Legal Proceedings	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2017
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	11. Legal Proceedings 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. On May 3, 2016, the court-appointed lead plaintiff Thomas Cunningham in the Rok lawsuit filed an amended complaint and a notice of dismissal without prejudice of all current or former officers and directors other than Jason Hart and Brian Nelson. On June 6, 2016, the Company, Jason Hart, and Brian Nelson filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in the Rok lawsuit; on August 5, 2016, the court granted those motions with leave for the lead plaintiff to file a second amended complaint. On September 12, 2016, the lead plaintiff in the Rok lawsuit filed a second amended complaint. On October 10, 2016, the Company, Jason Hart, and Brian Nelson filed a motion to dismiss that second amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in the Rok lawsuit; on January 4, 2017, the court granted those motions with prejudice and entered judgment for the Company and the other defendants and against the lead plaintiff. On February 6, 2017, the lead plaintiff initiated an appeal of the court’s decision in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Following the lead plaintiff’s routine request to extend filing deadlines, which the Court of Appeals approved, the lead plaintiff’s opening appellate brief was filed on June 14, 2017. Following Jason Hart’s routine request to extend filing deadlines, which the Court of Appeals approved, the answering briefs of the Company and the other defendants were filed on August 14, 2017. Following the lead plaintiff’s routine request to extend filing deadlines, which the Court of Appeals approved, the lead plaintiff’s optional reply brief was filed on October 5, 2017. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held oral argument on March 13, 2018. On March 23, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued an order affirming the dismissal with prejudice. In the interim, on January 3, 2018, lead plaintiffs filed a motion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b) in the trial court to vacate the January 4, 2017 judgment of dismissal. On February 9, 2018, following additional briefing, the trial court denied the motion. 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-CRB, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and waste claims. On January 25, 2016, certain of the Company’s present and former officers and directors were named as defendants, and the Company were 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 were 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. On May 2, 2016, the court in the Chopra lawsuit entered an order staying proceedings in the Chopra lawsuit in favor of the Oswald lawsuit, based on a stipulation to that effect filed by the parties in the Chopra lawsuit on April 28, 2016. Similarly, on June 28, 2016, the court in the Wollnik lawsuit entered a stipulated order staying proceedings in the Wollnik lawsuit in favor of the Oswald lawsuit. On June 17, 2016, the plaintiff in the Oswald lawsuit filed an amended complaint. On August 1, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss for failure by plaintiff to make a pre-lawsuit demand on the Board, which motion was heard on October 14, 2016. The judge in the Oswald lawsuit issued an order on November 7, 2016 granting the Company’s motion to dismiss, without prejudice. In addition, the court stayed the case so that plaintiff could exercise whatever rights he had under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. On or around November 30, 2016, the plaintiff purported to serve a books and records demand under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. The Company responded to that demand. On March 21, 2017, the Company and the plaintiff in the Oswald lawsuit filed a stipulation and proposed order lifting the stay of the case, granting the plaintiff leave to amend, and setting a briefing schedule. That stipulation proposed that the judge’s stay of the case entered November 7, 2016 be lifted, that a stay of proceedings as to the individual defendants that the judge previously entered remain in place, that the plaintiff may file a second amended complaint on or before April 10, 2017, that the Company may file a motion to dismiss that second amended complaint on or before May 12, 2017, that the plaintiff’s opposition to such a motion to dismiss shall be filed on or before June 12, 2017, that the Company’s reply in support of such a motion shall be filed on or before June 30, 2017, and that the hearing on such a motion to dismiss shall be held on August 11, 2017 or such other date as the court may order. On March 22, 2017, the court entered an order approving that stipulation. The plaintiff in the Oswald lawsuit filed his second amended complaint on April 10, 2017. The Company then filed a motion to dismiss that second amended complaint on May 12, 2017, the plaintiff filed an opposition to that motion to dismiss on June 12, 2017, and the Company filed a reply in support of the motion on June 30, 2017. The hearing on that motion to dismiss was rescheduled by stipulation of the parties to September 22, 2017 and then further rescheduled by the court to October 6, 2017. The hearing on that motion to dismiss was held on October 6, 2017, and that day the court entered a minute entry indicating the motion would be denied. On October 22, 2017, the court issued its written order denying the motion to dismiss on the basis of demand futility. On December 15, 2017, the court held a status conference. On January 3, 2018, the court entered a stipulated order setting a response and briefing schedule for defendants to the second amended complaint. Pursuant to the schedule, defendants filed motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) on January 16, 2018. Plaintiff filed his opposition brief on February 14, 2018. Defendants’ reply briefs are due on March 2, 2018. The court heard argument on the motions to dismiss on March 23, 2018 and took the matters under submission. On October 18, 2017, the court in the Wollnik lawsuit conducted a case management conference, at the conclusion of which the court scheduled a complex determination hearing for November 28, 2017. The Company filed a notice of non-opposition to complex case designation and request for coordination with the Chopra lawsuit on October 24, 2017. The plaintiff in the Wollnik lawsuit filed a statement of non-opposition to complex case designation on or about November 27, 2017. The court continued the complex determination hearing to April 3, 2018. 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, if any, which could be material, and the resolution of these lawsuits may harm the Company’s 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.

11. Legal Proceedings

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. On May 3, 2016, the court-appointed lead plaintiff Thomas Cunningham in the Rok lawsuit filed an amended complaint and a notice of dismissal without prejudice of all current or former officers and directors other than Jason Hart and Brian Nelson. On June 6, 2016, the Company, Jason Hart, and Brian Nelson filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in the Rok lawsuit; on August 5, 2016, the court granted those motions with leave for the lead plaintiff to file a second amended complaint. On September 12, 2016, the lead plaintiff in the Rok lawsuit filed a second amended complaint. On October 10, 2016, the Company, Jason Hart, and Brian Nelson filed a motion to dismiss that second amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in the Rok lawsuit; on January 4, 2017, the court granted those motions with prejudice and entered judgment for the Company and the other defendants and against the lead plaintiff. On February 6, 2017, the lead plaintiff initiated an appeal of the court’s decision in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Following the lead plaintiff’s routine request to extend filing deadlines, which the Court of Appeals approved, the lead plaintiff’s opening appellate brief was filed on June 14, 2017. Following Jason Hart’s routine request to extend filing deadlines, which the Court of Appeals approved, the answering briefs of the Company and the other defendants were filed on August 14, 2017. Following the lead plaintiff’s routine request to extend filing deadlines, which the Court of Appeals approved, the lead plaintiff’s optional reply brief was filed on October 5, 2017. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held oral argument on March 13, 2018. On March 23, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued an order affirming the dismissal with prejudice. In the interim, on January 3, 2018, lead plaintiffs filed a motion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b) in the trial court to vacate the January 4, 2017 judgment of dismissal. On February 9, 2018, following additional briefing, the trial court denied the motion.

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-CRB, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and waste claims. On January 25, 2016, certain of the Company’s present and former officers and directors were named as defendants, and the Company were 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 were 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. On May 2, 2016, the court in the Chopra lawsuit entered an order staying proceedings in the Chopra lawsuit in favor of the Oswald lawsuit, based on a stipulation to that effect filed by the parties in the Chopra lawsuit on April 28, 2016. Similarly, on June 28, 2016, the court in the Wollnik lawsuit entered a stipulated order staying proceedings in the Wollnik lawsuit in favor of the Oswald lawsuit. On June 17, 2016, the plaintiff in the Oswald lawsuit filed an amended complaint. On August 1, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss for failure by plaintiff to make a pre-lawsuit demand on the Board, which motion was heard on October 14, 2016. The judge in the Oswald lawsuit issued an order on November 7, 2016 granting the Company’s motion to dismiss, without prejudice. In addition, the court stayed the case so that plaintiff could exercise whatever rights he had under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. On or around November 30, 2016, the plaintiff purported to serve a books and records demand under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. The Company responded to that demand. On March 21, 2017, the Company and the plaintiff in the Oswald lawsuit filed a stipulation and proposed order lifting the stay of the case, granting the plaintiff leave to amend, and setting a briefing schedule. That stipulation proposed that the judge’s stay of the case entered November 7, 2016 be lifted, that a stay of proceedings as to the individual defendants that the judge previously entered remain in place, that the plaintiff may file a second amended complaint on or before April 10, 2017, that the Company may file a motion to dismiss that second amended complaint on or before May 12, 2017, that the plaintiff’s opposition to such a motion to dismiss shall be filed on or before June 12, 2017, that the Company’s reply in support of such a motion shall be filed on or before June 30, 2017, and that the hearing on such a motion to dismiss shall be held on August 11, 2017 or such other date as the court may order. On March 22, 2017, the court entered an order approving that stipulation. The plaintiff in the Oswald lawsuit filed his second amended complaint on April 10, 2017. The Company then filed a motion to dismiss that second amended complaint on May 12, 2017, the plaintiff filed an opposition to that motion to dismiss on June 12, 2017, and the Company filed a reply in support of the motion on June 30, 2017. The hearing on that motion to dismiss was rescheduled by stipulation of the parties to September 22, 2017 and then further rescheduled by the court to October 6, 2017. The hearing on that motion to dismiss was held on October 6, 2017, and that day the court entered a minute entry indicating the motion would be denied. On October 22, 2017, the court issued its written order denying the motion to dismiss on the basis of demand futility. On December 15, 2017, the court held a status conference. On January 3, 2018, the court entered a stipulated order setting a response and briefing schedule for defendants to the second amended complaint. Pursuant to the schedule, defendants filed motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) on January 16, 2018. Plaintiff filed his opposition brief on February 14, 2018. Defendants’ reply briefs are due on March 2, 2018. The court heard argument on the motions to dismiss on March 23, 2018 and took the matters under submission. On October 18, 2017, the court in the Wollnik lawsuit conducted a case management conference, at the conclusion of which the court scheduled a complex determination hearing for November 28, 2017. The Company filed a notice of non-opposition to complex case designation and request for coordination with the Chopra lawsuit on October 24, 2017. The plaintiff in the Wollnik lawsuit filed a statement of non-opposition to complex case designation on or about November 27, 2017. The court continued the complex determination hearing to April 3, 2018. 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, if any, which could be material, and the resolution of these lawsuits may harm the Company’s 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.