Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 28, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Indemnification and Product Warranty We indemnify certain customers, distributors, suppliers, and subcontractors for attorney's fees and damages and costs awarded against these parties in certain circumstances in which our products are alleged to infringe third party intellectual property rights, including patents, trade secrets, trademarks or copyrights. We cannot estimate the amount of potential future payments, if any, that we might be required to make as a result of these agreements. To date, we have not paid any claim or been required to defend any action related to our indemnification obligations, and, accordingly, we have not accrued any amounts for such indemnification obligations. However, we may record charges in the future as a result of these indemnification obligations. We generally warrant our devices for one year against defects in materials, workmanship and material non-conformance to our specifications. We accrue for known warranty issues if a loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated, and accrue for estimated but unidentified issues based on historical activity. If there is a material increase in customer claims compared with our historical experience or if the costs of servicing warranty claims are greater than expected, we may record a charge against cost of sales. Warranty expense was not significant for any period presented in our consolidated statements of comprehensive income. Purchase Obligations We depend entirely upon subcontractors to manufacture our silicon wafers and provide assembly and test services. Due to lengthy subcontractor lead times, we must order these materials and services from these subcontractors well in advance, and we are obligated to pay for the materials and services once they are completed. As of June 28, 2013, we had approximately $178.6 million of outstanding purchase commitments to such subcontractors. We expect to receive and pay for these materials and services over the next six months. Operating Leases We lease facilities under non-cancelable lease agreements expiring at various times through 2021. There have been no significant changes to our operating lease obligations since December 31, 2012. Legal Proceedings On December 8, 2010, Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC (“Intellectual Ventures”) filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Altera, Microsemi Corporation, and Lattice Semiconductor Corporation (“Lattice”) alleging that Altera infringes five patents. The complaint requests unspecified monetary damages including enhanced damages for willful infringement. In February 2011, Intellectual Ventures filed a First Amended Complaint adding Xilinx, Inc. as a defendant. In March 2011, Altera answered the complaint and asserted counterclaims against Intellectual Ventures for non-infringement and invalidity of the asserted patents. The defendants filed motions in the District of Delaware to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and to stay the action pending re-examination proceedings in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Intellectual Ventures opposed the motions. In January 2012, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware denied the defendants' motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California, and in February 2012, the court denied the defendants' motion to stay. Three of the four defendants, including Altera, filed a writ of mandamus in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit requesting that the case be transferred to the Northern District of California. In July 2012, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied the writ of mandamus. In January 2013, Intellectual Ventures and Microsemi announced a settlement agreement, which included a dismissal of all claims against Microsemi. In March 2013, Intellectual Ventures and Lattice announced a settlement agreement, which included a dismissal of all claims against Lattice. Because the case is at a very early stage, it is not possible for us to determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that a loss has been incurred nor can we estimate the range of potential loss. The case is currently scheduled for trial in May 2014. We file income tax returns with the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and in various U.S. states and foreign jurisdictions. In 2008, the IRS completed field examinations of our tax returns for 2002 through 2004 and proposed an additional tax liability of $34.5 million, excluding interest. We contested this proposed additional tax liability in the IRS Office of Appeals and resolved several of the issues. On December 8, 2011, the IRS issued a Statutory Notice of Deficiency, revising the assessment of additional taxes for 2002 through 2004 to $19.8 million, excluding interest. The Notice relates primarily to inter-company adjustments between related companies, computational adjustments to the research and development ("R&D") credit and reductions to the benefits of tax credit carrybacks and carryforwards to subsequent years. On March 6, 2012, we filed a petition in the U.S. Tax Court to request a redetermination of the tax deficiency regarding certain IRS adjustments for 2004. We deposited $18.0 million as a cash bond with the IRS in 2008, and converted this amount to tax payments in March 2012. On May 8, 2012, the IRS filed its petition response in the U.S. Tax Court, in which the IRS conceded the R&D credit adjustment for 2004. In June 2012, the federal statute of limitations for the 2002 and 2003 tax years expired. In addition, in 2010 the IRS completed field examinations for 2005 through 2007 and proposed an additional tax liability of $34.2 million, excluding interest. On January 23, 2012, the IRS issued a Statutory Notice of Deficiency, revising the assessment of additional taxes for 2005 through 2007 to $21.4 million, excluding interest. The Notice relates primarily to inter-company adjustments between related companies and reductions to the benefits of tax credit carrybacks and carryforwards to subsequent years. On April 20, 2012, we filed a petition in the U.S. Tax Court to request a redetermination of the tax deficiencies regarding certain IRS adjustments for 2005 through 2007. On June 21, 2012, the IRS filed its petition response in the U.S. Tax Court. On August 15, 2012, the case for the 2004 tax year was combined with that for the 2005 through 2007 tax years. A judge has been assigned to our case and a motion for continuance has been granted. We believe we have made adequate tax payments or accrued adequate amounts for our tax liabilities for 2004 through 2007 and that the outcome of the above matters will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated operating results or financial position. On January 31, 2013, the IRS conceded an adjustment for certain inter-company transactions in our litigation over the 2004 through 2007 tax years. The concession only impacted our 2007 tax year. Our other inter-company transactions continue to be subject to litigation for 2004 through 2007. As a result of this concession, we recognized a tax and interest benefit of $6.8 million during the three months ended March 29, 2013 due to the release of certain tax reserves. On May 28, 2013, both the Company and the IRS filed motions for partial summary judgment regarding the inter-company transactions that continue to be subject to litigation for the 2004 through 2007 tax years. We expect to present our legal arguments on other inter-company transactions that are subject to ligation to the U.S. Tax Court by the end of 2013. The IRS notified us that we would be audited for each of the 2010 and 2011 tax years on April 19, 2013. We believe we have made adequate tax payments or accrued adequate amounts for our tax liabilities for 2010 and 2011 and that the outcome of the audit will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated operating results or financial position.

