Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Sep. 26, 2015
Loss Contingency [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies Patent Litigation On November 7, 2014, the Company filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG (Papst) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Xilinx, Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG, Case No. 3:14-CV-04963) (the California Action). On the same date, a patent infringement lawsuit was filed by Papst against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Xilinx, Inc., Case No. 1:14-CV-01376) (the Delaware Action). Both the California Action and the Delaware Action pertain to the same two patents. In the Delaware Action, Papst seeks unspecified damages, interest and costs. On July 9, 2015, the Court in the California Action granted Papst’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and the California Action was dismissed. The Company has filed notice that it intends to appeal the dismissal of the California Action to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On September 1, 2015, the Court in the Delaware Action granted the Company’s motion to transfer the Delaware Action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Papst has filed an objection to that order. The Company is unable to estimate its range of possible loss, if any, in this matter at this time. On July 17, 2014, a patent infringement lawsuit was filed by PLL Technologies, Inc. (PTI) against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (PLL Technologies, Inc. v. Xilinx, Inc., Case No. 1:14-CV-00945). On April 28, 2015, the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted Xilinx’s request for inter partes review (IPR) with respect to all claims in the litigation. On May 5, 2015, the Court ordered the litigation be stayed pending final resolution of the IPR. The lawsuit pertains to one patent and PTI seeks unspecified damages, interest and costs. The Company is unable to estimate its range of possible loss, if any, in this matter at this time. On May 22, 2015, a patent infringement lawsuit was filed by QuickCompile IP, LLC (QuickCompile) against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (QuickCompile IP, LLC v. Xilinx, Inc., Case No. 2:15-CV-00820). The lawsuit pertains to two patents and QuickCompile seeks unspecified damages, interest and costs. The Company is unable to estimate its range of possible loss, if any, in this matter at this time. The Company intends to continue to protect and defend our Intellectual Property (IP) vigorously. Other Matters On January 31, 2014, Evan Levine and Keith McClellan filed an action on behalf of the United States in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky (United States of America, ex. rel. Evan Levine and Keith McClellan v. Avnet Inc., et. al., Case No. 14-cv-00017). The matter alleges violations of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. Section 3729 et seq. and was filed under seal pursuant to 31 U.S.C. Section 3730(b)(2). The lawsuit seeks to recover, on behalf of the United States, $11 thousand for each unspecified, allegedly false and fraudulent claim, plus treble damages. The government investigated the allegations in the complaint and on September 12, 2014, filed a Notice of Election to Decline Intervention. On September 22, 2014, the District Court unsealed the complaint and ordered it to be served on the defendants. On November 21, 2014, the government moved to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. That same day, Mr. McClellan filed a notice of dismissal, leaving Mr. Levine as the only remaining relator. The Company was served with the complaint on December 11, 2014. On April 1, 2015, the District Court granted the government’s motion, dismissing the matter with prejudice. The District Court also entered judgment in favor of the defendants including the Company. On April 27, 2015, Mr. Levine, proceeding without counsel, filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit from the District Court's order and judgment. On August 7, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of prosecution. Based on currently available information, the Company does not believe the resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on its business, financial position or future results of operations. On June 11, 2015, John P. Neblett as Chapter 7 Trustee of Valley Forge Composite Technologies, Inc. filed a complaint against Xilinx and others in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (Bankruptcy No. 1:13-bk-05253-JJT). The complaint alleges causes of actions against Xilinx for negligence and civil conspiracy relating to alleged violations of U.S. export laws. It seeks at least $50.0 million in damages, together with punitive damages, from the defendants. On September 21, 2015, the action was withdrawn from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. The Company is unable to estimate its range of possible loss, if any, in this matter at this time. 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 November 7, 2014, the Company filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG (Papst) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Xilinx, Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG, Case No. 3:14-CV-04963) (the California Action). On the same date, a patent infringement lawsuit was filed by Papst against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Xilinx, Inc., Case No. 1:14-CV-01376) (the Delaware Action). Both the California Action and the Delaware Action pertain to the same two patents. In the Delaware Action, Papst seeks unspecified damages, interest and costs. On July 9, 2015, the Court in the California Action granted Papst’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and the California Action was dismissed. The Company has filed notice that it intends to appeal the dismissal of the California Action to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On September 1, 2015, the Court in the Delaware Action granted the Company’s motion to transfer the Delaware Action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Papst has filed an objection to that order. The Company is unable to estimate its range of possible loss, if any, in this matter at this time.

On July 17, 2014, a patent infringement lawsuit was filed by PLL Technologies, Inc. (PTI) against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (PLL Technologies, Inc. v. Xilinx, Inc., Case No. 1:14-CV-00945). On April 28, 2015, the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted Xilinx’s request for inter partes review (IPR) with respect to all claims in the litigation. On May 5, 2015, the Court ordered the litigation be stayed pending final resolution of the IPR. The lawsuit pertains to one patent and PTI seeks unspecified damages, interest and costs. The Company is unable to estimate its range of possible loss, if any, in this matter at this time.

On May 22, 2015, a patent infringement lawsuit was filed by QuickCompile IP, LLC (QuickCompile) against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (QuickCompile IP, LLC v. Xilinx, Inc., Case No. 2:15-CV-00820). The lawsuit pertains to two patents and QuickCompile seeks unspecified damages, interest and costs. The Company is unable to estimate its range of possible loss, if any, in this matter at this time.

The Company intends to continue to protect and defend our Intellectual Property (IP) vigorously.

Other Matters

On January 31, 2014, Evan Levine and Keith McClellan filed an action on behalf of the United States in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky (United States of America, ex. rel. Evan Levine and Keith McClellan v. Avnet Inc., et. al., Case No. 14-cv-00017). The matter alleges violations of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. Section 3729 et seq. and was filed under seal pursuant to 31 U.S.C. Section 3730(b)(2). The lawsuit seeks to recover, on behalf of the United States, $11 thousand for each unspecified, allegedly false and fraudulent claim, plus treble damages. The government investigated the allegations in the complaint and on September 12, 2014, filed a Notice of Election to Decline Intervention. On September 22, 2014, the District Court unsealed the complaint and ordered it to be served on the defendants. On November 21, 2014, the government moved to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. That same day, Mr. McClellan filed a notice of dismissal, leaving Mr. Levine as the only remaining relator. The Company was served with the complaint on December 11, 2014. On April 1, 2015, the District Court granted the government’s motion, dismissing the matter with prejudice. The District Court also entered judgment in favor of the defendants including the Company. On April 27, 2015, Mr. Levine, proceeding without counsel, filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit from the District Court's order and judgment. On August 7, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of prosecution. Based on currently available information, the Company does not believe the resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on its business, financial position or future results of operations.

On June 11, 2015, John P. Neblett as Chapter 7 Trustee of Valley Forge Composite Technologies, Inc. filed a complaint against Xilinx and others in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (Bankruptcy No. 1:13-bk-05253-JJT). The complaint alleges causes of actions against Xilinx for negligence and civil conspiracy relating to alleged violations of U.S. export laws. It seeks at least $50.0 million in damages, together with punitive damages, from the defendants. On September 21, 2015, the action was withdrawn from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. The Company is unable to estimate its range of possible loss, if any, in this matter at this time.

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.