Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Jul. 02, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Warranty The Company maintains an accrual for obligations it incurs under its standard product warranty program and customer, part, or process specific matters. The Company’s standard warranty period is one year, however in certain instances the warranty period may be extended to as long as two years. Management estimates the fair value of the Company’s warranty liability based on actual past warranty claims experience, its policies regarding customer warranty returns and other estimates about the timing and disposition of product returned under the standard program. Customer, part, or process specific accruals are estimated using a specific identification method. Historical profit and loss impact related to warranty returns activity has been minimal. The total warranty accrual was $0.8 million and $0.3 million as of July 2, 2017 and April 2, 2017. Litigation On February 13, 2017, the Company and GigPeak announced that they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of February 13, 2017. On February 17, 2017, a purported class action was filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court, (Carbajal v. GigPeak, Inc., et al, Case No. 17-cv-306571). On March 8, 2017, a purported class action was filed in the United States District Court of Delaware (Vladimir Gusinsky Rev. Trust v. GigPeak, Case No. 1:17-cv-00241-VAC SRF). On March 13, 2017, a purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Mendoza v. Gigpeak, Inc. et al, Case No. 3;17-cv-01351-WHO). On March 16, a second purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Travis v. GigPeak, Inc. et al, Case No. 5:17-cv-01441-LKH). The Company was named as a defendant in the Carbajal and Gusinsky complaints. The Carbajal complaint asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, including that defendants have failed to secure adequate deal consideration as well as various other breaches of duty. The Gusinsky, Travis and Mendoza complaints asserted claims under Sections 14(d)(4), 14(e) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Gusinsky, Mendoza and Travis complaint alleged that the Schedule 14D-9 filed by GigPeak contained material omissions and misstatements, and sought to enjoin and/or rescind the Offer as well as certain other equitable relief, unspecified damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Carbajal complaint was voluntarily dismissed on March 7, 2017. Each of the remaining complaints was voluntarily dismissed by Plaintiffs on or around April 7, 2017, and the actions were closed by the Court on or around May 15, 2017 after Plaintiffs’ fees were agreed to by the parties. In November 2016, North Star Innovations, Inc. (“NSI”), an IP licensing non-practicing entity and subsidiary of Wi-Lan, Inc., filed a complaint against the Company in the federal courts of the Central District of California, alleging the Company infringed three U.S. patents assigned to and owned by NSI. The Company did not file an Answer or other responsive pleading in this litigation. On or about January 13, 2017, RPX Corporation, a membership-based defensive patent aggregator, entered a license agreement with NSI, to which the Company is a beneficiary based on the Company’s membership in RPX. Based on this license, the Company and NSI signed a Release Agreement effective January 31, 2017, releasing the Company from liability under the claims for infringement of the three asserted patents. On January 31, 2017, the court ordered the litigation against IDT to be formally dismissed. In January 2012, Maxim I Properties, a general partnership that had purchased a certain parcel of real property (the Property) in 2003, filed a complaint in the Northern District of California naming approximately 30 defendants, including the Company ("Defendants"), alleging various environmental violations of the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the California Hazardous Substance Account Act (HSAA), and other common law claims (the Complaint). The Complaint alleged that Defendants including the Company “…generated, transported, and/or arranged for the transport and/or disposal of hazardous waste to the Property.” On August 15, 2012, Maxim I Properties voluntarily dismissed its Complaint without prejudice. However, another defendant, Moyer Products, Inc., counter-claimed against the plaintiff, Maxim, and cross-claimed against the remaining co-Defendants, including the Company. Thus, the Company remains a cross-defendant in this action. In a related, but independent action, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) notified the Company in September 2012 that the Company, and more than 50 other entities, were being named as respondents to DTSC's Enforcement Order, as “a generator of hazardous waste.” In April 2013, the Company, along with the other “respondent” parties, entered into a Corrective Action Consent Agreement (CACA) with the DTSC, agreeing to conduct the Property investigation and corrective action selection. The CACA supersedes the DTSC's Enforcement Order. The District Court for the Northern District of California stayed the Maxim/Moyer litigation pending the Property investigation under the CACA and DTSC's corrective action selection. Property investigation activity took place between April 2013 and June 2015. On June 23, 2015, the DTSC deemed the Property investigation complete. The DTSC continues to evaluate corrective action alternatives. The Company will continue to vigorously defend itself against the allegations in the Complaint and evaluate settlement options with Moyer upon notification from DTSC of its corrective action selection. No specific corrective action has been selected yet, and thus no specific monetary demands have been made. Accordingly, an estimate of contingent loss, if any, related to this action cannot be made. The Company may also be a party to various other legal proceedings and claims arising in the normal course of business from time to time. With regard to these or future litigation matters that may arise, potential liability and probable losses or ranges of possible losses due to an unfavorable litigation outcome cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. Generally, litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties, and no assurance can be given that the Company will prevail in the Maxim lawsuit or any other particular lawsuit or claim. Pending lawsuits, claims as well as potential future litigation, could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Commitments and Contingencies

Warranty

The Company maintains an accrual for obligations it incurs under its standard product warranty program and customer, part, or process specific matters. The Company’s standard warranty period is one year, however in certain instances the warranty period may be extended to as long as two years. Management estimates the fair value of the Company’s warranty liability based on actual past warranty claims experience, its policies regarding customer warranty returns and other estimates about the timing and disposition of product returned under the standard program. Customer, part, or process specific accruals are estimated using a specific identification method. Historical profit and loss impact related to warranty returns activity has been minimal. The total warranty accrual was $0.8 million and $0.3 million as of July 2, 2017 and April 2, 2017.

