Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2012
Contingencies [Abstract]
CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 12. CONTINGENCIES Legal Proceedings From time to time, Cadence is involved in various disputes and litigation that arise in the ordinary course of business. These include disputes and lawsuits related to intellectual property, indemnification obligations, mergers and acquisitions, licensing, contracts, distribution arrangements and employee relations matters. At least quarterly, Cadence reviews the status of each significant matter and assesses its potential financial exposure. If the potential loss from any claim or legal proceeding is considered probable and the amount or the range of loss can be estimated, Cadence 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 on Cadence’s judgments using the best information available at the time. As additional information becomes available, Cadence reassesses the potential liability related to pending claims and litigation matters and may revise estimates. During fiscal 2008, three complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, or District Court, all alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Cadence’s common stock. On March 4, 2009, the District Court entered an order consolidating these three complaints and captioning the consolidated case “In re Cadence Design Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation.” The District Court also named a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the consolidated litigation. The lead plaintiff filed its consolidated amended complaint on April 24, 2009 (subsequently amended on October 13, 2009), naming Cadence, Michael J. Fister, Kevin S. Palatnik, William Porter and Kevin Bushby as defendants, and alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Cadence’s common stock who traded Cadence’s common stock between April 23, 2008 and December 10, 2008, or the Alleged Class Period. The amended complaint alleged that Cadence and the individual defendants made statements during the Alleged Class Period regarding Cadence’s financial results that were false and misleading because Cadence had recognized revenue that should have been recognized in subsequent periods. The amended complaint requested certification of the action as a class action, unspecified damages, interest and costs, and unspecified equitable relief. On July 7, 2010, the parties agreed, and the District Court ordered, that the litigation be stayed in order to facilitate mediation. On February 11, 2011, the parties to the securities litigation agreed to settle the securities litigation for consideration of $38.0 million, of which approximately $22.2 million was to be paid by Cadence’s insurance carriers, with the balance to be paid by Cadence. Cadence agreed to this settlement without admitting any wrongdoing on the part of the company or any of its current or former directors or executive officers. On April 23, 2012, the District Court entered an order granting final approval of the securities litigation settlement, and entered its final judgment and order of dismissal with prejudice. During fiscal 2008, two derivative complaints were filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court, or Superior Court. A motion to consolidate these complaints was granted on January 20, 2009, and the cases were captioned “In re Cadence Design Systems, Inc. Derivative Litigation.” The consolidated cases were then stayed by agreement of the parties. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended derivative complaint on June 1, 2010. The consolidated amended derivative complaint named as defendants Cadence (as a nominal defendant), James S. Miller, R.L. Smith McKeithen, John B. Shoven, Lip-Bu Tan, Alberto Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, Donald L. Lucas, Sr., Roger S. Siboni, George Scalise, Michael J. Fister, John A.C. Swainson, Kevin S. Palatnik, William Porter and Kevin Bushby. The consolidated amended derivative complaint alleged purported causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment (which is asserted against certain defendants). Many of the factual allegations of the consolidated amended derivative complaint were similar to those alleged in the securities class action case described above. In addition, the claims included allegations that the director defendants made inappropriate personnel decisions with respect to the former officers and that the former officers were unjustly enriched. The consolidated derivative complaint sought unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, disgorgement of profits and compensation, and costs and attorneys’ fees. On April 28, 2010, a derivative complaint was filed in the District Court, captioned Walter Hamilton, derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant Cadence Design Systems, Inc. v. Michael J. Fister, William Porter, James S. Miller, Jr., Kevin Bushby, R.L. Smith McKeithen, Lip-Bu Tan, Alberto Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, John B. Shoven, Donald L. Lucas, George M. Scalise, Roger S. Siboni, John A.C. Swainson and KPMG LLP. The allegations underlying these claims were similar or identical to the allegations in the consolidated securities class action lawsuits and consolidated derivative complaints described above. In addition, the claims included allegations that Cadence’s independent auditors performed allegedly inadequate audits. The complaint sought unspecified monetary relief, injunctive relief relating to certain corporate governance matters, and attorneys’ costs and fees. On June 28, 2010, the plaintiff dismissed Cadence’s independent auditors from the case, without prejudice. On August 17, 2010, two complaints were filed in the District Court: one captioned George Powers, derivatively on behalf of Cadence Design Systems, Inc. v. Michael J. Fister, Kevin Bushby, R.L. Smith McKeithen, James S. Miller, Jr., William Porter, James J. Cowie, Kevin S. Palatnik, John B. Shoven, PhD, Donald L. Lucas and Roger S. Siboni; the other captioned Arash Samani, derivatively on behalf of Cadence Design Systems, Inc. v. Michael J. Fister, Kevin Bushby, R.L. Smith McKeithen, James S. Miller, Jr., William Porter, James J. Cowie, Kevin S. Palatnik, John B. Shoven, PhD, Donald L. Lucas and Roger S. Siboni. These complaints were virtually identical to one another, and purported to bring suit derivatively, on behalf of Cadence, against certain of Cadence’s current and former officers and directors for breach of fiduciary duty. Many of the allegations underlying this claim were similar or identical to the allegations in the consolidated securities class action lawsuits described above. The complaints sought unspecified monetary and equitable relief, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. These cases were stayed while the parties participated in the mediation process. On February 8, 2011, the parties to these derivative cases agreed to settle all of them in exchange for certain corporate governance changes that Cadence agreed to put in place, along with an agreement that an application by plaintiffs’ counsel to the Court for an attorneys’ fee of approximately $1.8 million is appropriate. The fee was paid by Cadence’s insurance carriers during the three months ended June 30, 2012. Cadence agreed to this settlement without admitting any wrongdoing on the part of the company or any of its current or former directors or executive officers. On April 23, 2012, the District Court entered an order granting final approval of the derivative settlement, and entered its final judgment and order of dismissal with prejudice. Other Contingencies Cadence provides its customers with a warranty on sales of hardware products, generally for a 90-day period. Cadence did not incur any significant costs related to warranty obligations during the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 or July 2, 2011. Cadence’s product license and services agreements typically include a limited indemnification provision for claims from third parties relating to Cadence’s intellectual property. If the potential loss from any indemnification claim is considered probable and the amount or the range of loss can be estimated, Cadence accrues a liability for the estimated loss. The indemnification is generally limited to the amount paid by the customer. Cadence did not incur any significant losses from indemnification claims during the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 or July 2, 2011.

Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2012

NOTE 12. CONTINGENCIES

Legal Proceedings

From time to time, Cadence is involved in various disputes and litigation that arise in the ordinary course of business. These include disputes and lawsuits related to intellectual property, indemnification obligations, mergers and acquisitions, licensing, contracts, distribution arrangements and employee relations matters. At least quarterly, Cadence reviews the status of each significant matter and assesses its potential financial exposure. If the potential loss from any claim or legal proceeding is considered probable and the amount or the range of loss can be estimated, Cadence 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 on Cadence’s judgments using the best information available at the time. As additional information becomes available, Cadence reassesses the potential liability related to pending claims and litigation matters and may revise estimates.

During fiscal 2008, three complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, or District Court, all alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Cadence’s common stock. On March 4, 2009, the District Court entered an order consolidating these three complaints and captioning the consolidated case “In re Cadence Design Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation.” The District Court also named a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the consolidated litigation. The lead plaintiff filed its consolidated amended complaint on April 24, 2009 (subsequently amended on October 13, 2009), naming Cadence, Michael J. Fister, Kevin S. Palatnik, William Porter and Kevin Bushby as defendants, and alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Cadence’s common stock who traded Cadence’s common stock between April 23, 2008 and December 10, 2008, or the Alleged Class Period. The amended complaint alleged that Cadence and the individual defendants made statements during the Alleged Class Period regarding Cadence’s financial results that were false and misleading because Cadence had recognized revenue that should have been recognized in subsequent periods. The amended complaint requested certification of the action as a class action, unspecified damages, interest and costs, and unspecified equitable relief. On July 7, 2010, the parties agreed, and the District Court ordered, that the litigation be stayed in order to facilitate mediation.

On February 11, 2011, the parties to the securities litigation agreed to settle the securities litigation for consideration of $38.0 million, of which approximately $22.2 million was to be paid by Cadence’s insurance carriers, with the balance to be paid by Cadence. Cadence agreed to this settlement without admitting any wrongdoing on the part of the company or any of its current or former directors or executive officers. On April 23, 2012, the District Court entered an order granting final approval of the securities litigation settlement, and entered its final judgment and order of dismissal with prejudice.