Commitments and Contingencies

Indemnification and Product Warranty

We indemnify certain customers, distributors, suppliers, and subcontractors for attorney's fees and damages and costs awarded against these parties in certain circumstances in which our products are alleged to infringe third party intellectual property rights, including patents, trade secrets, trademarks or copyrights. We cannot estimate the amount of potential future payments, if any, that we might be required to make as a result of these agreements. To date, we have not paid any claim or been required to defend any action related to our indemnification obligations, and, accordingly, we have not accrued any amounts for such indemnification obligations. However, we may record charges in the future as a result of these indemnification obligations.

We generally warrant our devices for one year against defects in materials, workmanship and material non-conformance to our specifications. We accrue for known warranty issues if a loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated, and accrue for estimated but unidentified issues based on historical activity. If there is a material increase in customer claims compared with our historical experience or if the costs of servicing warranty claims are greater than expected, we may record a charge against cost of sales. Warranty expense was not significant for any period presented in our consolidated statements of comprehensive income.

Purchase Obligations

We depend entirely upon subcontractors to manufacture our silicon wafers and provide assembly and test services. Due to lengthy subcontractor lead times, we must order these materials and services from these subcontractors well in advance, and we are obligated to pay for the materials and services once they are completed. As of June 28, 2013, we had approximately $178.6 million of outstanding purchase commitments to such subcontractors. We expect to receive and pay for these materials and services over the next six months.

Operating Leases

We lease facilities under non-cancelable lease agreements expiring at various times through 2021. There have been no significant changes to our operating lease obligations since December 31, 2012.

