Litigation	12 Months Ended
Dec. 30, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation	Litigation From time to time, we are involved in litigation that we believe is of the type common to companies engaged in our line of business, including intellectual property, antitrust, commercial, labor, class action, and insurance disputes. The semiconductor industry is characterized by significant litigation seeking to enforce patent and other intellectual property rights. The Company has enforced and likely will continue to enforce its own intellectual property rights through litigation and related proceedings. In each case listed below where the Company is the defendant, the Company intends to vigorously defend the action. At this time, the Company does not believe it is reasonably possible that losses related to the litigation described below have occurred beyond the amounts, if any, which have been accrued. However, legal discovery and litigation is highly unpredictable and future legal developments may cause current estimates to change in future periods. Patent Infringement Litigation Initiated by SanDisk. On October 24, 2007, the Company filed a Complaint for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (the “District Court”) against twenty-four companies that make or sell flash memory cards or USB drives. In this action (the “’607 Action”), the Company initially asserted that the defendants infringed the Company’s U.S. Patent Nos. 5,719,808 (the “’808 patent”), 6,763,424 (the “’424 patent”); 6,426,893 (the “’893 patent”); 6,947,332 (the “’332 patent”); and 7,137,011 (the “’011 patent”). The Company concurrently filed a second Complaint for patent infringement in the same District Court against an additional fifteen defendants. In this second action (the “’605 Action”), the Company asserted that the defendants infringed the Company’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,149,316 (the “’316 patent”) and 6,757,842 (the “’842 patent”). The Company sought damages and injunctive relief in both actions. As of January 7, 2011, the Company dismissed and/or settled its claims with all of the original defendants, except for Kingston Technology Corporation (“Kingston”). On December 20, 2012, the Company and Kingston settled all litigation between them. All litigation between the Company and Kingston has now been dismissed. Patent Infringement Litigation Initiated by SanDisk. On May 4, 2010, the Company filed a Complaint for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (the “District Court”) against Kingston and Imation. The Company entered into a confidential settlement agreement with Imation and subsequently dismissed those claims. In this action, the Company asserted that Kingston infringed seven of the Company’s patents and sought damages and injunctive relief. Kingston asserted several affirmative defenses and related counterclaims including, among others, antitrust counterclaims alleging monopolization, attempted monopolization and agreement in restraint of trade, all under the Sherman Act. On June 10, 2011, the Company filed a motion seeking a summary judgment in connection with Kingston’s antitrust counterclaims and Kingston’s implied license defense. On June 10, 2011, Kingston filed a motion seeking a summary judgment of non-infringement concerning all of the Company’s asserted patent claims, invalidity of certain of those claims, and in connection with certain of the Company’s damages claims. On August 12, 2011, the District Court granted Kingston’s motion for summary judgment as to all of the Company’s infringement claims. On October 13, 2011, the District Court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment on Kingston’s monopolization and attempted monopolization counterclaims, but denied the Company’s motion for summary judgment on Kingston’s federal agreement-in-restraint-of-trade counterclaim and state law unfair competition counterclaim. A bench trial on Kingston’s remaining counterclaims was held the week of November 7, 2011. On March 27, 2012, the District Court issued a decision finding in favor of the Company on Kingston’s remaining federal antitrust and state law unfair competition counterclaims. The District Court issued a final judgment on April 20, 2012, entering judgment in Kingston’s favor on all of the Company’s infringement claims and judgment in the Company’s favor on all of Kingston’s federal antitrust and state law unfair competition counterclaims. Both Kingston and the Company filed notices of appeal. This case, including the antitrust counterclaims asserted by Kingston, has been dismissed as part of the overall settlement between the Company and Kingston. Patent Infringement Litigation Initiated by SanDisk (United Kingdom). On April 4, 2011, following the detention by Customs Authorities in the United Kingdom of several consignments of Universal Serial Bus (“USB”) flash drive products imported by Kingston Digital Europe Limited (“KDEL”), SanDisk IL Ltd. and the Company commenced patent infringement proceedings against KDEL in the Patents Court in the Chancery Division of the High Court. The subject matter of the proceedings concerned Kingston USB flash drive products suspected of infringing three Company patents. The Company sought injunctive relief, damages, costs and associated remedies in those proceedings. KDEL filed its Defence on May 19, 2011 denying infringement and seeking revocation of all three patents. Following SanDisk’s application in March 2012, Kingston Technology Co., Inc. and Kingston were joined as co-defendants. This case is a part of the overall settlement between the Company and Kingston, and a Consent Order for discontinuance of the case has been filed at the Patents Court pursuant to standard English Court procedure. Patent Infringement Litigation Initiated By SanDisk. On October 27, 2011, in response to infringement allegations by Round Rock Research LLC (“Round Rock”), the Company filed a lawsuit against Round Rock in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment that twelve Round Rock patents are invalid and/or not infringed by flash memory products sold by the Company. Round Rock has since withdrawn its allegations of infringement as to three of the patents. A claim construction hearing was held on January 16, 2013. Discovery is underway and expert discovery has not yet commenced in the case. Trial is currently scheduled for February 2014. Patent Infringement