Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Purchase Obligations – As of March 31, 2015 the Company had purchase obligations in the amount of $29.8 million compared to $7.9 million as of September 30, 2014. These purchase obligations consist of outstanding purchase orders for goods and services. While the amount represents purchase agreements, the actual amounts to be paid may be less if any agreements are renegotiated, canceled or terminated. Development projects – In fiscal 2014, Tempress Systems, Inc. ("Tempress") entered into an agreement with the Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands ("ECN"), a Netherlands government sponsored research institute, for a joint research and development project. Under the terms of the agreement, Tempress sold an ion implanter ("Equipment") to ECN for $1.4 million. Both Tempress and ECN are performing research and development projects utilizing the Equipment at the ECN facilities. Each party to the agreement will have 100% rights to the results of the projects developed separately by the individual parties. Any results co-developed will be jointly owned. Over the four-year period of the agreement, Tempress is required to contribute $1.4 million to the project in the form of installation of the Equipment, acceptance testing, project meeting attendance, training, parts, and service, including keeping the equipment in good condition and repair for the first two years of the agreement. In 2013, Shanghai Kingstone Semiconductor Company Ltd. ("Kingstone") entered into an agreement with certain government agencies in Shanghai, China for the purpose of developing ion implant technology for non-solar applications. Kingstone has substantially completed the first phase of this development project and received $4.1 million of grant funds for the project. Kingstone is investigating options for securing $6.1 million of its commitment to the project. Amtech owns 55% of Kingstone Technology Hong Kong Limited, which owns 100% of Kingstone. Amtech has no obligation or plan to fund Kingstone's commitments under this agreement. EPA Accrual - As a result of the merger with BTU, the Company assumed BTU’s proportional responsibility for clean-up costs at a Superfund site. As an equipment manufacturer, BTU generated and disposed of small quantities of solid waste that were considered hazardous under Environment Protection Agency (“EPA”) regulations. Because BTU historically used a waste disposal firm that disposed of the solid waste at a site that the EPA designated as a Superfund site, BTU was named by the EPA as one of the entities responsible for a portion of the expected clean-up costs. Based on the Company's proportional responsibility, as negotiated with and agreed to by the EPA, the Company's liability related to this matter is $0.2 million. As of March 31, 2015, the remaining liability is $0.1 million, which is included in Other Accrued Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2015. In 2009, in accordance with the agreement, the Company established a letter of credit for $0.2 million to the benefit of the EPA for potential cash payments as settlements for the Company’s proportional liability. Litigation – The Company and its subsidiaries are defendants from time to time in actions for matters arising out of their business operations. On October 21, 2014, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") by and among the Company, BTU Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Merger Sub"), and BTU. Shortly after the Company entered into the Merger Agreement with BTU, two separate putative stockholder class action complaints were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (together, the "Stockholder Actions"). The first was filed on November 4, 2014 and the second on November 17, 2014, purportedly on behalf of BTU’s public stockholders, against BTU, the members of the BTU Board, Amtech and Merger Sub. The Stockholder Actions were consolidated into one action on December 4, 2014. These complaints generally allege, among other things, that the members of BTU’s board of directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to BTU’s public stockholders by failing to engage in a competitive sale and bidding process, by causing BTU to enter into the Merger Agreement and by approving the merger, and that the Company and Merger Sub aided and abetted such alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. These complaints further allege that these fiduciary breaches gave the Company an unfair advantage as a result of BTU's alleged failure to solicit other potential acquirers and also that the Merger Agreement improperly favors the Company and unduly restricts BTU’s ability to negotiate with other potential bidders. The complaint generally seeks, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the alleged fiduciary breaches, injunctive relief prohibiting the Company, Merger Sub, and BTU from consummating the Merger, other forms of equitable relief, and compensatory damages. On January 16, 2015, the Company and BTU, along with the other defendants named therein, entered into a memorandum of understanding (the “MOU”) to settle the Stockholder Actions. Pursuant to the MOU, the parties to the Stockholder Actions agreed to resolve the claims alleged and the Company and BTU agreed to make certain additional disclosures regarding the Merger. The MOU is expected to be memorialized in a stipulation of settlement, which will be subject to customary terms and conditions, including court approval, and will include an agreement by the plaintiffs in the Stockholder Actions, on behalf of each stockholder class, to provide a release of all claims against the Company and BTU, along with the other defendants named therein, subject to an exception for certain securities law claims. In addition, as part of the settlement, BTU has agreed to be responsible for the payment of certain amounts in plaintiffs’ attorney fees and expenses in connection with the settlement. The Company and BTU entered into the MOU solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve such settlement. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the MOU may be terminated. The merger was consummated on January 30, 2015. The plaintiffs’ attorney fees and expenses were reflected as a liability on the opening balance sheet of BTU on the date of the merger. See Note 9, "Acquisitions," for more information on the Merger Agreement.

