assigned and transferred a 49% interest in the Company's rights, title and interest in the Patent to Trebuchet which allows Trebuchet to have a separate and distinct interest in and share of the Patent, along with the right to sue and recover in litigation, settlement or otherwise and to collect royalties or other payments under or on account of the Patent. In addition, the Company and Trebuchet agreed to equally share all proceeds generated from litigation relating to the Patent, including judgments and licenses or other arrangements entered into in settlement of any such litigation. On July 7, 2011, Trebuchet and the Company entered into a series of related agreements wherein Trebuchet effectively ended its ongoing participation in the ECB litigation, except for its continuing involvement in the final settlement of fees that may become payable as a result of the infringement case in The Netherlands described below. The original agreement with Trebuchet, executed in August 2008, will remain in full force and effect, in its entirety, until Trebuchet makes any and all final payments that may become due in The Netherlands infringement case. On March 26, 2007, the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court in London, England ruled that the Patent was deemed invalid in the United Kingdom, and on March 19, 2008 this decision was upheld on appeal. On March 27, 2007 the Bundespatentgericht of the Federal Republic of Germany ruled that the German part of the Patent was valid, having considered the English Court’s decision. However, on July 6, 2010, the Company was notified that the German Court had reversed the ruling on appeal and the Patent was deemed invalid in Germany. On January 9, 2008 the French Court held that the Patent was invalid in France and on March 10, 2010, this decision was upheld on appeal. On March 12, 2008 the Dutch Court ruled that the Patent was valid in the Netherlands. However, on December 21, 2010 the Dutch Court reversed the ruling on appeal and the Patent was deemed invalid in the Netherlands. On November 3, 2009, the Belgium Court held that the Patent was invalid in Belgium. On November 17, 2009, the Austrian Court held that the Patent was invalid in Austria. On March 24, 2010 the Spanish Court ruled that the Patent was valid. The decision is being appealed by the ECB. In July 2010, the Company was notified that the Italian Court deemed the patent invalid. The decision was not appealed. During the course of the litigation, the losing party in certain jurisdictions was responsible for the other party’s legal fees. As of June 30, 2012, the Company has recorded as accrued liabilities of approximately €132,000 ($165,000) for the Germany case and approximately €175,000 ($218,750) for the Netherlands case for such fees. In addition, the ECB formally requested the Company to pay attorneys and court fees for the Court of First Instance case in Luxembourg in the amount of €93,752 ($117,000) as of June 30, 2012, which, unless the amount is settled will be subject to an assessment procedure that has not been initiated. The Company will accrue the assessed amount, if any, as soon as it is reasonably estimable. On February 18, 2010, Trebuchet, on behalf of the Company, filed an infringement suit in the Netherlands against the ECB and two security printing entities with manufacturing operations in the Netherlands, Joh. Enschede Banknotes B.V and Koninklijke Joh. Enschede B.V. Upon determination on December 21, 2010, that the patent was invalid in the Netherlands, the infringement case was terminated by Trebuchet. Trebuchet is responsible for costs reimbursement associated with the case, if any, when determined by the Dutch Court. On October 24, 2011 the Company initiated a law suit against Coupons.com Incorporated (“Coupons.com”). The suit was filed in the United States District Court, Western District of New York, located in Rochester, New York. Coupons.com is a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business located in Mountain View, California. In the Coupons.com suit, the Company alleges breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition and unjust enrichment, and is seeking in excess of $10 million in money damages from Coupons.com for those claims. In addition to the foregoing, we are subject to other legal proceedings that have arisen in the ordinary course of business and have not been finally adjudicated. Although there can be no assurance in this regard, in the opinion of management, none of the legal proceedings to which we are a party, whether discussed herein or otherwise, will have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows or our financial condition. Contingent Litigation Payments* – Pursuant to an agreement made in December 2004, the Company is required to share the economic benefit derived from settlements, licenses or subsequent business arrangements that the Company obtains from any infringer of patents formerly owned by the Wicker Family. For infringement matters involving certain U.S. patents, the Company will be required to disburse 30% of the settlement proceeds. For infringement matters involving certain foreign patents, the Company will be required to disburse 14% of the settlement proceeds. These payments do not apply to licenses or royalties to patents that the Company has developed or obtained from persons other than the Wicker Family. In addition, in May 2005, the Company made an agreement with its legal counsel in charge of the Company’s litigation with the European Central Bank which called for a $150,000 contingent payment to the legal counsel upon a successful ruling or settlement on the Company’s behalf in that litigation. As of June 30, 2012, there has been no settlement amounts related to these agreements. On October 21, 2011, the Company entered into a contingency legal fee agreement with Nixon Peabody LLP (the “Contingency Agreement”), in connection with its law suit against Coupons.com. Under the Contingency Agreement, the Company would pay Nixon Peabody LLP 33 1/3% of any settlements or damages awards collected from Coupons.com in connection with the suit. Under the Contingency Agreement, the Company is responsible for payment of out-of-pocket charges and disbursements of Nixon Peabody LLP necessarily accrued during the prosecution of the suit. *Contingent Purchase Price* -In December, 2008, the Company acquired substantially all of the assets of DPI of Rochester, LLC in which the Company guaranteed up to $50,000 to certain parties depending on whether certain conditions occurred within five years of the acquisition. As of June 30, 2012, the Company considers the likelihood that the payment will be required as remote.

6. Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Matters- On August 1, 2005, the Company commenced a suit in the European Court of First Instance in Luxembourg against the ECB alleging patent infringement by the ECB and claimed unspecified damages (the “ECB Litigation”). The Company brought the suit in the European Court of First Instance in Luxembourg. The Company alleged that all Euro banknotes in circulation infringe the Company European Patent 0 455 750B1 which covers a method of incorporating an anti-counterfeiting feature into banknotes or similar security documents to protect against forgeries by digital scanning and copying devices. The Court of First Instance in Luxembourg ruled on September 5, 2007 that it does not have jurisdiction to rule on the patent infringement claim. In 2006, the Company received notices that the ECB had filed separate claims in each of the United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, France, Spain, Germany, Austria and Luxembourg courts seeking the invalidation of the Patent. Proceedings were commenced before each of the national courts seeking revocation and declarations of invalidity of the Patent. On August 20, 2008, the Company entered into an agreement with Trebuchet Capital Partners, LLC (“Trebuchet”) under which Trebuchet agreed to pay substantially all of the litigation costs associated with validity proceedings in eight European countries relating to the Patent. The Company provided Trebuchet with the sole and exclusive right to manage infringement litigation relating to the Patent in Europe, including the right to initiate litigation in the name of the Company, Trebuchet or both and to choose whom and where to sue, subject to certain limitations set forth in the Trebuchet Agreement. In consideration for Trebuchet's funding obligations, the Company assigned and transferred a 49% interest in the Company's rights, title and interest in the Patent to Trebuchet which allows Trebuchet to have a separate and distinct interest in and share of the Patent, along with the right to sue and recover in litigation, settlement or otherwise and to collect royalties or other payments under or on account of the Patent. In addition, the Company and Trebuchet agreed to equally share all proceeds generated from litigation relating to the Patent, including judgments and licenses or other arrangements entered into in settlement of any such litigation. On July 7, 2011, Trebuchet and the Company entered into a series of related agreements wherein Trebuchet effectively ended its ongoing participation in the ECB litigation, except for its continuing involvement in the final settlement of fees that may become payable as a result of the infringement case in The Netherlands described below. The original agreement with Trebuchet, executed in August 2008, will remain in full force and effect, in its entirety, until Trebuchet makes any and all final payments that may become due in The Netherlands infringement case.

