Commitments, Contingencies and Leases	6 Months Ended
Jan. 01, 2012
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 January 1, 2012, the Company had non-cancelable commitments to purchase approximately $32.0 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. In accordance with applicable accounting guidance, the Company records accruals for certain of its outstanding legal proceedings, investigations or claims when it is probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company evaluates, at least on a quarterly basis, developments in legal proceedings, investigations or claims that could affect the amount of any accrual, as well as any developments that would result in a loss contingency to become both probable and reasonably estimable. When a loss contingency is not both probable and reasonably estimable, the Company does not record a loss accrual. However, if the loss (or an additional loss in excess of any prior accrual) is at least a reasonable possibility and material, then the Company would disclose an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss, if such estimate can be made, or disclose that an estimate cannot be made. The assessment whether a loss is probable or a reasonable possibility, and whether the loss or a range of loss is estimable, involves a series of complex judgments about future events. Even if a loss is reasonably possible, the Company may not be able to estimate a range of possible loss, particularly where (i) the damages sought are substantial or indeterminate, (ii) the proceedings are in the early stages, or (iii) the matters involve novel or unsettled legal theories or a large number of parties. In such cases, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the ultimate resolution of such matters, including the amount of any possible loss, fine or penalty. Accordingly, for current proceedings, the Company is currently unable to estimate any reasonably possible loss or range of possible loss. However, an adverse resolution of one or more of such matters could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations in a particular quarter or fiscal year. 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. On November 4, 2011, a jury returned a verdict of non-infringement by the Company of the '181 patent and found the patent to be valid. Post trial motions are pending. 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. 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. On October 31, 2011, Chrimar Systems, Inc. dba CMS Technologies, and Chrimar Holding Company filed suit against the Company, Cisco Systems, Inc., Cisco Consumer Products LLC. Cisco-Linksys LLC, Hewlett-Packard Company, 3Com Corporation and Avaya, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Civil Action No. 11-1050 ("the Delaware action"). The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,457,250. The Delaware action has been stayed pursuant to 28 USC Section 1659(a) pending final determination of the International Trade Commission action described below, based on the fact that the allegations in both cases relate to the same patent. 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. On November 1, 2011, Chrimar filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission, pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, alleging that the Company imports into the United States, sells for importation and/or sells within the United States after importation of products and/or systems infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,457,250 patent, the same patent asserted in the Delaware action. On December 2, 2011, the International Trade Commission instituted an investigation of these allegations ("the ITC action"). The complaint in the ITC action seeks a permanent order excluding from entry into the United States all infringing articles that are manufactured, imported or sold by the Company that infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,457,250. A hearing has been set at the International Trade Commission on August 27-31, 2012.The Company intends to defend the ITC action 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 appealed the judgment. Subsequently, the District Court ruled that all objectors lacked standing to appeal. One of the objectors appealed that ruling. In January 2012, the Court dismissed the pending appeal and the case has concluded. The Company has no financial liability associated with the settlement. 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 January 1, 2012, the Company had non-cancelable commitments to purchase approximately $32.0 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.

In accordance with applicable accounting guidance, the Company records accruals for certain of its outstanding legal proceedings, investigations or claims when it is probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company evaluates, at least on a quarterly basis, developments in legal proceedings, investigations or claims that could affect the amount of any accrual, as well as any developments that would result in a loss contingency to become both probable and reasonably estimable. When a loss contingency is not both probable and reasonably estimable, the Company does not record a loss accrual. However, if the loss (or an additional loss in excess of any prior accrual) is at least a reasonable possibility and material, then the Company would disclose an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss, if such estimate can be made, or disclose that an estimate cannot be made. The assessment whether a loss is probable or a reasonable possibility, and whether the loss or a range of loss is estimable, involves a series of complex judgments about future events. Even if a loss is reasonably possible, the Company may not be able to estimate a range of possible loss, particularly where (i) the damages sought are substantial or indeterminate, (ii) the proceedings are in the early stages, or (iii) the matters involve novel or unsettled legal theories or a large number of parties. In such cases, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the ultimate resolution of such matters, including the amount of any possible loss, fine or penalty. Accordingly, for current proceedings, the Company is currently unable to estimate any reasonably possible loss or range of possible loss. However, an adverse resolution of one or more of such matters could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations in a particular quarter or fiscal year.

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. On November 4, 2011, a jury returned a verdict of non-infringement by the Company of the '181 patent and found the patent to be valid. Post trial motions are pending. 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.

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.

On October 31, 2011, Chrimar Systems, Inc. dba CMS Technologies, and Chrimar Holding Company filed suit against the Company, Cisco Systems, Inc., Cisco Consumer Products LLC. Cisco-Linksys LLC, Hewlett-Packard Company, 3Com Corporation and Avaya, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Civil Action No. 11-1050 ("the Delaware action"). The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,457,250. The Delaware action has been stayed pursuant to 28 USC Section 1659(a) pending final determination of the International Trade Commission action described below, based on the fact that the allegations in both cases relate to the same patent. 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.

On November 1, 2011, Chrimar filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission, pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, alleging that the Company imports into the United States, sells for importation and/or sells within the United States after importation of products and/or systems infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,457,250 patent, the same patent asserted in the Delaware action. On December 2, 2011, the International Trade Commission instituted an investigation of these allegations ("the ITC action"). The complaint in the ITC action seeks a permanent order excluding from entry into the United States all infringing articles that are manufactured, imported or sold by the Company that infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,457,250. A hearing has been set at the International Trade Commission on August 27-31, 2012.The Company intends to defend the ITC action 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 appealed the judgment. Subsequently, the District Court ruled that all objectors lacked standing to appeal. One of the objectors appealed that ruling. In January 2012, the Court dismissed the pending appeal and the case has concluded. The Company has no financial liability associated with the settlement.

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.