Commitments and Contingencies

Purchase Obligations – As of March 31, 2015 the Company had purchase obligations in the amount of $29.8 million compared to $7.9 million as of September 30, 2014. These purchase obligations consist of outstanding purchase orders for goods and services. While the amount represents purchase agreements, the actual amounts to be paid may be less if any agreements are renegotiated, canceled or terminated.

Development projects – In fiscal 2014, Tempress Systems, Inc. ("Tempress") entered into an agreement with the Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands ("ECN"), a Netherlands government sponsored research institute, for a joint research and development project. Under the terms of the agreement, Tempress sold an ion implanter ("Equipment") to ECN for $1.4 million. Both Tempress and ECN are performing research and development projects utilizing the Equipment at the ECN facilities. Each party to the agreement will have 100% rights to the results of the projects developed separately by the individual parties. Any results co-developed will be jointly owned. Over the four-year period of the agreement, Tempress is required to contribute $1.4 million to the project in the form of installation of the Equipment, acceptance testing, project meeting attendance, training, parts, and service, including keeping the equipment in good condition and repair for the first two years of the agreement.

In 2013, Shanghai Kingstone Semiconductor Company Ltd. ("Kingstone") entered into an agreement with certain government agencies in Shanghai, China for the purpose of developing ion implant technology for non-solar applications. Kingstone has substantially completed the first phase of this development project and received $4.1 million of grant funds for the project. Kingstone is investigating options for securing $6.1 million of its commitment to the project. Amtech owns 55% of Kingstone Technology Hong Kong Limited, which owns 100% of Kingstone. Amtech has no obligation or plan to fund Kingstone's commitments under this agreement.

EPA Accrual - As a result of the merger with BTU, the Company assumed BTU’s proportional responsibility for clean-up costs at a Superfund site. As an equipment manufacturer, BTU generated and disposed of small quantities of solid waste that were considered hazardous under Environment Protection Agency (“EPA”) regulations. Because BTU historically used a waste disposal firm that disposed of the solid waste at a site that the EPA designated as a Superfund site, BTU was named by the EPA as one of the entities responsible for a portion of the expected clean-up costs. Based on the Company's proportional responsibility, as negotiated with and agreed to by the EPA, the Company's liability related to this matter is $0.2 million. As of March 31, 2015, the remaining liability is $0.1 million, which is included in Other Accrued Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2015. In 2009, in accordance with the agreement, the Company established a letter of credit for $0.2 million to the benefit of the EPA for potential cash payments as settlements for the Company’s proportional liability.

Litigation – The Company and its subsidiaries are defendants from time to time in actions for matters arising out of their business operations. On October 21, 2014, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") by and among the Company, BTU Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Merger Sub"), and BTU. Shortly after the Company entered into the Merger Agreement with BTU, two separate putative stockholder class action complaints were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (together, the "Stockholder Actions"). The first was filed on November 4, 2014 and the second on November 17, 2014, purportedly on behalf of BTU’s public stockholders, against BTU, the members of the BTU Board, Amtech and Merger Sub. The Stockholder Actions were consolidated into one action on December 4, 2014. These complaints generally allege, among other things, that the members of BTU’s board of directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to BTU’s public stockholders by failing to engage in a competitive sale and bidding process, by causing BTU to enter into the Merger Agreement and by approving the merger, and that the Company and Merger Sub aided and abetted such alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. These complaints further allege that these fiduciary breaches gave the Company an unfair advantage as a result of BTU's alleged failure to solicit other potential acquirers and also that the Merger Agreement improperly favors the Company and unduly restricts BTU’s ability to negotiate with other potential bidders. The complaint generally seeks, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the alleged fiduciary breaches, injunctive relief prohibiting the Company, Merger Sub, and BTU from consummating the Merger, other forms of equitable relief, and compensatory damages.

On January 16, 2015, the Company and BTU, along with the other defendants named therein, entered into a memorandum of understanding (the “MOU”) to settle the Stockholder Actions. Pursuant to the MOU, the parties to the Stockholder Actions agreed to resolve the claims alleged and the Company and BTU agreed to make certain additional disclosures regarding the Merger. The MOU is expected to be memorialized in a stipulation of settlement, which will be subject to customary terms and conditions, including court approval, and will include an agreement by the plaintiffs in the Stockholder Actions, on behalf of each stockholder class, to provide a release of all claims against the Company and BTU, along with the other defendants named therein, subject to an exception for certain securities law claims. In addition, as part of the settlement, BTU has agreed to be responsible for the payment of certain amounts in plaintiffs’ attorney fees and expenses in connection with the settlement. The Company and BTU entered into the MOU solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve such settlement. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the MOU may be terminated.

The merger was consummated on January 30, 2015. The plaintiffs’ attorney fees and expenses were reflected as a liability on the opening balance sheet of BTU on the date of the merger. See Note 9, "Acquisitions," for more information on the Merger Agreement.