Legal Proceedings	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2016
Loss Contingency [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	LEGAL PROCEEDINGS From time to time, the Company is involved in lawsuits as well as subject to various legal proceedings, claims, threats of litigation, and investigations in the ordinary course of business, including claims of alleged infringement of third-party patents and other intellectual property rights, commercial, employment, and other matters. The Company assesses potential liabilities in connection with each lawsuit and threatened lawsuits and accrues an estimated loss for these loss contingencies if both of the following conditions are met: information available prior to issuance of the financial statements indicates that it is probable that a liability has been incurred at the date of the financial statements and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. While certain matters to which the Company is a party specify the damages claimed, such claims may not represent reasonably probable losses. Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the ultimate outcome of these matters cannot be predicted at this time, nor can the amount of possible loss or range of loss, if any, be reasonably estimated. In October 2011, Avid Technology, Inc. (“Avid”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that Harmonic’s Media Grid product infringes two patents held by Avid. A jury trial on this complaint commenced on January 23, 2014 and, on February 4, 2014, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the Company, rejecting Avid’s infringement allegations in their entirety. On May 23, 2014, Avid filed a post-trial motion asking the court to set aside the jury’s verdict, and the judge issued an order on December 17, 2014, denying the motion. On January 5, 2015, Avid filed an appeal with respect to the jury’s verdict with the Federal Circuit, which was docketed on January 9, 2015, as Case No. 2015-1246. Avid filed its opening brief with respect to this appeal on March 24, 2015, the Company filed its response brief on May 7, 2015, and Avid filed its reply brief on June 16, 2015. Oral arguments were held on December 11, 2015. On January 29, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued an order vacating the verdict of noninfringement and remanding the case to the trial court for a new trial on infringement. On February 26, 2016, Harmonic filed a request for rehearing and rehearing en banc at the Federal Circuit. On March 31, 2016, the Federal Circuit denied the request for rehearing and rehearing en banc and a mandate issued on April 8, 2016. The court conducted a supplemental claim construction hearing on May 27, 2016 and issued a claim construction order on June 29, 2016. On June 17, 2016, Harmonic filed requests for ex parte reexaminations for the ’808 and ’309 patents with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). The USPTO ordered reexamination of both the ’309 and ’808 patents in August 2016. The USPTO issued a Non-Final Office Action on November 25, 2016 for the ’309 patent, including rejecting all challenged claims. The USPTO issued a Non-Final Office Action for the ’808 patent on December 15, 2016, rejecting all challenged claims. The Patent Owner filed its response in both reexaminations on February 15, 2017. A status conference was held with the District Court on February 23, 2017. In June 2012, Avid served a subsequent complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that the Company’s Spectrum product infringes one patent held by Avid. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and unspecified damages. In September 2013, the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) authorized an inter partes review to be instituted as to claims 1-16 of the patent asserted in this second complaint. A hearing before the PTAB was conducted on May 20, 2014. On July 10, 2014, the PTAB issued a decision finding claims 1-10 invalid and claims 11-16 not invalid. The Company filed an appeal with respect to the PTAB’s decision on claims 11-16 on September 11, 2014. The appeal was docketed with the Federal Circuit on October 22, 2014, as Case No. 2015-1072, and the Company filed its opening brief with respect to this appeal on January 29, 2015. Avid and PTAB each filed a response brief on April 27, 2015, and the Company filed a reply brief on May 28, 2015. Oral arguments were held on October 8, 2015. The Federal Circuit issued an order on March 1, 2016, affirming the PTAB’s decision and a mandate issued on April 7, 2016. On July 25, 2016, the court issued a scheduling order for the case and set the trial date for November 6, 2017. The Company is unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits and therefore is unable to estimate an amount or range of any reasonably possible losses resulting from them. An unfavorable outcome on any litigation matter could require that the Company pay substantial damages, or, in connection with any intellectual property infringement claims, could require that the Company pay ongoing royalty payments or could prevent the Company from selling certain of its products. As a result, a settlement of, or an unfavorable outcome on, any of the matters referenced above or other litigation matters could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, operating results, financial condition and cash flows.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