On March 26, 2007, the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court in London, England ruled that the Patent was deemed invalid in the United Kingdom, and on March 19, 2008 this decision was upheld on appeal. On March 27, 2007 the Bundespatentgericht of the Federal Republic of Germany ruled that the German part of the Patent was valid, having considered the English Court’s decision. However, on July 6, 2010, the Company was notified that the German Court had reversed the ruling on appeal and the Patent was deemed invalid in Germany. On January 9, 2008 the French Court held that the Patent was invalid in France and on March 10, 2010, this decision was upheld on appeal. On March 12, 2008 the Dutch Court ruled that the Patent was valid in the Netherlands. However, on December 21, 2010 the Dutch Court reversed the ruling on appeal and the Patent was deemed invalid in the Netherlands. On November 3, 2009, the Belgium Court held that the Patent was invalid in Belgium. On November 17, 2009, the Austrian Court held that the Patent was invalid in Austria. On March 24, 2010 the Spanish Court ruled that the Patent was valid. The decision is being appealed by the ECB. In July 2010, the Company was notified that the Italian Court deemed the patent invalid. The decision was not appealed.

During the course of the litigation, the losing party in certain jurisdictions was responsible for the other party’s legal fees. As of June 30, 2012, the Company has recorded as accrued liabilities of approximately €132,000 ($165,000) for the Germany case and approximately €175,000 ($218,750) for the Netherlands case for such fees. In addition, the ECB formally requested the Company to pay attorneys and court fees for the Court of First Instance case in Luxembourg in the amount of €93,752 ($117,000) as of June 30, 2012, which, unless the amount is settled will be subject to an assessment procedure that has not been initiated. The Company will accrue the assessed amount, if any, as soon as it is reasonably estimable.

On February 18, 2010, Trebuchet, on behalf of the Company, filed an infringement suit in the Netherlands against the ECB and two security printing entities with manufacturing operations in the Netherlands, Joh. Enschede Banknotes B.V and Koninklijke Joh. Enschede B.V. Upon determination on December 21, 2010, that the patent was invalid in the Netherlands, the infringement case was terminated by Trebuchet. Trebuchet is responsible for costs reimbursement associated with the case, if any, when determined by the Dutch Court.

On October 24, 2011 the Company initiated a law suit against Coupons.com Incorporated (“Coupons.com”). The suit was filed in the United States District Court, Western District of New York, located in Rochester, New York. Coupons.com is a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business located in Mountain View, California. In the Coupons.com suit, the Company alleges breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition and unjust enrichment, and is seeking in excess of $10 million in money damages from Coupons.com for those claims.

In addition to the foregoing, we are subject to other legal proceedings that have arisen in the ordinary course of business and have not been finally adjudicated. Although there can be no assurance in this regard, in the opinion of management, none of the legal proceedings to which we are a party, whether discussed herein or otherwise, will have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows or our financial condition.

Contingent Litigation Payments – Pursuant to an agreement made in December 2004, the Company is required to share the economic benefit derived from settlements, licenses or subsequent business arrangements that the Company obtains from any infringer of patents formerly owned by the Wicker Family. For infringement matters involving certain U.S. patents, the Company will be required to disburse 30% of the settlement proceeds. For infringement matters involving certain foreign patents, the Company will be required to disburse 14% of the settlement proceeds. These payments do not apply to licenses or royalties to patents that the Company has developed or obtained from persons other than the Wicker Family. In addition, in May 2005, the Company made an agreement with its legal counsel in charge of the Company’s litigation with the European Central Bank which called for a $150,000 contingent payment to the legal counsel upon a successful ruling or settlement on the Company’s behalf in that litigation. As of June 30, 2012, there has been no settlement amounts related to these agreements.

On October 21, 2011, the Company entered into a contingency legal fee agreement with Nixon Peabody LLP (the “Contingency Agreement”), in connection with its law suit against Coupons.com. Under the Contingency Agreement, the Company would pay Nixon Peabody LLP 33 1/3% of any settlements or damages awards collected from Coupons.com in connection with the suit. Under the Contingency Agreement, the Company is responsible for payment of out-of-pocket charges and disbursements of Nixon Peabody LLP necessarily accrued during the prosecution of the suit.

Contingent Purchase Price -In December, 2008, the Company acquired substantially all of the assets of DPI of Rochester, LLC in which the Company guaranteed up to $50,000 to certain parties depending on whether certain conditions occurred within five years of the acquisition. As of June 30, 2012, the Company considers the likelihood that the payment will be required as remote.