Legal Proceedings and Other Matters	9 Months Ended
Apr. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings and Other Matters	Legal Proceedings and Other Matters Legacy TCS Intellectual Property Matter - Vehicle IP In December 2009, Vehicle IP, LLC ("Vehicle IP") filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (the "District Court"), seeking monetary damages, fees and expenses and other relief from, among others, our customer Verizon Wireless ("Verizon"), based on the VZ Navigator product, and TCS is defending Verizon against Vehicle IP. In 2013, the District Court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the basis that the products in question did not infringe plaintiff’s patent. Plaintiff appealed that decision and, in 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the District Court's claim construction, overturned the District Court's grant of summary judgment of noninfringement, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Fact discovery and expert discovery has closed. Substantive settlement conversations have occurred but, to date, the parties have been unable to reach a settlement. As discussed in Note (8) - “Accrued Expenses and Other Current Liabilities," we have accrued certain legal and settlement costs related to the Vehicle IP matter. The accrued settlement costs related to this matter do not reflect the final amounts we actually may pay, if any. On May 30, 2017, we received positive news that the District Court issued a supplemental claim construction order in our favor. As a result, the Plaintiff agreed to file a joint status report to the District Court that requested that the District Court cancel the trial date (which is currently scheduled for July 2017) as the parties expect to enter a stipulation that the defendants’ accused products do not infringe Vehicle IP’s patent under the District Court’s current revised construction of the disputed patent claim term. Following entry of such stipulation of noninfringement, we believe that Vehicle IP will appeal the related claim construction for which an appellate ruling may take a year or so to be issued. If the District Court's current claim construction is ultimately upheld at the appellate level, it is possible that we may not have to go to trial or pay any monetary damages. Ongoing legal expenses associated with defending this matter and its ultimate resolution could vary and have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows in future periods. Final Settlements of Certain TCS Intellectual Property Matters and Mississippi Lawsuit During the nine months ended April 30, 2017, we entered into final settlements of certain legacy TCS intellectual property matters and a separate lawsuit filed in Mississippi. The settlement of these matters and their impact on our condensed consolidated financial statements are described below: TracBeam - On January 30, 2017, we entered into a final settlement of a legacy TCS patent infringement litigation matter which resulted in a lower loss than originally estimated. The final settlement resolved litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (“Eastern District Court”) in which TracBeam, LLC ("TracBeam") asserted a patent infringement claim and sought damages, fees and expenses and other relief from, among others, TCS’s customers T-Mobile US, Inc. and T-Mobile USA, Inc. (together, "T-Mobile"), based on the defendants’ E911 service and locator products. TCS was defending T-Mobile against TracBeam.The final settlement required that we make two cash payments, one of which occurred during the three months ended April 30, 2017 with a final payment made in our fourth quarter of fiscal 2017. On a GAAP basis, the final settlement resulted in a favorable $9,979,000 contribution, net of estimated legal fees, to operating income for the second quarter of fiscal 2017. In addition to the final settlement, during our third quarter of fiscal 2017, TCS settled its claims against a prior owner of the TCS assets that were the subject of the TracBeam infringement claim and we received cash settlement proceeds that were recorded as a reduction of selling, general and administrative expenses during the third quarter of fiscal 2017. As a result, our total net cash outflow related to the final resolution of the entire TracBeam matter was immaterial. CallWave - In 2012, CallWave Communication LLC ("CallWave") brought a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware seeking damages, fees and expenses and other relief from, among others, Verizon Wireless and certain of its affiliates (collectively, "Verizon"), based on Verizon's VZ Family Locator and VZ Navigator products, and TCS had previously agreed to indemnify Verizon subject to certain conditions. During the third quarter of fiscal 2017, a final settlement was entered into between TCS and CallWave and, on a GAAP basis, the resolution of this matter resulted in a favorable $2,041,000 contribution, net of estimated legal fees, to operating income for the third quarter of fiscal 2017. Cash payments related to this final settlement are immaterial and principally occurred during the three months ended April 30, 2017. Mississippi Lawsuit - A family in Mississippi sued Verizon Wireless in June 2016 and TCS in July 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, for damages resulting from allegations that their 911 calls were improperly routed during an emergency. Both TCS and Verizon denied the allegations. During the third quarter of fiscal 2017, a final settlement was reached on terms that had no impact on our condensed consolidated financial statements and the case was dismissed. Other Matters In October 2014, we disclosed to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) that we learned during a self-assessment of our export transactions that a shipment of modems sent to a Canadian customer by Comtech EF Data was incorporated into a communication system, the ultimate end user of which was the Sudan Civil Aviation Authority. The sales value of this equipment was approximately $288,000. OFAC regulations prohibit U.S. persons from doing business directly or indirectly with Sudan. In late 2015, OFAC issued an administrative subpoena seeking further information about the disclosed transaction. We have responded to the subpoena, including alerting OFAC to Comtech’s repair of three modems for a customer in Lebanon who may have rerouted the modems from Lebanon to Sudan without the required U.S. licensing authorization. We are not able to predict when OFAC will complete its review, nor whether it will take any action against us, which could include civil and criminal penalties. If OFAC determines that we have violated U.S. trade sanctions, we may suffer reputational harm. Even though we take precautions to avoid engaging in transactions that may violate U.S. trade sanctions, those measures may not be effective in every instance. There are certain other pending and threatened legal actions which arise in the normal course of business. Although the ultimate outcome of litigation is difficult to accurately predict, we believe that the outcome of these other pending and threatened actions will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