From time to time, the Company is involved in lawsuits as well as subject to various legal proceedings, claims, threats of litigation, and investigations in the ordinary course of business, including claims of alleged infringement of third-party patents and other intellectual property rights, commercial, employment, and other matters. The Company assesses potential liabilities in connection with each lawsuit and threatened lawsuits and accrues an estimated loss for these loss contingencies if both of the following conditions are met: information available prior to issuance of the financial statements indicates that it is probable that a liability has been incurred at the date of the financial statements and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. While certain matters to which the Company is a party specify the damages claimed, such claims may not represent reasonably probable losses. Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the ultimate outcome of these matters cannot be predicted at this time, nor can the amount of possible loss or range of loss, if any, be reasonably estimated.

In October 2011, Avid Technology, Inc. (“Avid”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that Harmonic’s Media Grid product infringes two patents held by Avid. A jury trial on this complaint commenced on January 23, 2014 and, on February 4, 2014, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the Company, rejecting Avid’s infringement allegations in their entirety. On May 23, 2014, Avid filed a post-trial motion asking the court to set aside the jury’s verdict, and the judge issued an order on December 17, 2014, denying the motion. On January 5, 2015, Avid filed an appeal with respect to the jury’s verdict with the Federal Circuit, which was docketed on January 9, 2015, as Case No. 2015-1246. Avid filed its opening brief with respect to this appeal on March 24, 2015, the Company filed its response brief on May 7, 2015, and Avid filed its reply brief on June 16, 2015. Oral arguments were held on December 11, 2015. On January 29, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued an order vacating the verdict of noninfringement and remanding the case to the trial court for a new trial on infringement. On February 26, 2016, Harmonic filed a request for rehearing and rehearing en banc at the Federal Circuit. On March 31, 2016, the Federal Circuit denied the request for rehearing and rehearing en banc and a mandate issued on April 8, 2016. The court conducted a supplemental claim construction hearing on May 27, 2016 and issued a claim construction order on June 29, 2016. On June 17, 2016, Harmonic filed requests for ex parte reexaminations for the ’808 and ’309 patents with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). The USPTO ordered reexamination of both the ’309 and ’808 patents in August 2016. The USPTO issued a Non-Final Office Action on November 25, 2016 for the ’309 patent, including rejecting all challenged claims. The USPTO issued a Non-Final Office Action for the ’808 patent on December 15, 2016, rejecting all challenged claims. The Patent Owner filed its response in both reexaminations on February 15, 2017. A status conference was held with the District Court on February 23, 2017.

In June 2012, Avid served a subsequent complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that the Company’s Spectrum product infringes one patent held by Avid. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and unspecified damages. In September 2013, the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) authorized an inter partes review to be instituted as to claims 1-16 of the patent asserted in this second complaint. A hearing before the PTAB was conducted on May 20, 2014. On July 10, 2014, the PTAB issued a decision finding claims 1-10 invalid and claims 11-16 not invalid. The Company filed an appeal with respect to the PTAB’s decision on claims 11-16 on September 11, 2014. The appeal was docketed with the Federal Circuit on October 22, 2014, as Case No. 2015-1072, and the Company filed its opening brief with respect to this appeal on January 29, 2015. Avid and PTAB each filed a response brief on April 27, 2015, and the Company filed a reply brief on May 28, 2015. Oral arguments were held on October 8, 2015. The Federal Circuit issued an order on March 1, 2016, affirming the PTAB’s decision and a mandate issued on April 7, 2016. On July 25, 2016, the court issued a scheduling order for the case and set the trial date for November 6, 2017.

The Company is unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits and therefore is unable to estimate an amount or range of any reasonably possible losses resulting from them. An unfavorable outcome on any litigation matter could require that the Company pay substantial damages, or, in connection with any intellectual property infringement claims, could require that the Company pay ongoing royalty payments or could prevent the Company from selling certain of its products. As a result, a settlement of, or an unfavorable outcome on, any of the matters referenced above or other litigation matters could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, operating results, financial condition and cash flows.