Litigation	12 Months Ended
Dec. 29, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation	Litigation From time-to-time, the Company is involved in various litigation matters, including those described below, among others. The litigation proceedings in which the Company is involved from time to time, may include matters such as intellectual property, antitrust, commercial, labor, class action, and insurance disputes. The semiconductor industry is characterized by significant litigation seeking to enforce patent and other intellectual property rights. The Company has enforced and likely will continue to enforce its own intellectual property rights through litigation and related proceedings. In each case listed below where the Company is the defendant, the Company intends to vigorously defend the action. At this time, the Company does not believe it is reasonably possible that losses related to the litigation described below have occurred beyond the amounts, if any, which have been accrued. However, legal discovery and litigation is highly unpredictable and future legal developments may cause current estimates to change in future periods. Patent Infringement Litigation With Round Rock Research LLC. On October 27, 2011, in response to infringement allegations by Round Rock Research LLC (“Round Rock”), the Company filed a lawsuit against Round Rock in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment that twelve Round Rock patents are invalid and/or not infringed by flash memory products sold by the Company. Round Rock has since withdrawn its allegations of infringement as to three of the patents. SanDisk has filed motions for summary judgment of invalidity directed at two additional Round Rock patents, and Round Rock has filed a motion for summary judgment as to certain affirmative defenses asserted by SanDisk to the counterclaims in this action. These motions are currently pending. Fact discovery has closed in the case. Expert discovery is underway and initial expert reports have been exchanged. Trial is currently scheduled to begin on August 11, 2014. On May 3, 2012, Round Rock filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that the Company infringed eleven patents, and subsequently filed an amended complaint alleging that SanDisk’s infringement was willful. The parties agreed to dismiss one patent from this Delaware lawsuit that was also being litigated in the California case described above. Discovery is underway. Trial is currently scheduled to begin on January 20, 2015. Ritz Camera Federal Antitrust Class Action. On June 25, 2010, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC (“Ritz”) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “District Court”), alleging that the Company violated federal antitrust law by conspiring to monopolize and monopolizing the market for flash memory products. The lawsuit captioned Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. SanDisk Corporation, Inc. and Eliyahou Harari, purports to be on behalf of direct purchasers of flash memory products sold by the Company and joint ventures controlled by the Company from June 25, 2006 through the present. The complaint alleges that the Company created and maintained a monopoly by fraudulently obtaining patents and using them to restrain competition and by allegedly converting other patents for its competitive use. On February 24, 2011, the District Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the Company’s motion to dismiss which resulted in Dr. Harari being dismissed as a defendant. On September 19, 2011, the Company filed a petition for permission to file an interlocutory appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Federal Circuit”) for the portion of the District Court’s Order denying the Company’s motion to dismiss based on Ritz’s lack of standing to pursue Walker Process antitrust claims. On October 27, 2011, the District Court administratively closed the case pending the Federal Circuit’s ruling on the Company’s petition. On November 20, 2012, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order denying SanDisk’s motion to dismiss. On December 2, 2012, the Federal Circuit issued its mandate returning the case to the District Court. Discovery is now open in the District Court. On February 20, 2013, Ritz filed a motion requesting that Albert Giuliano, the Chapter 7 Trustee of the Ritz bankruptcy estate, be substituted as the plaintiff in this case, which the District Court granted on July 5, 2013. On October 1, 2013, the District Court granted the Trustee’s motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, which adds CPM Electronics Inc. and E.S.E. Electronics, Inc. as named plaintiffs. On December 17, 2013, Ritz sought leave to file a fourth amended complaint, which would add a cause of action for attempted monopolization and add another named plaintiff. Samsung Federal Antitrust Action Against Panasonic and SD‑3C. On July 15, 2010, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”) filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “District Court”) alleging various claims against Panasonic Corporation and Panasonic Corporation of North America (collectively, “Panasonic”) and SD‑3C, LLC (“SD‑3C”) under federal antitrust law pursuant to Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, and under California antitrust and unfair competition laws relating to the licensing practices and operations of SD‑3C. The complaint seeks an injunction against collection of Secure Digital (“SD”) card royalties, treble damages, restitution, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees, as well as a declaration that Panasonic and SD‑3C engaged in patent misuse and that the patents subject to such alleged misuse should be held unenforceable. The Company is not named as a defendant in this case, but it established SD‑3C along with Panasonic and Toshiba, and the complaint includes various factual allegations concerning the Company. As a member of SD‑3C, the Company may be responsible for a portion of any monetary award. Other requested relief, including an injunction or declaration of patent misuse, could result in a loss of revenue to the Company. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 24, 2010, and Samsung filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on October 14, 2010. On August 25, 2011, the District Court dismissed the patent misuse claim with prejudice, but gave Samsung leave to amend its other claims. On January 3, 2012, the District Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss Samsung’s complaint without leave to amend. Samsung has appealed, dated January 25, 2012. The briefing on appeal is complete, and oral argument took place on December 5, 2013. Federal Antitrust Class Action Against SanDisk, et al. On March 15, 2011, a putative class action captioned Oliver v. SD‑3C LLC, et al was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “District Court”) on behalf of a nationwide class of indirect purchasers of SD cards alleging various claims against the Company, SD‑3C, Panasonic, Toshiba, and Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. under federal antitrust law pursuant to Section 1 of the Sherman Act, California antirust and unfair competition laws, and common law. The complaint seeks an injunction of the challenged conduct, dissolution of “the cooperation agreements, joint ventures and/or cross-licenses alleged herein,” treble damages, restitution, disgorgement, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiffs allege that the Company (along with the other members of SD‑3C) conspired to artificially inflate the royalty costs associated with manufacturing SD cards in violation of federal and California antitrust and unfair competition laws, which in turn allegedly caused plaintiffs to pay higher prices for SD cards. The allegations are similar to, and incorporate by reference the complaint in the Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Panasonic Corporation; Panasonic Corporation of North America; and SD‑3C LLC described above. On May 21, 2012, the District Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs have appealed. Briefing on the appeal was completed on June 21, 2013. Oral argument took place on December 5, 2013.