Legal Proceedings

On December 8, 2010, Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC (“Intellectual Ventures”) filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Altera, Microsemi Corporation, and Lattice Semiconductor Corporation (“Lattice”) alleging that Altera infringes five patents. The complaint requests unspecified monetary damages including enhanced damages for willful infringement. In February 2011, Intellectual Ventures filed a First Amended Complaint adding Xilinx, Inc. as a defendant. In March 2011, Altera answered the complaint and asserted counterclaims against Intellectual Ventures for non-infringement and invalidity of the asserted patents. The defendants filed motions in the District of Delaware to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and to stay the action pending re-examination proceedings in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Intellectual Ventures opposed the motions. In January 2012, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware denied the defendants' motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California, and in February 2012, the court denied the defendants' motion to stay. Three of the four defendants, including Altera, filed a writ of mandamus in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit requesting that the case be transferred to the Northern District of California. In July 2012, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied the writ of mandamus. In January 2013, Intellectual Ventures and Microsemi announced a settlement agreement, which included a dismissal of all claims against Microsemi. In March 2013, Intellectual Ventures and Lattice announced a settlement agreement, which included a dismissal of all claims against Lattice. Because the case is at a very early stage, it is not possible for us to determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that a loss has been incurred nor can we estimate the range of potential loss. The case is currently scheduled for trial in May 2014.

We file income tax returns with the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and in various U.S. states and foreign jurisdictions. In 2008, the IRS completed field examinations of our tax returns for 2002 through 2004 and proposed an additional tax liability of $34.5 million, excluding interest. We contested this proposed additional tax liability in the IRS Office of Appeals and resolved several of the issues. On December 8, 2011, the IRS issued a Statutory Notice of Deficiency, revising the assessment of additional taxes for 2002 through 2004 to $19.8 million, excluding interest. The Notice relates primarily to inter-company adjustments between related companies, computational adjustments to the research and development ("R&D") credit and reductions to the benefits of tax credit carrybacks and carryforwards to subsequent years. On March 6, 2012, we filed a petition in the U.S. Tax Court to request a redetermination of the tax deficiency regarding certain IRS adjustments for 2004. We deposited $18.0 million as a cash bond with the IRS in 2008, and converted this amount to tax payments in March 2012. On May 8, 2012, the IRS filed its petition response in the U.S. Tax Court, in which the IRS conceded the R&D credit adjustment for 2004. In June 2012, the federal statute of limitations for the 2002 and 2003 tax years expired.

In addition, in 2010 the IRS completed field examinations for 2005 through 2007 and proposed an additional tax liability of $34.2 million, excluding interest. On January 23, 2012, the IRS issued a Statutory Notice of Deficiency, revising the assessment of additional taxes for 2005 through 2007 to $21.4 million, excluding interest. The Notice relates primarily to inter-company adjustments between related companies and reductions to the benefits of tax credit carrybacks and carryforwards to subsequent years. On April 20, 2012, we filed a petition in the U.S. Tax Court to request a redetermination of the tax deficiencies regarding certain IRS adjustments for 2005 through 2007. On June 21, 2012, the IRS filed its petition response in the U.S. Tax Court.

On August 15, 2012, the case for the 2004 tax year was combined with that for the 2005 through 2007 tax years. A judge has been assigned to our case and a motion for continuance has been granted. We believe we have made adequate tax payments or accrued adequate amounts for our tax liabilities for 2004 through 2007 and that the outcome of the above matters will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated operating results or financial position.

On January 31, 2013, the IRS conceded an adjustment for certain inter-company transactions in our litigation over the 2004 through 2007 tax years. The concession only impacted our 2007 tax year. Our other inter-company transactions continue to be subject to litigation for 2004 through 2007. As a result of this concession, we recognized a tax and interest benefit of $6.8 million during the three months ended March 29, 2013 due to the release of certain tax reserves.

On May 28, 2013, both the Company and the IRS filed motions for partial summary judgment regarding the inter-company transactions that continue to be subject to litigation for the 2004 through 2007 tax years. We expect to present our legal arguments on other inter-company transactions that are subject to ligation to the U.S. Tax Court by the end of 2013.

The IRS notified us that we would be audited for each of the 2010 and 2011 tax years on April 19, 2013. We believe we have made adequate tax payments or accrued adequate amounts for our tax liabilities for 2010 and 2011 and that the outcome of the audit will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated operating results or financial position.