Litigation	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2015
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. 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 have been implemented. In May 2014, a former customer of Tecnonet S.p.A.(Tecnonet), the Company's Italian subsidiary, filed a claim in an Italian civil court alleging that Tecnonet, and two of its 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 into 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. Management believes it has accrued adequate reserves for this matter and does not expect the matter to have a material adverse effect on its business or financial condition. However, depending on the actual outcome of this case, provisions could be recorded in the future which may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s operating results. Nhan T. Vo, individually and on behalf of other aggrieved employees vs. the Company, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. On June 27, 2013, the plaintiff in this matter filed a lawsuit against the Company alleging claims for failure to properly pay overtime or provide meal and rest breaks to its non-exempt employees in California, among other things. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages and penalties under provisions of the Labor Code, including the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act. The Company has filed an answer denying all allegations regarding the plaintiff’s claims and asserting various defenses. The Company is currently in the discovery phase of this case. Management believes it has accrued adequate reserves for this matter and does not expect the matter to have a material adverse effect on its business or financial condition. However, depending on the actual outcome of this case, provisions could be recorded in the future which may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s operating results. 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. MRV and its subsidiaries have been named as a defendant in other lawsuits involving matters that management 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

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.

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 have been implemented.

In May 2014, a former customer of Tecnonet S.p.A.(Tecnonet), the Company's Italian subsidiary, filed a claim in an Italian civil court alleging that Tecnonet, and two of its 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 into 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. Management believes it has accrued adequate reserves for this matter and does not expect the matter to have a material adverse effect on its business or financial condition. However, depending on the actual outcome of this case, provisions could be recorded in the future which may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s operating results.

Nhan T. Vo, individually and on behalf of other aggrieved employees vs. the Company, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. On June 27, 2013, the plaintiff in this matter filed a lawsuit against the Company alleging claims for failure to properly pay overtime or provide meal and rest breaks to its non-exempt employees in California, among other things. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages and penalties under provisions of the Labor Code, including the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act. The Company has filed an answer denying all allegations regarding the plaintiff’s claims and asserting various defenses. The Company is currently in the discovery phase of this case. Management believes it has accrued adequate reserves for this matter and does not expect the matter to have a material adverse effect on its business or financial condition. However, depending on the actual outcome of this case, provisions could be recorded in the future which may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s operating results.

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.

MRV and its subsidiaries have been named as a defendant in other lawsuits involving matters that management 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.