Litigation	3 Months Ended
Apr. 03, 2016
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. 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 filed a motion for class certification, and the Company filed a motion for summary judgment as to all of the plaintiffs’ asserted claims. On May 14, 2015, the District Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On June 22, 2015, the District Court denied the Company’s motion for summary judgment without prejudice to refile its motion once the class notice has been approved and the period for class members to opt out has expired. After the opt-out period expired, the Company renewed its motion for summary judgment. On April 29, 2016, the court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in SanDisk's favor as to all of the plaintiffs’ claims. 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. On February 13, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the District Court granted with respect to certain antitrust allegations, with leave to amend, and with respect to Panasonic’s U.S. subsidiary and denied in all other respects on September 30, 2015. On October 21, 2015, Samsung filed a fourth amended complaint. On November 4, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The motion is currently under submission. Discovery remains stayed until after completion of the pleading stage. 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, which the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently denied. On February 3, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in the District Court. On February 27, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the District Court granted, with leave to amend, on September 30, 2015. On November 4, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint. On November 25, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss which is pending. Discovery remains stayed until after completion of the pleading stage. Federal Securities Class Action Against SanDisk et al. Beginning on March 30, 2015, the Company 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 (Glore v. SanDisk Corp. et al. filed on March 30, 2015; Bowers v. SanDisk Corp. et al. filed on May 6, 2015; City of Sterling Heights General Employees’ Retirement System v. SanDisk Corp. et al. filed on May 27, 2015). Two of the complaints are allegedly brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company’s securities between October 16, 2014 and March 25, 2015, and one is brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company’s securities between April 16, 2014 and April 15, 2015. The complaints generally allege violations of 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 classes. On July 9, 2015, the Court consolidated the cases and appointed Union Asset Management Holding AG and KBC Asset Management NV as lead plaintiffs. The lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in August 2015. On September 30, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On January 22, 2016, the court granted defendants’ motion and dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice. On February 22, 2016, the court issued an order appointing as new lead plaintiffs Bristol Pension Fund; City of Milford, Connecticut Pension & Retirement Board; Pavers and Road Builders Pension, Annuity and Welfare Funds; the Newport News Employees’ Retirement Fund; and Massachusetts Laborers’ Pension Fund (collectively, the “Institutional Investor Group”). On March 23, 2016, the Institutional Investor Group filed an amended complaint. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on April 29, 2016. Merger-Related Shareholder Class Actions. Commencing on November 4, 2015, two alleged stockholders of SanDisk filed putative class actions captioned Michael Cloud v. SanDisk Corp., et al., Case Number 1-15-cv-287706, and Jaromir Koutnak v. Sanjay Mehrotra, et al., Case Number 1-15-cv-288079, each in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara (together, the “California Actions”). The defendants are SanDisk, the members of SanDisk’s board of directors, Western Digital, and Schrader Acquisition Corporation, a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of Western Digital (“Merger Sub”). The complaints in the California Actions allege that SanDisk’s directors breached their fiduciary duties to SanDisk’s stockholders in connection with the merger agreement and the transaction contemplated thereby. Specifically, the complaints allege, among other things, that the proposed merger arises out of a flawed process which resulted in an unfair price for SanDisk’s shares and a failure to maximize stockholder value. The complaints also allege that the terms of the merger agreement will deter other purported interested parties from coming forward with a superior offer. The California Actions further allege that SanDisk, Western Digital, or Merger Sub aided and abetted the SanDisk directors’ breaches of fiduciary duties. On January 26, 2016, the plaintiff in the Cloud action filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint adds allegations that defendants caused Western Digital to file a registration statement that contains misleading statements and omits other information about the proposed transaction. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an order enjoining defendants from consummating the proposed merger, rescinding the proposed merger if it is consummated, awarding damages, and awarding attorneys’ fees and costs. On February 26, 2016, the plaintiff in the Cloud action voluntarily dismissed his complaint without prejudice. On March 9, 2016, the plaintiff in the Koutnak action voluntarily dismissed his complaint without prejudice. Both cases are now closed.

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.

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 filed a motion for class certification, and the Company filed a motion for summary judgment as to all of the plaintiffs’ asserted claims. On May 14, 2015, the District Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On June 22, 2015, the District Court denied the Company’s motion for summary judgment without prejudice to refile its motion once the class notice has been approved and the period for class members to opt out has expired. After the opt-out period expired, the Company renewed its motion for summary judgment. On April 29, 2016, the court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in SanDisk's favor as to all of the plaintiffs’ claims.

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. On February 13, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the District Court granted with respect to certain antitrust allegations, with leave to amend, and with respect to Panasonic’s U.S. subsidiary and denied in all other respects on September 30, 2015. On October 21, 2015, Samsung filed a fourth amended complaint. On November 4, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The motion is currently under submission. Discovery remains stayed until after completion of the pleading stage.

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, which the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently denied. On February 3, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in the District Court. On February 27, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the District Court granted, with leave to amend, on September 30, 2015. On November 4, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint. On November 25, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss which is pending. Discovery remains stayed until after completion of the pleading stage.

Federal Securities Class Action Against SanDisk et al. Beginning on March 30, 2015, the Company 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 (Glore v. SanDisk Corp. et al. filed on March 30, 2015; Bowers v. SanDisk Corp. et al. filed on May 6, 2015; City of Sterling Heights General Employees’ Retirement System v. SanDisk Corp. et al. filed on May 27, 2015). Two of the complaints are allegedly brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company’s securities between October 16, 2014 and March 25, 2015, and one is brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company’s securities between April 16, 2014 and April 15, 2015. The complaints generally allege violations of 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 classes. On July 9, 2015, the Court consolidated the cases and appointed Union Asset Management Holding AG and KBC Asset Management NV as lead plaintiffs. The lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in August 2015. On September 30, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On January 22, 2016, the court granted defendants’ motion and dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice. On February 22, 2016, the court issued an order appointing as new lead plaintiffs Bristol Pension Fund; City of Milford, Connecticut Pension & Retirement Board; Pavers and Road Builders Pension, Annuity and Welfare Funds; the Newport News Employees’ Retirement Fund; and Massachusetts Laborers’ Pension Fund (collectively, the “Institutional Investor Group”). On March 23, 2016, the Institutional Investor Group filed an amended complaint. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on April 29, 2016.

Merger-Related Shareholder Class Actions. Commencing on November 4, 2015, two alleged stockholders of SanDisk filed putative class actions captioned Michael Cloud v. SanDisk Corp., et al., Case Number 1-15-cv-287706, and Jaromir Koutnak v. Sanjay Mehrotra, et al., Case Number 1-15-cv-288079, each in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara (together, the “California Actions”). The defendants are SanDisk, the members of SanDisk’s board of directors, Western Digital, and Schrader Acquisition Corporation, a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of Western Digital (“Merger Sub”). The complaints in the California Actions allege that SanDisk’s directors breached their fiduciary duties to SanDisk’s stockholders in connection with the merger agreement and the transaction contemplated thereby. Specifically, the complaints allege, among other things, that the proposed merger arises out of a flawed process which resulted in an unfair price for SanDisk’s shares and a failure to maximize stockholder value. The complaints also allege that the terms of the merger agreement will deter other purported interested parties from coming forward with a superior offer. The California Actions further allege that SanDisk, Western Digital, or Merger Sub aided and abetted the SanDisk directors’ breaches of fiduciary duties. On January 26, 2016, the plaintiff in the Cloud action filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint adds allegations that defendants caused Western Digital to file a registration statement that contains misleading statements and omits other information about the proposed transaction. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an order enjoining defendants from consummating the proposed merger, rescinding the proposed merger if it is consummated, awarding damages, and awarding attorneys’ fees and costs. On February 26, 2016, the plaintiff in the Cloud action voluntarily dismissed his complaint without prejudice. On March 9, 2016, the plaintiff in the Koutnak action voluntarily dismissed his complaint without prejudice. Both cases are now closed.