Litigation	12 Months Ended
Dec. 28, 2014
Loss Contingency, Information about Litigation Matters [Abstract]
Litigation	Litigation From time to time, the Company is involved in various litigation matters, including those described below, among others. The litigation proceedings in which the Company is involved from time to time may include matters such as IP, antitrust, commercial, labor, class action and insurance disputes. The semiconductor industry is characterized by significant litigation seeking to enforce patent and other IP rights. The Company has enforced, and likely will continue to enforce, its own IP 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 and Antitrust Litigation With Round Rock Research LLC. 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 12 Round Rock patents are invalid and/or not infringed by flash memory products sold by the Company. Round Rock has since withdrawn its infringement allegations as to eight of the patents. The parties filed several motions for summary judgment directed to various claims and defenses. On June 13, 2014, the Company won multiple summary judgment motions, which included a ruling that it did not infringe two of the remaining four patents based on patent exhaustion because its memories were purchased from an authorized licensee and other rulings limiting the potential damages from the other two patents. On July 3, 2014, Round Rock dismissed the two remaining patents in the case in order to appeal the court’s summary judgment rulings. The court entered final judgment on July 3, 2014. On July 23, 2014, Round Rock filed a notice of appeal. 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 the Company’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. On January 16, 2015, the court commenced a jury trial on liability issues as to two of the asserted patents. On January 28, 2015, the jury found that although the Company infringed four of ten claims asserted in the two patents, all of the asserted claims in those two patents are invalid. On February 4, 2015, the court issued an order granting summary judgment that five of the six asserted claims of another asserted patent are invalid. On March 19, 2014, the Company filed an action against Round Rock in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware for antitrust violations arising from Round Rock’s acquisition of patents from Micron Technology, Inc. (“Micron”) and demand for royalties that are not reasonable and non-discriminatory for alleged infringement of patents that Round Rock claims are standards-essential. The Company alleges that Round Rock violated the antitrust laws by conspiring with Micron and violating commitments that Micron made to the standards-setting organization, JEDEC Solid State Technology Association. The antitrust case has been stayed until after the January 2015 trial in the patent case. On December 3, 2014, Round Rock filed another action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that the Company infringed five patents, which patents are not at issue in the matters described above. The Company has not yet filed its response. 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, former SanDisk Corporation Chief Executive Officer, 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. On July 5, 2013, the District Court granted Ritz’s motion to substitute in Albert Giuliano, the Chapter 7 Trustee of the Ritz bankruptcy estate, as the plaintiff in this case. On October 1, 2013, the District Court granted the Trustee’s motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, which adds CPM Electronics Inc. and E.S.E. Electronics, Inc. as named plaintiffs. On September 19, 2014, the District Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint, which adds a cause of action for attempted monopolization and adds MFLASH as a named plaintiff. The plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification, which is fully briefed and has been taken under submission by the District Court. On February 3, 2015, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment as to all of the plaintiffs’ asserted claims. Trial is scheduled to begin on June 22, 2015. 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. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 24, 2010, and Samsung filed a first amended complaint 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. Samsung filed a second amended complaint on September 16, 2011. On January 3, 2012, the District Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss Samsung’s complaint without leave to amend. Samsung appealed. On April 4, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the “Appeals Court”) issued a decision reversing the District Court’s dismissal on statute of limitations grounds and remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings. The Appeals Court denied the defendants’ petition for rehearing and issued its mandate to send the case back to the District Court. On November 12, 2014, the defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently denied. Samsung filed a third amended complaint on January 20, 2015. 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, LLC (“SD‑3C”), Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, Toshiba and Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. under federal antitrust law pursuant to Section 1 of the Sherman Act, California antitrust 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. The 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 the 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 the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed. On May 14, 2014, the appeals court issued a decision reversing the District Court’s dismissal on statute of limitations grounds and remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings. The appeals court denied the defendants’ petition for rehearing and issued its mandate to send the case back to the District Court. On December 1, 2014, the defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. On February 3, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in the District Court. Trade Secret Litigation Against SK hynix Inc., et al. On March 13, 2014, the Company filed a civil action in Santa Clara Superior Court in California against SK hynix Inc. (“Hynix”) and certain related entities for trade secret misappropriation arising from the theft of trade secrets by a former employee of the Company and the defendants’ wrongful receipt and use of such information. The lawsuit seeks damages, an injunction and other remedies. Additionally, in March 2014, SanDisk submitted a criminal complaint to the Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department against the former employee. On April 3, 2014, the former employee was indicted by the Tokyo District Public Prosecutor’s Office for theft of trade secrets. The former employee’s criminal trial was held on January 20, 2015 and January 21, 2015, and a decision by the court is expected in March 2015. In June 2014, the Company moved for a preliminary injunction requiring Hynix to stop using any of the Company’s information received from the former employee and to return stolen Company material. On July 1, 2014, the court issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting Hynix from using or disclosing trade secret information that originated from materials taken by the former employee and ordering Hynix to provide certain information to the Company’s counsel to facilitate the identification of those documents taken by the former employee that are in Hynix’s possession. The order does not preclude Hynix from continuing to sell NAND flash products that it has already qualified for commercial sale. Hynix has filed a notice of appeal of the court’s preliminary injunction and also moved to stay enforcement of the order pending the appeal. On July 16, 2014, the court denied Hynix’s motion with respect to the portion of the order prohibiting use or disclosure of the trade secret information, but granted the motion to stay with respect to the other portion of the order. On November 6, 2014, Hynix removed the case to federal court. On December 8, 2014, the Company filed a motion to remand the case to state court. Federal Securities Class Action Against Fusion‑io et al. Beginning on November 19, 2013, Fusion‑io and certain of its officers were named in three putative class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Denenberg v. Fusion‑io, Inc. et al.; Miami Police Relief & Pension Fund v. Fusion‑io, Inc. et al.; Marriott v. Fusion‑io, Inc. et al.). Two of the complaints are allegedly brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of Fusion‑io’s common stock between August 10, 2012 and October 23, 2013, and one is brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers between January 25, 2012 and October 23, 2013. The complaints generally allege violations of the federal securities laws arising out of alleged misstatements or omissions by the defendants during the alleged class periods. The complaints seek, among other things, compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees and costs on behalf of the putative class. On June 10, 2014, the Court consolidated the cases, appointed a lead plaintiff, and ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended consolidated complaint. On August 6, 2014, a consolidated amended complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Fusion‑io common stock between October 25, 2012 and October 23, 2013, inclusive. The consolidated complaint generally alleges violations of the federal securities laws arising out of alleged misstatements or omissions by the defendants during the alleged class period and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees and costs on behalf of the putative class. On September 22, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which is fully briefed and has been taken under submission by the court.

