Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Contingencies [Abstract]
CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 8 — CONTINGENCIES On July 7, 2009, Southwire Company, a Delaware corporation (“Southwire”), filed a complaint for patent infringement against the Company and Cerro Wire, Inc. (“Cerro”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. In the complaint, Southwire alleged that the Company infringed one or more claims of United States Patent No. 7,557,301 (the “‘301 patent”), entitled “Method of Manufacturing Electrical Cable Having Reduced Required Force for Installation,” by making and selling electrical cables, including the Company’s Super Slick cables. The case has been transferred to the Northern District of Georgia and the parties have agreed to stay it pending reexamination of the ‘301 patent by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”). On June 23, 2011, the USPTO issued an office action in the reexamination finally rejecting all the claims of the ‘301 patent. Southwire has until August 7, 2011 to file a written response with the USPTO. On August 24, 2009, Southwire filed a second complaint for patent and trademark infringement against the Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. In the second complaint, Southwire alleged that the Company infringed one or more of the claims of United States Patent No. 6,486,395 entitled “Interlocked Metal Clad Cable” (the “‘395 Patent”) by making and selling electrical cables, including the Company’s MCMP Multipurpose cables. Southwire also alleged that the Company infringed Southwire’s United States Trademark Registration No. 3,292,777 for the mark, “MCAP.” The second complaint also alleged a variety of related federal and state statutory and common law claims including unfair competition. The Company filed counterclaims against Southwire alleging claims of statutory and common law unfair competition, tortious interference with existing and prospective business relations, misappropriation and claims for declaratory relief. The parties dismissed without prejudice all claims and counterclaims of the case. An agreed dismissal order was entered April 14, 2011. On July 2, 2010, the Company filed a complaint against Southwire in the Northern District of Georgia. The complaint alleged that Southwire was using a deceptively misdescriptive trademark on its SimPull products, and that Southwire had made false statements about the Company’s Slick Wire products. Southwire’s United States Patent No. 7,749,024 (“the ‘024 patent”) issued on July 6, 2010. The morning the patent issued, the Company amended its complaint to seek a declaratory judgment that the Company’s Slick Wire products do not infringe the ‘024 patent. Later that same day, Southwire filed a separate complaint against the Company and Cerro Wire in the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of the ‘024 patent. The Company’s complaint against Southwire was stayed by agreement on April 11, 2011. The case will remain stayed until the USPTO issues a certificate of reexamination of the ‘024 patent. The complaint filed by Southwire in the Eastern District of Texas has been voluntarily dismissed and Southwire will have the option to pursue its claims against the Company in the Northern District of Georgia, once the reexamination is completed. On October 8, 2010, the Company filed a request with the USPTO for an inter partes reexamination of the ‘024 patent. On November 9, 2010, the USPTO ordered the reexamination of the ‘024 patent. In ordering reexamination of Southwire’s ‘024 patent, the USPTO determined that the Company’s submission of prior art raised a substantial new question of patentability of the claims of the ‘024 patent. On December 3, 2010, the USPTO issued a non-final office action rejecting all of the claims of the ‘024 Patent. Southwire filed a response to the non-final office action on February 3, 2011, which included legal arguments and supporting technical declarations. The Company filed its comments to the Southwire response on March 3, 2011, including points and authorities, legal arguments, and supporting technical declarations. The reexamination continues and the parties are awaiting the Examiner’s action on the parties’ latest filings. Southwire’s complaints sought unspecified damages and injunctive relief. At this time, all pending litigation between Encore and Southwire has been dismissed or stayed pending the outcome of the reexaminations of the ‘024 and ‘301 Patents. The potentially applicable factual and legal issues related to the above claims asserted against the Company have not been resolved. The Company is currently unable to determine if liability is probable, and the Company cannot reasonably estimate the amount of any potential loss associated with these matters. Accordingly, the Company has not recorded a liability for these pending lawsuits. The Company disputes all of Southwire’s claims and alleged damages and intends to vigorously defend the lawsuits and vigorously pursue its own claims against Southwire if and when the litigation resumes. The Company is also a party to litigation and claims arising out of the ordinary business of the Company.

