Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Jan. 02, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies Patent Litigation On October 18, 2019, a patent infringement lawsuit was filed by Arbor Global Strategies LLC (Arbor) against the Company in the U.S. District Court in Delaware (Arbor Global Strategies LLC, v. Xilinx, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-01986). The lawsuit pertains to four patents and Arbor seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the case on December 19, 2019 that was denied on August 12, 2020. Discovery in the case is now open, and Arbor served its infringement contentions on December 9, 2020. A trial has been set to begin on May 23, 2022. On September 4, 2020, the Company filed four inter partes review (IPR) petitions directed at each of the four Arbor patents. The Company is unable to estimate its range of possible loss, if any, in this matter at this time. On December 5, 2019, Analog Devices, Inc. (ADI) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Analog Devices, Inc. v. Xilinx, Inc., Case No. 1-19-cv-02225). The lawsuit pertains to eight patents and ADI seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, costs, and a permanent injunction. The Company filed its answer and counterclaims alleging infringement by ADI of eight patents on January 21, 2020. The Company filed amended counterclaims on April 3, 2020. The Company filed a motion to strike ADI's affirmative defense of inequitable conduct on May 8, 2020. This motion is still pending. The parties exchanged infringement contentions on August 17, 2020, and invalidity contentions on September 15, 2020. Between July 17 and December 4, 2020, the Company filed nine IPR petitions challenging the patentability of seven ADI asserted patents. Between August 31 and September 15, 2020, ADI filed eight IPR petitions challenging eight Xilinx asserted patents. The parties’ claims are set for back-to-back trials beginning March 14, 2022 for ADI’s claims and March 28, 2022 for the Company’s claims. The Company is unable to estimate its range of possible loss, if any, in this matter at this time. On April 30, 2020, a patent infringement lawsuit was filed by FG SRC LLC (SRC) against the Company in the U.S. District Court in Delaware (FG SRC LLC v. Xilinx, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-00601). The lawsuit pertains to two patents and SRC seeks unspecified damages, interest, and an on-going royalty. The Company filed its answer to the complaint on June 29, 2020. On July 20, 2020, SRC filed an amended complaint. On August 3, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On August 6, 2020 the Company filed a motion to stay this case in Delaware bankruptcy court in view of the pending bankruptcy of the prior owner of the patents. This motion to stay was denied on September 23, 2020. No schedule has been set in the case. The Company is unable to estimate its range of possible loss, if any, in this matter at this time. On September 16, 2020, five patent infringement lawsuits (Case Nos. 1:20-cv-01228, 1:20-cv-01229, 1:20-cv-01231, 1:20-cv-01232 1:20-cv-01233) were filed by WSOU Investments, LLC, d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development (WSOU Investments) in the U.S. District Court in Delaware. Each lawsuit pertains to a single patent and WSOU Investments seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs. No schedule has been set in any of the cases. On November 9, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss WSOU Investments’ indirect infringement claims in each of the cases. In response, WSOU Investments filed amended complaints, limiting its request for pre-suite damages to the direct infringement claims. The Company filed motions to dismiss the indirect infringement claims in the amended complaints on December 7, 2020. These motions remain pending. 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 its IP vigorously. Shareholder Litigation On December 7, 2020, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and the members of its board of directors (Stein v. Xilinx, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-08637). The complaint alleges that the registration statement issued in connection with the Merger omitted material information in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 14a-9 thereunder and SEC Regulation G, rendering the registration statement false and misleading. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the registration statement failed to disclose material information regarding AMD's and the Company’s financial projections and Credit Suisse's discounted cash flow analyses of the Company and AMD. The complaint seeks an order: enjoining the Merger unless and until additional disclosures are issued; rescinding the Merger, to the extent it closes; awarding damages; awarding costs, including attorneys’ fees, expert fees and expenses; and awarding such other relief as the court deems proper. On December 11, 2020, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class-action complaint in the New York Supreme Court against the Company, the members of its board of directors, AMD and Merger Sub (Nunez v. Xilinx, Inc., et al., Case No. 656971/2020). The complaint alleges that the Company's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the Merger, agreeing to purportedly preclusive deal protection terms and engaging in an allegedly flawed process that did not involve an adequate market check or approval by a committee of disinterested and independent directors. The complaint also alleges that the Company's board of directors "caused to be filed" the registration statement issued in connection with the Merger that purportedly