Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Operating Lease Obligations: We lease certain facilities and equipment under non-cancelable operating leases. Operating lease amounts exclude renewal option periods, property taxes, insurance, and maintenance expenses on leased properties. Our facility leases typically provide for rental adjustments for increases in base rent (up to specific limits), property taxes, insurance, and general property maintenance that would be recorded as rent expense. Rent expense was approximately $0.3 million for the three months ended December 31, 2016 and 2015. There are no off-balance sheet arrangements other than our operating leases. Asset Retirement Obligation: We have known conditional AROs, such as certain asset decommissioning and restoration of rented facilities to be performed in the future. Our ARO includes assumptions related to renewal option periods for those facilities where we expect to extend lease terms. The Company recognizes its estimate of the fair value of its ARO in the period incurred in long-term liabilities. The fair value of the ARO is also capitalized as property, plant and equipment. In future periods, the ARO is accreted for the change in its present value and capitalized costs are depreciated over the useful life of the related assets. If the fair value of the estimated ARO changes, an adjustment will be recorded to both the ARO and the asset retirement capitalized cost. Revisions in estimated liabilities can result from revisions of estimated inflation rates, changes in estimated retirement costs, and changes in the estimated timing of settling the ARO. The fair value of our ARO was estimated by discounting projected cash flows over the estimated life of the related assets using credit adjusted risk-free rates which ranged from 1.20% to 4.20%. There was no ARO settled during the three months ended December 31, 2016. See discussion below regarding ARO settlements during the three months ended December 31, 2015. Accretion expense of $17,000 and $15,000 was recorded during the three months ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. EMCORE leases its primary facility in Alhambra, California covering six buildings where manufacturing, research and development, and general and administrative work is performed. Several leases related to these facilities expired in 2011, and were being maintained on a month-to-month basis. In November 2014, a new lease for four of the six buildings was signed, which was retroactively effective on October 1, 2014. The new lease extended the terms of the lease for three years plus a three year option to extend the lease and clarified the obligations and restoration work necessary to restore the buildings back to the requirements in the lease. The Company’s ARO consists of legal requirements to return the existing leased facilities to their original state and certain environmental work to be performed due to the presence of a manufacturing fabrication operation and significant changes to the facilities over the past thirty years. During the three months ended December 31, 2015, the Company entered into an agreement to terminate the lease and related obligations, including ARO, in Newark, California for a one-time settlement payment of $0.2 million. As a result of this agreement and payment, the Company reduced its ARO associated with the Newark facility by $0.3 million. Indemnifications: We have agreed to indemnify certain customers against claims of infringement of intellectual property rights of others in our sales contracts with these customers. Historically, we have not paid any claims under these indemnification obligations. In March 2012, we entered into a Master Purchase Agreement with SEI, pursuant to which we agreed to sell certain assets and transfer certain obligations. Under the terms of the Master Purchase Agreement, we agreed to indemnify SEI for up to $3.4 million of potential claims and expenses for the two-year period following the sale and we recorded this amount as a deferred gain on our balance sheet as a result of these contingencies. On September 23, 2014, SEI filed for arbitration against EMCORE, in accordance with the terms of the Master Purchase Agreement between the parties. SEI was seeking $47.5 million from EMCORE, relating to numerous claims. On April 12, 2016, the International Court of Arbitration tribunal rejected SEI's claims. The panel ruled that EMCORE owed SEI none of the amounts SEI sought in the arbitration and that the Company was entitled to collect the $1.9 million held in escrow, which was received in June 2016. The Company was also entitled to recover $2.6 million in fees and costs from SEI, which was received in June 2016. During the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016, we recognized a gain associated with the release of $3.4 million of previously recorded gain associated with the sale of assets and reversal of other liabilities of $0.4 million, resulting in a credit of $3.8 million to recognition of previously deferred gain on sale of assets within discontinued operations of the Digital Products Business. During the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016, we recognized the $2.6 million recovery of previously incurred litigation fees and costs incurred by EMCORE within operating income as such represented the recovery of previously incurred legal expenses. See Note 3 - Discontinued Operations. Legal Proceedings: We are subject to various legal proceedings, claims, and litigation, either asserted or unasserted, that arise in the ordinary course of business. While the outcome of these matters is currently not determinable, we do not expect the resolution of these matters to have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. However, the results of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty. Professional legal fees are expensed when incurred. We accrue for contingent losses when such losses are probable and reasonably estimable. In the event that estimates or assumptions prove to differ from actual results, adjustments are made in subsequent periods to reflect more current information. Should we fail to prevail in any legal matter or should several legal matters be resolved against the Company in the same reporting period, then the financial results of that particular reporting period could be materially affected. a) Intellectual Property Lawsuits We protect our proprietary technology by applying for patents where appropriate and, in other cases, by preserving the technology, related know-how and information as trade secrets. The success and competitive position of our product lines are impacted by our ability to obtain intellectual property protection for our research and development efforts. We have, from time to time, exchanged correspondence with third parties regarding the assertion of patent or other intellectual property rights in connection with certain of our products and processes. b) Mirasol Class Action On December 15, 2015, Plaintiff Christina Mirasol (“Mirasol”), on her own behalf and on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated individuals composed of current and former non-exempt employees of the Company working in California since December 15, 2011, filed a complaint against the Company in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County. The complaint alleged seven causes of action related to: (1) failure to pay overtime; (2) failure to provide meal periods; (3) failure to pay minimum wages; (4) failure to timely pay wages upon termination; (5) failure to provide compliant wage statements; (6) unfair competition under the California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.; and (7) penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act. The claims were premised primarily on the allegation that Mirasol and the putative class members were not provided with their legally required meal periods. Mirasol sought recovery on her own behalf and on behalf of the putative class in an unspecified amount for compensatory and liquidated damages as well as for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, statutory penalties, pre-judgment interest, costs and attorneys’ fees. In exchange for a one-time cash payment offered by the Company, certain current and former employees previously agreed to release the Company from all potential claims related to the matters alleged in the Mirasol lawsuit. The Company had recorded an accrual for these amounts at September 30, 2016 that was not material to the Company's results of operations, financial condition or cash flows, which had been recorded within Operating Expenses for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016. On January 6, 2017, the Company and Mirasol agreed to a settlement of $0.3 million with regards to all claims outstanding. During the three months ended December 31, 2016, the Company recorded an accrual of $0.2 million within Operating Expenses related to the settlement. c) Mirasol Wrongful Termination Lawsuit In August 2016, EMCORE was served with a second lawsuit by former employee Mirsaol, in the Superior Court of Los Angeles alleging that the Company violated California’s employment laws in terminating her employment in November 2015. By her unverified Complaint, Mirasol asserted five causes of action: (1) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (2) discrimination on the basis of disability and/or medical condition; (3) failure to accommodate; (4) failure to engage in the interactive process; and (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress. On September 26, 2016, Mirasol dismissed the fifth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Mirasol alleged that EMCORE wrongfully terminated her at the conclusion of a Family and Medical Act leave, without engaging in the interactive process of offering to provide her with reasonable accommodations. The plaintiff sought general, special, and punitive damages. On January 6, 2017, the Company and Mirasol agreed to a settlement of $50,000 with regards to all outstanding claims. This amount was accrued as of December 31, 2016.