During fiscal 2008, two derivative complaints were filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court, or Superior Court. A motion to consolidate these complaints was granted on January 20, 2009, and the cases were captioned “In re Cadence Design Systems, Inc. Derivative Litigation.” The consolidated cases were then stayed by agreement of the parties. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended derivative complaint on June 1, 2010. The consolidated amended derivative complaint named as defendants Cadence (as a nominal defendant), James S. Miller, R.L. Smith McKeithen, John B. Shoven, Lip-Bu Tan, Alberto Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, Donald L. Lucas, Sr., Roger S. Siboni, George Scalise, Michael J. Fister, John A.C. Swainson, Kevin S. Palatnik, William Porter and Kevin Bushby. The consolidated amended derivative complaint alleged purported causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment (which is asserted against certain defendants). Many of the factual allegations of the consolidated amended derivative complaint were similar to those alleged in the securities class action case described above. In addition, the claims included allegations that the director defendants made inappropriate personnel decisions with respect to the former officers and that the former officers were unjustly enriched. The consolidated derivative complaint sought unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, disgorgement of profits and compensation, and costs and attorneys’ fees.

On April 28, 2010, a derivative complaint was filed in the District Court, captioned Walter Hamilton, derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant Cadence Design Systems, Inc. v. Michael J. Fister, William Porter, James S. Miller, Jr., Kevin Bushby, R.L. Smith McKeithen, Lip-Bu Tan, Alberto Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, John B. Shoven, Donald L. Lucas, George M. Scalise, Roger S. Siboni, John A.C. Swainson and KPMG LLP. The allegations underlying these claims were similar or identical to the allegations in the consolidated securities class action lawsuits and consolidated derivative complaints described above. In addition, the claims included allegations that Cadence’s independent auditors performed allegedly inadequate audits. The complaint sought unspecified monetary relief, injunctive relief relating to certain corporate governance matters, and attorneys’ costs and fees. On June 28, 2010, the plaintiff dismissed Cadence’s independent auditors from the case, without prejudice.

On August 17, 2010, two complaints were filed in the District Court: one captioned George Powers, derivatively on behalf of Cadence Design Systems, Inc. v. Michael J. Fister, Kevin Bushby, R.L. Smith McKeithen, James S. Miller, Jr., William Porter, James J. Cowie, Kevin S. Palatnik, John B. Shoven, PhD, Donald L. Lucas and Roger S. Siboni; the other captioned Arash Samani, derivatively on behalf of Cadence Design Systems, Inc. v. Michael J. Fister, Kevin Bushby, R.L. Smith McKeithen, James S. Miller, Jr., William Porter, James J. Cowie, Kevin S. Palatnik, John B. Shoven, PhD, Donald L. Lucas and Roger S. Siboni. These complaints were virtually identical to one another, and purported to bring suit derivatively, on behalf of Cadence, against certain of Cadence’s current and former officers and directors for breach of fiduciary duty. Many of the allegations underlying this claim were similar or identical to the allegations in the consolidated securities class action lawsuits described above. The complaints sought unspecified monetary and equitable relief, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs.

These cases were stayed while the parties participated in the mediation process. On February 8, 2011, the parties to these derivative cases agreed to settle all of them in exchange for certain corporate governance changes that Cadence agreed to put in place, along with an agreement that an application by plaintiffs’ counsel to the Court for an attorneys’ fee of approximately $1.8 million is appropriate. The fee was paid by Cadence’s insurance carriers during the three months ended June 30, 2012. Cadence agreed to this settlement without admitting any wrongdoing on the part of the company or any of its current or former directors or executive officers. On April 23, 2012, the District Court entered an order granting final approval of the derivative settlement, and entered its final judgment and order of dismissal with prejudice.

Other Contingencies

Cadence provides its customers with a warranty on sales of hardware products, generally for a 90-day period. Cadence did not incur any significant costs related to warranty obligations during the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 or July 2, 2011.

Cadence’s product license and services agreements typically include a limited indemnification provision for claims from third parties relating to Cadence’s intellectual property. If the potential loss from any indemnification claim is considered probable and the amount or the range of loss can be estimated, Cadence accrues a liability for the estimated loss. The indemnification is generally limited to the amount paid by the customer. Cadence did not incur any significant losses from indemnification claims during the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 or July 2, 2011.

- Definition

The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.

+ References

Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 460

-SubTopic 10

-Section 50

-Paragraph 8

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249

Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 450

-SubTopic 20

-Section 50

-Paragraph 4

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6952336&loc=d3e14435-108349

Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name FASB Interpretation (FIN)

-Number 14

-Paragraph 3

-LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy.

Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 440

-SubTopic 10

-Section 50

-Paragraph 2

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308

Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 210

-SubTopic 10

-Section S99

-Paragraph 1

-Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25)

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682

Reference 6: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 825

-SubTopic 20

-Section 50

-Paragraph 1

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621

Reference 7: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS)

-Number 5

-Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12

-LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy.

+ Details