omitted material information with respect to the Merger. The registration statement allegedly omits information regarding the sale process, AMD's and the Company's financial projections, certain details regarding the financial analyses performed by each of Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Credit Suisse and DBO and certain details regarding compensation for Morgan Stanley. Finally, the complaint alleges that the Company and AMD aided and abetted the Company's board of directors in their breach of fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks certification of a class action, injunctive relief enjoining the Merger, damages and costs, among other remedies. On December 11, 2020, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against the Company and the members of its board of directors (Hale v. Xilinx, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03629). The complaint raises federal securities disclosure claims and alleges, among other things, that the registration statement issued in connection with the Merger omitted material information with respect to the Merger, including information regarding AMD's and the Company's financial projections, certain details regarding the financial analyses performed by Morgan Stanley and Bank of America, and certain details regarding compensation for Morgan Stanley. The complaint seeks injunctive relief enjoining the Merger, damages and costs, among other remedies. On December 15, 2020, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, the members of its board of directors, AMD and Merger Sub (Shumacher v. Xilinx, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-10595). The complaint raises federal securities disclosure claims and alleges, among other things, that the registration statement issued in connection with the Merger omitted material information with respect to the Merger, including information regarding AMD's and the Company's financial projections, certain details regarding the financial analyses performed by Morgan Stanley and Bank of America, and certain details regarding compensation for Morgan Stanley. The complaint seeks injunctive relief enjoining the merger, damages and costs, among other remedies. On December 18, 2020, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and the members of its board of directors (Achterberg v. Xilinx, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-10715). The complaint raises federal securities disclosure claims and alleges, among other things, that the registration statement issued in connection with the Merger omitted material information with respect to the Merger, including information regarding AMD's and the Company's financial projections and certain details regarding the financial analyses performed by Morgan Stanley and Bank of America. The complaint seeks injunctive relief enjoining the Merger, an amended registration statement, damages and costs, among other remedies. On December 30, 2020, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Xilinx and the members of its board of directors (Sandhu v. Xilinx, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-09440). The complaint raises federal securities disclosure claims and alleges, among other things, that the registration statement issued in connection with the Merger omitted material information with respect to the Merger, including information regarding AMD's and the Company's financial projections, certain details regarding the financial analyses performed by Morgan Stanley and Bank of America, and certain details regarding compensation for Morgan Stanley. The complaint seeks injunctive relief enjoining the Merger, damages and costs, among other remedies. The Company believes that the allegations in the shareholder litigation matters are without merit. 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 all claims against them. On July 3, 2018, the Court granted both of Xilinx’s motions for summary judgment, disposing of all claims asserted against Xilinx. On August 1, 2018, the Trustee filed a notice of appeal. On August 9, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued an order to show cause requesting that the appellant address a possible jurisdictional defect. On August 29, 2018, the appellant responded to the order to show cause. On September 10, 2018, appellees, including Xilinx, filed a joint reply. On January 7, 2019, the Court of Appeals issued an order dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. On February 19, 2019, the District Court issued an order permitting any party seeking to certify the case for appeal to file a motion. On March 11, 2019, defendant Avnet filed a motion to certify the case for appeal. On May 14, 2019 the Court denied Avnet’s motion. On June 4, 2019, Avnet and the counterclaim and crossclaim defendants stipulated to dismissal of Avnet’s remaining counterclaims and crossclaims. The Court entered final judgment on June 25, 2019. On July 22, 2019, the Trustee filed his notice of appeal and filed his opening appellate brief on September 17, 2019. On October 30, 2019, Xilinx filed its appellee brief. On November 20, 2019, the Trustee filed his reply brief. On April 7, 2020, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment which granted both of Xilinx’s motions for summary judgment, disposing of all claims asserted against Xilinx. On April 14, 2020, the Trustee filed a motion to extend the time for filing a petition for rehearing, and the Sixth Circuit granted the motion extending the due date until May 14, 2020. On May 14, 2020, the Trustee filed a petition for a rehearing. On August 11, 2020, the petition for a rehearing was denied. 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.