Litigation

From time to time, the Company is involved in various litigation matters, including those described below, among others. The litigation proceedings in which the Company is involved from time to time may include matters such as IP, antitrust, commercial, labor, class action and insurance disputes. The semiconductor industry is characterized by significant litigation seeking to enforce patent and other IP rights. The Company has enforced, and likely will continue to enforce, its own IP 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 and Antitrust Litigation With Round Rock Research LLC. 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 12 Round Rock patents are invalid and/or not infringed by flash memory products sold by the Company. Round Rock has since withdrawn its infringement allegations as to eight of the patents. The parties filed several motions for summary judgment directed to various claims and defenses. On June 13, 2014, the Company won multiple summary judgment motions, which included a ruling that it did not infringe two of the remaining four patents based on patent exhaustion because its memories were purchased from an authorized licensee and other rulings limiting the potential damages from the other two patents. On July 3, 2014, Round Rock dismissed the two remaining patents in the case in order to appeal the court’s summary judgment rulings. The court entered final judgment on July 3, 2014. On July 23, 2014, Round Rock filed a notice of appeal.

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 the Company’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. On January 16, 2015, the court commenced a jury trial on liability issues as to two of the asserted patents. On January 28, 2015, the jury found that although the Company infringed four of ten claims asserted in the two patents, all of the asserted claims in those two patents are invalid. On February 4, 2015, the court issued an order granting summary judgment that five of the six asserted claims of another asserted patent are invalid.

On March 19, 2014, the Company filed an action against Round Rock in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware for antitrust violations arising from Round Rock’s acquisition of patents from Micron Technology, Inc. (“Micron”) and demand for royalties that are not reasonable and non-discriminatory for alleged infringement of patents that Round Rock claims are standards-essential. The Company alleges that Round Rock violated the antitrust laws by conspiring with Micron and violating commitments that Micron made to the standards-setting organization, JEDEC Solid State Technology Association. The antitrust case has been stayed until after the January 2015 trial in the patent case.

On December 3, 2014, Round Rock filed another action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that the Company infringed five patents, which patents are not at issue in the matters described above. The Company has not yet filed its response.

