Legal Proceedings	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2015
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	12. Legal Proceedings On December 7, 2015, the Company and certain of its present and former officers and directors were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Ruggiero v. Identiv, Inc., et al., Case No. 15-cv-05583. The complaint in that lawsuit alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations that the Company made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information in certain public filings and disclosures between 2013 and 2015. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages, reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees, and equitable and injunctive relief. On December 16, 2015, that lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. Between December 2015 and February 2016, a number of other shareholder lawsuits were filed. On December 16, 2015, the Company and certain of its present and former officers and directors were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Rok v. Identiv, Inc., et al., Case No. 15-cv-05775, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934. In addition, three shareholder derivative actions were filed between January and February 2016. On January 1, 2016, certain of the Company’s present and former officers and directors were named as defendants, and the Company was named as nominal defendant, in a shareholder derivative lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Oswald v. Humphreys, et al., Case No. 16-cv-00241-JCS, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and abuse of control claims. On January 25, 2016, certain of the Company’s present and former officers and directors were named as defendants, and the Company was named as nominal defendant, in a shareholder derivative lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, entitled Chopra v. Hart, et al., Case No. RG16801379, alleging breach of fiduciary duty claims. On February 9, 2016, certain of the Company’s present and former officers and directors were named as defendants, and the Company was named as nominal defendant, in a shareholder derivative lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, entitled Wollnik v. Wenzel, et al., Case No. HG16803342, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste, gross mismanagement, and unjust enrichment claims. These lawsuits generally allege that the Company made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information in certain public filings and disclosures between 2013 and 2015. Each of the lawsuits seeks one or more of the following remedies: unspecified compensatory damages, unspecified exemplary or punitive damages, restitution, declaratory relief, equitable and injunctive relief, and reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits. The Company cannot currently predict the impact or resolution of each of these lawsuits or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss, which could be material, and the resolution of these lawsuits may harm its business and have a material adverse impact on its financial condition. From time to time, the Company could be subject to claims arising in the ordinary course of business or be a defendant in additional lawsuits. The outcome of such claims or other proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty and may have a material effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

12. Legal Proceedings

On December 7, 2015, the Company and certain of its present and former officers and directors were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Ruggiero v. Identiv, Inc., et al., Case No. 15-cv-05583. The complaint in that lawsuit alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations that the Company made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information in certain public filings and disclosures between 2013 and 2015. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages, reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees, and equitable and injunctive relief. On December 16, 2015, that lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.

Between December 2015 and February 2016, a number of other shareholder lawsuits were filed. On December 16, 2015, the Company and certain of its present and former officers and directors were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Rok v. Identiv, Inc., et al., Case No. 15-cv-05775, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934. In addition, three shareholder derivative actions were filed between January and February 2016. On January 1, 2016, certain of the Company’s present and former officers and directors were named as defendants, and the Company was named as nominal defendant, in a shareholder derivative lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Oswald v. Humphreys, et al., Case No. 16-cv-00241-JCS, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and abuse of control claims. On January 25, 2016, certain of the Company’s present and former officers and directors were named as defendants, and the Company was named as nominal defendant, in a shareholder derivative lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, entitled Chopra v. Hart, et al., Case No. RG16801379, alleging breach of fiduciary duty claims. On February 9, 2016, certain of the Company’s present and former officers and directors were named as defendants, and the Company was named as nominal defendant, in a shareholder derivative lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, entitled Wollnik v. Wenzel, et al., Case No. HG16803342, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste, gross mismanagement, and unjust enrichment claims. These lawsuits generally allege that the Company made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information in certain public filings and disclosures between 2013 and 2015. Each of the lawsuits seeks one or more of the following remedies: unspecified compensatory damages, unspecified exemplary or punitive damages, restitution, declaratory relief, equitable and injunctive relief, and reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits. The Company cannot currently predict the impact or resolution of each of these lawsuits or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss, which could be material, and the resolution of these lawsuits may harm its business and have a material adverse impact on its financial condition.

From time to time, the Company could be subject to claims arising in the ordinary course of business or be a defendant in additional lawsuits. The outcome of such claims or other proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty and may have a material effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.