On October 18, 2019, a patent infringement lawsuit was filed by Arbor Global Strategies LLC (Arbor) against the Company in the U.S. District Court in Delaware (Arbor Global Strategies LLC, v. Xilinx, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-01986). The lawsuit pertains to four patents and Arbor seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the case on December 19, 2019 that was denied on August 12, 2020. Discovery in the case is now open, and Arbor served its infringement contentions on December 9, 2020. A trial has been set to begin on May 23, 2022. On September 4, 2020, the Company filed four inter partes review (IPR) petitions directed at each of the four Arbor patents. The Company is unable to estimate its range of possible loss, if any, in this matter at this time.

On December 5, 2019, Analog Devices, Inc. (ADI) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Analog Devices, Inc. v. Xilinx, Inc., Case No. 1-19-cv-02225). The lawsuit pertains to eight patents and ADI seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, costs, and a permanent injunction. The Company filed its answer and counterclaims alleging infringement by ADI of eight patents on January 21, 2020. The Company filed amended counterclaims on April 3, 2020. The Company filed a motion to strike ADI's affirmative defense of inequitable conduct on May 8, 2020. This motion is still pending. The parties exchanged infringement contentions on August 17, 2020, and invalidity contentions on September 15, 2020. Between July 17 and December 4, 2020, the Company filed nine IPR petitions challenging the patentability of seven ADI asserted patents. Between August 31 and September 15, 2020, ADI filed eight IPR petitions challenging eight Xilinx asserted patents. The parties’ claims are set for back-to-back trials beginning March 14, 2022 for ADI’s claims and March 28, 2022 for the Company’s claims. The Company is unable to estimate its range of possible loss, if any, in this matter at this time.

On April 30, 2020, a patent infringement lawsuit was filed by FG SRC LLC (SRC) against the Company in the U.S. District Court in Delaware (FG SRC LLC v. Xilinx, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-00601). The lawsuit pertains to two patents and SRC seeks unspecified damages, interest, and an on-going royalty. The Company filed its answer to the complaint on June 29, 2020. On July 20, 2020, SRC filed an amended complaint. On August 3, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On August 6, 2020 the Company filed a motion to stay this case in Delaware bankruptcy court in view of the pending bankruptcy of the prior owner of the patents. This motion to stay was denied on September 23, 2020. No schedule has been set in the case. The Company is unable to estimate its range of possible loss, if any, in this matter at this time.

On September 16, 2020, five patent infringement lawsuits (Case Nos. 1:20-cv-01228, 1:20-cv-01229, 1:20-cv-01231, 1:20-cv-01232 1:20-cv-01233) were filed by WSOU Investments, LLC, d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development (WSOU Investments) in the U.S. District Court in Delaware. Each lawsuit pertains to a single patent and WSOU Investments seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs. No schedule has been set in any of the cases. On November 9, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss WSOU Investments’ indirect infringement claims in each of the cases. In response, WSOU Investments filed amended complaints, limiting its request for pre-suite damages to the direct infringement claims. The Company filed motions to dismiss the indirect infringement claims in the amended complaints on December 7, 2020. These motions remain pending. The Company is unable to estimate its range of possible loss, if any, in this matter at this time.

On December 7, 2020, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and the members of its board of directors (Stein v. Xilinx, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-08637). The complaint alleges that the registration statement issued in connection with the Merger omitted material information in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 14a-9 thereunder and SEC Regulation G, rendering the registration statement false and misleading.

The complaint seeks an order: enjoining the Merger unless and until additional disclosures are issued; rescinding the Merger, to the extent it closes; awarding damages; awarding costs, including attorneys’ fees, expert fees and expenses; and awarding such other relief as the court deems proper.

