2.2.0.25falsefalse006140 - Disclosure - Litigationtruefalsefalse1falsefalseUSDfalsefalse1/1/2010 - 12/31/2010
USD ($)
USD ($) / shares
$c00026http://www.sec.gov/CIK0000935494duration2010-01-01T00:00:002010-12-31T00:00:00u000Standardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217USDiso42170u001Standardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/instancesharesxbrli0u002Dividehttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217USDiso4217http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instancesharesxbrli0USDUSD$2true0nati_NotesToFinancialStatementsAbstractnatifalsenadurationNo definition available.falsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalse1falsefalsefalse00falsefalsefalsefalsefalseOtherxbrli:stringItemTypestringNo definition available.falsefalse3false0us-gaap_ScheduleOfLossContingenciesByContingencyTextBlockus-gaaptruenadurationNo definition available.falsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalseterselabel1falsefalsefalse00<div style="TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: bold"><a id="NOTE14" name="NOTE14">Note 14 – Litigation</a></font></div><div style="TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; DISPLAY: block"><br /></div><div style="TEXT-INDENT: 27pt; DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><div style="TEXT-INDENT: 27pt; DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">We filed a patent infringement action on January 25, 2001, in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas (Marshall Division) claiming that The MathWorks, Inc. (“MathWorks”) infringed certain of our U.S. patents. On January 30, 2003, a jury found infringement by MathWorks of three of the patents involved and awarded us specified damages. On September 23, 2003, the District Court entered final judgment in favor of us and entered an injunction against MathWorks’ sale of its Simulink and related products and stayed the injunction pending appeal. Upon appeal, the judgment and the injunction were affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (September 3, 2004). Subsequently the stay of injunction was lifted by the District Court. In November 2004, the final judgment amount of $7.4 million which had been held in escrow pending appeal was released to us.</font></font></div><div style="TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; DISPLAY: block"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><br /></font></div><div style="TEXT-INDENT: 27pt; DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">An action was filed by MathWorks against us on September 22, 2004, in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas (Marshall Division), claiming that on that day MathWorks had released modified versions of its Simulink and related products, and seeking a declaratory judgment that the modified products do not infringe the three patents adjudged infringed in the District Court's decision of September 23, 2003 (and affirmed by the Court of Appeals on September 3, 2004). On November 2, 2004, MathWorks served the complaint on us. We filed an answer to MathWorks’ declaratory judgment complaint, denying MathWorks’ claims of non-infringement and alleging our own affirmative defenses. On January 5, 2005, the Court denied a contempt motion by us to enjoin the modified Simulink products under the injunction in effect from the first case. On January 7, 2005, we amended our answer to include counterclaims that MathWorks’ modified products are infringing three of our patents, and requested unspecified damages and an injunction. MathWorks filed its reply to our counterclaims on February 7, 2005, denying the counterclaims and alleging affirmative defenses. On March 2, 2005, we filed a notice of appeal regarding the Court's denial of the contempt motion. On March 15, 2005, the Court stayed MathWorks’ declaratory judgment action, pending a decision on the appeal by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On February 9, 2006, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s January 2005 order. On November 22, 2006, the District Court lifted the stay. During the fourth quarter of 2004, we accrued $4 million related to our probable loss from this contingency, which consisted entirely of anticipated patent defense costs that at the time, were estimated to be probable.  In the fourth quarter of 2006, we accrued an additional $600,000 related to this contingency. <font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">During the third quarter of 2009, we reduced the accrual by $2 million and during the first quarter of 2010, we reduced the accrual by an additional $1,037,000 to reflect a decrease in the estimated costs that were probable of being incurred in this action. On December 13, 2010, the court dismissed this case upon a joint motion of the parties. As a result, we reduced the accrual by an additional $925,000 during the fourth quarter of 2010 and the accrual is now zero. To date, we have charged a cumulative total of $638,000 related to this action.</font></font></font><br /></div></div>Note 14 – LitigationWe filed a patent infringement action on January 25, 2001, in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas (Marshall Division)falsefalsefalsefalsefalseOtherus-types:textBlockItemTypestringDescribes and quantifies the loss contingencies that were reported in the period or disclosed as of the balance sheet date.Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS)
-Number 5
-Paragraph 9-12, 22-40
falsefalse12LitigationUnKnownUnKnownUnKnownUnKnownfalsetrue