Commitments and Contingencies

Operating Lease Obligations: We lease certain facilities and equipment under non-cancelable operating leases. Operating lease amounts exclude renewal option periods, property taxes, insurance, and maintenance expenses on leased properties. Our facility leases typically provide for rental adjustments for increases in base rent (up to specific limits), property taxes, insurance, and general property maintenance that would be recorded as rent expense. Rent expense was approximately $0.3 million for the three months ended December 31, 2016 and 2015. There are no off-balance sheet arrangements other than our operating leases.

Asset Retirement Obligation: We have known conditional AROs, such as certain asset decommissioning and restoration of rented facilities to be performed in the future. Our ARO includes assumptions related to renewal option periods for those facilities where we expect to extend lease terms. The Company recognizes its estimate of the fair value of its ARO in the period incurred in long-term liabilities. The fair value of the ARO is also capitalized as property, plant and equipment.

In future periods, the ARO is accreted for the change in its present value and capitalized costs are depreciated over the useful life of the related assets. If the fair value of the estimated ARO changes, an adjustment will be recorded to both the ARO and the asset retirement capitalized cost. Revisions in estimated liabilities can result from revisions of estimated inflation rates, changes in estimated retirement costs, and changes in the estimated timing of settling the ARO. The fair value of our ARO was estimated by discounting projected cash flows over the estimated life of the related assets using credit adjusted risk-free rates which ranged from 1.20% to 4.20%. There was no ARO settled during the three months ended December 31, 2016. See discussion below regarding ARO settlements during the three months ended December 31, 2015. Accretion expense of $17,000 and $15,000 was recorded during the three months ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

EMCORE leases its primary facility in Alhambra, California covering six buildings where manufacturing, research and development, and general and administrative work is performed. Several leases related to these facilities expired in 2011, and were being maintained on a month-to-month basis. In November 2014, a new lease for four of the six buildings was signed, which was retroactively effective on October 1, 2014. The new lease extended the terms of the lease for three years plus a three year option to extend the lease and clarified the obligations and restoration work necessary to restore the buildings back to the requirements in the lease.

The Company’s ARO consists of legal requirements to return the existing leased facilities to their original state and certain environmental work to be performed due to the presence of a manufacturing fabrication operation and significant changes to the facilities over the past thirty years.

During the three months ended December 31, 2015, the Company entered into an agreement to terminate the lease and related obligations, including ARO, in Newark, California for a one-time settlement payment of $0.2 million. As a result of this agreement and payment, the Company reduced its ARO associated with the Newark facility by $0.3 million.

