Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies 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 based upon a rolling production forecast provided by the Company. 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 September 30, 2014, the Company had non-cancelable commitments to purchase approximately $90.7 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, except as noted below, 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 Net Navigation Systems, LLC. On April 23, 2014, Net Navigation Systems, LLC (“Net Navigation”) filed a complaint against Extreme Networks, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas. In the Complaint, the plaintiff asserts infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,625,122 (“the ’122 Patent”), entitled “Selection of Data for Network Transmission,” which issued on September 23, 2003. Although somewhat vague, the Complaint identifies the following products as accused of infringing the ‘122 Patent: “Networking products capable of providing priority to different data flows based on bandwidth.” The Complaint also states that Extreme has infringed by “making, selling, and causing its customers to use networking products capable of providing priority to different data flows based on bandwidth, such as, without limitation, the Black Diamond X8 and the Black Diamond 8000 Series of switches and routers.” The Complaint also asserts infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,145 (“the ’145 Patent”), entitled “Processing of Network Data by Parallel Processing Channels,” which issued on August 13, 2002. Again, although somewhat vague, the Complaint states that Extreme has infringed by “making, using, importing, selling, and/or offering for sale in the United States, including within this judicial district, networking products that use parallel processing channels, such as, without limitation, the Black Diamond X8 and the Black Diamond 8000 Series of switches and routers.” Net Navigation, a non-practicing entity, seeks injunctive relief as well as monetary damages, cost, expenses and attorney fees, although the complaint seeks no quantified amount. The Company denies the claims and is preparing to vigorously defend our technology. Given the preliminary nature of the claims, it is premature to assess the likelihood of a particular outcome. Selene Communication Technologies, LLC. On April 7, 2014, Selene Communication Technologies, LLC (“Selene”), filed a complaint in the US District Court for the District of Delaware against Extreme and Enterasys asserting a cause of action for infringement of United States Patent No. 7,143,444 (the “444 Patent”). Selene has also recently sued a number of other technology companies including Cisco for infringement of the 444 Patent. Selene, a non-practicing entity, seeks injunctive relief as well as monetary damages, costs, expenses and attorney fees, although the complaint seeks no quantified amount. The Company is a member of RPX Corporation’s (“RPX”) network of clients, who procure patent risk management services from RPX. On September 30, 2014, RPX signed an agreement on behalf of its members (including Extreme) with Selene to resolve the litigation cases against its members by Selene and to obtain a license for all RPX members to the 444 Patent and its foreign counterparts. As a result, the Company expects this case to be dismissed shortly without any further liability to Company. Commonwealth of Kentucky On or about February 3, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed in the Commonwealth of Kentucky against Enterasys Networks, Inc. and two other defendants. The complaint alleges that Enterasys and its subcontractor, TJL Information Technologies, Inc., d.b.a. Unbridled Information Technologies (“Subcontractor”), violated Kentucky’s wage and hour laws and failed to pay the prevailing wage in violation of the Kentucky State Prevailing Wage Act (the “Act”) on various public works projects for a number of Kentucky government agencies since January 2010. Plaintiffs also allege common law actions for quantum merit and unjust enrichment and they seek monetary damages, costs, expenses and attorney fees, although there was no quantified amount identified. One of the defendants, Integrated Facility Systems, LLC (“IFS”), has also filed a cross-claim against Enterasys. The Company denies the claims and filed answers to both the complaint and cross-claim on April 16, 2014. In addition, the Company filed a cross-claim for indemnity against IFS. Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on September 26, 2014, in which they named Commonwealth of Kentucky’s Office of Technology under the State’s Finance and Administration Cabinet (“COT”) as a defendant. The Company filed an answer to the Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint on October 10, 2014 and is considering filing a cross-claim against COT. This litigation is in the early stages of discovery. ICMS Tax Assessment Matters The State of Sao Paolo (Brazil) denied Enterasys Networks do Brazil Ltda. the use of certain credits derived from the State of Espirito Santo under the terms of the FUNDAP scheme for the tax years of 2002 through 2009. Enterasys’ application to resolve the ICMS Tax Assessments at the administrative level of the Sao Paolo Tax Department under the amnesty relief program (Reference No 3.056.963-1) was denied in March, 2014 by the Sao Paolo Tax Administration. The value of the ICMS tax credits that were disallowed by the Sao Paolo Tax Administration is approximately BR 3,443,914 (or approximately US$1.5 million), plus interest and penalties (that are currently estimated to be approximately US$9 million). On January 10, 2014, Enterasys filed a lawsuit to overturn or reduce the assessment, which lawsuit remains on-going. As part of this lawsuit, Enterasys made a request for a stay of execution, so that no tax foreclosure can be filed until a final ruling is made and no guarantee needs to be presented. In the first week of October, the preliminary injunction was granted with regard to the stay of execution; however, the court ruled that a cash deposit of the full amount at issue is to be made by Enterasys. Enterasys then prepared a motion aimed at the partial reconsideration of such decision concerning the need for a deposit, which was denied on October 10, 2014. The Company is currently considering an appeal to the Court of Appeals against such denial. Given the preliminary nature of the lawsuit and the uncertainty of the legal environment in Brazil, it is premature to assess the likelihood of a particular final outcome. Based on the currently available information, the Company believes the ultimate outcome of this audit will not have material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, cash flows or overall trends in results of operations. The range of the potential total tax liability related to these matters is estimated to be from $0 million to $9 million, of which the Company believes $4.3 million is the best estimate within the range and has recorded an accrual as of the acquisition date of Enterasys as such matter relates to the period before the acquisition. 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. As of September 30, 2014, the Company had no outstanding indemnification claims.

