Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Apr. 01, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies Legal Matters In February 2016, we filed a complaint against Technicolor SA and its affiliates in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that Technicolor had infringed on certain patents relating to the HDMI specification. Technicolor filed an answer to our complaint on April 11, 2016, which included various defenses to the alleged patent infringement. In November 2016, Technicolor amended its answer and asserted a counterclaim, alleging that the Company’s action constituted a breach of the HDMI Founders Agreement to provide licenses on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. Technicolor seeks declaratory relief and compensation for the alleged breach. At this stage of the proceedings, we do not have an estimate of the likelihood or the amount of any financial consequences to us. On or about January 9, 2017, Lattice, members of our Board, Canyon Bridge Capital Partners, Inc., Canyon Bridge Acquisition Company, Inc. and Canyon Bridge Merger Sub Inc. were named as defendants in a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon by an alleged stockholder of the Company in connection with the proposed acquisition of the Company by Canyon Bridge. The complaint was captioned Paul Parshall, et al. v. Lattice, et al. and alleges violations of federal securities laws based on alleged deficiencies in the disclosure provided to shareholders regarding the transaction. An additional complaint was subsequently filed on or about January 27, 2017, naming Lattice and members of our Board, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. This complaint is captioned Robert Sellers, et al. v. Lattice, et al. The Company supplemented its disclosures to the Company’s shareholders regarding the transaction prior to the meeting of shareholders to approve the transaction. As a result of the supplemented disclosure, counsel for plaintiffs in both actions entered into stipulations to dismiss the actions and the Oregon and Delaware actions were dismissed by stipulation on March 13, 2017 and March 21, 2017, respectively. In both cases, the courts retained jurisdiction to determine the mootness fees to be paid to plaintiffs’ counsel. At this stage of the proceedings, we do not have an estimate of the likelihood or the amount of any potential exposure to the Company but such amount is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the financial position of the Company. We are exposed to certain other asserted and unasserted potential claims. There can be no assurance that, with respect to potential claims made against us, we could resolve such claims under terms and conditions that would not have a material adverse effect on our business, our liquidity or our financial results. Periodically, we review the status of each significant matter and assess its potential financial exposure. If the potential loss from any claim or legal proceeding is considered probable and a range of possible losses can be estimated, we then accrue a liability for the estimated loss based on the provisions of FASB ASC 450, “Contingencies" (“ASC 450”). Legal proceedings are subject to uncertainties, and the outcomes are difficult to predict. Because of such uncertainties, accruals are based only on the best information available at the time. As additional information becomes available, we reassess the potential liability related to pending claims and litigation and may revise estimates.

Contingencies

Legal Matters

In February 2016, we filed a complaint against Technicolor SA and its affiliates in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that Technicolor had infringed on certain patents relating to the HDMI specification. Technicolor filed an answer to our complaint on April 11, 2016, which included various defenses to the alleged patent infringement. In November 2016, Technicolor amended its answer and asserted a counterclaim, alleging that the Company’s action constituted a breach of the HDMI Founders Agreement to provide licenses on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. Technicolor seeks declaratory relief and compensation for the alleged breach. At this stage of the proceedings, we do not have an estimate of the likelihood or the amount of any financial consequences to us.

On or about January 9, 2017, Lattice, members of our Board, Canyon Bridge Capital Partners, Inc., Canyon Bridge Acquisition Company, Inc. and Canyon Bridge Merger Sub Inc. were named as defendants in a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon by an alleged stockholder of the Company in connection with the proposed acquisition of the Company by Canyon Bridge. The complaint was captioned Paul Parshall, et al. v. Lattice, et al. and alleges violations of federal securities laws based on alleged deficiencies in the disclosure provided to shareholders regarding the transaction. An additional complaint was subsequently filed on or about January 27, 2017, naming Lattice and members of our Board, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. This complaint is captioned Robert Sellers, et al. v. Lattice, et al. The Company supplemented its disclosures to the Company’s shareholders regarding the transaction prior to the meeting of shareholders to approve the transaction. As a result of the supplemented disclosure, counsel for plaintiffs in both actions entered into stipulations to dismiss the actions and the Oregon and Delaware actions were dismissed by stipulation on March 13, 2017 and March 21, 2017, respectively. In both cases, the courts retained jurisdiction to determine the mootness fees to be paid to plaintiffs’ counsel. At this stage of the proceedings, we do not have an estimate of the likelihood or the amount of any potential exposure to the Company but such amount is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the financial position of the Company.

We are exposed to certain other asserted and unasserted potential claims. There can be no assurance that, with respect to potential claims made against us, we could resolve such claims under terms and conditions that would not have a material adverse effect on our business, our liquidity or our financial results. Periodically, we review the status of each significant matter and assess its potential financial exposure. If the potential loss from any claim or legal proceeding is considered probable and a range of possible losses can be estimated, we then accrue a liability for the estimated loss based on the provisions of FASB ASC 450, “Contingencies" (“ASC 450”). Legal proceedings are subject to uncertainties, and the outcomes are difficult to predict. Because of such uncertainties, accruals are based only on the best information available at the time. As additional information becomes available, we reassess the potential liability related to pending claims and litigation and may revise estimates.