Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Jun. 28, 2014
Loss Contingency [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies Patent Litigation On February 14, 2011, the Company filed a complaint for declaratory judgment of patent non-infringement and invalidity against Intellectual Ventures in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On September 30, 2011, the Company amended its complaint in this case to eliminate certain defendants and patents from the action (Xilinx, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC, Case No CV11-0671) (California Case I). The lawsuit pertained to one patent and sought judgment of non-infringement by Xilinx and judgment that the patent is invalid and unenforceable, as well as costs and attorneys’ fees. On February 15, 2011, Intellectual Ventures added the Company as a defendant in its complaint for patent infringement previously filed against Altera Corporation (Altera), Microsemi Corporation (Microsemi) and Lattice Semiconductor Corporation (Lattice) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Altera Corporation, Microsemi Corporation, Lattice Semiconductor Corporation and Xilinx, Inc., Case No. 10-CV-1065) (Delaware Case). The lawsuit pertained to five patents, four of which the Company was alleged to be infringing. Intellectual Ventures sought unspecified damages, interest and attorneys’ fees. Altera, Microsemi and Lattice were previously dismissed from the case with prejudice. On October 17, 2011, Xilinx filed a complaint for patent non-infringement and invalidity and violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Intellectual Ventures and related entities as well as additional defendants (Xilinx, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures, LLC. Intellectual Ventures Management, LLC, Detelle Relay KG, LLC, Roldan Block NY LLC, Latrosse Technologies LLC, TR Technologies Foundation LLC, Taichi Holdings, LLC, Noregin Assets N.V., LLC and Intellectual Venture Funding LLC Case No CV-04407) (California Case II). By order dated January 25, 2012, the Court granted with leave to amend defendants' motion to dismiss our claim for violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200. The Company amended its complaint to remove the claim for violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200. The remainder of the lawsuit pertained to two patents and sought judgments of non-infringement by Xilinx and judgments that the patents are invalid and unenforceable, as well as costs and attorneys’ fees. On May 1, 2014, the Company entered into a confidential settlement agreement with Intellectual Ventures. Under the terms of the settlement, Intellectual Ventures agreed to dismiss with prejudice all outstanding patent litigation against Xilinx. On May 2, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed California Case I and California Case II and the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware dismissed the Delaware Case. On November 5, 2012, a patent infringement lawsuit was filed by Conversant Intellectual Property Management Inc. (Conversant), formerly known as Mosaid Technologies, against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Mosaid Technologies Inc. v. Xilinx, Inc., Case No. 6:12-CV-00847). The lawsuit pertained to five patents and Conversant sought unspecified damages, costs, fees, royalties and injunctive relief. On May 30, 2014, the Company entered into a confidential settlement agreement with Conversant. Under the settlement, Conversant agreed to dismiss with prejudice all outstanding patent litigation against Xilinx. On June 19, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas dismissed the suit. On July 17, 2014, a patent infringement lawsuit was filed by PLL Technologies, Inc. (PTI) against the Company and three additional named defendants in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (PLL Technologies, Inc. v. Xilinx, Inc., Case No. 1:14-CV-00945). The lawsuit pertains to one patent and PTI seeks unspecified damages, interest, costs, and fees. The Company is unable to estimate its range of possible loss, if any, in this matter at this time. Other Matters Except as stated above, there are no pending legal proceedings of a material nature to which the Company is a party or of which any of its property is the subject. From time to time, the Company is involved in various disputes and litigation matters that arise in the ordinary course of its business. These include disputes and lawsuits related to intellectual property, mergers and acquisitions, licensing, contract law, tax, regulatory, distribution arrangements, employee relations and other matters. Periodically, the Company reviews the status of each matter and assesses its potential financial exposure. If the potential loss from any claim or legal proceeding is considered probable and a range of possible losses can be estimated, the Company accrues a liability for the estimated loss. Legal proceedings are subject to uncertainties, and the outcomes are difficult to predict. Because of such uncertainties, accruals are based only on the best information available at the time. As additional information becomes available, the Company continues to reassess the potential liability related to pending claims and litigation and may revise estimates.

