Legal Proceedings	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	Legal Proceedings Although the Company expects to incur significant legal costs in connection with the below legal proceedings, the Company is unable to estimate the amount of such legal costs and therefore, such costs will be expensed in the period the legal services are performed. FCPA Matter As a result of being a publicly traded company in the U.S., we are subject to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”), which prohibits companies from making improper payments to foreign officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business. Beginning in 2009, we conducted an internal review into payments made to our former independent sales agent in China with respect to sales of our high voltage capacitor products produced by our Swiss subsidiary. In January 2011, we reached settlements with the SEC and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) with respect to charges asserted by the SEC and DOJ relating to the anti-bribery, books and records, internal controls, and disclosure provisions of the FCPA and other securities laws violations. We settled civil charges with the SEC, agreeing to an injunction against further violations of the FCPA. Under the terms of the settlement with the SEC, we agreed to pay a total of approximately $6.4 million in profit disgorgement and prejudgment interest, in two installments, with almost $3.2 million paid in each of the first quarters of 2011 and 2012. Under the terms of the settlement with the DOJ, we agreed to pay a total of $8.0 million in penalties in three installments, with $3.5 million paid in the first quarter of 2011 and $2.3 million paid in each of the first quarters of 2012 and 2013. As part of the settlement, we entered into a three-year deferred prosecution agreement (“DPA”) with the DOJ. If we remain in compliance with the terms of the DPA, at the conclusion of the term, the charges against us asserted by the DOJ will be dismissed with prejudice. Further, under the terms of each agreement, we will periodically report to the SEC and DOJ on our internal compliance program concerning anti-bribery. The final payment of $2.3 million was paid in full on January 25, 2013. On October 15, 2013, the DOJ filed an indictment against one of our former officers, who was Senior Vice President and General Manager of our Swiss subsidiary, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The indictment is against this former officer, not against us. We may be required to advance the former officer’s legal fees and costs and to incur other financial obligations. While we maintain directors’ and officers’ insurance, we cannot determine the extent to which insurance will cover these legal fees and costs. Legal fees and costs not covered by insurance could have a material impact on our financial condition and results of operation. Swiss Bribery Matter In August 2013, our Swiss subsidiary was served with a search warrant from the Swiss federal prosecutor’s office. At the end of the search, the Swiss federal prosecutor presented us with a listing of the materials gathered by the representatives and then removed the materials from our premises for keeping at the prosecutor’s office. By reviewing the items to be seized on the search warrant presented by the Swiss prosecutor’s office, we believe this action to be related to the same or similar facts and circumstances as the FCPA action previously settled with the SEC and the DOJ. We are in the process of undergoing a comparison of the FCPA statutes and the Swiss bribery laws and regulations in order to determine the amount of overlap between the two matters. We are currently unable to determine the extent to which we will be subject to fines and penalties in accordance with Swiss bribery laws and what additional costs and expenses will be needed to prepare ourselves to defend this matter. During initial discussions, the Swiss prosecutor has acknowledged both the existence of our DPA with the DOJ and our cooperation efforts thereunder, both of which should have a positive impact in our discussions going forward. At this preliminary stage, we cannot determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that a loss will be incurred nor can we estimate the range of potential loss. Accordingly, we have not accrued an amount for any potential loss associated with this action, but an adverse result could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operation. Securities Matter In early 2013, we voluntarily provided information to the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission related to our announcement that we intend to file restated financial statements for fiscal years 2011 and 2012. We are cooperating with these investigations. At this preliminary stage, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this action, nor can we estimate the range of potential loss, and we therefore have not accrued an amount for any potential costs associated with this action, but an adverse result could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operation. Securities Class Action Matter From March 13, 2013 through April 19, 2013, four purported shareholder class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against us and three of our current and former officers. These actions are entitled Foster v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 13-cv-0580 (S.D. Cal. filed March 13, 2013), Weinstein v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 13-cv-0686 (S.D. Cal. filed March 21, 2013), Abanades v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 13-cv-0867 (S.D. Cal. filed April 11, 2013), and Mebarak v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 13-cv-0942 (S.D. Cal. filed April 19, 2013). The complaints allege that the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding our financial performance and business prospects and overstated our reported revenue. The complaints purport to assert claims for violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 on behalf of all persons who purchased our common stock between April 28, 2011 and March 7, 2013, inclusive. The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On May 13, 2013, four prospective lead plaintiffs filed motions to consolidate the four actions and to be appointed lead plaintiff. On June 11, 2013, the Court vacated the hearing on those motions and indicated that it would issue a written order. To date, the Court has yet to issue an order on the motions for consolidation and identification of a lead plaintiff. At this preliminary stage, we cannot determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that a loss has been incurred nor can we estimate the range of potential loss. Accordingly, we have not accrued an amount for any potential loss associated with this action, but an adverse result could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operation. Federal Shareholder Derivative Matter On April 23, 2013 and May 7, 2013, two shareholder derivative actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, entitled Kienzle v. Schramm, et al., Case No. 13-cv-0966 (S.D. Cal. filed April 23, 2013) and Agrawal v. Cortes, et al., Case No. 13-cv-1084 (S.D. Cal. filed May 7, 2013). The complaints name as defendants certain of our current and former officers and directors and name us as a nominal defendant. The complaints allege that the individual defendants caused or allowed us to issue false and misleading statements about our financial condition, operations, management, and internal controls and falsely represented that we maintained adequate controls. The complaints assert causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. The lawsuits seek unspecified damages, an order directing us to take all necessary actions to reform and improve its corporate governance and internal procedures, restitution and disgorgement of profits, benefits, and other compensation, attorneys' and experts' fees, and costs and expenses. On June 10, 2013, the parties filed a joint motion to consolidate the two actions. The Court has not yet ruled on that motion. On September 26, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion to stay this case until the resolution of the similar derivative action pending in the California Superior Court for the County of San Diego. We opposed this motion to stay. The hearing on this motion is scheduled for October 27, 2013. Because this action is derivative in nature, it does not seek monetary damages from us. However, we may be required throughout the term of the action to advance the legal fees and costs incurred by the individual defendants and to incur other financial obligations. At this preliminary stage, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this action, nor can we estimate the range of potential loss, and we therefore have not accrued an amount for any potential costs associated with this action, but an adverse result could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operation. State Shareholder Derivative Matter On April 11, 2013 and April 18, 2013, two shareholder derivative actions were filed in California Superior Court for the County of San Diego, entitled Warsh v. Schramm, et al., Case No. 37-2013-00043884 (San Diego Sup. Ct. filed April 11, 2013) and Neville v. Cortes, et al., Case No. 37-2013-00044911-CU-BT-CTL (San Diego Sup. Ct. filed April 18, 2013). The complaints name as defendants certain of our current and former officers and directors as well as our former auditor McGladrey LLP. We are named as a nominal defendant. The complaints allege that the individual defendants made or caused us to make false and/or misleading statements regarding our financial condition, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about our business, operations and prospects. The complaints assert causes of action for breaches of fiduciary duty for disseminating false and misleading information, failing to maintain internal controls, and failing to properly oversee and manage the company, as well as for unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, professional negligence and accounting malpractice, and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty. The lawsuits seek unspecified damages, an order directing us to take all necessary actions to reform and improve its corporate governance and internal procedures, restitution and disgorgement of profits, benefits and other compensation, attorneys' and experts' fees, and costs and expenses. On May 7, 2013, the Court consolidated the two actions. We filed a motion to stay the consolidated action on July 2, 2013. On September 27, 2013, the Court heard oral arguments on the motion to stay and continued the hearing on this motion until the resolution of the motion to stay pending in the federal derivative action referenced above. Because this action is derivative in nature, it does not seek monetary damages from us. However, we may be required throughout the term of the action to advance the legal fees and costs incurred by the individual defendants and to incur other financial obligations. At this preliminary stage, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this action, nor can we estimate the range of potential loss, and we therefore have not accrued an amount for any potential costs associated with this action, but an adverse result could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operation. Shareholder Demand Letter Matter On April 9, 2013, Stephen Neville, a purported shareholder of the Company, sent a demand letter to us to inspect our books and records pursuant to California Corporations Code Section 1601. The demand sought inspection of documents related to our March 7, 2013 announcement that we would be restating our previously-issued financial statements for 2011 and 2012, board minutes and committee materials, and other documents related to our board or management discussions regarding revenue recognition from January 1, 2011 to the present. We responded by letter dated April 19, 2013, explaining why we believed that the demand did not appear to be proper. Following receipt of a second letter from Mr. Neville dated April 23, 2013, we explained by letter dated April 29, 2013 why we continue to believe that the inspection demand appears improper. We have not received a further response from Mr. Neville regarding the inspection demand. In conjunction with the state court derivative action referenced above, Mr. Neville filed two motions to compel production of the documents and materials originally sought in the demand letter. On September 27, 2013, the Court heard oral arguments on the motions to compel and, in line with the continuance on the motion to stay, likewise continued the hearing on the motions to compel pending resolution of the motions to stay in both the federal and state derivative actions referenced above. At this preliminary stage, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this action, nor can we estimate the range of potential loss, and we therefore have not accrued an amount for any potential costs associated with this action, but an adverse result could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operation.