Indemnifications: We have agreed to indemnify certain customers against claims of infringement of intellectual property rights of others in our sales contracts with these customers. Historically, we have not paid any claims under these indemnification obligations. In March 2012, we entered into a Master Purchase Agreement with SEI, pursuant to which we agreed to sell certain assets and transfer certain obligations. Under the terms of the Master Purchase Agreement, we agreed to indemnify SEI for up to $3.4 million of potential claims and expenses for the two-year period following the sale and we recorded this amount as a deferred gain on our balance sheet as a result of these contingencies.

On September 23, 2014, SEI filed for arbitration against EMCORE, in accordance with the terms of the Master Purchase Agreement between the parties. SEI was seeking $47.5 million from EMCORE, relating to numerous claims. On April 12, 2016, the International Court of Arbitration tribunal rejected SEI's claims. The panel ruled that EMCORE owed SEI none of the amounts SEI sought in the arbitration and that the Company was entitled to collect the $1.9 million held in escrow, which was received in June 2016. The Company was also entitled to recover $2.6 million in fees and costs from SEI, which was received in June 2016. During the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016, we recognized a gain associated with the release of $3.4 million of previously recorded gain associated with the sale of assets and reversal of other liabilities of $0.4 million, resulting in a credit of $3.8 million to recognition of previously deferred gain on sale of assets within discontinued operations of the Digital Products Business. During the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016, we recognized the $2.6 million recovery of previously incurred litigation fees and costs incurred by EMCORE within operating income as such represented the recovery of previously incurred legal expenses. See Note 3 - Discontinued Operations.

Legal Proceedings: We are subject to various legal proceedings, claims, and litigation, either asserted or unasserted, that arise in the ordinary course of business. While the outcome of these matters is currently not determinable, we do not expect the resolution of these matters to have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. However, the results of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty. Professional legal fees are expensed when incurred. We accrue for contingent losses when such losses are probable and reasonably estimable. In the event that estimates or assumptions prove to differ from actual results, adjustments are made in subsequent periods to reflect more current information. Should we fail to prevail in any legal matter or should several legal matters be resolved against the Company in the same reporting period, then the financial results of that particular reporting period could be materially affected.

a) Intellectual Property Lawsuits

We protect our proprietary technology by applying for patents where appropriate and, in other cases, by preserving the technology, related know-how and information as trade secrets. The success and competitive position of our product lines are impacted by our ability to obtain intellectual property protection for our research and development efforts. We have, from time to time, exchanged correspondence with third parties regarding the assertion of patent or other intellectual property rights in connection with certain of our products and processes.

b) Mirasol Class Action

On December 15, 2015, Plaintiff Christina Mirasol (“Mirasol”), on her own behalf and on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated individuals composed of current and former non-exempt employees of the Company working in California since December 15, 2011, filed a complaint against the Company in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County. The complaint alleged seven causes of action related to: (1) failure to pay overtime; (2) failure to provide meal periods; (3) failure to pay minimum wages; (4) failure to timely pay wages upon termination; (5) failure to provide compliant wage statements; (6) unfair competition under the California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.; and (7) penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act. The claims were premised primarily on the allegation that Mirasol and the putative class members were not provided with their legally required meal periods. Mirasol sought recovery on her own behalf and on behalf of the putative class in an unspecified amount for compensatory and liquidated damages as well as for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, statutory penalties, pre-judgment interest, costs and attorneys’ fees.

In exchange for a one-time cash payment offered by the Company, certain current and former employees previously agreed to release the Company from all potential claims related to the matters alleged in the Mirasol lawsuit. The Company had recorded an accrual for these amounts at September 30, 2016 that was not material to the Company's results of operations, financial condition or cash flows, which had been recorded within Operating Expenses for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016. On January 6, 2017, the Company and Mirasol agreed to a settlement of $0.3 million with regards to all claims outstanding. During the three months ended December 31, 2016, the Company recorded an accrual of $0.2 million within Operating Expenses related to the settlement.

c) Mirasol Wrongful Termination Lawsuit

In August 2016, EMCORE was served with a second lawsuit by former employee Mirsaol, in the Superior Court of Los Angeles alleging that the Company violated California’s employment laws in terminating her employment in November 2015. By her unverified Complaint, Mirasol asserted five causes of action: (1) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (2) discrimination on the basis of disability and/or medical condition; (3) failure to accommodate; (4) failure to engage in the interactive process; and (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress. On September 26, 2016, Mirasol dismissed the fifth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Mirasol alleged that EMCORE wrongfully terminated her at the conclusion of a Family and Medical Act leave, without engaging in the interactive process of offering to provide her with reasonable accommodations. The plaintiff sought general, special, and punitive damages. On January 6, 2017, the Company and Mirasol agreed to a settlement of $50,000 with regards to all outstanding claims. This amount was accrued as of December 31, 2016.