Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Purchase Obligations – As of December 31, 2015 the Company had purchase obligations in the amount of $7.2 million compared to $9.8 million as of September 30, 2015. 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. As of December 31, 2015, Tempress has contributed $0.9 million of the required $1.4 million to the project. EPA Accrual - As a result of the BTU acquisition, 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 less than $0.1 million, which is included in Other Accrued Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 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. Legal Proceedings – The Company and its subsidiaries are defendants from time to time in actions for matters arising out of their business operations. As previously disclosed in the Company’s filings with the SEC, shortly after the Company entered into the merger agreement with BTU, two separate putative stockholder class action complaints (together, the "Stockholder Actions") were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Delaware Court"). The first was filed on November 4, 2014 and the second on November 17, 2014, on behalf of BTU’s public stockholders, against BTU, members of the BTU board, Amtech and the special purpose merger subsidiary. The Stockholder Actions were consolidated on December 4, 2014. The complaints generally alleged that, in connection with entering into the merger agreement, the BTU board of directors breached certain fiduciary duties owed to BTU's stockholders. The complaints sought various forms of declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as 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. On June 22, 2015, the Company and BTU, along with the other defendants named therein, filed a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement with the Delaware Court to memorialize the MOU. On November 6, 2015, the Company and BTU, along with the other defendants named therein, filed an Amended Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement (the "Amended Stipulation of Settlement") with the Delaware Court. The Amended Stipulation of Settlement provides for a release of all alleged claims against the Company and BTU, along with the other defendants named therein, subject to an exception for certain securities law claims. In addition, the Amended Stipulation of Settlement provides that BTU, its insurer(s), or its successor(s) in interest will be responsible for the payment of certain amounts in plaintiffs’ attorney fees and expenses in connection with the settlement, and that the defendants in the Stockholder Actions agree not to oppose an application to the Delaware Court for fees and expenses not to exceed $325,000. In an effort to bring the Amended Stipulation of Settlement into conformity with recent rulings by the Delaware Court, the parties to the Stockholder Actions modified the Order and Final Judgment (the “Order”) to be approved by the Delaware Court. In amending the Order, the parties modified the definition of “Released Claims” by limiting the Released Claims solely to claims related to any disclosures (or lack thereof) to BTU’s stockholders concerning the merger and any fiduciary claims concerning the decision to enter into the merger. The modified Order further narrowed the definition of Released Claims by removing the inclusion of “Unknown Claims” from the definition of the Released Claims. The Amended Stipulation of Settlement and Order are subject to court approval. The Company and BTU entered into the Amended Stipulation of Settlement 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 court will approve the Amended Stipulation of Settlement or the Order, as amended. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the Amended Stipulation of Settlement may be terminated. These Stockholder Actions may cause the company to incur substantial costs and divert management’s attention from operational matters. Additionally, no outcome is certain, so additional harm could potentially result to the Company from this litigation.

Commitments and Contingencies

Purchase Obligations – As of December 31, 2015 the Company had purchase obligations in the amount of $7.2 million compared to $9.8 million as of September 30, 2015. 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. As of December 31, 2015, Tempress has contributed $0.9 million of the required $1.4 million to the project.

EPA Accrual - As a result of the BTU acquisition, 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 less than $0.1 million, which is included in Other Accrued Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 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.

Legal Proceedings – The Company and its subsidiaries are defendants from time to time in actions for matters arising out of their business operations. As previously disclosed in the Company’s filings with the SEC, shortly after the Company entered into the merger agreement with BTU, two separate putative stockholder class action complaints (together, the "Stockholder Actions") were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Delaware Court"). The first was filed on November 4, 2014 and the second on November 17, 2014, on behalf of BTU’s public stockholders, against BTU, members of the BTU board, Amtech and the special purpose merger subsidiary. The Stockholder Actions were consolidated on December 4, 2014. The complaints generally alleged that, in connection with entering into the merger agreement, the BTU board of directors breached certain fiduciary duties owed to BTU's stockholders. The complaints sought various forms of declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as 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. On June 22, 2015, the Company and BTU, along with the other defendants named therein, filed a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement with the Delaware Court to memorialize the MOU. On November 6, 2015, the Company and BTU, along with the other defendants named therein, filed an Amended Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement (the "Amended Stipulation of Settlement") with the Delaware Court. The Amended Stipulation of Settlement provides for a release of all alleged claims against the Company and BTU, along with the other defendants named therein, subject to an exception for certain securities law claims. In addition, the Amended Stipulation of Settlement provides that BTU, its insurer(s), or its successor(s) in interest will be responsible for the payment of certain amounts in plaintiffs’ attorney fees and expenses in connection with the settlement, and that the defendants in the Stockholder Actions agree not to oppose an application to the Delaware Court for fees and expenses not to exceed $325,000.

In an effort to bring the Amended Stipulation of Settlement into conformity with recent rulings by the Delaware Court, the parties to the Stockholder Actions modified the Order and Final Judgment (the “Order”) to be approved by the Delaware Court. In amending the Order, the parties modified the definition of “Released Claims” by limiting the Released Claims solely to claims related to any disclosures (or lack thereof) to BTU’s stockholders concerning the merger and any fiduciary claims concerning the decision to enter into the merger. The modified Order further narrowed the definition of Released Claims by removing the inclusion of “Unknown Claims” from the definition of the Released Claims.

The Amended Stipulation of Settlement and Order are subject to court approval. The Company and BTU entered into the Amended Stipulation of Settlement 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 court will approve the Amended Stipulation of Settlement or the Order, as amended. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the Amended Stipulation of Settlement may be terminated.

These Stockholder Actions may cause the company to incur substantial costs and divert management’s attention from operational matters. Additionally, no outcome is certain, so additional harm could potentially result to the Company from this litigation.