Legal Matters	9 Months Ended
Dec. 28, 2013
Legal Matters [Abstract]
Legal Matters	10. Legal Matters From time to time, we are involved in legal proceedings concerning matters arising in connection with the conduct of our business activities. We regularly evaluate the status of legal proceedings in which we are involved in order to assess whether a loss is probable or there is a reasonable possibility that a loss or additional loss may have been incurred and determine if accruals are appropriate. We further evaluate each legal proceeding to assess whether an estimate of possible loss or range of loss can be made. On June 4, 2012, U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC (the “Plaintiff”) filed suit against Cirrus Logic and two other defendants in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas. The Plaintiff alleges that Cirrus Logic infringed four U.S. patents relating to Ethernet technology. In its complaint, the Plaintiff indicated that it is seeking unspecified monetary damages, including up to treble damages for willful infringement. We answered the complaint on June 29, 2012, denying the allegations of infringement and seeking a declaratory judgment that the patents in suit were invalid and not infringed. The parties entered into a settlement agreement on May 30, 2013. In exchange for a full release of claims as it relates to the asserted patent, we paid the Plaintiff $0.7 million. This amount is recorded as a separate line item on the consolidated condensed statements of comprehensive income under the caption “Patent infringement settlements, net.” On February 4, 2013, a purported shareholder filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York against the Company and two of the Company’s executives (the “Securities Case”). Koplyay v. Cirrus Logic, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 13-CV-0790. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding our business results between July 31, 2012, and October 31, 2012, and seeks unspecified damages along with plaintiff’s costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees. A second complaint was filed on April 13, 2013, by a different purported shareholder, in the same Court, setting forth substantially the same allegations. On April 19, 2013, the Court appointed the plaintiff and counsel in the first class action complaint as the lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 1, 2013, including substantially the same allegations as the original complaint. On May 24, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim. On December 2, 2013, the Court granted the Company’s motion and dismissed the case with prejudice. The plaintiff did not appeal the Court’s order and the case has concluded. For the case described below, management is unable to provide a meaningful estimate of the possible loss or range of possible loss because, among other reasons, (i) the proceedings are in various stages; (ii) damages have not been sought or specified; (iii) damages are unsupported and/or exaggerated; (iv) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions; (v) there are significant factual issues to be resolved; and/or (vi) there are novel legal issues or unsettled legal theories to be presented or a large number of parties. For this case, however, management does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcome of this proceeding will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition. However, the ultimate resolutions of theis proceeding and matters are inherently difficult to predict; as such, our operating results could be materially affected by the unfavorable resolution of this proceeding or matters for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the allegations made in the legal case described below. On April 13, 2013, another purported shareholder filed a shareholder derivative complaint against several of our current officers and directors in the District Court of Travis County, Texas, 53rd Judicial District. Graham, derivatively on behalf of Cirrus Logic, Inc. v. Rhode, et al., Cause No. D-1-GN-13-001285. In this complaint, the plaintiff makes allegations similar to those presented in the Securities Case, but the plaintiff asserts various state law causes of action, including claims of breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. The Company is named solely as a nominal defendant against whom no recovery is sought.

10. Legal Matters

From time to time, we are involved in legal proceedings concerning matters arising in connection with the conduct of our business activities. We regularly evaluate the status of legal proceedings in which we are involved in order to assess whether a loss is probable or there is a reasonable possibility that a loss or additional loss may have been incurred and determine if accruals are appropriate. We further evaluate each legal proceeding to assess whether an estimate of possible loss or range of loss can be made.

On June 4, 2012, U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC (the “Plaintiff”) filed suit against Cirrus Logic and two other defendants in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas. The Plaintiff alleges that Cirrus Logic infringed four U.S. patents relating to Ethernet technology. In its complaint, the Plaintiff indicated that it is seeking unspecified monetary damages, including up to treble damages for willful infringement. We answered the complaint on June 29, 2012, denying the allegations of infringement and seeking a declaratory judgment that the patents in suit were invalid and not infringed. The parties entered into a settlement agreement on May 30, 2013. In exchange for a full release of claims as it relates to the asserted patent, we paid the Plaintiff $0.7 million. This amount is recorded as a separate line item on the consolidated condensed statements of comprehensive income under the caption “Patent infringement settlements, net.”

On February 4, 2013, a purported shareholder filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York against the Company and two of the Company’s executives (the “Securities Case”). Koplyay v. Cirrus Logic, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 13-CV-0790. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding our business results between July 31, 2012, and October 31, 2012, and seeks unspecified damages along with plaintiff’s costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees. A second complaint was filed on April 13, 2013, by a different purported shareholder, in the same Court, setting forth substantially the same allegations. On April 19, 2013, the Court appointed the plaintiff and counsel in the first class action complaint as the lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 1, 2013, including substantially the same allegations as the original complaint. On May 24, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim. On December 2, 2013, the Court granted the Company’s motion and dismissed the case with prejudice. The plaintiff did not appeal the Court’s order and the case has concluded.

For the case described below, management is unable to provide a meaningful estimate of the possible loss or range of possible loss because, among other reasons, (i) the proceedings are in various stages; (ii) damages have not been sought or specified; (iii) damages are unsupported and/or exaggerated; (iv) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions; (v) there are significant factual issues to be resolved; and/or (vi) there are novel legal issues or unsettled legal theories to be presented or a large number of parties. For this case, however, management does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcome of this proceeding will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition. However, the ultimate resolutions of theis proceeding and matters are inherently difficult to predict; as such, our operating results could be materially affected by the unfavorable resolution of this proceeding or matters for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the allegations made in the legal case described below.

On April 13, 2013, another purported shareholder filed a shareholder derivative complaint against several of our current officers and directors in the District Court of Travis County, Texas, 53rd Judicial District. Graham, derivatively on behalf of Cirrus Logic, Inc. v. Rhode, et al., Cause No. D-1-GN-13-001285. In this complaint, the plaintiff makes allegations similar to those presented in the Securities Case, but the plaintiff asserts various state law causes of action, including claims of breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. The Company is named solely as a nominal defendant against whom no recovery is sought.