Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Jan. 03, 2014
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 8 — Commitments and Contingencies In May 2013, the Company entered into an agreement with The Boeing Company (Boeing) to purchase ViaSat-2, the Company’s second high-capacity Ka-band satellite, at a price of approximately $358.0 million, plus an additional amount for launch support services to be performed by Boeing. In February 2012, the Company filed a complaint against Space Systems/Loral, Inc. (SS/L) and its former parent company Loral Space & Communications, Inc. (Loral) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California for patent infringement and breach of contract relating to the manufacture of ViaSat-1. The Company alleges, among other things, that SS/L and Loral infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 8,107,875, 8,010,043, 8,068,827 and 7,773,942 by making, using, offering to sell and/or selling other high-capacity broadband satellites, and has requested monetary damages, injunctive relief and other remedies. On December 17, 2013, the Company voluntarily dismissed its claims against SS/L under U.S. Patent No. 7,773,942. On June 15, 2012, SS/L filed counterclaims against the Company for patent infringement and declaratory relief. Specifically, SS/L seeks a judicial declaration that SS/L did not breach the parties’ contract for the manufacture of ViaSat-1, that SS/L does not infringe the Company’s patents described above, and that those patents are invalid and/or unenforceable. SS/L also alleges that the Company infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,879,808, 6,400,696 and 7,219,132 by providing broadband internet service by means of the Anik F2 satellite using ViaSat satellite gateways and satellite user terminals and has induced others to infringe by selling certain ground equipment and user terminals. On November 13, 2013, the Court granted summary judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,879,808 in favor of ViaSat. On December 17, 2013, SS/L dismissed its claims against ViaSat under U.S. Patent No. 7,219,132. Trial on the remaining claims is set for March 25, 2014. On September 5, 2013, the Company filed a complaint against SS/L in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California for patent infringement relating to SS/L’s continued use of ViaSat’s patented technology in the manufacture of high-capacity broadband satellites. The Company alleges, among other things, that SS/L infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 8,213,929, 8,254,832 and 8,285,202 by making, using, offering to sell and/or selling other high-capacity broadband satellites. The Company has requested monetary damages, injunctive relief and other remedies. The Company is involved in a variety of claims, suits, investigations and proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business, including actions with respect to intellectual property claims, breach of contract claims, labor and employment claims, tax and other matters. Although claims, suits, investigations and proceedings are inherently uncertain and their results cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes that the resolution of its current pending matters will not have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. The Company has contracts with various U.S. government agencies. Accordingly, the Company is routinely subject to audit and review by the DCMA, the DCAA and other U.S. government agencies of its performance on government contracts, indirect rates and pricing practices, accounting and management internal control business systems, and compliance with applicable contracting and procurement laws, regulations and standards. An adverse outcome to a review or audit or other failure to comply with applicable contracting and procurement laws, regulations and standards could result in material civil and criminal penalties and administrative sanctions being imposed on the Company, which may include termination of contracts, forfeiture of profits, triggering of price reduction clauses, suspension of payments, significant customer refunds, fines and suspension, or a prohibition on doing business with U.S. government agencies. In addition, if the Company fails to obtain an “adequate” determination of its various accounting and management internal control business systems from applicable U.S. government agencies or if allegations of impropriety are made against it, the Company could suffer serious harm to its business or its reputation, including its ability to bid on new contracts or receive contract renewals and its competitive position in the bidding process. The Company’s incurred cost audits by the DCAA have not been completed for fiscal year 2004 and subsequent fiscal years. Although the Company has recorded contract revenues subsequent to fiscal year 2003 based upon an estimate of costs that the Company believes will be approved upon final audit or review, the Company does not know the outcome of any ongoing or future audits or reviews and adjustments, and if future adjustments exceed the Company’s estimates, its profitability would be adversely affected. As of January 3, 2014 and March 29, 2013, the Company had $7.3 million and $7.2 million, respectively, in contract-related reserves for its estimate of potential refunds to customers for potential cost adjustments on several multi-year U.S. government cost reimbursable contracts. This reserve is classified as either an element of accrued liabilities or as a reduction of unbilled accounts receivable based on status of the related contracts.