Legal Proceedings

Although the Company expects to incur significant legal costs in connection with the below legal proceedings, the Company is unable to estimate the amount of such legal costs and therefore, such costs will be expensed in the period the legal services are performed.

FCPA Matter

As a result of being a publicly traded company in the U.S., we are subject to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”), which prohibits companies from making improper payments to foreign officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business. Beginning in 2009, we conducted an internal review into payments made to our former independent sales agent in China with respect to sales of our high voltage capacitor products produced by our Swiss subsidiary. In January 2011, we reached settlements with the SEC and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) with respect to charges asserted by the SEC and DOJ relating to the anti-bribery, books and records, internal controls, and disclosure provisions of the FCPA and other securities laws violations. We settled civil charges with the SEC, agreeing to an injunction against further violations of the FCPA. Under the terms of the settlement with the SEC, we agreed to pay a total of approximately $6.4 million in profit disgorgement and prejudgment interest, in two installments, with almost $3.2 million paid in each of the first quarters of 2011 and 2012. Under the terms of the settlement with the DOJ, we agreed to pay a total of $8.0 million in penalties in three installments, with $3.5 million paid in the first quarter of 2011 and $2.3 million paid in each of the first quarters of 2012 and 2013. As part of the settlement, we entered into a three-year deferred prosecution agreement (“DPA”) with the DOJ. If we remain in compliance with the terms of the DPA, at the conclusion of the term, the charges against us asserted by the DOJ will be dismissed with prejudice. Further, under the terms of each agreement, we will periodically report to the SEC and DOJ on our internal compliance program concerning anti-bribery. The final payment of $2.3 million was paid in full on January 25, 2013.

On October 15, 2013, the DOJ filed an indictment against one of our former officers, who was Senior Vice President and General Manager of our Swiss subsidiary, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The indictment is against this former officer, not against us. We may be required to advance the former officer’s legal fees and costs and to incur other financial obligations. While we maintain directors’ and officers’ insurance, we cannot determine the extent to which insurance will cover these legal fees and costs. Legal fees and costs not covered by insurance could have a material impact on our financial condition and results of operation.

Swiss Bribery Matter

In August 2013, our Swiss subsidiary was served with a search warrant from the Swiss federal prosecutor’s office. At the end of the search, the Swiss federal prosecutor presented us with a listing of the materials gathered by the representatives and then removed the materials from our premises for keeping at the prosecutor’s office. By reviewing the items to be seized on the search warrant presented by the Swiss prosecutor’s office, we believe this action to be related to the same or similar facts and circumstances as the FCPA action previously settled with the SEC and the DOJ. We are in the process of undergoing a comparison of the FCPA statutes and the Swiss bribery laws and regulations in order to determine the amount of overlap between the two matters. We are currently unable to determine the extent to which we will be subject to fines and penalties in accordance with Swiss bribery laws and what additional costs and expenses will be needed to prepare ourselves to defend this matter. During initial discussions, the Swiss prosecutor has acknowledged both the existence of our DPA with the DOJ and our cooperation efforts thereunder, both of which should have a positive impact in our discussions going forward. At this preliminary stage, we cannot determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that a loss will be incurred nor can we estimate the range of potential loss. Accordingly, we have not accrued an amount for any potential loss associated with this action, but an adverse result could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operation.

Securities Matter

In early 2013, we voluntarily provided information to the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission related to our announcement that we intend to file restated financial statements for fiscal years 2011 and 2012. We are cooperating with these investigations. At this preliminary stage, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this action, nor can we estimate the range of potential loss, and we therefore have not accrued an amount for any potential costs associated with this action, but an adverse result could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operation.

Securities Class Action Matter

From March 13, 2013 through April 19, 2013, four purported shareholder class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against us and three of our current and former officers. These actions are entitled Foster v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 13-cv-0580 (S.D. Cal. filed March 13, 2013), Weinstein v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 13-cv-0686 (S.D. Cal. filed March 21, 2013), Abanades v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 13-cv-0867 (S.D. Cal. filed April 11, 2013), and Mebarak v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 13-cv-0942 (S.D. Cal. filed April 19, 2013). The complaints allege that the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding our financial performance and business prospects and overstated our reported revenue. The complaints purport to assert claims for violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 on behalf of all persons who purchased our common stock between April 28, 2011 and March 7, 2013, inclusive. The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On May 13, 2013, four prospective lead plaintiffs filed motions to consolidate the four actions and to be appointed lead plaintiff. On June 11, 2013, the Court vacated the hearing on those motions and indicated that it would issue a written order. To date, the Court has yet to issue an order on the motions for consolidation and identification of a lead plaintiff. At this preliminary stage, we cannot determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that a loss has been incurred nor can we estimate the range of potential loss. Accordingly, we have not accrued an amount for any potential loss associated with this action, but an adverse result could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operation.