Litigation Initiated By Round Rock Research, LLC. On May 3, 2012, Round Rock filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that the Company infringed eleven patents, and subsequently filed an amended complaint alleging that SanDisk’s infringement was willful. The parties agreed to dismiss one patent from this Delaware lawsuit that was also being litigated in the California case described above. Discovery is in its early phases, and the parties are scheduled to exchange claim construction positions on July 19, 2013. Trial is currently scheduled for September 29, 2014. Ritz Camera Federal Antitrust Class Action. On June 25, 2010, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC (“Ritz”) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “District Court”), alleging that the Company violated federal antitrust law by conspiring to monopolize and monopolizing the market for flash memory products. The lawsuit captioned Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. SanDisk Corporation, Inc. and Eliyahou Harari, purports to be on behalf of direct purchasers of flash memory products sold by the Company and joint ventures controlled by the Company from June 25, 2006 through the present. The complaint alleges that the Company created and maintained a monopoly by fraudulently obtaining patents and using them to restrain competition and by allegedly converting other patents for its competitive use. On February 24, 2011, the District Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the Company’s motion to dismiss which resulted in Dr. Harari being dismissed as a defendant. On September 19, 2011, the Company filed a petition for permission to file an interlocutory appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Federal Circuit”) for the portion of the District Court’s Order denying the Company’s motion to dismiss based on Ritz’s lack of standing to pursue Walker Process antitrust claims. On October 27, 2011, the District Court administratively closed the case pending the Federal Circuit’s ruling on the Company’s petition. On November 20, 2012, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order denying SanDisk’s motion to dismiss. On December 2, 2012, the Federal Circuit issued its mandate returning the case to the District Court. Discovery is now open in the District Court. Samsung Federal Antitrust Action Against Panasonic and SD-3C. On July 15, 2010, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”) filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “District Court”) alleging various claims against Panasonic Corporation and Panasonic Corporation of North America (collectively, “Panasonic”) and SD-3C, LLC (“SD-3C”) under federal antitrust law pursuant to Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, and under California antitrust and unfair competition laws relating to the licensing practices and operations of SD-3C. The complaint seeks an injunction against collection of Secure Digital (“SD”) card royalties, treble damages, restitution, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees, as well as a declaration that Panasonic and SD-3C engaged in patent misuse and that the patents subject to such alleged misuse should be held unenforceable. The Company is not named as a defendant in this case, but it established SD-3C along with Panasonic and Toshiba, and the complaint includes various factual allegations concerning the Company. As a member of SD-3C, the Company may be responsible for a portion of any monetary award. Other requested relief, including an injunction or declaration of patent misuse, could result in a loss of revenue to the Company. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 24, 2010, and Samsung filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on October 14, 2010. On August 25, 2011, the District Court dismissed the patent misuse claim with prejudice, but gave Samsung leave to amend its other claims. On January 3, 2012, the District Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss Samsung’s complaint without leave to amend. Samsung has appealed, dated January 25, 2012. The briefing on appeal is complete but a hearing date has not yet been set. Federal Antitrust Class Action Against SanDisk, et al. On March 15, 2011, a putative class action captioned Oliver v. SD‑3C LLC, et al was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “District Court”) on behalf of a nationwide class of indirect purchasers of SD cards alleging various claims against the Company, SD‑3C, Panasonic, Toshiba, and Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. under federal antitrust law pursuant to Section 1 of the Sherman Act, California antirust and unfair competition laws, and common law. The complaint seeks an injunction of the challenged conduct, dissolution of “the cooperation agreements, joint ventures and/or cross-licenses alleged herein,” treble damages, restitution, disgorgement, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiffs allege that the Company (along with the other members of SD‑3C) conspired to artificially inflate the royalty costs associated with manufacturing SD cards in violation of federal and California antitrust and unfair competition laws, which in turn allegedly caused plaintiffs to pay higher prices for SD cards. The allegations are similar to, and incorporate by reference the complaint in the Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Panasonic Corporation; Panasonic Corporation of North America; and SD‑3C LLC described above. On May 21, 2012, the District Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs have appealed. Appellate briefing should be completed in the first half of 2013. Insurance Litigation. On November 30, 2012, the Company filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Zurich American Insurance Company (“Zurich”) for breach of an insurance contract issued by Zurich to the Company (the “Policy”). The action relates to Zurich’s denial of the Company’s claim under the Policy for coverage of losses suffered in connection with a power outage that occurred in December 2010 at the Fab 3 and Fab 4 facilities in Yokkaichi, Japan. The Company is seeking damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but in excess of approximately $60 million, less any applicable deductible, as well as costs and other associated remedies. Zurich filed its answer to the Company’s complaint on December 21, 2012. No trial date has been set.

