Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Patents and Licenses In the semiconductor industry, it is not unusual for companies to receive notices alleging infringement of patents or other intellectual property rights of others. The Company has been, and from time-to-time expects to be, notified of claims that it may be infringing patents, maskwork rights or copyrights owned by third parties. If it appears necessary or desirable, the Company may seek licenses under patents that it is alleged to be infringing. Although patent holders commonly offer such licenses, licenses may not be offered and the terms of any offered licenses may not be acceptable to the Company. The failure to obtain a license under a key patent or intellectual property right from a third party for technology used by the Company could cause it to incur substantial liabilities and to suspend the manufacture of the products utilizing the invention or to attempt to develop non-infringing products, any of which could materially and adversely affect the Company’s business and operating results. Furthermore, there can be no assurance that the Company will not become involved in protracted litigation regarding its alleged infringement of third party intellectual property rights or litigation to assert and protect its patents or other intellectual property rights. Any litigation relating to patent infringement or other intellectual property matters could result in substantial cost and diversion of the Company’s resources. Legal Proceedings DRAM Memory Technologies LLC v. Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc., et al. On March 11, 2011, a patent infringement suit was filed against the Company and several other semiconductor companies in the United States District Court for the Central District of California by DRAM Memory Technologies LLC, for the alleged infringement of various patents related to certain technology allegedly applicable to DRAM devices (Case No. SACV11-00332). The complaint also alleges willful infringement of the patents by the Company and seeks a permanent injunction of the alleged infringing acts by the Company, as well as up to the trebling of unspecified damages. The Company and the plaintiff entered into a settlement and license agreement on March 29, 2012 and, on April 12, 2013, the court approved a Joint Stipulation to Dismiss the litigation with prejudice. VAREP GmBH v. Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc. On August 21, 2012, a lawsuit was filed against the Company in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara by a former independent sales representative based in Germany named Varep GmbH (Varep), for the alleged underpayment of commissions (Case No. 112CV230846). The original complaint alleged 11 causes of action, including, among others, breach of contract, Labor Code violations, and violations of the Independent Wholesale Sales Representatives Contractual Relations Act. A demurrer by the Company challenging the legal sufficiency of the Complaint was sustained with leave to amend and a motion to strike portions of the initial complaint by the Company was granted in part and denied in part. On December 28, 2012, Varep filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) asserting seven causes of action, including, among others, breach of contract and Labor Code violations. On January 7, 2013, the Company filed a demurrer challenging the legal sufficiency of the FAC and a motion to strike portions of the FAC. On February 19, 2013, the demurrer was sustained without leave to amend as to the causes of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and Labor Code violations and overruled with respect to other causes of action, and the motion to strike was granted in part to strike a claim for punitive damages on the cause of action for negligent misrepresentation and denied in other part. On March 4, 2013, the Company filed an answer to the remaining allegations of the FAC. No party has yet served any discovery requests. The matter has been ordered to mediation, and the mediation is scheduled on June 7, 2013. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims alleged by Varep and intends to defend this suit vigorously. Other Legal Proceedings In the ordinary course of its business, the Company has been involved in a limited number of other legal actions, both as plaintiff and defendant, and could incur uninsured liability in any one or more of them. Although the outcome of these actions is not presently determinable, the Company believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position, cash flows or results of operations. However, no assurances can be given with respect to the extent or outcome of any such litigation in the future. Commitments to Wafer Fabrication Facilities and Contract Manufacturers The Company issues purchase orders for wafers to various wafer foundries. These purchase orders are generally considered to be cancelable. However, to the degree that the wafers have entered into work-in-process at the foundry, as a matter of practice, it becomes increasingly difficult to cancel the purchase order. As of March 31, 2013, the Company had approximately $17.0 million of purchase orders for which the related wafers had been entered into wafer work-in-process (i.e., manufacturing had begun).

Commitments and Contingencies

Patents and Licenses

In the semiconductor industry, it is not unusual for companies to receive notices alleging infringement of patents or other intellectual property rights of others. The Company has been, and from time-to-time expects to be, notified of claims that it may be infringing patents, maskwork rights or copyrights owned by third parties. If it appears necessary or desirable, the Company may seek licenses under patents that it is alleged to be infringing. Although patent holders commonly offer such licenses, licenses may not be offered and the terms of any offered licenses may not be acceptable to the Company. The failure to obtain a license under a key patent or intellectual property right from a third party for technology used by the Company could cause it to incur substantial liabilities and to suspend the manufacture of the products utilizing the invention or to attempt to develop non-infringing products, any of which could materially and adversely affect the Company’s business and operating results. Furthermore, there can be no assurance that the Company will not become involved in protracted litigation regarding its alleged infringement of third party intellectual property rights or litigation to assert and protect its patents or other intellectual property rights. Any litigation relating to patent infringement or other intellectual property matters could result in substantial cost and diversion of the Company’s resources.

Legal Proceedings

DRAM Memory Technologies LLC v. Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc., et al.

On March 11, 2011, a patent infringement suit was filed against the Company and several other semiconductor companies in the United States District Court for the Central District of California by DRAM Memory Technologies LLC, for the alleged infringement of various patents related to certain technology allegedly applicable to DRAM devices (Case No. SACV11-00332). The complaint also alleges willful infringement of the patents by the Company and seeks a permanent injunction of the alleged infringing acts by the Company, as well as up to the trebling of unspecified damages. The Company and the plaintiff entered into a settlement and license agreement on March 29, 2012 and, on April 12, 2013, the court approved a Joint Stipulation to Dismiss the litigation with prejudice.

VAREP GmBH v. Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc.

On August 21, 2012, a lawsuit was filed against the Company in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara by a former independent sales representative based in Germany named Varep GmbH (Varep), for the alleged underpayment of commissions (Case No. 112CV230846). The original complaint alleged 11 causes of action, including, among others, breach of contract, Labor Code violations, and violations of the Independent Wholesale Sales Representatives Contractual Relations Act. A demurrer by the Company challenging the legal sufficiency of the Complaint was sustained with leave to amend and a motion to strike portions of the initial complaint by the Company was granted in part and denied in part. On December 28, 2012, Varep filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) asserting seven causes of action, including, among others, breach of contract and Labor Code violations. On January 7, 2013, the Company filed a demurrer challenging the legal sufficiency of the FAC and a motion to strike portions of the FAC. On February 19, 2013, the demurrer was sustained without leave to amend as to the causes of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and Labor Code violations and overruled with respect to other causes of action, and the motion to strike was granted in part to strike a claim for punitive damages on the cause of action for negligent misrepresentation and denied in other part. On March 4, 2013, the Company filed an answer to the remaining allegations of the FAC. No party has yet served any discovery requests. The matter has been ordered to mediation, and the mediation is scheduled on June 7, 2013. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims alleged by Varep and intends to defend this suit vigorously.

Other Legal Proceedings

In the ordinary course of its business, the Company has been involved in a limited number of other legal actions, both as plaintiff and defendant, and could incur uninsured liability in any one or more of them. Although the outcome of these actions is not presently determinable, the Company believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position, cash flows or results of operations. However, no assurances can be given with respect to the extent or outcome of any such litigation in the future.

Commitments to Wafer Fabrication Facilities and Contract Manufacturers

The Company issues purchase orders for wafers to various wafer foundries. These purchase orders are generally considered to be cancelable. However, to the degree that the wafers have entered into work-in-process at the foundry, as a matter of practice, it becomes increasingly difficult to cancel the purchase order. As of March 31, 2013, the Company had approximately $17.0 million of purchase orders for which the related wafers had been entered into wafer work-in-process (i.e., manufacturing had begun).