On December 11, 2020, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class-action complaint in the New York Supreme Court against the Company, the members of its board of directors, AMD and Merger Sub (Nunez v. Xilinx, Inc., et al., Case No. 656971/2020). The complaint alleges that the Company's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the Merger, agreeing to purportedly preclusive deal protection terms and engaging in an allegedly flawed process that did not involve an adequate market check or approval by a committee of disinterested and independent directors. The complaint also alleges that the Company's board of directors "caused to be filed" the registration statement issued in connection with the Merger that purportedly omitted material information with respect to the Merger. The registration statement allegedly omits information regarding the sale process, AMD's and the Company's financial projections, certain details regarding the financial analyses performed by each of Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Credit Suisse and DBO and certain details regarding compensation for Morgan Stanley. Finally, the complaint alleges that the Company and AMD aided and abetted the Company's board of directors in their breach of fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks certification of a class action, injunctive relief enjoining the Merger, damages and costs, among other remedies.

On December 11, 2020, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against the Company and the members of its board of directors (Hale v. Xilinx, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03629). The complaint raises federal securities disclosure claims and alleges, among other things, that the registration statement issued in connection with the Merger omitted material information with respect to the Merger, including information regarding AMD's and the Company's financial projections, certain details regarding the financial analyses performed by Morgan Stanley and Bank of America, and certain details regarding compensation for Morgan Stanley. The complaint seeks injunctive relief enjoining the Merger, damages and costs, among other remedies.

On December 15, 2020, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, the members of its board of directors, AMD and Merger Sub (Shumacher v. Xilinx, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-10595). The complaint raises federal securities disclosure claims and alleges, among other things, that the registration statement issued in connection with the Merger omitted material information with respect to the Merger, including information regarding AMD's and the Company's financial projections, certain details regarding the financial analyses performed by Morgan Stanley and Bank of America, and certain details regarding compensation for Morgan Stanley. The complaint seeks injunctive relief enjoining the merger, damages and costs, among other remedies.

On December 18, 2020, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and the members of its board of directors (Achterberg v. Xilinx, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-10715). The complaint raises federal securities disclosure claims and alleges, among other things, that the registration statement issued in connection with the Merger omitted material information with respect to the Merger, including information regarding AMD's and the Company's financial projections and certain details regarding the financial analyses performed by Morgan Stanley and Bank of America. The complaint seeks injunctive relief enjoining the Merger, an amended registration statement, damages and costs, among other remedies.

On December 30, 2020, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Xilinx and the members of its board of directors (Sandhu v. Xilinx, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-09440). The complaint raises federal securities disclosure claims and alleges, among other things, that the registration statement issued in connection with the Merger omitted material information with respect to the Merger, including information regarding AMD's and the Company's financial projections, certain details regarding the financial analyses performed by Morgan Stanley and Bank of America, and certain details regarding compensation for Morgan Stanley. The complaint seeks injunctive relief enjoining the Merger, damages and costs, among other remedies.

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 all claims against them. On July 3, 2018, the Court granted both of Xilinx’s motions for summary judgment, disposing of all claims asserted against Xilinx. On August 1, 2018, the Trustee filed a notice of appeal. On August 9, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued an order to show cause requesting that the appellant address a possible jurisdictional defect. On August 29, 2018, the appellant responded

to the order to show cause. On September 10, 2018, appellees, including Xilinx, filed a joint reply. On January 7, 2019, the Court of Appeals issued an order dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. On February 19, 2019, the District Court issued an order permitting any party seeking to certify the case for appeal to file a motion. On March 11, 2019, defendant Avnet filed a motion to certify the case for appeal. On May 14, 2019 the Court denied Avnet’s motion. On June 4, 2019, Avnet and the counterclaim and crossclaim defendants stipulated to dismissal of Avnet’s remaining counterclaims and crossclaims. The Court entered final judgment on June 25, 2019. On July 22, 2019, the Trustee filed his notice of appeal and filed his opening appellate brief on September 17, 2019. On October 30, 2019, Xilinx filed its appellee brief. On November 20, 2019, the Trustee filed his reply brief. On April 7, 2020, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment which granted both of Xilinx’s motions for summary judgment, disposing of all claims asserted against Xilinx. On April 14, 2020, the Trustee filed a motion to extend the time for filing a petition for rehearing, and the Sixth Circuit granted the motion extending the due date until May 14, 2020. On May 14, 2020, the Trustee filed a petition for a rehearing. On August 11, 2020, the petition for a rehearing was denied.

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.