Litigation	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2011
Litigation [Abstract]
Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]	Litigation In connection with the acquisition of Fiberxon, Inc. in July 2007, MRV recorded a potential deferred consideration payable related to post-acquisition obligations of MRV pursuant to the purchase agreement. MRV filed an affirmative lawsuit in the California Superior Court in March 2009 against: a) former stockholders of Fiberxon, seeking to cancel a potential deferred consideration obligation of approximately $31.5 million; and b) certain former executives, directors and stockholders of Fiberxon alleging fraud and other claims. MRV entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release in December 2009 with Yoram Snir, personally and in his capacity as Stockholders' Agent for the former stockholders of Fiberxon. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, MRV has fully settled any obligation to pay the first $18 million of potential deferred consideration. This amount was reserved for set-off in the original merger agreement, and the former Fiberxon stockholders, pursuant to the settlement, were entitled to their pro rata portion of the $1.5 million settlement amount. Additionally, MRV agreed to pay up to $4.5 million to settle claims relating to the remaining $13.5 million of the potential deferred compensation. The second portion of the settlement was with the former stockholders directly, and stockholders holding approximately 67% of the former shares elected to participate in this portion of the settlement. The remaining deferred consideration payable as of September 30, 2011 of $4.6 million represents the remaining stockholders' pro rata share of the $13.5 million portion. MRV did not settle the California Superior Court action with four remaining defendants, and in December 2010, the court issued a default judgment against them in the amount of $57.4 million. However, the court set aside this judgment in April 2011 at the request of the defendants. In addition, in 2010, four former stockholders, who owned approximately 27% of the former Fiberxon and who did not participate in the second portion of the settlement, initiated litigation in Beijing, PRC against MRV, Source Photonics LLC and other related parties alleging a claim for approximately $3.7 million, representing these former stockholders' pro rata amount of the $13.5 million portion of the potential deferred compensation. Two of the plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew their suits without prejudice in December 2010, but they have subsequently re-filed the suits. In connection with the sale by MRV of Source Photonics in October 2010, the Company agreed to indemnify the buyer against certain litigation, including these actions. The indemnification provisions, which have an aggregate $20.0 million cap with standard exclusions, also provide indemnification to the buyer for general claims arising from actions occurring prior to the sale which are brought within 15 months from the date of sale, and prior-occurring intellectual property, employee benefit, and environmental claims which are brought within 36 months of the date of sale. In connection with the Company's past stock option grant practices, MRV and certain of its current and former directors and officers have been subjected to a number of ongoing stockholder lawsuits. In June 2008, MRV announced that the Board of Directors, based on information provided by management, and in consultation with management, concluded that the financial statements and the related reports of our independent public accountants should not be relied upon due to MRV's intention to restate its financial results from 2002 through 2008 to correct its accounting for option grants and other issues. The Board of Directors appointed a Special Committee of independent directors, along with independent legal counsel and outside accounting experts, to investigate the issues, and a restatement of the Company's financial statements was filed in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 in October 2009. From June to August 2008, five purported stockholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court in the Central District of California and one derivative lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California against the Company and certain of MRV's current and former officers and directors. The five lawsuits filed in the Central District of California were consolidated. Claims were asserted under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The allegations set forth in the complaints were based on facts disclosed in the Company's press release of June 5, 2008, which stated that MRV's financial statements could not be relied on due to its historical stock option practices and related accounting. The complaints sought to recover from the defendants unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, to require MRV to undertake reforms to corporate governance and internal control procedures, to obtain an accounting of stock option grants found to be improper, to impose a constructive trust over stock options and proceeds derived therefrom, to disgorge from any of the defendants who received allegedly improper stock options the profits obtained therefrom, to rescind improperly priced options, and to recover costs of suit, including legal and other professional fees and other equitable relief. In November 2010, the judge overseeing the securities class action lawsuits gave final approval to a stipulated $10 million settlement agreement, which was covered by the Company's director and officer insurance policies. Motions to dismiss the defendants were heard in the second half of 2010 in both the federal and California state derivative lawsuits, and certain defendants and claims were dismissed. Discovery continues in these matters. The Company and plaintiffs in the federal and state derivative lawsuits have attended mediations but have not been successful in reaching a settlement of these claims. To date, a majority of the costs related to the Company's and defendants' defense of these actions have been paid by the Company's insurance carriers under its director and officer insurance policies, including the securities class action settlement. However, if litigation continues and the insurance coverage amounts are depleted, the Company may be asked to advance funds to cover its indemnification obligations for its current and past directors and officers who are defendants in this matter, and will continue to incur its own legal expenses. Any such future obligations are not determinable at this time. As of September 30, 2011, approximately $3.5 million in coverage remains available under the Company's policies. From time to time, MRV has received notices from third parties alleging possible infringement of patents with respect to product features or manufacturing processes. Management believes such notices are common in the communications industry because of the large number of patents that have been filed on these subjects. The Company's policy is to discuss these notices with the parties in an effort to demonstrate that MRV's products and/or processes do not violate any patents. The Company has been involved in such discussions with International Business Machines, Alcatel-Lucent, Ortel Communications, Ltd., Nortel Networks Corporation, Rockwell Automation, Inc., The Lemelson Foundation, Finisar Corporation and Apcon, Inc. in the past. MRV has been named as a defendant in lawsuits involving matters that the Company considers routine to the nature of its business. Management is of the opinion that the ultimate resolution of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and financial condition.

