Litigation and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2013
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation and Contingencies	Note 8—Litigation and Contingencies Litigation—The Company is or was a party to the following material litigation: Former Texas Facility Environmental Cleanup We formerly leased a tract of land in Texas for our operations. Those operations involved the use of solvents and, at the end of the lease, we remediated an area where the solvents had been deposited on the ground and obtained regulatory approval for that remedial activity. In 1996, an environmental investigation of the property detected those same contaminants in groundwater in excess of then current regulatory standards. The groundwater contamination has migrated to some adjacent properties. We have entered into the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission’s Voluntary Cleanup Program (the “Voluntary Cleanup Program”) to obtain regulatory approval for closure of this site and a release from liability to the State of Texas for subsequent landowners and lenders. We have notified adjacent property owners affected by the contamination of participation in the Voluntary Cleanup Program. On May 20, 2004, we received a demand from the owner of several adjacent lots for damages in the amount of $1.3 million, as well as seeking an indemnity for the contamination and a promise to remediate the contamination. On March 14, 2006, the adjacent property owner filed suit in Probate Court No. 1, Travis County, Texas (Anna B. Miller, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Robert L. Miller, et al. vs. Austron, Inc., et al.), seeking damages. Symmetricom has not yet been served in this matter, but we intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously. We are continuing to work on the remediation of the formerly leased site as well as adjacent properties, and have also taken steps to begin work on the Miller property. As of June 30, 2013, we had accrual of $80,000 for remediation costs and other ongoing monitoring costs which has been included within “other accrued liabilities” on our consolidated balance sheet. Michael E. McNeil, et al. vs. Jason Book, et al. On or around May 25, 2010, Symmetricom was served with the first amended complaint in the case of Michael E. McNeil, et al. vs. Jason Book, et al. (Case No. CV165643) filed in Santa Cruz County Superior Court, California. The first amended complaint added Symmetricom and several other parties to the lawsuit, which had been originally filed in 2009 by plaintiffs against their former attorney for legal malpractice in connection with certain settlement agreements in 1999 between plaintiffs and Datum (a company acquired by Symmetricom) in which they assigned to Datum certain intellectual property rights. The complaint has since been amended for the second time and Symmetricom was served with the second amended complaint on or around January 7, 2011. The second amended complaint alleges several causes of action, including claims against Symmetricom for contract rescission, breach of contract, conversion and unjust enrichment, and seeks unspecified monetary damages along with equitable relief. Management believes that this lawsuit has no merit or basis and intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously and as a result, no accrual has been made in relation to this litigation. Management believes the final outcome of this matter will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations. General Under the indemnification provisions of our standard sales contracts, we agree to defend the customer against third party claims asserting infringement of certain intellectual property rights, which may include patents, copyrights, trademarks or trade secrets, and to pay any judgments entered on such claims against the reseller/customer. The exposure to us under these indemnification provisions is generally limited to the total amount paid by the customer under the agreement. However, certain agreements include indemnification provisions that could potentially expose us to losses in excess of the amount received under the agreement. To date, there have been no claims under such indemnification provisions. We believe the estimated fair value of these indemnification agreements is not material. We are also a party to certain other claims in the normal course of our operations. While the results of these claims cannot be predicted with any certainty, we believe that the final outcome of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position and results of operations.

Note 8—Litigation and Contingencies

Litigation—The Company is or was a party to the following material litigation:

Former Texas Facility Environmental Cleanup

We formerly leased a tract of land in Texas for our operations. Those operations involved the use of solvents and, at the end of the lease, we remediated an area where the solvents had been deposited on the ground and obtained regulatory approval for that remedial activity. In 1996, an environmental investigation of the property detected those same contaminants in groundwater in excess of then current regulatory standards. The groundwater contamination has migrated to some adjacent properties. We have entered into the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission’s Voluntary Cleanup Program (the “Voluntary Cleanup Program”) to obtain regulatory approval for closure of this site and a release from liability to the State of Texas for subsequent landowners and lenders. We have notified adjacent property owners affected by the contamination of participation in the Voluntary Cleanup Program. On May 20, 2004, we received a demand from the owner of several adjacent lots for damages in the amount of $1.3 million, as well as seeking an indemnity for the contamination and a promise to remediate the contamination. On March 14, 2006, the adjacent property owner filed suit in Probate Court No. 1, Travis County, Texas (Anna B. Miller, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Robert L. Miller, et al. vs. Austron, Inc., et al.), seeking damages. Symmetricom has not yet been served in this matter, but we intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously. We are continuing to work on the remediation of the formerly leased site as well as adjacent properties, and have also taken steps to begin work on the Miller property. As of June 30, 2013, we had accrual of $80,000 for remediation costs and other ongoing monitoring costs which has been included within “other accrued liabilities” on our consolidated balance sheet.

Michael E. McNeil, et al. vs. Jason Book, et al.

On or around May 25, 2010, Symmetricom was served with the first amended complaint in the case of Michael E. McNeil, et al. vs. Jason Book, et al. (Case No. CV165643) filed in Santa Cruz County Superior Court, California. The first amended complaint added Symmetricom and several other parties to the lawsuit, which had been originally filed in 2009 by plaintiffs against their former attorney for legal malpractice in connection with certain settlement agreements in 1999 between plaintiffs and Datum (a company acquired by Symmetricom) in which they assigned to Datum certain intellectual property rights. The complaint has since been amended for the second time and Symmetricom was served with the second amended complaint on or around January 7, 2011. The second amended complaint alleges several causes of action, including claims against Symmetricom for contract rescission, breach of contract, conversion and unjust enrichment, and seeks unspecified monetary damages along with equitable relief. Management believes that this lawsuit has no merit or basis and intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously and as a result, no accrual has been made in relation to this litigation. Management believes the final outcome of this matter will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations.

General

Under the indemnification provisions of our standard sales contracts, we agree to defend the customer against third party claims asserting infringement of certain intellectual property rights, which may include patents, copyrights, trademarks or trade secrets, and to pay any judgments entered on such claims against the reseller/customer. The exposure to us under these indemnification provisions is generally limited to the total amount paid by the customer under the agreement. However, certain agreements include indemnification provisions that could potentially expose us to losses in excess of the amount received under the agreement. To date, there have been no claims under such indemnification provisions. We believe the estimated fair value of these indemnification agreements is not material.

We are also a party to certain other claims in the normal course of our operations. While the results of these claims cannot be predicted with any certainty, we believe that the final outcome of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position and results of operations.