Legal Proceedings and Other Matters

Legacy TCS Intellectual Property Matter - Vehicle IP

In December 2009, Vehicle IP, LLC ("Vehicle IP") filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (the "District Court"), seeking monetary damages, fees and expenses and other relief from, among others, our customer Verizon Wireless ("Verizon"), based on the VZ Navigator product, and TCS is defending Verizon against Vehicle IP. In 2013, the District Court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the basis that the products in question did not infringe plaintiff’s patent. Plaintiff appealed that decision and, in 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the District Court's claim construction, overturned the District Court's grant of summary judgment of noninfringement, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Fact discovery and expert discovery has closed. Substantive settlement conversations have occurred but, to date, the parties have been unable to reach a settlement. As discussed in Note (8) - “Accrued Expenses and Other Current Liabilities," we have accrued certain legal and settlement costs related to the Vehicle IP matter. The accrued settlement costs related to this matter do not reflect the final amounts we actually may pay, if any.

On May 30, 2017, we received positive news that the District Court issued a supplemental claim construction order in our favor. As a result, the Plaintiff agreed to file a joint status report to the District Court that requested that the District Court cancel the trial date (which is currently scheduled for July 2017) as the parties expect to enter a stipulation that the defendants’ accused products do not infringe Vehicle IP’s patent under the District Court’s current revised construction of the disputed patent claim term.

Following entry of such stipulation of noninfringement, we believe that Vehicle IP will appeal the related claim construction for which an appellate ruling may take a year or so to be issued. If the District Court's current claim construction is ultimately upheld at the appellate level, it is possible that we may not have to go to trial or pay any monetary damages.

Ongoing legal expenses associated with defending this matter and its ultimate resolution could vary and have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows in future periods.

Final Settlements of Certain TCS Intellectual Property Matters and Mississippi Lawsuit

During the nine months ended April 30, 2017, we entered into final settlements of certain legacy TCS intellectual property matters and a separate lawsuit filed in Mississippi. The settlement of these matters and their impact on our condensed consolidated financial statements are described below:

TracBeam - On January 30, 2017, we entered into a final settlement of a legacy TCS patent infringement litigation matter which resulted in a lower loss than originally estimated. The final settlement resolved litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (“Eastern District Court”) in which TracBeam, LLC ("TracBeam") asserted a patent infringement claim and sought damages, fees and expenses and other relief from, among others, TCS’s customers T-Mobile US, Inc. and T-Mobile USA, Inc. (together, "T-Mobile"), based on the defendants’ E911 service and locator products. TCS was defending T-Mobile against TracBeam.The final settlement required that we make two cash payments, one of which occurred during the three months ended April 30, 2017 with a final payment made in our fourth quarter of fiscal 2017. On a GAAP basis, the final settlement resulted in a favorable $9,979,000 contribution, net of estimated legal fees, to operating income for the second quarter of fiscal 2017. In addition to the final settlement, during our third quarter of fiscal 2017, TCS settled its claims against a prior owner of the TCS assets that were the subject of the TracBeam infringement claim and we received cash settlement proceeds that were recorded as a reduction of selling, general and administrative expenses during the third quarter of fiscal 2017. As a result, our total net cash outflow related to the final resolution of the entire TracBeam matter was immaterial.

CallWave - In 2012, CallWave Communication LLC ("CallWave") brought a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware seeking damages, fees and expenses and other relief from, among others, Verizon Wireless and certain of its affiliates (collectively, "Verizon"), based on Verizon's VZ Family Locator and VZ Navigator products, and TCS had previously agreed to indemnify Verizon subject to certain conditions. During the third quarter of fiscal 2017, a final settlement was entered into between TCS and CallWave and, on a GAAP basis, the resolution of this matter resulted in a favorable $2,041,000 contribution, net of estimated legal fees, to operating income for the third quarter of fiscal 2017. Cash payments related to this final settlement are immaterial and principally occurred during the three months ended April 30, 2017.

Mississippi Lawsuit - A family in Mississippi sued Verizon Wireless in June 2016 and TCS in July 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, for damages resulting from allegations that their 911 calls were improperly routed during an emergency. Both TCS and Verizon denied the allegations. During the third quarter of fiscal 2017, a final settlement was reached on terms that had no impact on our condensed consolidated financial statements and the case was dismissed.

Other Matters

In October 2014, we disclosed to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) that we learned during a self-assessment of our export transactions that a shipment of modems sent to a Canadian customer by Comtech EF Data was incorporated into a communication system, the ultimate end user of which was the Sudan Civil Aviation Authority. The sales value of this equipment was approximately $288,000. OFAC regulations prohibit U.S. persons from doing business directly or indirectly with Sudan. In late 2015, OFAC issued an administrative subpoena seeking further information about the disclosed transaction. We have responded to the subpoena, including alerting OFAC to Comtech’s repair of three modems for a customer in Lebanon who may have rerouted the modems from Lebanon to Sudan without the required U.S. licensing authorization. We are not able to predict when OFAC will complete its review, nor whether it will take any action against us, which could include civil and criminal penalties. If OFAC determines that we have violated U.S. trade sanctions, we may suffer reputational harm. Even though we take precautions to avoid engaging in transactions that may violate U.S. trade sanctions, those measures may not be effective in every instance.

There are certain other pending and threatened legal actions which arise in the normal course of business. Although the ultimate outcome of litigation is difficult to accurately predict, we believe that the outcome of these other pending and threatened actions will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition or results of operations.