Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2013
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	9. Commitments and Contingencies Legal Matters The Company is, from time to time, party to various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. For example, the Company is currently named as a defendant or co-defendant in a number of patent infringement lawsuits in the U.S. and is indirectly participating in other U.S. patent infringement actions pursuant to its contractual indemnification obligations to certain customers. Based on evaluation of these matters and discussions with Company’s intellectual property litigation counsel, the Company believes that potential liabilities arising from or sums paid in settlement of these existing matters would not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated results of operations or financial condition. On September 15, 2008 and September 18, 2008, two putative securities class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of persons who allegedly purchased our stock between February 5, 2007 and August 19, 2008. On December 11, 2008, these lawsuits were consolidated into a single action entitled Backe v. Novatel Wireless, Inc., et al., Case No. 08-CV-01689-H (RBB) (Consolidated with Case No. 08-CV-01714-H (RBB)) (U.S.D.C., S.D. Cal.). In May 2010, the district court re-captioned the case In re Novatel Wireless Securities Litigation. The plaintiffs filed the consolidated complaint on behalf of persons who allegedly purchased our stock between February 27, 2007 and November 10, 2008. The consolidated complaint names the Company and certain of our current and former officers as defendants. The consolidated complaint alleges generally that we issued materially false and misleading statements during the relevant time period regarding the strength of our products and market share, our financial results and our internal controls. The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages and costs. The court has denied defendants’ motions to dismiss. In May 2010, the court entered an order granting the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and certified a class of purchasers of our common stock between February 27, 2007 and September 15, 2008. On February 14, 2011, following extensive discovery, we filed a motion for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs’ claims. A trial date had been set for May 10, 2011. On March 15, 2011, the case was reassigned to a new district judge, the Honorable Anthony J. Battaglia. Following the reassignment, the court vacated the trial date pending the court’s consideration of dispositive motions. Oral argument on the motion for summary judgment was heard by the court on June 17, 2011. On November 23, 2011, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the motion for summary judgment. On July 9, 2012, the court vacated the final pretrial conference date. On December 14, 2012, the court issued an order denying defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of plaintiffs’ loss causation expert. The court set a pretrial conference for March 8, 2013 and a trial date of June 3, 2013. On February 7, 2013, the court reconsidered its December 14, 2012 order and granted defendants’ motion to exclude plaintiffs’ expert on loss causation. The court, however, gave plaintiffs the opportunity to provide a new report from the expert seeking to cure the deficiencies in the expert’s testimony. The court provided a schedule for the cure process and ordered plaintiffs to bear the burden of defendants’ expenses incurred in this process. The plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the court’s February 7, 2013 order. On March 6, 2013, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration with respect to the plaintiffs’ expert report, but granted the motion with respect to shifting the costs of the defendants’ expenses. On October 25, 2013, the court denied defendants’ motion to exclude plaintiffs’ expert on loss causation and vacated its order that plaintiffs pay defendants’ expenses incurred in redoing the expert reports. The court set the pretrial conference for November 20, 2013 and a trial date of January 6, 2014. The Company intends to defend this litigation vigorously. At this time, there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of this litigation. We have not recorded any significant accruals for contingent liabilities associated with this matter based on our belief that a liability, while possible, is not probable. Further, any possible range of loss cannot be estimated at this time. On September 24, 2010, NovAtel, Inc., a Canadian company (“NovAtel Canada”) filed a trademark infringement lawsuit entitled NovAtel, Inc. v. Novatel Wireless Technologies, Ltd., et al, Action No. 1001-14265 in the Court of Queens Bench of Alberta Canada, Judicial District of Calgary. The Statement of Claim alleges that Novatel Wireless Technologies, Ltd., Novatel Wireless Solutions, Inc. and Novatel Wireless, Inc., or collectively, the Company, are infringing NovAtel Canada’s purported rights in the “Novatel” trademark in breach of a settlement agreement between NovAtel Canada and the Company. The parties resolved all claims alleged in this matter without any payment by the Company. The matter was dismissed on March 12, 2013. Indemnification In the normal course of business, the Company periodically enters into agreements that require the Company to indemnify and defend its customers for, among other things, claims alleging that the Company’s products infringe third-party patents or other intellectual property rights. The Company’s maximum exposure under these indemnification provisions cannot be estimated but the Company does not believe that there are any matters individually or collectively that would have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operation or cash flows. The Company recorded approximately $37,000 and $793,000 during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013, respectively, related to settlements on legal matters.

9. Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Matters

The Company is, from time to time, party to various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. For example, the Company is currently named as a defendant or co-defendant in a number of patent infringement lawsuits in the U.S. and is indirectly participating in other U.S. patent infringement actions pursuant to its contractual indemnification obligations to certain customers. Based on evaluation of these matters and discussions with Company’s intellectual property litigation counsel, the Company believes that potential liabilities arising from or sums paid in settlement of these existing matters would not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated results of operations or financial condition.

On September 15, 2008 and September 18, 2008, two putative securities class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of persons who allegedly purchased our stock between February 5, 2007 and August 19, 2008. On December 11, 2008, these lawsuits were consolidated into a single action entitled Backe v. Novatel Wireless, Inc., et al., Case No. 08-CV-01689-H (RBB) (Consolidated with Case No. 08-CV-01714-H (RBB)) (U.S.D.C., S.D. Cal.). In May 2010, the district court re-captioned the case In re Novatel Wireless Securities Litigation. The plaintiffs filed the consolidated complaint on behalf of persons who allegedly purchased our stock between February 27, 2007 and November 10, 2008. The consolidated complaint names the Company and certain of our current and former officers as defendants. The consolidated complaint alleges generally that we issued materially false and misleading statements during the relevant time period regarding the strength of our products and market share, our financial results and our internal controls. The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages and costs. The court has denied defendants’ motions to dismiss. In May 2010, the court entered an order granting the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and certified a class of purchasers of our common stock between February 27, 2007 and September 15, 2008. On February 14, 2011, following extensive discovery, we filed a motion for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs’ claims. A trial date had been set for May 10, 2011. On March 15, 2011, the case was reassigned to a new district judge, the Honorable Anthony J. Battaglia. Following the reassignment, the court vacated the trial date pending the court’s consideration of dispositive motions. Oral argument on the motion for summary judgment was heard by the court on June 17, 2011. On November 23, 2011, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the motion for summary judgment. On July 9, 2012, the court vacated the final pretrial conference date. On December 14, 2012, the court issued an order denying defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of plaintiffs’ loss causation expert. The court set a pretrial conference for March 8, 2013 and a trial date of June 3, 2013. On February 7, 2013, the court reconsidered its December 14, 2012 order and granted defendants’ motion to exclude plaintiffs’ expert on loss causation. The court, however, gave plaintiffs the opportunity to provide a new report from the expert seeking to cure the deficiencies in the expert’s testimony. The court provided a schedule for the cure process and ordered plaintiffs to bear the burden of defendants’ expenses incurred in this process. The plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the court’s February 7, 2013 order. On March 6, 2013, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration with respect to the plaintiffs’ expert report, but granted the motion with respect to shifting the costs of the defendants’ expenses. On October 25, 2013, the court denied defendants’ motion to exclude plaintiffs’ expert on loss causation and vacated its order that plaintiffs pay defendants’ expenses incurred in redoing the expert reports. The court set the pretrial conference for November 20, 2013 and a trial date of January 6, 2014. The Company intends to defend this litigation vigorously. At this time, there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of this litigation. We have not recorded any significant accruals for contingent liabilities associated with this matter based on our belief that a liability, while possible, is not probable. Further, any possible range of loss cannot be estimated at this time.

On September 24, 2010, NovAtel, Inc., a Canadian company (“NovAtel Canada”) filed a trademark infringement lawsuit entitled NovAtel, Inc. v. Novatel Wireless Technologies, Ltd., et al, Action No. 1001-14265 in the Court of Queens Bench of Alberta Canada, Judicial District of Calgary. The Statement of Claim alleges that Novatel Wireless Technologies, Ltd., Novatel Wireless Solutions, Inc. and Novatel Wireless, Inc., or collectively, the Company, are infringing NovAtel Canada’s purported rights in the “Novatel” trademark in breach of a settlement agreement between NovAtel Canada and the Company. The parties resolved all claims alleged in this matter without any payment by the Company. The matter was dismissed on March 12, 2013.

Indemnification

In the normal course of business, the Company periodically enters into agreements that require the Company to indemnify and defend its customers for, among other things, claims alleging that the Company’s products infringe third-party patents or other intellectual property rights. The Company’s maximum exposure under these indemnification provisions cannot be estimated but the Company does not believe that there are any matters individually or collectively that would have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operation or cash flows.

The Company recorded approximately $37,000 and $793,000 during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013, respectively, related to settlements on legal matters.