Legal, Environmental and Other Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Sep. 29, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal, Environmental and Other Contingencies	Legal, Environmental and Other Contingencies The Company assesses the probability of an unfavorable outcome of all its material litigation, claims, or assessments to determine whether a liability had been incurred and whether it is probable that one or more future events will occur confirming the fact of the loss. In the event that an unfavorable outcome is determined to be probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company establishes an accrual for the litigation, claim or assessment. In addition, in the event an unfavorable outcome is determined to be less than probable, but reasonably possible, the Company will disclose an estimate of the possible loss or range of such loss; however, when a reasonable estimate cannot be made, the Company will provide disclosure to that effect. Litigation is inherently uncertain and may result in adverse rulings or decisions. Additionally, the Company may enter into settlements or be subject to judgments that may, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on its results of operations. Accordingly, actual results could differ materially. Intellectual Property Litigation Convolve, Inc. (“Convolve”) and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”) v. Seagate Technology LLC, et al. On July 13, 2000, Convolve and MIT filed suit against Compaq Computer Corporation and Seagate Technology LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 4,916,635 (the “‘635 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 5,638,267 (the “‘267 patent”), misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and other claims. On January 16, 2002, Convolve filed an amended complaint, alleging defendants infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,314,473 (the “‘473 patent”). The district court ruled in 2010 that the ‘267 patent was out of the case. On August 16, 2011, the district court granted in part and denied in part the Company’s motion for summary judgment. On July 1, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: 1) affirmed the district court’s summary judgment rulings that Seagate did not misappropriate any of the alleged trade secrets and that the asserted claims of the ‘635 patent are invalid; 2) reversed and vacated the district court’s summary judgment of non-infringement with respect to the ‘473 patent; and 3) remanded the case for further proceedings on the ‘473 patent. On July 11, 2014, the district court granted the Company’s further summary judgment motion regarding the ‘473 patent. On February 10, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: 1) affirmed the district court’s summary judgment of no direct infringement by Seagate because Seagate’s ATA/SCSI disk drives do not meet the “user interface” limitation of the asserted claims of the ‘473 patent; 2) affirmed the district court’s summary judgment of non-infringement by Compaq’s products as to claims 1, 3, and 5 of the ‘473 patent because Compaq’s F10 BIOS interface does not meet the “commands” limitation of those claims; 3) vacated the district court’s summary judgment of non-infringement by Compaq’s accused products as to claims 7-15 of the ‘473 patent; 4) reversed the district court’s summary judgment of non-infringement based on intervening rights; and 5) remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings on the ‘473 patent. In view of the rulings made by the district court and the Court of Appeals and the uncertainty regarding the amount of damages, if any, that could be awarded Convolve in this matter, the Company does not believe that it is currently possible to determine a reasonable estimate of the possible range of loss related to this matter. Enova Technology Corporation v. Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., et al. On June 5, 2013, Enova Technology Corporation (“Enova”) filed a complaint against Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc. and Seagate Technology LLC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,136,995 (the “‘995 patent”), “Cryptographic Device,” and U.S. Patent No. 7,900,057 (the “‘057 patent”), “Cryptographic Serial ATA Apparatus and Method.” The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this case. On April 27, 2015, the district court ordered a stay of the case, in view of proceedings regarding the ‘995 and ‘057 patents before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. On September 2, 2015, PTAB issued its final written decision that claims 1-15 of the ‘995 patent are held unpatentable. On December 18, 2015, PTAB issued its final written decisions that claims 1-32 and 40-53 of the ‘057 patent are held unpatentable. On February 4, 2016, PTAB issued its final written decision that claims 33-39 of the ‘057 patent are held unpatentable. Enova appealed PTAB’s decisions on the ‘995 patent and the ‘057 patent to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On March 20, 2017, the court of appeals issued its judgment affirming PTAB’s decision on the ‘995 patent. On September 6, 2017, the court of appeals issued its judgment affirming PTAB’s decision on the ‘057 patent. In view of the uncertainty regarding the amount of damages, if any, that could be awarded in this matter, the Company does not believe that it is currently possible to determine a reasonable estimate of the possible range of loss related to this matter. Lambeth Magnetic Structures LLC v. Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., et al. On April 29, 2016, Lambeth Magnetic Structures LLC filed a complaint against Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc. and Seagate Technology LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,128,988, “Magnetic Material Structures, Devices and Methods.” The Company believes the claims asserted in the complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this case. The court issued its claim construction ruling on October 18, 2017. No trial date has been set. In view of the uncertainty regarding the amount of damages, if any, that could be awarded in this matter, the Company does not believe that it is currently possible to determine a reasonable estimate of the possible range of loss related to this matter. Environmental Matters The Company’s operations are subject to U.S. and foreign laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment, including those governing discharges of pollutants into the air and water, the management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes and the cleanup of contaminated sites. Some of the Company’s operations require environmental permits and controls to prevent and reduce air and water pollution, and these permits are subject to modification, renewal and revocation by issuing authorities. The Company has established environmental management systems and continually updates its environmental policies and standard operating procedures for its operations worldwide. The Company believes that its operations are in material compliance with applicable environmental laws, regulations and permits. The Company budgets for operating and capital costs on an ongoing basis to comply with environmental laws. If additional or more stringent requirements are imposed on the Company in the future, it could incur additional operating costs and capital expenditures. Some environmental laws, such as the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (as amended, the “Superfund” law) and its state equivalents, can impose liability for the cost of cleanup of contaminated sites upon any of the current or former site owners or operators or upon parties who sent waste to these sites, regardless of whether the owner or operator owned the site at the time of the release of hazardous substances or the lawfulness of the original disposal activity. The Company has been identified as a potentially responsible party at several sites. At each of these sites, the Company has an assigned portion of the financial liability based on the type and amount of hazardous substances disposed of by each party at the site and the number of financially viable parties. The Company has fulfilled its responsibilities at some of these sites and remains involved in only a few at this time. While the Company’s ultimate costs in connection with these sites is difficult to predict with complete accuracy, based on its current estimates of cleanup costs and its expected allocation of these costs, the Company does not expect costs in connection with these sites to be material. The Company may be subject to various state, federal and international laws and regulations governing the environment, including those restricting the presence of certain substances in electronic products. For example, the European Union (“EU”) enacted the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment, which prohibits the use of certain substances, including lead, in certain products, including disk drives and server storage products, put on the market after July 1, 2006. Similar legislation has been or may be enacted in other jurisdictions, including in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Taiwan, China, Japan and others. The European Union REACH Directive (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction of Chemicals, EC 1907/2006) also restricts substances of very high concern (“SVHCs”) in products. If the Company or its suppliers fails to comply with the substance restrictions, recycle requirements or other environmental requirements as they are enacted worldwide, it could have a materially adverse effect on the Company’s business. Other Matters The Company is involved in a number of other judicial, regulatory or administrative proceedings and investigations incidental to its business, and the Company may be involved in such proceedings arising in the normal course of its business in the future. Although occasional adverse decisions or settlements may occur, the Company believes that the final disposition of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations.

