Commitments, Contingencies and Leases	3 Months Ended
Oct. 02, 2011
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments, Contingencies and Leases	Commitments, Contingencies and Leases Purchase Commitments The Company currently has arrangements with contract manufacturers and suppliers for the manufacture of its products. The arrangements allow them to procure long lead-time component inventory on the Company’s behalf based upon a rolling production forecast provided by it. The Company is obligated to the purchase of long lead-time component inventory that its contract manufacturer procures in accordance with the forecast, unless the Company gives notice of order cancellation outside of applicable component lead-times. As of October 2, 2011, the Company had non-cancelable commitments to purchase approximately $26.3 million of such inventory. Legal Proceedings The Company may from time to time be party to litigation arising in the course of its business, including, without limitation, allegations relating to commercial transactions, business relationships or intellectual property rights. Such claims, even if not meritorious, could result in the expenditure of significant financial and managerial resources. Litigation in general, and intellectual property and securities litigation in particular, can be expensive and disruptive to normal business operations. Moreover, the results of legal proceedings are difficult to predict. Intellectual Property Litigation On April 20, 2007, the Company filed suit against Enterasys Networks in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Civil Action No. 07-C-0229-C. The complaint alleged willful infringement of U.S. Patents Nos. 6,104,700, 6,678,248, and 6,859,438, and sought injunctive relief against Enterasys' continuing sale of infringing goods and monetary damages. Enterasys responded to the complaint on May 30, 2007, and also filed counterclaims alleging infringement of three U.S. patents owned by Enterasys. On April 9, 2008, the Court dismissed Enterasys' counterclaims on one of its patents with prejudice. On May 5, 2008, the Court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment, finding that it does not infringe Enterasys' two remaining patents and dismissing all of Enterasys' remaining counterclaims with prejudice. On May 30, 2008, a jury found that Enterasys infringed all three of the Company's patents and awarded it damages in the amount of $0.2 million. The Court also ruled in the Company's favor on Enterasys' challenge to the validity of the Company's patents. On October 29, 2008, the Court denied Enterasys' post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law, and granted Extreme Network's motion for a permanent injunction against Enterasys. The injunction order permanently enjoins Enterasys from manufacturing, using, offering to sell, selling in the U.S. and importing into the U.S. the Enterasys products accused of infringing Extreme Network's three patents. On March 16, 2009, the Court also denied Enterasys' motion for a new trial, but granted Enterasys' motion for a stay of the injunction pending appeal. On April 17, 2009, Enterasys filed its notice of appeal and on May 1, 2009, the Company filed its cross appeal. On September 30, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the jury verdict of infringement by Enterasys of the Company's patents and the Districts Court's summary judgment of non-infringement by the Company of Enterasys' '727 patent. The Federal Circuit reversed the judgment of non-infringement by the Company of Enterasys '181 patent, holding that the District Court Judge applied an incorrect claim construction and reversed the District Court's denial of the Company's request for attorneys' fees as premature. See Note 11 regarding recent developments related to this lawsuit. On June 21, 2005, Enterasys filed suit against Extreme and Foundry Networks, Inc. (“Foundry”) in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Civil Action No. 05-11298 DPW. The complaint alleges willful infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,251,205; 5,390,173; 6,128,665; 6,147,995; 6,539,022; and 