Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
CONTINGENCIES	CONTINGENCIES Legal Proceedings The Company is currently a party to various legal proceedings, including those noted in this section. While the Company presently believes that the ultimate outcome of these proceedings, individually and in the aggregate, will not materially harm the Company's financial position, results of operations, cash flows, or overall trends, legal proceedings are subject to inherent uncertainties, unfavorable rulings or other events that could occur. In addition, legal proceedings are expensive to prosecute and defend against and can divert Management attention and Company resources away from the Company's business objectives. Unfavorable resolutions could include monetary damages against the Company, or preclude the Company from recovering the damages it seeks in legal proceedings it has commenced. It is also possible that the Company could conclude it is in the best interests of its stockholders, employees, and customers to settle one or more such matters, and any such settlement could include substantial payments or the surrender of rights to collect substantial payments from third parties. However, the Company has not reached this conclusion with respect to any particular matter at this time. In 1993, the Company was named as a Potentially Responsible Party (“PRP”) along with more than 100 other companies that used an Omega Chemical Corporation waste treatment facility in Whittier, California (the “Omega Site”). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has alleged that Omega failed to properly treat and dispose of certain hazardous waste materials at the Omega Site. The Company is a member of a large group of PRPs, known as the Omega Chemical Site PRP Organized Group (“OPOG”) that has agreed to fund certain on-going remediation efforts at the Omega Site. In February 2001, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the “Court”) approved a consent decree between EPA and OPOG to study the contamination and evaluate cleanup options at the Omega Site (the Operable Unit 1 or “OU1”). In January 2009, the Court approved two amendments to the consent decree, the first expanding the scope of work to mitigate volatile organic compounds affecting indoor air quality near the Omega Site and the second adding settling parties to the consent decree. Removal of waste materials from the Omega Site has been completed. As part of OU1, efforts to remediate the soil and groundwater at the Omega Site, including without limitation the extraction of chemical vapors from the soil in and around the site, are underway and are expected to be ongoing for several years. In addition, OPOG and EPA are investigating a regional groundwater contamination plume allegedly originating at the Omega Site (the Operable Unit 2 or “OU2”). In September 2011, EPA issued an interim Record of Decision specifying the interim clean-up actions EPA has chosen for OU2, and in September 2012, it issued a special notice letter that triggered the commencement of good faith settlement negotiations with OPOG. In February 2013, OPOG submitted a good faith settlement offer to EPA, with settlement negotiations between the parties expected to continue in fiscal year 2014. It is anticipated that such settlement negotiations will result in EPA and OPOG entering into a remediation consent decree with the Court regarding OU2. OPOG is expected to vote in December 2013 on whether to retain legal counsel to pursue claims against other potentially responsible parties for the regional groundwater contamination. In November 2007, Angeles Chemical Company, located downstream from the Omega Site, filed a lawsuit (the “Angeles Litigation”) in the Court against OPOG and the PRPs for cost recovery and indemnification for future response costs allegedly resulting from the regional groundwater contamination plume described above. In March 2008, the Court granted OPOG’s motion to stay the Angeles Litigation pending EPA’s determination of how to investigate and remediate the regional groundwater. In 2010, certain PRP’s challenged the criteria previously used to allocate liability among the PRP’s. In December 2011, an allocation committee established by OPOG to review those criteria recommended changes to the cost allocation structure that would, upon final approval, increase the Company’s overall share of liability within the PRP group. In addition, the departure of one or more PRPs from OPOG could have the effect of increasing the proportional liability of the remaining PRPs, including the Company. In January 2012, as a result of the allocation criteria modifications and PRP departure from OPOG described above, the Company’s proportional allocation of liability was increased. Although the Company considers a loss relating to the Omega Site probable, its share of any financial obligations for the remediation of the Omega Site, including taking into account the allocation increases described above, is not currently believed to be material to the Company’s financial statements, based on the Company’s approximately 0.5% contribution to the total waste tonnage sent to the site and current estimates of the potential remediation costs. Based on currently available information, the Company has a loss accrual that is not material and believes that the actual amount of its costs will not be materially different from the amount accrued. However, proceedings are ongoing and the eventual outcome of the clean-up efforts and the pending litigation matters is uncertain at this time. Based on currently available information, the Company does not believe that any eventual outcome will have a material adverse effect on its operations. In April 2013, the contract litigation between AppliedMicro TPack A/S, the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Xtera Communications Inc. and its subsidiary Meriton Networks Canada Inc., which previously was commenced in September 2009 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Canada was fully settled and dismissed with prejudice and without costs.