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, former SanDisk Corporation Chief Executive Officer, 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. On July 5, 2013, the District Court granted Ritz’s motion to substitute in Albert Giuliano, the Chapter 7 Trustee of the Ritz bankruptcy estate, as the plaintiff in this case. On October 1, 2013, the District Court granted the Trustee’s motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, which adds CPM Electronics Inc. and E.S.E. Electronics, Inc. as named plaintiffs. On September 19, 2014, the District Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint, which adds a cause of action for attempted monopolization and adds MFLASH as a named plaintiff. The plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification, which is fully briefed and has been taken under submission by the District Court. On February 3, 2015, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment as to all of the plaintiffs’ asserted claims. Trial is scheduled to begin on June 22, 2015.

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. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 24, 2010, and Samsung filed a first amended complaint 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. Samsung filed a second amended complaint on September 16, 2011. On January 3, 2012, the District Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss Samsung’s complaint without leave to amend. Samsung appealed. On April 4, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the “Appeals Court”) issued a decision reversing the District Court’s dismissal on statute of limitations grounds and remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings. The Appeals Court denied the defendants’ petition for rehearing and issued its mandate to send the case back to the District Court. On November 12, 2014, the defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently denied. Samsung filed a third amended complaint on January 20, 2015.

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, LLC (“SD‑3C”), Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, Toshiba and Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. under federal antitrust law pursuant to Section 1 of the Sherman Act, California antitrust 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. The 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 the 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 the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed. On May 14, 2014, the appeals court issued a decision reversing the District Court’s dismissal on statute of limitations grounds and remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings. The appeals court denied the defendants’ petition for rehearing and issued its mandate to send the case back to the District Court. On December 1, 2014, the defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. On February 3, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in the District Court.

Trade Secret Litigation Against SK hynix Inc., et al. On March 13, 2014, the Company filed a civil action in Santa Clara Superior Court in California against SK hynix Inc. (“Hynix”) and certain related entities for trade secret misappropriation arising from the theft of trade secrets by a former employee of the Company and the defendants’ wrongful receipt and use of such information. The lawsuit seeks damages, an injunction and other remedies. Additionally, in March 2014, SanDisk submitted a criminal complaint to the Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department against the former employee. On April 3, 2014, the former employee was indicted by the Tokyo District Public Prosecutor’s Office for theft of trade secrets. The former employee’s criminal trial was held on January 20, 2015 and January 21, 2015, and a decision by the court is expected in March 2015.

In June 2014, the Company moved for a preliminary injunction requiring Hynix to stop using any of the Company’s information received from the former employee and to return stolen Company material. On July 1, 2014, the court issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting Hynix from using or disclosing trade secret information that originated from materials taken by the former employee and ordering Hynix to provide certain information to the Company’s counsel to facilitate the identification of those documents taken by the former employee that are in Hynix’s possession. The order does not preclude Hynix from continuing to sell NAND flash products that it has already qualified for commercial sale. Hynix has filed a notice of appeal of the court’s preliminary injunction and also moved to stay enforcement of the order pending the appeal. On July 16, 2014, the court denied Hynix’s motion with respect to the portion of the order prohibiting use or disclosure of the trade secret information, but granted the motion to stay with respect to the other portion of the order. On November 6, 2014, Hynix removed the case to federal court. On December 8, 2014, the Company filed a motion to remand the case to state court.

Federal Securities Class Action Against Fusion‑io et al. Beginning on November 19, 2013, Fusion‑io and certain of its officers were named in three putative class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Denenberg v. Fusion‑io, Inc. et al.; Miami Police Relief & Pension Fund v. Fusion‑io, Inc. et al.; Marriott v. Fusion‑io, Inc. et al.). Two of the complaints are allegedly brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of Fusion‑io’s common stock between August 10, 2012 and October 23, 2013, and one is brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers between January 25, 2012 and October 23, 2013. The complaints generally allege violations of the federal securities laws arising out of alleged misstatements or omissions by the defendants during the alleged class periods. The complaints seek, among other things, compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees and costs on behalf of the putative class. On June 10, 2014, the Court consolidated the cases, appointed a lead plaintiff, and ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended consolidated complaint. On August 6, 2014, a consolidated amended complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Fusion‑io common stock between October 25, 2012 and October 23, 2013, inclusive. The consolidated complaint generally alleges violations of the federal securities laws arising out of alleged misstatements or omissions by the defendants during the alleged class period and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees and costs on behalf of the putative class. On September 22, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which is fully briefed and has been taken under submission by the court.