Commitments and Contingencies

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 based upon a rolling production forecast provided by the Company. 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 September 30, 2014, the Company had non-cancelable commitments to purchase approximately $90.7 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, except as noted below, 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

Net Navigation Systems, LLC.

On April 23, 2014, Net Navigation Systems, LLC (“Net Navigation”) filed a complaint against Extreme Networks, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas. In the Complaint, the plaintiff asserts infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,625,122 (“the ’122 Patent”), entitled “Selection of Data for Network Transmission,” which issued on September 23, 2003. Although somewhat vague, the Complaint identifies the following products as accused of infringing the ‘122 Patent: “Networking products capable of providing priority to different data flows based on bandwidth.” The Complaint also states that Extreme has infringed by “making, selling, and causing its customers to use networking products capable of providing priority to different data flows based on bandwidth, such as, without limitation, the Black Diamond X8 and the Black Diamond 8000 Series of switches and routers.” The Complaint also asserts infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,145 (“the ’145 Patent”), entitled “Processing of Network Data by Parallel Processing Channels,” which issued on August 13, 2002. Again, although somewhat vague, the Complaint states that Extreme has infringed by “making, using, importing, selling, and/or offering for sale in the United States, including within this judicial district, networking products that use parallel processing channels, such as, without limitation, the Black Diamond X8 and the Black Diamond 8000 Series of switches and routers.” Net Navigation, a non-practicing entity, seeks injunctive relief as well as monetary damages, cost, expenses and attorney fees, although the complaint seeks no quantified amount. The Company denies the claims and is preparing to vigorously defend our technology. Given the preliminary nature of the claims, it is premature to assess the likelihood of a particular outcome.

Selene Communication Technologies, LLC.

On April 7, 2014, Selene Communication Technologies, LLC (“Selene”), filed a complaint in the US District Court for the District of Delaware against Extreme and Enterasys asserting a cause of action for infringement of United States Patent No. 7,143,444 (the “444 Patent”). Selene has also recently sued a number of other technology companies including Cisco for infringement of the 444 Patent. Selene, a non-practicing entity, seeks injunctive relief as well as monetary damages, costs, expenses and attorney fees, although the complaint seeks no quantified amount.

The Company is a member of RPX Corporation’s (“RPX”) network of clients, who procure patent risk management services from RPX. On September 30, 2014, RPX signed an agreement on behalf of its members (including Extreme) with Selene to resolve the litigation cases against its members by Selene and to obtain a license for all RPX members to the 444 Patent and its foreign counterparts. As a result, the Company expects this case to be dismissed shortly without any further liability to Company.

Commonwealth of Kentucky

On or about February 3, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed in the Commonwealth of Kentucky against Enterasys Networks, Inc. and two other defendants. The complaint alleges that Enterasys and its subcontractor, TJL Information Technologies, Inc., d.b.a. Unbridled Information Technologies (“Subcontractor”), violated Kentucky’s wage and hour laws and failed to pay the prevailing wage in violation of the Kentucky State Prevailing Wage Act (the “Act”) on various public works projects for a number of Kentucky government agencies since January 2010. Plaintiffs also allege common law actions for quantum merit and unjust enrichment and they seek monetary damages, costs, expenses and attorney fees, although there was no quantified amount identified. One of the defendants, Integrated Facility Systems, LLC (“IFS”), has also filed a cross-claim against Enterasys. The Company denies the claims and filed answers to both the complaint and cross-claim on April 16, 2014. In addition, the Company filed a cross-claim for indemnity against IFS.

Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on September 26, 2014, in which they named Commonwealth of Kentucky’s Office of Technology under the State’s Finance and Administration Cabinet (“COT”) as a defendant. The Company filed an answer to the Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint on October 10, 2014 and is considering filing a cross-claim against COT. This litigation is in the early stages of discovery.

ICMS Tax Assessment Matters

The State of Sao Paolo (Brazil) denied Enterasys Networks do Brazil Ltda. the use of certain credits derived from the State of Espirito Santo under the terms of the FUNDAP scheme for the tax years of 2002 through 2009. Enterasys’ application to resolve the ICMS Tax Assessments at the administrative level of the Sao Paolo Tax Department under the amnesty relief program (Reference No 3.056.963-1) was denied in March, 2014 by the Sao Paolo Tax Administration. The value of the ICMS tax credits that were disallowed by the Sao Paolo Tax Administration is approximately BR 3,443,914 (or approximately US$1.5 million), plus interest and penalties (that are currently estimated to be approximately US$9 million). On January 10, 2014, Enterasys filed a lawsuit to overturn or reduce the assessment, which lawsuit remains on-going. As part of this lawsuit, Enterasys made a request for a stay of execution, so that no tax foreclosure can be filed until a final ruling is made and no guarantee needs to be presented. In the first week of October, the preliminary injunction was granted with regard to the stay of execution; however, the court ruled that a cash deposit of the full amount at issue is to be made by Enterasys. Enterasys then prepared a motion aimed at the partial reconsideration of such decision concerning the need for a deposit, which was denied on October 10, 2014. The Company is currently considering an appeal to the Court of Appeals against such denial.

Given the preliminary nature of the lawsuit and the uncertainty of the legal environment in Brazil, it is premature to assess the likelihood of a particular final outcome. Based on the currently available information, the Company believes the ultimate outcome of this audit will not have material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, cash flows or overall trends in results of operations. The range of the potential total tax liability related to these matters is estimated to be from $0 million to $9 million, of which the Company believes $4.3 million is the best estimate within the range and has recorded an accrual as of the acquisition date of Enterasys as such matter relates to the period before the acquisition.

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. As of September 30, 2014, the Company had no outstanding indemnification claims.