Contingencies

Patent Litigation

On February 14, 2011, the Company filed a complaint for declaratory judgment of patent non-infringement and invalidity against Intellectual Ventures in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On September 30, 2011, the Company amended its complaint in this case to eliminate certain defendants and patents from the action (Xilinx, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC, Case No CV11-0671) (California Case I). The lawsuit pertained to one patent and sought judgment of non-infringement by Xilinx and judgment that the patent is invalid and unenforceable, as well as costs and attorneys’ fees.

On February 15, 2011, Intellectual Ventures added the Company as a defendant in its complaint for patent infringement previously filed against Altera Corporation (Altera), Microsemi Corporation (Microsemi) and Lattice Semiconductor Corporation (Lattice) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Altera Corporation, Microsemi Corporation, Lattice Semiconductor Corporation and Xilinx, Inc., Case No. 10-CV-1065) (Delaware Case). The lawsuit pertained to five patents, four of which the Company was alleged to be infringing. Intellectual Ventures sought unspecified damages, interest and attorneys’ fees. Altera, Microsemi and Lattice were previously dismissed from the case with prejudice.

On October 17, 2011, Xilinx filed a complaint for patent non-infringement and invalidity and violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Intellectual Ventures and related entities as well as additional defendants (Xilinx, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures, LLC. Intellectual Ventures Management, LLC, Detelle Relay KG, LLC, Roldan Block NY LLC, Latrosse Technologies LLC, TR Technologies Foundation LLC, Taichi Holdings, LLC, Noregin Assets N.V., LLC and Intellectual Venture Funding LLC Case No CV-04407) (California Case II). By order dated January 25, 2012, the Court granted with leave to amend defendants' motion to dismiss our claim for violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200. The Company amended its complaint to remove the claim for violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200. The remainder of the lawsuit pertained to two patents and sought judgments of non-infringement by Xilinx and judgments that the patents are invalid and unenforceable, as well as costs and attorneys’ fees.

On May 1, 2014, the Company entered into a confidential settlement agreement with Intellectual Ventures. Under the terms of the settlement, Intellectual Ventures agreed to dismiss with prejudice all outstanding patent litigation against Xilinx. On May 2, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed California Case I and California Case II and the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware dismissed the Delaware Case.

On November 5, 2012, a patent infringement lawsuit was filed by Conversant Intellectual Property Management Inc. (Conversant), formerly known as Mosaid Technologies, against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Mosaid Technologies Inc. v. Xilinx, Inc., Case No. 6:12-CV-00847). The lawsuit pertained to five patents and Conversant sought unspecified damages, costs, fees, royalties and injunctive relief.

On May 30, 2014, the Company entered into a confidential settlement agreement with Conversant. Under the settlement, Conversant agreed to dismiss with prejudice all outstanding patent litigation against Xilinx. On June 19, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas dismissed the suit.

On July 17, 2014, a patent infringement lawsuit was filed by PLL Technologies, Inc. (PTI) against the Company and three additional named defendants in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (PLL Technologies, Inc. v. Xilinx, Inc., Case No. 1:14-CV-00945). The lawsuit pertains to one patent and PTI seeks unspecified damages, interest, costs, and fees. The Company is unable to estimate its range of possible loss, if any, in this matter at this time.

Other Matters

Except as stated above, there are no pending legal proceedings of a material nature to which the Company is a party or of which any of its property is the subject.

From time to time, the Company is involved in various disputes and litigation matters that arise in the ordinary course of its business. These include disputes and lawsuits related to intellectual property, mergers and acquisitions, licensing, contract law, tax, regulatory, distribution arrangements, employee relations and other matters. Periodically, the Company reviews the status of each matter and assesses its potential financial exposure. If the potential loss from any claim or legal proceeding is considered probable and a range of possible losses can be estimated, the Company accrues a liability for the estimated loss. Legal proceedings are subject to uncertainties, and the outcomes are difficult to predict. Because of such uncertainties, accruals are based only on the best information available at the time. As additional information becomes available, the Company continues to reassess the potential liability related to pending claims and litigation and may revise estimates.