6,560,236, and seeks: a) a judgment that the Company willfully infringes each of the patents; (b) a permanent injunction from infringement, inducement of infringement and contributory infringement of each of the six patents; (c) damages and a “reasonable royalty” to be determined at trial; (d) treble damages; (e) attorneys' fees, costs and interest; and (f) equitable relief at the Court's discretion. Petitions for reexamination were filed challenging five of the patents at issue to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and a stay of the case was entered. Following the reexamination proceedings, Enterasys withdrew its allegations of infringement as to two of the patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,539,022 and 6,560,236. The stay was lifted on May 21, 2010, and the Court held claim construction hearings in December 2010. Fact discovery is ongoing. No trial date has been set. The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously, but, due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, it cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the matter at this time. Other Legal Matters Beginning on July 6, 2001, purported securities fraud class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The cases were consolidated and the litigation is now captioned as In re Extreme Networks, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-6143 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.), related to In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.). The operative amended complaint names us as defendants; six of the Company's present and former officers and/or directors, including its former CEO; and several investment banking firms that served as underwriters of its initial public offering and October 1999 secondary offering. The complaint alleges liability under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the registration statement for the offerings did not disclose that: (1) the underwriters had agreed to allow certain customers to purchase shares in the offerings in exchange for excess commissions paid to the underwriters; and (2) the underwriters had arranged for certain customers to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at predetermined prices. Similar allegations were made in other lawsuits challenging over 300 other initial public offerings and follow-on offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000. The cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes. The parties to the lawsuits have reached a settlement, which was approved by the Court on October 6, 2009. Extreme Networks is not required to make any cash payments in the settlement. The Court subsequently entered a final judgment of dismissal. Certain objectors have appealed the judgment. Subsequently, the District Court ruled that all objectors lacked standing to appeal. One of the objectors has appealed that ruling. If the appeal is successful, the Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously, but, due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, it cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the matter at this time. Indemnification Obligations Subject to certain limitations, the Company may be obligated to indemnify its current and former directors, officers and employees. These obligations arise under the terms of its certificate of incorporation, its bylaws, applicable contracts, and Delaware and California law. The obligation to indemnify, where applicable, generally means that the Company is required to pay or reimburse, and in certain circumstances the Company has paid or reimbursed, the individuals’ reasonable legal expenses and possibly damages and other liabilities incurred in connection with these matters. It is not possible to estimate the maximum potential amount under these indemnification agreements due to the limited history of these claims. The cost to defend the Company and the named individuals could have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows in the future. Recovery of such costs under its directors and officers insurance coverage is uncertain.