Litigation

From time-to-time, the Company is involved in various litigation matters, including those described below, among others. The litigation proceedings in which the Company is involved from time to time, may include matters such as intellectual property, antitrust, commercial, labor, class action, and insurance disputes. The semiconductor industry is characterized by significant litigation seeking to enforce patent and other intellectual property rights. The Company has enforced and likely will continue to enforce its own intellectual property rights through litigation and related proceedings.

In each case listed below where the Company is the defendant, the Company intends to vigorously defend the action. At this time, the Company does not believe it is reasonably possible that losses related to the litigation described below have occurred beyond the amounts, if any, which have been accrued. However, legal discovery and litigation is highly unpredictable and future legal developments may cause current estimates to change in future periods.

Patent Infringement Litigation With Round Rock Research LLC. On October 27, 2011, in response to infringement allegations by Round Rock Research LLC (“Round Rock”), the Company filed a lawsuit against Round Rock in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment that twelve Round Rock patents are invalid and/or not infringed by flash memory products sold by the Company. Round Rock has since withdrawn its allegations of infringement as to three of the patents. SanDisk has filed motions for summary judgment of invalidity directed at two additional Round Rock patents, and Round Rock has filed a motion for summary judgment as to certain affirmative defenses asserted by SanDisk to the counterclaims in this action. These motions are currently pending. Fact discovery has closed in the case. Expert discovery is underway and initial expert reports have been exchanged. Trial is currently scheduled to begin on August 11, 2014.

On May 3, 2012, Round Rock filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that the Company infringed eleven patents, and subsequently filed an amended complaint alleging that SanDisk’s infringement was willful. The parties agreed to dismiss one patent from this Delaware lawsuit that was also being litigated in the California case described above. Discovery is underway. Trial is currently scheduled to begin on January 20, 2015.

