Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Dec. 30, 2017
Loss Contingency [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies Patent Litigation 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 U.S. 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. On June 13, 2017, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s findings of invalidity. On July 19, 2017, the U.S. District Court case was dismissed with prejudice. 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 September 14, 2017, the court granted the Company’s motion to transfer venue and the matter is now pending before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On February 1, 2017, 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 pertained to twelve other patents and sought judgment of non-infringement by Xilinx, as well as costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees. On June 15, 2017, IP Bridge granted Xilinx a royalty-free covenant not to sue for infringement of those twelve patents, and on June 16, 2017, the parties filed a stipulated dismissal without prejudice of the declaratory judgment action in California. The Company is unable to estimate its range of possible loss, if any, in the remaining action 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. On October 27, 2017, the court granted the Company’s motion to transfer venue and the matter is now pending before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Company is unable to estimate its range of possible loss, if any, in this matter at this time. On December 11, 2017, a patent infringement lawsuit was filed by Lucio Development LLC (Lucio) against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Lucio Development LLC v. Xilinx, Inc., Case No. 6:17-cv-00688). The lawsuit pertains to a single patent and Lucio seeks injunctive relief, 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 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. On September 11, 2017, Xilinx, along with other defendants, filed motions for summary judgment seeking to dispose of the action in its entirety. The Court has not yet ruled on the motions for summary judgment. 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 U.S. 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. On August 28, 2017, Xilinx, along with other third party defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On October 10, 2017, the Court granted the motion to dismiss. 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 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 U.S. 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. On June 13, 2017, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s findings of invalidity. On July 19, 2017, the U.S. District Court case was dismissed with prejudice.

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 September 14, 2017, the court granted the Company’s motion to transfer venue and the matter is now pending before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On February 1, 2017, 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 pertained to twelve other patents and sought judgment of non-infringement by Xilinx, as well as costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees. On June 15, 2017, IP Bridge granted Xilinx a royalty-free covenant not to sue for infringement of those twelve patents, and on June 16, 2017, the parties filed a stipulated dismissal without prejudice of the declaratory judgment action in California. The Company is unable to estimate its range of possible loss, if any, in the remaining action 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. On October 27, 2017, the court granted the Company’s motion to transfer venue and the matter is now pending before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Company is unable to estimate its range of possible loss, if any, in this matter at this time.

On December 11, 2017, a patent infringement lawsuit was filed by Lucio Development LLC (Lucio) against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Lucio Development LLC v. Xilinx, Inc., Case No. 6:17-cv-00688). The lawsuit pertains to a single patent and Lucio seeks injunctive relief, 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 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. On September 11, 2017, Xilinx, along with other defendants, filed motions for summary judgment seeking to dispose of the action in its entirety. The Court has not yet ruled on the motions for summary judgment. 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 U.S. 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. On August 28, 2017, Xilinx, along with other third party defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On October 10, 2017, the Court granted the motion to dismiss.

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.