NOTE 8 — CONTINGENCIES

On July 7, 2009, Southwire Company, a Delaware corporation (“Southwire”), filed a complaint for patent infringement against the Company and Cerro Wire, Inc. (“Cerro”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. In the complaint, Southwire alleged that the Company infringed one or more claims of United States Patent No. 7,557,301 (the “‘301 patent”), entitled “Method of Manufacturing Electrical Cable Having Reduced Required Force for Installation,” by making and selling electrical cables, including the Company’s Super Slick cables. The case has been transferred to the Northern District of Georgia and the parties have agreed to stay it pending reexamination of the ‘301 patent by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”). On June 23, 2011, the USPTO issued an office action in the reexamination finally rejecting all the claims of the ‘301 patent. Southwire has until August 7, 2011 to file a written response with the USPTO.

On August 24, 2009, Southwire filed a second complaint for patent and trademark infringement against the Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. In the second complaint, Southwire alleged that the Company infringed one or more of the claims of United States Patent No. 6,486,395 entitled “Interlocked Metal Clad Cable” (the “‘395 Patent”) by making and selling electrical cables, including the Company’s MCMP Multipurpose cables. Southwire also alleged that the Company infringed Southwire’s United States Trademark Registration No. 3,292,777 for the mark, “MCAP.” The second complaint also alleged a variety of related federal and state statutory and common law claims including unfair competition. The Company filed counterclaims against Southwire alleging claims of statutory and common law unfair competition, tortious interference with existing and prospective business relations, misappropriation and claims for declaratory relief. The parties dismissed without prejudice all claims and counterclaims of the case. An agreed dismissal order was entered April 14, 2011.

On July 2, 2010, the Company filed a complaint against Southwire in the Northern District of Georgia. The complaint alleged that Southwire was using a deceptively misdescriptive trademark on its SimPull products, and that Southwire had made false statements about the Company’s Slick Wire products. Southwire’s United States Patent No. 7,749,024 (“the ‘024 patent”) issued on July 6, 2010. The morning the patent issued, the Company amended its complaint to seek a declaratory judgment that the Company’s Slick Wire products do not infringe the ‘024 patent. Later that same day, Southwire filed a separate complaint against the Company and Cerro Wire in the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of the ‘024 patent. The Company’s complaint against Southwire was stayed by agreement on April 11, 2011. The case will remain stayed until the USPTO issues a certificate of reexamination of the ‘024 patent. The complaint filed by Southwire in the Eastern District of Texas has been voluntarily dismissed and Southwire will have the option to pursue its claims against the Company in the Northern District of Georgia, once the reexamination is completed. On October 8, 2010, the Company filed a request with the USPTO for an inter partes reexamination of the ‘024 patent. On November 9, 2010, the USPTO ordered the reexamination of the ‘024 patent. In ordering reexamination of Southwire’s ‘024 patent, the USPTO determined that the Company’s submission of prior art raised a substantial new question of patentability of the claims of the ‘024 patent. On December 3, 2010, the USPTO issued a non-final office action rejecting all of the claims of the ‘024 Patent. Southwire filed a response to the non-final office action on February 3, 2011, which included legal arguments and supporting technical declarations. The Company filed its comments to the Southwire response on March 3, 2011, including points and authorities, legal arguments, and supporting technical declarations. The reexamination continues and the parties are awaiting the Examiner’s action on the parties’ latest filings.

Southwire’s complaints sought unspecified damages and injunctive relief. At this time, all pending litigation between Encore and Southwire has been dismissed or stayed pending the outcome of the reexaminations of the ‘024 and ‘301 Patents.

The potentially applicable factual and legal issues related to the above claims asserted against the Company have not been resolved. The Company is currently unable to determine if liability is probable, and the Company cannot reasonably estimate the amount of any potential loss associated with these matters. Accordingly, the Company has not recorded a liability for these pending lawsuits. The Company disputes all of Southwire’s claims and alleged damages and intends to vigorously defend the lawsuits and vigorously pursue its own claims against Southwire if and when the litigation resumes. The Company is also a party to litigation and claims arising out of the ordinary business of the Company.