Legal, Environmental and Other Contingencies

The Company assesses the probability of an unfavorable outcome of all its material litigation, claims, or assessments to determine whether a liability had been incurred and whether it is probable that one or more future events will occur confirming the fact of the loss. In the event that an unfavorable outcome is determined to be probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company establishes an accrual for the litigation, claim or assessment. In addition, in the event an unfavorable outcome is determined to be less than probable, but reasonably possible, the Company will disclose an estimate of the possible loss or range of such loss; however, when a reasonable estimate cannot be made, the Company will provide disclosure to that effect. Litigation is inherently uncertain and may result in adverse rulings or decisions. Additionally, the Company may enter into settlements or be subject to judgments that may, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on its results of operations. Accordingly, actual results could differ materially.

Intellectual Property Litigation

Convolve, Inc. (“Convolve”) and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”) v. Seagate Technology LLC, et al. On July 13, 2000, Convolve and MIT filed suit against Compaq Computer Corporation and Seagate Technology LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 4,916,635 (the “‘635 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 5,638,267 (the “‘267 patent”), misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and other claims. On January 16, 2002, Convolve filed an amended complaint, alleging defendants infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,314,473 (the “‘473 patent”). The district court ruled in 2010 that the ‘267 patent was out of the case.

On August 16, 2011, the district court granted in part and denied in part the Company’s motion for summary judgment. On July 1, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: 1) affirmed the district court’s summary judgment rulings that Seagate did not misappropriate any of the alleged trade secrets and that the asserted claims of the ‘635 patent are invalid; 2) reversed and vacated the district court’s summary judgment of non-infringement with respect to the ‘473 patent; and 3) remanded the case for further proceedings on the ‘473 patent. On July 11, 2014, the district court granted the Company’s further summary judgment motion regarding the ‘473 patent. On February 10, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: 1) affirmed the district court’s summary judgment of no direct infringement by Seagate because Seagate’s ATA/SCSI disk drives do not meet the “user interface” limitation of the asserted claims of the ‘473 patent; 2) affirmed the district court’s summary judgment of non-infringement by Compaq’s products as to claims 1, 3, and 5 of the ‘473 patent because Compaq’s F10 BIOS interface does not meet the “commands” limitation of those claims; 3) vacated the district court’s summary judgment of non-infringement by Compaq’s accused products as to claims 7-15 of the ‘473 patent; 4) reversed the district court’s summary judgment of non-infringement based on intervening rights; and 5) remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings on the ‘473 patent. In view of the rulings made by the district court and the Court of Appeals and the uncertainty regarding the amount of damages, if any, that could be awarded Convolve in this matter, the Company does not believe that it is currently possible to determine a reasonable estimate of the possible range of loss related to this matter.