CONTINGENCIES

Legal Proceedings

The Company is currently a party to various legal proceedings, including those noted in this section. While the Company presently believes that the ultimate outcome of these proceedings, individually and in the aggregate, will not materially harm the Company's financial position, results of operations, cash flows, or overall trends, legal proceedings are subject to inherent uncertainties, unfavorable rulings or other events that could occur. In addition, legal proceedings are expensive to prosecute and defend against and can divert Management attention and Company resources away from the Company's business objectives. Unfavorable resolutions could include monetary damages against the Company, or preclude the Company from recovering the damages it seeks in legal proceedings it has commenced. It is also possible that the Company could conclude it is in the best interests of its stockholders, employees, and customers to settle one or more such matters, and any such settlement could include substantial payments or the surrender of rights to collect substantial payments from third parties. However, the Company has not reached this conclusion with respect to any particular matter at this time.

In 1993, the Company was named as a Potentially Responsible Party (“PRP”) along with more than 100 other companies that used an Omega Chemical Corporation waste treatment facility in Whittier, California (the “Omega Site”). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has alleged that Omega failed to properly treat and dispose of certain hazardous waste materials at the Omega Site. The Company is a member of a large group of PRPs, known as the Omega Chemical Site PRP Organized Group (“OPOG”) that has agreed to fund certain on-going remediation efforts at the Omega Site. In February 2001, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the “Court”) approved a consent decree between EPA and OPOG to study the contamination and evaluate cleanup options at the Omega Site (the Operable Unit 1 or “OU1”). In January 2009, the Court approved two amendments to the consent decree, the first expanding the scope of work to mitigate volatile organic compounds affecting indoor air quality near the Omega Site and the second adding settling parties to the consent decree. Removal of waste materials from the Omega Site has been completed. As part of OU1, efforts to remediate the soil and groundwater at the Omega Site, including without limitation the extraction of chemical vapors from the soil in and around the site, are underway and are expected to be ongoing for several years. In addition, OPOG and EPA are investigating a regional groundwater contamination plume allegedly originating at the Omega Site (the Operable Unit 2 or “OU2”). In September 2011, EPA issued an interim Record of Decision specifying the interim clean-up actions EPA has chosen for OU2, and in September 2012, it issued a special notice letter that triggered the commencement of good faith settlement negotiations with OPOG. In February 2013, OPOG submitted a good faith settlement offer to EPA, with settlement negotiations between the parties expected to continue in fiscal year 2014. It is anticipated that such settlement negotiations will result in EPA and OPOG entering into a remediation consent decree with the Court regarding OU2. OPOG is expected to vote in December 2013 on whether to retain legal counsel to pursue claims against other potentially responsible parties for the regional groundwater contamination. In November 2007, Angeles Chemical Company, located downstream from the Omega Site, filed a lawsuit (the “Angeles Litigation”) in the Court against OPOG and the PRPs for cost recovery and indemnification for future response costs allegedly resulting from the regional groundwater contamination plume described above. In March 2008, the Court granted OPOG’s motion to stay the Angeles Litigation pending EPA’s determination of how to investigate and remediate the regional groundwater. In 2010, certain PRP’s challenged the criteria previously used to allocate liability among the PRP’s. In December 2011, an allocation committee established by OPOG to review those criteria recommended changes to the cost allocation structure that would, upon final approval, increase the Company’s overall share of liability within the PRP group. In addition, the departure of one or more PRPs from OPOG could have the effect of increasing the proportional liability of the remaining PRPs, including the Company. In January 2012, as a result of the allocation criteria modifications and PRP departure from OPOG described above, the Company’s proportional allocation of liability was increased. Although the Company considers a loss relating to the Omega Site probable, its share of any financial obligations for the remediation of the Omega Site, including taking into account the allocation increases described above, is not currently believed to be material to the Company’s financial statements, based on the Company’s approximately 0.5% contribution to the total waste tonnage sent to the site and current estimates of the potential remediation costs. Based on currently available information, the Company has a loss accrual that is not material and believes that the actual amount of its costs will not be materially different from the amount accrued. However, proceedings are ongoing and the eventual outcome of the clean-up efforts and the pending litigation matters is uncertain at this time. Based on currently available information, the Company does not believe that any eventual outcome will have a material adverse effect on its operations.

In April 2013, the contract litigation between AppliedMicro TPack A/S, the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Xtera Communications Inc. and its subsidiary Meriton Networks Canada Inc., which previously was commenced in September 2009 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Canada was fully settled and dismissed with prejudice and without costs.