Litigation

From time to time, we are involved in litigation that we believe is of the type common to companies engaged in our line of business, including intellectual property, antitrust, commercial, labor, class action, and insurance disputes. The semiconductor industry is characterized by significant litigation seeking to enforce patent and other intellectual property rights. The Company has enforced and likely will continue to enforce its own intellectual property rights through litigation and related proceedings.

In each case listed below where the Company is the defendant, the Company intends to vigorously defend the action. At this time, the Company does not believe it is reasonably possible that losses related to the litigation described below have occurred beyond the amounts, if any, which have been accrued. However, legal discovery and litigation is highly unpredictable and future legal developments may cause current estimates to change in future periods.

Patent Infringement Litigation Initiated by SanDisk. On October 24, 2007, the Company filed a Complaint for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (the “District Court”) against twenty-four companies that make or sell flash memory cards or USB drives. In this action (the “’607 Action”), the Company initially asserted that the defendants infringed the Company’s U.S. Patent Nos. 5,719,808 (the “’808 patent”), 6,763,424 (the “’424 patent”); 6,426,893 (the “’893 patent”); 6,947,332 (the “’332 patent”); and 7,137,011 (the “’011 patent”). The Company concurrently filed a second Complaint for patent infringement in the same District Court against an additional fifteen defendants. In this second action (the “’605 Action”), the Company asserted that the defendants infringed the Company’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,149,316 (the “’316 patent”) and 6,757,842 (the “’842 patent”). The Company sought damages and injunctive relief in both actions. As of January 7, 2011, the Company dismissed and/or settled its claims with all of the original defendants, except for Kingston Technology Corporation (“Kingston”).

On December 20, 2012, the Company and Kingston settled all litigation between them. All litigation between the Company and Kingston has now been dismissed.