Commitments, Contingencies and Leases

Purchase Commitments

The Company currently has arrangements with contract manufacturers and suppliers for the manufacture of its products. The arrangements allow them to procure long lead-time component inventory on the Company’s behalf based upon a rolling production forecast provided by it. The Company is obligated to the purchase of long lead-time component inventory that its contract manufacturer procures in accordance with the forecast, unless the Company gives notice of order cancellation outside of applicable component lead-times. As of October 2, 2011, the Company had non-cancelable commitments to purchase approximately $26.3 million of such inventory.

Legal Proceedings

The Company may from time to time be party to litigation arising in the course of its business, including, without limitation, allegations relating to commercial transactions, business relationships or intellectual property rights. Such claims, even if not meritorious, could result in the expenditure of significant financial and managerial resources. Litigation in general, and intellectual property and securities litigation in particular, can be expensive and disruptive to normal business operations. Moreover, the results of legal proceedings are difficult to predict.

Intellectual Property Litigation

On April 20, 2007, the Company filed suit against Enterasys Networks in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Civil Action No. 07-C-0229-C. The complaint alleged willful infringement of U.S. Patents Nos. 6,104,700, 6,678,248, and 6,859,438, and sought injunctive relief against Enterasys' continuing sale of infringing goods and monetary damages. Enterasys responded to the complaint on May 30, 2007, and also filed counterclaims alleging infringement of three U.S. patents owned by Enterasys. On April 9, 2008, the Court dismissed Enterasys' counterclaims on one of its patents with prejudice. On May 5, 2008, the Court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment, finding that it does not infringe Enterasys' two remaining patents and dismissing all of Enterasys' remaining counterclaims with prejudice. On May 30, 2008, a jury found that Enterasys infringed all three of the Company's patents and awarded it damages in the amount of $0.2 million. The Court also ruled in the Company's favor on Enterasys' challenge to the validity of the Company's patents. On October 29, 2008, the Court denied Enterasys' post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law, and granted Extreme Network's motion for a permanent injunction against Enterasys. The injunction order permanently enjoins Enterasys from manufacturing, using, offering to sell, selling in the U.S. and importing into the U.S. the Enterasys products accused of infringing Extreme Network's three patents. On March 16, 2009, the Court also denied Enterasys' motion for a new trial, but granted Enterasys' motion for a stay of the injunction pending appeal. On April 17, 2009, Enterasys filed its notice of appeal and on May 1, 2009, the Company filed its cross appeal. On September 30, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the jury verdict of infringement by Enterasys of the Company's patents and the Districts Court's summary judgment of non-infringement by the Company of Enterasys' '727 patent. The Federal Circuit reversed the judgment of non-infringement by the Company of Enterasys '181 patent, holding that the District Court Judge applied an incorrect claim construction and reversed the District Court's denial of the Company's request for attorneys' fees as premature. See Note 11 regarding recent developments related to this lawsuit.

On June 21, 2005, Enterasys filed suit against Extreme and Foundry Networks, Inc. (“Foundry”) in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Civil Action No. 05-11298 DPW. The complaint alleges willful infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,251,205; 5,390,173; 6,128,665; 6,147,995; 6,539,022; and 6,560,236, and seeks: a) a judgment that the Company willfully infringes each of the patents; (b) a permanent injunction from infringement, inducement of infringement and contributory infringement of each of the six patents; (c) damages and a “reasonable royalty” to be determined at trial; (d) treble damages; (e) attorneys' fees, costs and interest; and (f) equitable relief at the Court's discretion. Petitions for reexamination were filed challenging five of the patents at issue to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and a stay of the case was entered. Following the reexamination proceedings, Enterasys withdrew its allegations of infringement as to two of the patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,539,022 and 6,560,236. The stay was lifted on May 21, 2010, and the Court held claim construction hearings in December 2010. Fact discovery is ongoing. No trial date has been set. The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously, but, due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, it cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the matter at this time.

Other Legal Matters

Beginning on July 6, 2001, purported securities fraud class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The cases were consolidated and the litigation is now captioned as In re Extreme Networks, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-6143 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.), related to In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.). The operative amended complaint names us as defendants; six of the Company's present and former officers and/or directors, including its former CEO; and several investment banking firms that served as underwriters of its initial public offering and October 1999 secondary offering. The complaint alleges liability under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the registration statement for the offerings did not disclose that: (1) the underwriters had agreed to allow certain customers to purchase shares in the offerings in exchange for excess commissions paid to the underwriters; and (2) the underwriters had arranged for certain customers to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at predetermined prices. Similar allegations were made in other lawsuits challenging over 300 other initial public offerings and follow-on offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000. The cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes. The parties to the lawsuits have reached a settlement, which was approved by the Court on October 6, 2009. Extreme Networks is not required to make any cash payments in the settlement. The Court subsequently entered a final judgment of dismissal. Certain objectors have appealed the judgment. Subsequently, the District Court ruled that all objectors lacked standing to appeal. One of the objectors has appealed that ruling. If the appeal is successful, the Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously, but, due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, it cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the matter at this time.

Indemnification Obligations

Subject to certain limitations, the Company may be obligated to indemnify its current and former directors, officers and employees. These obligations arise under the terms of its certificate of incorporation, its bylaws, applicable contracts, and Delaware and California law. The obligation to indemnify, where applicable, generally means that the Company is required to pay or reimburse, and in certain circumstances the Company has paid or reimbursed, the individuals’ reasonable legal expenses and possibly damages and other liabilities incurred in connection with these matters. It is not possible to estimate the maximum potential amount under these indemnification agreements due to the limited history of these claims. The cost to defend the Company and the named individuals could have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows in the future. Recovery of such costs under its directors and officers insurance coverage is uncertain.