Ritz Camera Federal Antitrust Class Action. On June 25, 2010, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC (“Ritz”) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “District Court”), alleging that the Company violated federal antitrust law by conspiring to monopolize and monopolizing the market for flash memory products. The lawsuit captioned Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. SanDisk Corporation, Inc. and Eliyahou Harari, purports to be on behalf of direct purchasers of flash memory products sold by the Company and joint ventures controlled by the Company from June 25, 2006 through the present. The complaint alleges that the Company created and maintained a monopoly by fraudulently obtaining patents and using them to restrain competition and by allegedly converting other patents for its competitive use. On February 24, 2011, the District Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the Company’s motion to dismiss which resulted in Dr. Harari being dismissed as a defendant. On September 19, 2011, the Company filed a petition for permission to file an interlocutory appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Federal Circuit”) for the portion of the District Court’s Order denying the Company’s motion to dismiss based on Ritz’s lack of standing to pursue Walker Process antitrust claims. On October 27, 2011, the District Court administratively closed the case pending the Federal Circuit’s ruling on the Company’s petition. On November 20, 2012, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order denying SanDisk’s motion to dismiss. On December 2, 2012, the Federal Circuit issued its mandate returning the case to the District Court. Discovery is now open in the District Court. On February 20, 2013, Ritz filed a motion requesting that Albert Giuliano, the Chapter 7 Trustee of the Ritz bankruptcy estate, be substituted as the plaintiff in this case, which the District Court granted on July 5, 2013. On October 1, 2013, the District Court granted the Trustee’s motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, which adds CPM Electronics Inc. and E.S.E. Electronics, Inc. as named plaintiffs. On December 17, 2013, Ritz sought leave to file a fourth amended complaint, which would add a cause of action for attempted monopolization and add another named plaintiff.

Samsung Federal Antitrust Action Against Panasonic and SD‑3C. On July 15, 2010, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”) filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “District Court”) alleging various claims against Panasonic Corporation and Panasonic Corporation of North America (collectively, “Panasonic”) and SD‑3C, LLC (“SD‑3C”) under federal antitrust law pursuant to Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, and under California antitrust and unfair competition laws relating to the licensing practices and operations of SD‑3C. The complaint seeks an injunction against collection of Secure Digital (“SD”) card royalties, treble damages, restitution, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees, as well as a declaration that Panasonic and SD‑3C engaged in patent misuse and that the patents subject to such alleged misuse should be held unenforceable. The Company is not named as a defendant in this case, but it established SD‑3C along with Panasonic and Toshiba, and the complaint includes various factual allegations concerning the Company. As a member of SD‑3C, the Company may be responsible for a portion of any monetary award. Other requested relief, including an injunction or declaration of patent misuse, could result in a loss of revenue to the Company. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 24, 2010, and Samsung filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on October 14, 2010. On August 25, 2011, the District Court dismissed the patent misuse claim with prejudice, but gave Samsung leave to amend its other claims. On January 3, 2012, the District Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss Samsung’s complaint without leave to amend. Samsung has appealed, dated January 25, 2012. The briefing on appeal is complete, and oral argument took place on December 5, 2013.

Federal Antitrust Class Action Against SanDisk, et al. On March 15, 2011, a putative class action captioned Oliver v. SD‑3C LLC, et al was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “District Court”) on behalf of a nationwide class of indirect purchasers of SD cards alleging various claims against the Company, SD‑3C, Panasonic, Toshiba, and Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. under federal antitrust law pursuant to Section 1 of the Sherman Act, California antirust and unfair competition laws, and common law. The complaint seeks an injunction of the challenged conduct, dissolution of “the cooperation agreements, joint ventures and/or cross-licenses alleged herein,” treble damages, restitution, disgorgement, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiffs allege that the Company (along with the other members of SD‑3C) conspired to artificially inflate the royalty costs associated with manufacturing SD cards in violation of federal and California antitrust and unfair competition laws, which in turn allegedly caused plaintiffs to pay higher prices for SD cards. The allegations are similar to, and incorporate by reference the complaint in the Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Panasonic Corporation; Panasonic Corporation of North America; and SD‑3C LLC described above. On May 21, 2012, the District Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs have appealed. Briefing on the appeal was completed on June 21, 2013. Oral argument took place on December 5, 2013.