Litigation

In connection with the acquisition of Fiberxon, Inc. in July 2007, MRV recorded a potential deferred consideration payable related to post-acquisition obligations of MRV pursuant to the purchase agreement. MRV filed an affirmative lawsuit in the California Superior Court in March 2009 against: a) former stockholders of Fiberxon, seeking to cancel a potential deferred consideration obligation of approximately $31.5 million; and b) certain former executives, directors and stockholders of Fiberxon alleging fraud and other claims. MRV entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release in December 2009 with Yoram Snir, personally and in his capacity as Stockholders' Agent for the former stockholders of Fiberxon. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, MRV has fully settled any obligation to pay the first $18 million of potential deferred consideration. This amount was reserved for set-off in the original merger agreement, and the former Fiberxon stockholders, pursuant to the settlement, were entitled to their pro rata portion of the $1.5 million settlement amount. Additionally, MRV agreed to pay up to $4.5 million to settle claims relating to the remaining $13.5 million of the potential deferred compensation. The second portion of the settlement was with the former stockholders directly, and stockholders holding approximately 67% of the former shares elected to participate in this portion of the settlement. The remaining deferred consideration payable as of September 30, 2011 of $4.6 million represents the remaining stockholders' pro rata share of the $13.5 million portion.

MRV did not settle the California Superior Court action with four remaining defendants, and in December 2010, the court issued a default judgment against them in the amount of $57.4 million. However, the court set aside this judgment in April 2011 at the request of the defendants. In addition, in 2010, four former stockholders, who owned approximately 27% of the former Fiberxon and who did not participate in the second portion of the settlement, initiated litigation in Beijing, PRC against MRV, Source Photonics LLC and other related parties alleging a claim for approximately $3.7 million, representing these former stockholders' pro rata amount of the $13.5 million portion of the potential deferred compensation. Two of the plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew their suits without prejudice in December 2010, but they have subsequently re-filed the suits. In connection with the sale by MRV of Source Photonics in October 2010, the Company agreed to indemnify the buyer against certain litigation, including these actions. The indemnification provisions, which have an aggregate $20.0 million cap with standard exclusions, also provide indemnification to the buyer for general claims arising from actions occurring prior to the sale which are brought within 15 months from the date of sale, and prior-occurring intellectual property, employee benefit, and environmental claims which are brought within 36 months of the date of sale.

In connection with the Company's past stock option grant practices, MRV and certain of its current and former directors and officers have been subjected to a number of ongoing stockholder lawsuits. In June 2008, MRV announced that the Board of Directors, based on information provided by management, and in consultation with management, concluded that the financial statements and the related reports of our independent public accountants should not be relied upon due to MRV's intention to restate its financial results from 2002 through 2008 to correct its accounting for option grants and other issues. The Board of Directors appointed a Special Committee of independent directors, along with independent legal counsel and outside accounting experts, to investigate the issues, and a restatement of the Company's financial statements was filed in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 in October 2009.

From June to August 2008, five purported stockholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court in the Central District of California and one derivative lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California against the Company and certain of MRV's current and former officers and directors. The five lawsuits filed in the Central District of California were consolidated. Claims were asserted under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The allegations set forth in the complaints were based on facts disclosed in the Company's press release of June 5, 2008, which stated that MRV's financial statements could not be relied on due to its historical stock option practices and related accounting. The complaints sought to recover from the defendants unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, to require MRV to undertake reforms to corporate governance and internal control procedures, to obtain an accounting of stock option grants found to be improper, to impose a constructive trust over stock options and proceeds derived therefrom, to disgorge from any of the defendants who received allegedly improper stock options the profits obtained therefrom, to rescind improperly priced options, and to recover costs of suit, including legal and other professional fees and other equitable relief. In November 2010, the judge overseeing the securities class action lawsuits gave final approval to a stipulated $10 million settlement agreement, which was covered by the Company's director and officer insurance policies.

Motions to dismiss the defendants were heard in the second half of 2010 in both the federal and California state derivative lawsuits, and certain defendants and claims were dismissed. Discovery continues in these matters. The Company and plaintiffs in the federal and state derivative lawsuits have attended mediations but have not been successful in reaching a settlement of these claims. To date, a majority of the costs related to the Company's and defendants' defense of these actions have been paid by the Company's insurance carriers under its director and officer insurance policies, including the securities class action settlement. However, if litigation continues and the insurance coverage amounts are depleted, the Company may be asked to advance funds to cover its indemnification obligations for its current and past directors and officers who are defendants in this matter, and will continue to incur its own legal expenses. Any such future obligations are not determinable at this time. As of September 30, 2011, approximately $3.5 million in coverage remains available under the Company's policies.

From time to time, MRV has received notices from third parties alleging possible infringement of patents with respect to product features or manufacturing processes. Management believes such notices are common in the communications industry because of the large number of patents that have been filed on these subjects. The Company's policy is to discuss these notices with the parties in an effort to demonstrate that MRV's products and/or processes do not violate any patents. The Company has been involved in such discussions with International Business Machines, Alcatel-Lucent, Ortel Communications, Ltd., Nortel Networks Corporation, Rockwell Automation, Inc., The Lemelson Foundation, Finisar Corporation and Apcon, Inc. in the past.

MRV has been named as a defendant in lawsuits involving matters that the Company considers routine to the nature of its business. Management is of the opinion that the ultimate resolution of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and financial condition.