Federal Shareholder Derivative Matter

On April 23, 2013 and May 7, 2013, two shareholder derivative actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, entitled Kienzle v. Schramm, et al., Case No. 13-cv-0966 (S.D. Cal. filed April 23, 2013) and Agrawal v. Cortes, et al., Case No. 13-cv-1084 (S.D. Cal. filed May 7, 2013). The complaints name as defendants certain of our current and former officers and directors and name us as a nominal defendant. The complaints allege that the individual defendants caused or allowed us to issue false and misleading statements about our financial condition, operations, management, and internal controls and falsely represented that we maintained adequate controls. The complaints assert causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. The lawsuits seek unspecified damages, an order directing us to take all necessary actions to reform and improve its corporate governance and internal procedures, restitution and disgorgement of profits, benefits, and other compensation, attorneys' and experts' fees, and costs and expenses. On June 10, 2013, the parties filed a joint motion to consolidate the two actions. The Court has not yet ruled on that motion. On September 26, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion to stay this case until the resolution of the similar derivative action pending in the California Superior Court for the County of San Diego. We opposed this motion to stay. The hearing on this motion is scheduled for October 27, 2013. Because this action is derivative in nature, it does not seek monetary damages from us. However, we may be required throughout the term of the action to advance the legal fees and costs incurred by the individual defendants and to incur other financial obligations. At this preliminary stage, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this action, nor can we estimate the range of potential loss, and we therefore have not accrued an amount for any potential costs associated with this action, but an adverse result could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operation.

State Shareholder Derivative Matter

On April 11, 2013 and April 18, 2013, two shareholder derivative actions were filed in California Superior Court for the County of San Diego, entitled Warsh v. Schramm, et al., Case No. 37-2013-00043884 (San Diego Sup. Ct. filed April 11, 2013) and Neville v. Cortes, et al., Case No. 37-2013-00044911-CU-BT-CTL (San Diego Sup. Ct. filed April 18, 2013). The complaints name as defendants certain of our current and former officers and directors as well as our former auditor McGladrey LLP. We are named as a nominal defendant. The complaints allege that the individual defendants made or caused us to make false and/or misleading statements regarding our financial condition, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about our business, operations and prospects. The complaints assert causes of action for breaches of fiduciary duty for disseminating false and misleading information, failing to maintain internal controls, and failing to properly oversee and manage the company, as well as for unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, professional negligence and accounting malpractice, and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty. The lawsuits seek unspecified damages, an order directing us to take all necessary actions to reform and improve its corporate governance and internal procedures, restitution and disgorgement of profits, benefits and other compensation, attorneys' and experts' fees, and costs and expenses. On May 7, 2013, the Court consolidated the two actions. We filed a motion to stay the consolidated action on July 2, 2013. On September 27, 2013, the Court heard oral arguments on the motion to stay and continued the hearing on this motion until the resolution of the motion to stay pending in the federal derivative action referenced above. Because this action is derivative in nature, it does not seek monetary damages from us. However, we may be required throughout the term of the action to advance the legal fees and costs incurred by the individual defendants and to incur other financial obligations. At this preliminary stage, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this action, nor can we estimate the range of potential loss, and we therefore have not accrued an amount for any potential costs associated with this action, but an adverse result could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operation.

Shareholder Demand Letter Matter

On April 9, 2013, Stephen Neville, a purported shareholder of the Company, sent a demand letter to us to inspect our books and records pursuant to California Corporations Code Section 1601. The demand sought inspection of documents related to our March 7, 2013 announcement that we would be restating our previously-issued financial statements for 2011 and 2012, board minutes and committee materials, and other documents related to our board or management discussions regarding revenue recognition from January 1, 2011 to the present. We responded by letter dated April 19, 2013, explaining why we believed that the demand did not appear to be proper. Following receipt of a second letter from Mr. Neville dated April 23, 2013, we explained by letter dated April 29, 2013 why we continue to believe that the inspection demand appears improper. We have not received a further response from Mr. Neville regarding the inspection demand. In conjunction with the state court derivative action referenced above, Mr. Neville filed two motions to compel production of the documents and materials originally sought in the demand letter. On September 27, 2013, the Court heard oral arguments on the motions to compel and, in line with the continuance on the motion to stay, likewise continued the hearing on the motions to compel pending resolution of the motions to stay in both the federal and state derivative actions referenced above. At this preliminary stage, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this action, nor can we estimate the range of potential loss, and we therefore have not accrued an amount for any potential costs associated with this action, but an adverse result could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operation.