Patent Infringement Litigation Initiated by SanDisk. On May 4, 2010, the Company filed a Complaint for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (the “District Court”) against Kingston and Imation. The Company entered into a confidential settlement agreement with Imation and subsequently dismissed those claims. In this action, the Company asserted that Kingston infringed seven of the Company’s patents and sought damages and injunctive relief. Kingston asserted several affirmative defenses and related counterclaims including, among others, antitrust counterclaims alleging monopolization, attempted monopolization and agreement in restraint of trade, all under the Sherman Act. On June 10, 2011, the Company filed a motion seeking a summary judgment in connection with Kingston’s antitrust counterclaims and Kingston’s implied license defense. On June 10, 2011, Kingston filed a motion seeking a summary judgment of non-infringement concerning all of the Company’s asserted patent claims, invalidity of certain of those claims, and in connection with certain of the Company’s damages claims. On August 12, 2011, the District Court granted Kingston’s motion for summary judgment as to all of the Company’s infringement claims. On October 13, 2011, the District Court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment on Kingston’s monopolization and attempted monopolization counterclaims, but denied the Company’s motion for summary judgment on Kingston’s federal agreement-in-restraint-of-trade counterclaim and state law unfair competition counterclaim. A bench trial on Kingston’s remaining counterclaims was held the week of November 7, 2011. On March 27, 2012, the District Court issued a decision finding in favor of the Company on Kingston’s remaining federal antitrust and state law unfair competition counterclaims. The District Court issued a final judgment on April 20, 2012, entering judgment in Kingston’s favor on all of the Company’s infringement claims and judgment in the Company’s favor on all of Kingston’s federal antitrust and state law unfair competition counterclaims. Both Kingston and the Company filed notices of appeal.

This case, including the antitrust counterclaims asserted by Kingston, has been dismissed as part of the overall settlement between the Company and Kingston.

Patent Infringement Litigation Initiated by SanDisk (United Kingdom). On April 4, 2011, following the detention by Customs Authorities in the United Kingdom of several consignments of Universal Serial Bus (“USB”) flash drive products imported by Kingston Digital Europe Limited (“KDEL”), SanDisk IL Ltd. and the Company commenced patent infringement proceedings against KDEL in the Patents Court in the Chancery Division of the High Court. The subject matter of the proceedings concerned Kingston USB flash drive products suspected of infringing three Company patents. The Company sought injunctive relief, damages, costs and associated remedies in those proceedings. KDEL filed its Defence on May 19, 2011 denying infringement and seeking revocation of all three patents. Following SanDisk’s application in March 2012, Kingston Technology Co., Inc. and Kingston were joined as co-defendants.

This case is a part of the overall settlement between the Company and Kingston, and a Consent Order for discontinuance of the case has been filed at the Patents Court pursuant to standard English Court procedure.

Patent Infringement Litigation Initiated By SanDisk. On October 27, 2011, in response to infringement allegations by Round Rock Research LLC (“Round Rock”), the Company filed a lawsuit against Round Rock in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment that twelve Round Rock patents are invalid and/or not infringed by flash memory products sold by the Company. Round Rock has since withdrawn its allegations of infringement as to three of the patents. A claim construction hearing was held on January 16, 2013. Discovery is underway and expert discovery has not yet commenced in the case. Trial is currently scheduled for February 2014.

Patent Infringement Litigation Initiated By Round Rock Research, LLC. On May 3, 2012, Round Rock filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that the Company infringed eleven patents, and subsequently filed an amended complaint alleging that SanDisk’s infringement was willful. The parties agreed to dismiss one patent from this Delaware lawsuit that was also being litigated in the California case described above. Discovery is in its early phases, and the parties are scheduled to exchange claim construction positions on July 19, 2013. Trial is currently scheduled for September 29, 2014.

