Litigation	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation	Litigation We are subject to legal claims and litigation in the ordinary course of business, including but not limited to product liability, employment and intellectual property claims. The outcome of any such matters is currently not determinable. In addition, we were party to the litigation set forth below. 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 our 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 Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In November 2010, the judge overseeing the securities class action lawsuits gave final approval to a stipulated $10.0 million settlement agreement, which was covered by our director and officer insurance policies. The federal and state derivative lawsuits were not settled. As of January 4, 2013, all pending litigation in the federal and state derivative actions was stayed by agreement of the parties pending final Federal Court approval of a settlement between derivative plaintiffs, individual defendants and the Company. On April 8, 2013 the Federal Court preliminarily approved a Stipulation of Settlement (the "Settlement Stipulation"), which included, among other things, (a) a release of all claims relating to the derivative litigation for the Company, the individual defendants and the plaintiffs; (b) a provision that $2.5 million in cash be paid to the Company by the Company's insurance carriers; (c) payment of attorneys' fees to plaintiffs' counsel including $500,000 in cash and 250,000 warrants to purchase the Company's Common Stock, with a five-year term and strike price of the closing price of the Company's Common Stock on the date an order of the federal District Court approving the settlement becomes final; (d) the continued payment by the Company of applicable reasonable attorneys' fees for the individual defendants. On June 6, 2013, the Federal Court granted final approval of the Settlement Stipulation and on June 13, 2013 entered Judgment dismissing the federal derivative action with prejudice. On June 24, 2013, the State Court entered a dismissal with prejudice of the state derivative action. The Company was also required to undertake certain corporate governance reform actions, all of which are either in process of implementation or have been implemented. A majority of the costs related to the Company's and defendants' defense of these actions was paid by the Company's insurance carriers under its director and officer insurance policies, including the securities class action settlement. Insurance proceeds paid to the Company upon settlement of the derivative litigation were $1.0 million. However, MRV has paid and accrued $1.9 million in payment for services of defense counsel and other parties through December 31, 2013 above the insured amount. In May 2014, a former customer of Tecnonet S.p.A. filed a claim in an Italian civil court alleging that Tecnonet, and its two third-party subcontractors, breached certain supply agreements with the customer, entered into between 2009 and 2011, by failing to have performed the contracted services. The plaintiff further alleges that Tecnonet was aware, at the time of entering the supply agreements, that the customer’s managing director had a conflict of interest involving the subcontractors. The plaintiff is claiming damages and restitution from Tecnonet and the subcontractors, jointly and severally, of approximately $3.0 million in the aggregate, plus costs. While we believe that Tecnonet has valid defenses to the plaintiff's claims, we cannot provide assurance that such claims will not result in any liability to Tecnonet. 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 Alcatel-Lucent SA, Apcon, Inc., Finisar Corporation, International Business Machines, Mediacom Broadband LLC, Ortel Communications, Ltd., Nortel Networks Corporation, Rockwell Automation, Inc. and The Lemelson Foundation in the past. MRV and its subsidiaries have been named as a defendant in other lawsuits involving matters that MRV considers routine to the nature of its business. MRV 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

We are subject to legal claims and litigation in the ordinary course of business, including but not limited to product liability, employment and intellectual property claims. The outcome of any such matters is currently not determinable. In addition, we were party to the litigation set forth below.

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 our 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 Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In November 2010, the judge overseeing the securities class action lawsuits gave final approval to a stipulated $10.0 million settlement agreement, which was covered by our director and officer insurance policies. The federal and state derivative lawsuits were not settled.

As of January 4, 2013, all pending litigation in the federal and state derivative actions was stayed by agreement of the parties pending final Federal Court approval of a settlement between derivative plaintiffs, individual defendants and the Company. On April 8, 2013 the Federal Court preliminarily approved a Stipulation of Settlement (the "Settlement Stipulation"), which included, among other things, (a) a release of all claims relating to the derivative litigation for the Company, the individual defendants and the plaintiffs; (b) a provision that $2.5 million in cash be paid to the Company by the Company's insurance carriers; (c) payment of attorneys' fees to plaintiffs' counsel including $500,000 in cash and 250,000 warrants to purchase the Company's Common Stock, with a five-year term and strike price of the closing price of the Company's Common Stock on the date an order of the federal District Court approving the settlement becomes final; (d) the continued payment by the Company of applicable reasonable attorneys' fees for the individual defendants. On June 6, 2013, the Federal Court granted final approval of the Settlement Stipulation and on June 13, 2013 entered Judgment dismissing the federal derivative action with prejudice. On June 24, 2013, the State Court entered a dismissal with prejudice of the state derivative action. The Company was also required to undertake certain corporate governance reform actions, all of which are either in process of implementation or have been implemented.

A majority of the costs related to the Company's and defendants' defense of these actions was paid by the Company's insurance carriers under its director and officer insurance policies, including the securities class action settlement. Insurance proceeds paid to the Company upon settlement of the derivative litigation were $1.0 million. However, MRV has paid and accrued $1.9 million in payment for services of defense counsel and other parties through December 31, 2013 above the insured amount.

In May 2014, a former customer of Tecnonet S.p.A. filed a claim in an Italian civil court alleging that Tecnonet, and its two third-party subcontractors, breached certain supply agreements with the customer, entered into between 2009 and 2011, by failing to have performed the contracted services. The plaintiff further alleges that Tecnonet was aware, at the time of entering the supply agreements, that the customer’s managing director had a conflict of interest involving the subcontractors. The plaintiff is claiming damages and restitution from Tecnonet and the subcontractors, jointly and severally, of approximately $3.0 million in the aggregate, plus costs. While we believe that Tecnonet has valid defenses to the plaintiff's claims, we cannot provide assurance that such claims will not result in any liability to Tecnonet.

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 Alcatel-Lucent SA, Apcon, Inc., Finisar Corporation, International Business Machines, Mediacom Broadband LLC, Ortel Communications, Ltd., Nortel Networks Corporation, Rockwell Automation, Inc. and The Lemelson Foundation in the past.

MRV and its subsidiaries have been named as a defendant in other lawsuits involving matters that MRV considers routine to the nature of its business. MRV 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.