Note 8 — Commitments and Contingencies

In May 2013, the Company entered into an agreement with The Boeing Company (Boeing) to purchase ViaSat-2, the Company’s second high-capacity Ka-band satellite, at a price of approximately $358.0 million, plus an additional amount for launch support services to be performed by Boeing.

In February 2012, the Company filed a complaint against Space Systems/Loral, Inc. (SS/L) and its former parent company Loral Space & Communications, Inc. (Loral) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California for patent infringement and breach of contract relating to the manufacture of ViaSat-1. The Company alleges, among other things, that SS/L and Loral infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 8,107,875, 8,010,043, 8,068,827 and 7,773,942 by making, using, offering to sell and/or selling other high-capacity broadband satellites, and has requested monetary damages, injunctive relief and other remedies. On December 17, 2013, the Company voluntarily dismissed its claims against SS/L under U.S. Patent No. 7,773,942.

On June 15, 2012, SS/L filed counterclaims against the Company for patent infringement and declaratory relief. Specifically, SS/L seeks a judicial declaration that SS/L did not breach the parties’ contract for the manufacture of ViaSat-1, that SS/L does not infringe the Company’s patents described above, and that those patents are invalid and/or unenforceable. SS/L also alleges that the Company infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,879,808, 6,400,696 and 7,219,132 by providing broadband internet service by means of the Anik F2 satellite using ViaSat satellite gateways and satellite user terminals and has induced others to infringe by selling certain ground equipment and user terminals. On November 13, 2013, the Court granted summary judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,879,808 in favor of ViaSat. On December 17, 2013, SS/L dismissed its claims against ViaSat under U.S. Patent No. 7,219,132. Trial on the remaining claims is set for March 25, 2014.

On September 5, 2013, the Company filed a complaint against SS/L in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California for patent infringement relating to SS/L’s continued use of ViaSat’s patented technology in the manufacture of high-capacity broadband satellites. The Company alleges, among other things, that SS/L infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 8,213,929, 8,254,832 and 8,285,202 by making, using, offering to sell and/or selling other high-capacity broadband satellites. The Company has requested monetary damages, injunctive relief and other remedies.

The Company is involved in a variety of claims, suits, investigations and proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business, including actions with respect to intellectual property claims, breach of contract claims, labor and employment claims, tax and other matters. Although claims, suits, investigations and proceedings are inherently uncertain and their results cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes that the resolution of its current pending matters will not have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

The Company has contracts with various U.S. government agencies. Accordingly, the Company is routinely subject to audit and review by the DCMA, the DCAA and other U.S. government agencies of its performance on government contracts, indirect rates and pricing practices, accounting and management internal control business systems, and compliance with applicable contracting and procurement laws, regulations and standards. An adverse outcome to a review or audit or other failure to comply with applicable contracting and procurement laws, regulations and standards could result in material civil and criminal penalties and administrative sanctions being imposed on the Company, which may include termination of contracts, forfeiture of profits, triggering of price reduction clauses, suspension of payments, significant customer refunds, fines and suspension, or a prohibition on doing business with U.S. government agencies. In addition, if the Company fails to obtain an “adequate” determination of its various accounting and management internal control business systems from applicable U.S. government agencies or if allegations of impropriety are made against it, the Company could suffer serious harm to its business or its reputation, including its ability to bid on new contracts or receive contract renewals and its competitive position in the bidding process. The Company’s incurred cost audits by the DCAA have not been completed for fiscal year 2004 and subsequent fiscal years. Although the Company has recorded contract revenues subsequent to fiscal year 2003 based upon an estimate of costs that the Company believes will be approved upon final audit or review, the Company does not know the outcome of any ongoing or future audits or reviews and adjustments, and if future adjustments exceed the Company’s estimates, its profitability would be adversely affected. As of January 3, 2014 and March 29, 2013, the Company had $7.3 million and $7.2 million, respectively, in contract-related reserves for its estimate of potential refunds to customers for potential cost adjustments on several multi-year U.S. government cost reimbursable contracts. This reserve is classified as either an element of accrued liabilities or as a reduction of unbilled accounts receivable based on status of the related contracts.