Ritz Camera Federal Antitrust Class Action. On June 25, 2010, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC (“Ritz”) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “District Court”), alleging that the Company violated federal antitrust law by conspiring to monopolize and monopolizing the market for flash memory products. The lawsuit captioned Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. SanDisk Corporation, Inc. and Eliyahou Harari, purports to be on behalf of direct purchasers of flash memory products sold by the Company and joint ventures controlled by the Company from June 25, 2006 through the present. The complaint alleges that the Company created and maintained a monopoly by fraudulently obtaining patents and using them to restrain competition and by allegedly converting other patents for its competitive use. On February 24, 2011, the District Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the Company’s motion to dismiss which resulted in Dr. Harari being dismissed as a defendant. On September 19, 2011, the Company filed a petition for permission to file an interlocutory appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Federal Circuit”) for the portion of the District Court’s Order denying the Company’s motion to dismiss based on Ritz’s lack of standing to pursue Walker Process antitrust claims. On October 27, 2011, the District Court administratively closed the case pending the Federal Circuit’s ruling on the Company’s petition. On November 20, 2012, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order denying SanDisk’s motion to dismiss. On December 2, 2012, the Federal Circuit issued its mandate returning the case to the District Court. Discovery is now open in the District Court.

Samsung Federal Antitrust Action Against Panasonic and SD-3C. On July 15, 2010, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”) filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “District Court”) alleging various claims against Panasonic Corporation and Panasonic Corporation of North America (collectively, “Panasonic”) and SD-3C, LLC (“SD-3C”) under federal antitrust law pursuant to Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, and under California antitrust and unfair competition laws relating to the licensing practices and operations of SD-3C. The complaint seeks an injunction against collection of Secure Digital (“SD”) card royalties, treble damages, restitution, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees, as well as a declaration that Panasonic and SD-3C engaged in patent misuse and that the patents subject to such alleged misuse should be held unenforceable. The Company is not named as a defendant in this case, but it established SD-3C along with Panasonic and Toshiba, and the complaint includes various factual allegations concerning the Company. As a member of SD-3C, the Company may be responsible for a portion of any monetary award. Other requested relief, including an injunction or declaration of patent misuse, could result in a loss of revenue to the Company. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 24, 2010, and Samsung filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on October 14, 2010. On August 25, 2011, the District Court dismissed the patent misuse claim with prejudice, but gave Samsung leave to amend its other claims. On January 3, 2012, the District Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss Samsung’s complaint without leave to amend. Samsung has appealed, dated January 25, 2012. The briefing on appeal is complete but a hearing date has not yet been set.

Federal Antitrust Class Action Against SanDisk, et al. On March 15, 2011, a putative class action captioned Oliver v. SD‑3C LLC, et al was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “District Court”) on behalf of a nationwide class of indirect purchasers of SD cards alleging various claims against the Company, SD‑3C, Panasonic, Toshiba, and Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. under federal antitrust law pursuant to Section 1 of the Sherman Act, California antirust and unfair competition laws, and common law. The complaint seeks an injunction of the challenged conduct, dissolution of “the cooperation agreements, joint ventures and/or cross-licenses alleged herein,” treble damages, restitution, disgorgement, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiffs allege that the Company (along with the other members of SD‑3C) conspired to artificially inflate the royalty costs associated with manufacturing SD cards in violation of federal and California antitrust and unfair competition laws, which in turn allegedly caused plaintiffs to pay higher prices for SD cards. The allegations are similar to, and incorporate by reference the complaint in the Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Panasonic Corporation; Panasonic Corporation of North America; and SD‑3C LLC described above. On May 21, 2012, the District Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs have appealed. Appellate briefing should be completed in the first half of 2013.

Insurance Litigation. On November 30, 2012, the Company filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Zurich American Insurance Company (“Zurich”) for breach of an insurance contract issued by Zurich to the Company (the “Policy”). The action relates to Zurich’s denial of the Company’s claim under the Policy for coverage of losses suffered in connection with a power outage that occurred in December 2010 at the Fab 3 and Fab 4 facilities in Yokkaichi, Japan. The Company is seeking damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but in excess of approximately $60 million, less any applicable deductible, as well as costs and other associated remedies. Zurich filed its answer to the Company’s complaint on December 21, 2012. No trial date has been set.