Litigation

On February 13, 2017, the Company and GigPeak announced that they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of February 13, 2017. On February 17, 2017, a purported class action was filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court, (Carbajal v. GigPeak, Inc., et al, Case No. 17-cv-306571). On March 8, 2017, a purported class action was filed in the United States District Court of Delaware (Vladimir Gusinsky Rev. Trust v. GigPeak, Case No. 1:17-cv-00241-VAC SRF). On March 13, 2017, a purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Mendoza v. Gigpeak, Inc. et al, Case No. 3;17-cv-01351-WHO). On March 16, a second purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Travis v. GigPeak, Inc. et al, Case No. 5:17-cv-01441-LKH). The Company was named as a defendant in the Carbajal and Gusinsky complaints. The Carbajal complaint asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, including that defendants have failed to secure adequate deal consideration as well as various other breaches of duty. The Gusinsky, Travis and Mendoza complaints asserted claims under Sections 14(d)(4), 14(e) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Gusinsky, Mendoza and Travis complaint alleged that the Schedule 14D-9 filed by GigPeak contained material omissions and misstatements, and sought to enjoin and/or rescind the Offer as well as certain other equitable relief, unspecified damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Carbajal complaint was voluntarily dismissed on March 7, 2017. Each of the remaining complaints was voluntarily dismissed by Plaintiffs on or around April 7, 2017, and the actions were closed by the Court on or around May 15, 2017 after Plaintiffs’ fees were agreed to by the parties.

In November 2016, North Star Innovations, Inc. (“NSI”), an IP licensing non-practicing entity and subsidiary of Wi-Lan, Inc., filed a complaint against the Company in the federal courts of the Central District of California, alleging the Company infringed three U.S. patents assigned to and owned by NSI. The Company did not file an Answer or other responsive pleading in this litigation. On or about January 13, 2017, RPX Corporation, a membership-based defensive patent aggregator, entered a license agreement with NSI, to which the Company is a beneficiary based on the Company’s membership in RPX. Based on this license, the Company and NSI signed a Release Agreement effective January 31, 2017, releasing the Company from liability under the claims for infringement of the three asserted patents. On January 31, 2017, the court ordered the litigation against IDT to be formally dismissed.

In January 2012, Maxim I Properties, a general partnership that had purchased a certain parcel of real property (the Property) in 2003, filed a complaint in the Northern District of California naming approximately 30 defendants, including the Company ("Defendants"), alleging various environmental violations of the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the California Hazardous Substance Account Act (HSAA), and other common law claims (the Complaint). The Complaint alleged that Defendants including the Company “…generated, transported, and/or arranged for the transport and/or disposal of hazardous waste to the Property.” On August 15, 2012, Maxim I Properties voluntarily dismissed its Complaint without prejudice. However, another defendant, Moyer Products, Inc., counter-claimed against the plaintiff, Maxim, and cross-claimed against the remaining co-Defendants, including the Company. Thus, the Company remains a cross-defendant in this action.

In a related, but independent action, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) notified the Company in September 2012 that the Company, and more than 50 other entities, were being named as respondents to DTSC's Enforcement Order, as “a generator of hazardous waste.” In April 2013, the Company, along with the other “respondent” parties, entered into a Corrective Action Consent Agreement (CACA) with the DTSC, agreeing to conduct the Property investigation and corrective action selection. The CACA supersedes the DTSC's Enforcement Order. The District Court for the Northern District of California stayed the Maxim/Moyer litigation pending the Property investigation under the CACA and DTSC's corrective action selection.

Property investigation activity took place between April 2013 and June 2015. On June 23, 2015, the DTSC deemed the Property investigation complete. The DTSC continues to evaluate corrective action alternatives. The Company will continue to vigorously defend itself against the allegations in the Complaint and evaluate settlement options with Moyer upon notification from DTSC of its corrective action selection. No specific corrective action has been selected yet, and thus no specific monetary demands have been made. Accordingly, an estimate of contingent loss, if any, related to this action cannot be made.

The Company may also be a party to various other legal proceedings and claims arising in the normal course of business from time to time. With regard to these or future litigation matters that may arise, potential liability and probable losses or ranges of possible losses due to an unfavorable litigation outcome cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. Generally, litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties, and no assurance can be given that the Company will prevail in the Maxim lawsuit or any other particular lawsuit or claim. Pending lawsuits, claims as well as potential future litigation, could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.