Litigation Settlements and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Apr. 01, 2017
Loss Contingency [Abstract]
Litigation Settlements and Contingencies	Litigation Settlements and 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 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 Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Xilinx, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-00925-EDL). On June 9, 2016, the Court in the transferred Delaware Action granted the Company’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, determining that each of the asserted claims is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea and dismissing Papst’s claims for infringement. On July 8, 2016, Papst filed a notice of appeal from the judgment in favor of the Company. On April 12, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) affirmed the lower court’s dismissal. In the California Action, on July 9, 2015, the Court granted Papst's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the California Action was dismissed. The Company appealed the decision, and, on February 15, 2017 the Federal Circuit reversed the lower court decision. On April 21, 2017, Papst granted Xilinx a covenant not to sue for infringement of the patents-in-suit and Xilinx voluntarily dismissed the California Action without prejudice. On April 24, 2017, the California Action was dismissed without prejudice. 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 (PTAB) 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. On April 18, 2016, the PTAB issued a final written decision in which all of the asserted claims were found unpatentable. On June 14, 2016, PTI filed notice of appeal from the final written decision. 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 February 1, 2017, a patent infringement lawsuit was filed by Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 (IP Bridge) against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. Xilinx, Inc., Case. No. 2:17-cv-00100). The lawsuit pertains to two patents and IP Bridge seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, costs, and a permanent injunction or an on-going royalty. On the same date, the Company filed a complaint for declaratory judgment of patent non-infringement against IP Bridge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Xilinx, Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1, Case No. 5:17-cv-00509). The complaint filed by the Company pertains to twelve patents and sought judgment of non-infringement by Xilinx, as well as costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees. The Company is unable to estimate its range of possible loss, if any, in these matters at this time. On March 17, 2017, a patent infringement lawsuit was filed by Anza Technology, Inc. (Anza) against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (Anza Technology, Inc. v. Xilinx, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00687). The lawsuit pertains to three patents and Anza seeks unspecified damages, attorney fees, interest, costs, and expenses. 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 IP vigorously. Other Matters 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. On November 2, 2015, Xilinx, along with other defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On November 3, 2015, Xilinx filed a motion for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. On June 27, 2016, the Court denied both motions. The Company intends to vigorously defend the case and is unable to estimate its range of possible loss, if any, in this matter at this time. On April 4, 2017, Mountjoy Chilton Medley, LLP filed a third-party complaint against Xilinx and others in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 4:15-cv-01622-MWB). The complaint alleges that to the extent the third-party plaintiff is found liable, that the actions or inactions of Xilinx and others entitles the third-party plaintiff to apportionment of damages based on the allegations against Xilinx in the case filed by the Chapter 7 Trustee of Valley Forge Composite Technologies, Inc. Xilinx has not yet responded to the third-party complaint. The Company intends to vigorously defend the case and 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.

Litigation Settlements and 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 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 Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Xilinx, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-00925-EDL). On June 9, 2016, the Court in the transferred Delaware Action granted the Company’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, determining that each of the asserted claims is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea and dismissing Papst’s claims for infringement. On July 8, 2016, Papst filed a notice of appeal from the judgment in favor of the Company. On April 12, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) affirmed the lower court’s dismissal. In the California Action, on July 9, 2015, the Court granted Papst's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the California Action was dismissed. The Company appealed the decision, and, on February 15, 2017 the Federal Circuit reversed the lower court decision. On April 21, 2017, Papst granted Xilinx a covenant not to sue for infringement of the patents-in-suit and Xilinx voluntarily dismissed the California Action without prejudice. On April 24, 2017, the California Action was dismissed without prejudice.

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 (PTAB) 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. On April 18, 2016, the PTAB issued a final written decision in which all of the asserted claims were found unpatentable. On June 14, 2016, PTI filed notice of appeal from the final written decision. 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 February 1, 2017, a patent infringement lawsuit was filed by Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 (IP Bridge) against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. Xilinx, Inc., Case. No. 2:17-cv-00100). The lawsuit pertains to two patents and IP Bridge seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, costs, and a permanent injunction or an on-going royalty. On the same date, the Company filed a complaint for declaratory judgment of patent non-infringement against IP Bridge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Xilinx, Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1, Case No. 5:17-cv-00509). The complaint filed by the Company pertains to twelve patents and sought judgment of non-infringement by Xilinx, as well as costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees. The Company is unable to estimate its range of possible loss, if any, in these matters at this time.

On March 17, 2017, a patent infringement lawsuit was filed by Anza Technology, Inc. (Anza) against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (Anza Technology, Inc. v. Xilinx, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00687). The lawsuit pertains to three patents and Anza seeks unspecified damages, attorney fees, interest, costs, and expenses. 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 IP vigorously.

Other Matters

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. On November 2, 2015, Xilinx, along with other defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On November 3, 2015, Xilinx filed a motion for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. On June 27, 2016, the Court denied both motions. The Company intends to vigorously defend the case and is unable to estimate its range of possible loss, if any, in this matter at this time.

On April 4, 2017, Mountjoy Chilton Medley, LLP filed a third-party complaint against Xilinx and others in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 4:15-cv-01622-MWB). The complaint alleges that to the extent the third-party plaintiff is found liable, that the actions or inactions of Xilinx and others entitles the third-party plaintiff to apportionment of damages based on the allegations against Xilinx in the case filed by the Chapter 7 Trustee of Valley Forge Composite Technologies, Inc. Xilinx has not yet responded to the third-party complaint. The Company intends to vigorously defend the case and 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.