Enova Technology Corporation v. Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., et al. On June 5, 2013, Enova Technology Corporation (“Enova”) filed a complaint against Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc. and Seagate Technology LLC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,136,995 (the “‘995 patent”), “Cryptographic Device,” and U.S. Patent No. 7,900,057 (the “‘057 patent”), “Cryptographic Serial ATA Apparatus and Method.” The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this case. On April 27, 2015, the district court ordered a stay of the case, in view of proceedings regarding the ‘995 and ‘057 patents before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. On September 2, 2015, PTAB issued its final written decision that claims 1-15 of the ‘995 patent are held unpatentable. On December 18, 2015, PTAB issued its final written decisions that claims 1-32 and 40-53 of the ‘057 patent are held unpatentable. On February 4, 2016, PTAB issued its final written decision that claims 33-39 of the ‘057 patent are held unpatentable. Enova appealed PTAB’s decisions on the ‘995 patent and the ‘057 patent to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On March 20, 2017, the court of appeals issued its judgment affirming PTAB’s decision on the ‘995 patent. On September 6, 2017, the court of appeals issued its judgment affirming PTAB’s decision on the ‘057 patent. In view of the uncertainty regarding the amount of damages, if any, that could be awarded in this matter, the Company does not believe that it is currently possible to determine a reasonable estimate of the possible range of loss related to this matter.

Lambeth Magnetic Structures LLC v. Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., et al. On April 29, 2016, Lambeth Magnetic Structures LLC filed a complaint against Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc. and Seagate Technology LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,128,988, “Magnetic Material Structures, Devices and Methods.” The Company believes the claims asserted in the complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this case. The court issued its claim construction ruling on October 18, 2017. No trial date has been set. In view of the uncertainty regarding the amount of damages, if any, that could be awarded in this matter, the Company does not believe that it is currently possible to determine a reasonable estimate of the possible range of loss related to this matter.

Environmental Matters

The Company’s operations are subject to U.S. and foreign laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment, including those governing discharges of pollutants into the air and water, the management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes and the cleanup of contaminated sites. Some of the Company’s operations require environmental permits and controls to prevent and reduce air and water pollution, and these permits are subject to modification, renewal and revocation by issuing authorities.

The Company has established environmental management systems and continually updates its environmental policies and standard operating procedures for its operations worldwide. The Company believes that its operations are in material compliance with applicable environmental laws, regulations and permits. The Company budgets for operating and capital costs on an ongoing basis to comply with environmental laws. If additional or more stringent requirements are imposed on the Company in the future, it could incur additional operating costs and capital expenditures.

Some environmental laws, such as the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (as amended, the “Superfund” law) and its state equivalents, can impose liability for the cost of cleanup of contaminated sites upon any of the current or former site owners or operators or upon parties who sent waste to these sites, regardless of whether the owner or operator owned the site at the time of the release of hazardous substances or the lawfulness of the original disposal activity. The Company has been identified as a potentially responsible party at several sites. At each of these sites, the Company has an assigned portion of the financial liability based on the type and amount of hazardous substances disposed of by each party at the site and the number of financially viable parties. The Company has fulfilled its responsibilities at some of these sites and remains involved in only a few at this time.

While the Company’s ultimate costs in connection with these sites is difficult to predict with complete accuracy, based on its current estimates of cleanup costs and its expected allocation of these costs, the Company does not expect costs in connection with these sites to be material.

The Company may be subject to various state, federal and international laws and regulations governing the environment, including those restricting the presence of certain substances in electronic products. For example, the European Union (“EU”) enacted the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment, which prohibits the use of certain substances, including lead, in certain products, including disk drives and server storage products, put on the market after July 1, 2006. Similar legislation has been or may be enacted in other jurisdictions, including in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Taiwan, China, Japan and others. The European Union REACH Directive (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction of Chemicals, EC 1907/2006) also restricts substances of very high concern (“SVHCs”) in products. If the Company or its suppliers fails to comply with the substance restrictions, recycle requirements or other environmental requirements as they are enacted worldwide, it could have a materially adverse effect on the Company’s business.

Other Matters

The Company is involved in a number of other judicial, regulatory or administrative proceedings and investigations incidental to its business, and the Company may be involved in such proceedings arising in the normal course of its business in the future. Although occasional adverse decisions or settlements may occur, the Company believes that the final disposition of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations.