Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Sep. 27, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
CONTINGENCIES	CONTINGENCIES Legal Matters From time to time, various lawsuits, claims and proceedings have been, and may in the future be, instituted or asserted against the Company, including those pertaining to patent infringement, intellectual property, environmental, product liability and warranty, safety and health, employment and contractual matters. Additionally, the semiconductor industry is characterized by vigorous protection and pursuit of intellectual property rights. From time to time, third parties have asserted and may in the future assert patent, copyright, trademark and other intellectual property rights to technologies that are important to the Company's business and have demanded and may in the future demand that the Company license their technology. The outcome of any such litigation cannot be predicted with certainty and some such lawsuits, claims or proceedings may be disposed of unfavorably to the Company. Generally speaking, intellectual property disputes often have a risk of injunctive relief, which, if imposed against the Company, could materially and adversely affect the Company's financial condition, or results of operations. From time to time the Company may also be involved in legal proceedings in the ordinary course of business. Legal costs are expensed as incurred. On June 6 and 7, 2011, two putative stockholder class action lawsuits (Case No. 111CV202403 (the “Bushansky action”) and Case No. 111CV202501 (the “Venette action”), respectively) were filed in California Superior Court in Santa Clara County naming AATI, members of AATI's board of directors, the Company and PowerCo Acquisition Corp. (“Merger Sub”) as defendants. The lawsuits related to conduct surrounding the Company's acquisition of AATI. On July 26, 2011, the Court issued an order consolidating the Bushansky action and Venette action into a single, consolidated action captioned In re Advanced Analogic Technologies Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. 111CV202403, and designating an amended complaint filed on July 14, 2011, in the Venette action as the operative complaint in the litigation. On November 30, 2011, following confidential arbitration proceedings in the Delaware Court of Chancery, the Company announced that it and AATI had amended their previously announced merger agreement whereby the Company would acquire AATI at a reduced price through a tender offer. The Company and AATI completed the transaction on January 9, 2012. On March 2, 2012, the Court stayed all discovery in the matter and ordered that Plaintiffs file an amended complaint by April 20, 2012. On April 20, 2012, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint (“First Amended Complaint”) against each of the original defendants with the exception of Merger Sub. The First Amended Complaint alleged, among other things, that (1) members of AATI's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties by (a) failing to take steps to maximize the value of AATI to its public shareholders by failing to adequately consider potential acquirers, (b) agreeing to the merger for inadequate consideration on unfair terms; (c) causing the filing of a materially misleading Schedule 14D-9 that failed to (i) disclose a basis for the price reduction, (ii) describe the arbitration proceedings, and (iii) include any financial valuation or fairness opinion concerning whether the revised merger consideration was fair; and (d) causing the issuance of amendments to the Schedule 14D-9 that failed to respond adequately to the SEC's disclosure directives; and (2) Skyworks and AATI allegedly aided and abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary duties. On June 22, 2012, the defendants moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. On February 20, 2013, the Court entered an order dismissing the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. On March 4, 2013, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint (“Second Amended Complaint”) against the same defendants asserting the same causes of action as in the First Amended Complaint. The defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on April 5, 2013. On August 7, 2013, the Court entered an order dismissing the Second Amended Complaint and denying Plaintiffs the right to file another amended complaint. On September 12, 2013, the Court entered a final order concluding the matter and approving a stipulation whereby plaintiffs waived any rights to appeal the Court's dismissal of the lawsuit. The Company monitors the status of these and other contingencies on an ongoing basis to ensure amounts are recognized and/or disclosed in our financial statements and footnotes as required by ASC 450, Loss Contingencies. At the time of this filing, the Company had not recorded any accrual for loss contingencies associated with its legal proceedings as losses resulting from such matters were determined not to be probable. In addition, the Company does not believe there are any legal proceedings that are reasonably possible to result in a material loss. We are engaged in various other legal actions, not described above, in the normal course of business and, while there can be no assurances, the Company believes the outcome of all pending litigation involving the Company will not have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on our business.

CONTINGENCIES

Legal Matters

From time to time, various lawsuits, claims and proceedings have been, and may in the future be, instituted or asserted against the Company, including those pertaining to patent infringement, intellectual property, environmental, product liability and warranty, safety and health, employment and contractual matters.

Additionally, the semiconductor industry is characterized by vigorous protection and pursuit of intellectual property rights. From time to time, third parties have asserted and may in the future assert patent, copyright, trademark and other intellectual property rights to technologies that are important to the Company's business and have demanded and may in the future demand that the Company license their technology. The outcome of any such litigation cannot be predicted with certainty and some such lawsuits, claims or proceedings may be disposed of unfavorably to the Company. Generally speaking, intellectual property disputes often have a risk of injunctive relief, which, if imposed against the Company, could materially and adversely affect the Company's financial condition, or results of operations. From time to time the Company may also be involved in legal proceedings in the ordinary course of business. Legal costs are expensed as incurred.

On June 6 and 7, 2011, two putative stockholder class action lawsuits (Case No. 111CV202403 (the “Bushansky action”) and Case No. 111CV202501 (the “Venette action”), respectively) were filed in California Superior Court in Santa Clara County naming AATI, members of AATI's board of directors, the Company and PowerCo Acquisition Corp. (“Merger Sub”) as defendants. The lawsuits related to conduct surrounding the Company's acquisition of AATI. On July 26, 2011, the Court issued an order consolidating the Bushansky action and Venette action into a single, consolidated action captioned In re Advanced Analogic Technologies Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. 111CV202403, and designating an amended complaint filed on July 14, 2011, in the Venette action as the operative complaint in the litigation.

On November 30, 2011, following confidential arbitration proceedings in the Delaware Court of Chancery, the Company announced that it and AATI had amended their previously announced merger agreement whereby the Company would acquire AATI at a reduced price through a tender offer. The Company and AATI completed the transaction on January 9, 2012. On March 2, 2012, the Court stayed all discovery in the matter and ordered that Plaintiffs file an amended complaint by April 20, 2012.

On April 20, 2012, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint (“First Amended Complaint”) against each of the original defendants with the exception of Merger Sub. The First Amended Complaint alleged, among other things, that (1) members of AATI's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties by (a) failing to take steps to maximize the value of AATI to its public shareholders by failing to adequately consider potential acquirers, (b) agreeing to the merger for inadequate consideration on unfair terms; (c) causing the filing of a materially misleading Schedule 14D-9 that failed to (i) disclose a basis for the price reduction, (ii) describe the arbitration proceedings, and (iii) include any financial valuation or fairness opinion concerning whether the revised merger consideration was fair; and (d) causing the issuance of amendments to the Schedule 14D-9 that failed to respond adequately to the SEC's disclosure directives; and (2) Skyworks and AATI allegedly aided and abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary duties. On June 22, 2012, the defendants moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. On February 20, 2013, the Court entered an order dismissing the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend.

On March 4, 2013, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint (“Second Amended Complaint”) against the same defendants asserting the same causes of action as in the First Amended Complaint. The defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on April 5, 2013. On August 7, 2013, the Court entered an order dismissing the Second Amended Complaint and denying Plaintiffs the right to file another amended complaint. On September 12, 2013, the Court entered a final order concluding the matter and approving a stipulation whereby plaintiffs waived any rights to appeal the Court's dismissal of the lawsuit.

The Company monitors the status of these and other contingencies on an ongoing basis to ensure amounts are recognized and/or disclosed in our financial statements and footnotes as required by ASC 450, Loss Contingencies. At the time of this filing, the Company had not recorded any accrual for loss contingencies associated with its legal proceedings as losses resulting from such matters were determined not to be probable. In addition, the Company does not believe there are any legal proceedings that are reasonably possible to result in a material loss. We are engaged in various other legal actions, not described above, in the normal course of business and, while there can be no assurances, the Company believes the outcome of all pending litigation involving the Company will not have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on our business.