Commitments And Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2012
Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	9. Commitments and Contingencies Legal Matters The Company is, from time to time, party to various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. For example, the Company is currently named as a defendant or co-defendant in a number of patent infringement lawsuits in the U.S. and is indirectly participating in other U.S. patent infringement actions pursuant to its contractual indemnification obligations to certain customers. Based on evaluation of these matters and discussions with Company's intellectual property litigation counsel, the Company believes that liabilities arising from or sums paid in settlement of these existing matters would not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated results of operations or financial condition. On September 15, 2008 and September 18, 2008, two putative securities class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of persons who allegedly purchased our stock between February 5, 2007 and August 19, 2008. On December 11, 2008, these lawsuits were consolidated into a single action entitled Backe v. Novatel Wireless, Inc., et al., Case No. 08-CV-01689-H (RBB) (Consolidated with Case No. 08-CV-01714-H (RBB)) (U.S.D.C., S.D. Cal.). In May 2010, the district court re-captioned the case In re Novatel Wireless Securities Litigation. The plaintiffs filed the consolidated complaint on behalf of persons who allegedly purchased our stock between February 27, 2007 and November 10, 2008. The consolidated complaint names the Company and certain of our current and former officers as defendants. The consolidated complaint alleges generally that we issued materially false and misleading statements during the relevant time period regarding the strength of our products and market share, our financial results and our internal controls. The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages and costs. The court has denied defendants' motions to dismiss. In May 2010, the court entered an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and certified a class of purchasers of Company common stock between February 27, 2007 and September 15, 2008. On February 14, 2011, following extensive discovery, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs' claims. A trial date had been set for May 10, 2011. On March 15, 2011, the case was reassigned to a new district judge, the Honorable Anthony J. Battaglia. Following the reassignment, the court vacated the trial date pending the court's consideration of dispositive motions. Oral argument on the motion for summary judgment was heard by the court on June 17, 2011. On November 23, 2011, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the motion for summary judgment. The court has set a final pretrial conference for June 15, 2012. The Company intends to defend this litigation vigorously. At this time, there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of this litigation. We have not recorded any significant accruals for contingent liabilities associated with this matter based on our belief that a liability, while possible, is not probable. Further, any possible range of loss cannot be estimated at this time. On October 8, 2008, a purported shareholder, Jerry Rosenbaum, filed a derivative action in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Diego, against the Company, as nominal defendant, and certain of our current and former officers and directors, as defendants. Two other purported shareholders, Mark Campos and Chris Arnsdorf, separately filed substantially similar lawsuits in the same court on October 20, 2008 and November 5, 2008, respectively. On October 16, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. The consolidated complaint, Case No. 37-2008-00093576-CU-NP-CTL, alleges claims for breaches of fiduciary duties, violations of certain provisions of the California Corporations Code, unjust enrichment, and gross mismanagement. In February 2010, the court granted the defendants' motion to stay the action pending the resolution of the federal securities class action described above. In July 2010, the parties executed a memorandum of understanding setting forth the terms to be included in a contemplated settlement. Any settlement would be subject to court approval. The memorandum of understanding did not contemplate any restitution from the defendants. Following execution of the memorandum of understanding, plaintiffs conducted certain confirmatory discovery and sought to negotiate an award of legal fees as part of the terms to be included in a stipulation of settlement. Plaintiffs have since purported to terminate the memorandum of understanding. On January 28, 2011, the court held an informal status conference, at which plaintiffs requested that the court lift the stay of action. The court declined plaintiffs' request. Following certain additional confirmatory discovery and negotiations, on March 2, 2012, the parties executed a Stipulation of Settlement, which settlement was submitted to the court for approval. The court preliminarily approved the settlement pursuant to an order dated March 15, 2012. The settlement requires the Company to maintain and/or implement certain corporate governance measures and provides for the payment of fees and expenses to the plaintiffs' counsel of an amount not to exceed $900,000, $500,000 of which is to be paid out of insurance proceeds, and $400,000 to be paid by the Company. These fees have been paid in accordance with the March 15^th order and on May 4, 2012, the court granted final approval of the settlement. The Company recorded the $400,000 in fees in its 2011 financial results. Indemnification In the normal course of business, the Company periodically enters into agreements that require the Company to indemnify and defend its customers for, among other things, claims alleging that the Company's products infringe third-party patents or other intellectual property rights. The Company's maximum exposure under these indemnification provisions cannot be estimated but the Company does not believe that there are any matters individually or collectively that would have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The Company has accrued $150,000 as of March 31, 2012 related to our best estimate of potential settlements on legal and indemnification matters for which we have deemed the outcome probable.

9. Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Matters

The Company is, from time to time, party to various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. For example, the Company is currently named as a defendant or co-defendant in a number of patent infringement lawsuits in the U.S. and is indirectly participating in other U.S. patent infringement actions pursuant to its contractual indemnification obligations to certain customers. Based on evaluation of these matters and discussions with Company's intellectual property litigation counsel, the Company believes that liabilities arising from or sums paid in settlement of these existing matters would not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated results of operations or financial condition.

On September 15, 2008 and September 18, 2008, two putative securities class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of persons who allegedly purchased our stock between February 5, 2007 and August 19, 2008. On December 11, 2008, these lawsuits were consolidated into a single action entitled Backe v. Novatel Wireless, Inc., et al., Case No. 08-CV-01689-H (RBB) (Consolidated with Case No. 08-CV-01714-H (RBB)) (U.S.D.C., S.D. Cal.). In May 2010, the district court re-captioned the case In re Novatel Wireless Securities Litigation. The plaintiffs filed the consolidated complaint on behalf of persons who allegedly purchased our stock between February 27, 2007 and November 10, 2008. The consolidated complaint names the Company and certain of our current and former officers as defendants. The consolidated complaint alleges generally that we issued materially false and misleading statements during the relevant time period regarding the strength of our products and market share, our financial results and our internal controls. The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages and costs. The court has denied defendants' motions to dismiss. In May 2010, the court entered an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and certified a class of purchasers of Company common stock between February 27, 2007 and September 15, 2008. On February 14, 2011, following extensive discovery, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs' claims. A trial date had been set for May 10, 2011. On March 15, 2011, the case was reassigned to a new district judge, the Honorable Anthony J. Battaglia. Following the reassignment, the court vacated the trial date pending the court's consideration of dispositive motions. Oral argument on the motion for summary judgment was heard by the court on June 17, 2011. On November 23, 2011, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the motion for summary judgment. The court has set a final pretrial conference for June 15, 2012. The Company intends to defend this litigation vigorously. At this time, there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of this litigation. We have not recorded any significant accruals for contingent liabilities associated with this matter based on our belief that a liability, while possible, is not probable. Further, any possible range of loss cannot be estimated at this time.

On October 8, 2008, a purported shareholder, Jerry Rosenbaum, filed a derivative action in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Diego, against the Company, as nominal defendant, and certain of our current and former officers and directors, as defendants. Two other purported shareholders, Mark Campos and Chris Arnsdorf, separately filed substantially similar lawsuits in the same court on October 20, 2008 and November 5, 2008, respectively. On October 16, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. The consolidated complaint, Case No. 37-2008-00093576-CU-NP-CTL, alleges claims for breaches of fiduciary duties, violations of certain provisions of the California Corporations Code, unjust enrichment, and gross mismanagement. In February 2010, the court granted the defendants' motion to stay the action pending the resolution of the federal securities class action described above. In July 2010, the parties executed a memorandum of understanding setting forth the terms to be included in a contemplated settlement. Any settlement would be subject to court approval. The memorandum of understanding did not contemplate any restitution from the defendants. Following execution of the memorandum of understanding, plaintiffs conducted certain confirmatory discovery and sought to negotiate an award of legal fees as part of the terms to be included in a stipulation of settlement. Plaintiffs have since purported to terminate the memorandum of understanding. On January 28, 2011, the court held an informal status conference, at which plaintiffs requested that the court lift the stay of action. The court declined plaintiffs' request. Following certain additional confirmatory discovery and negotiations, on March 2, 2012, the parties executed a Stipulation of Settlement, which settlement was submitted to the court for approval. The court preliminarily approved the settlement pursuant to an order dated March 15, 2012. The settlement requires the Company to maintain and/or implement certain corporate governance measures and provides for the payment of fees and expenses to the plaintiffs' counsel of an amount not to exceed $900,000, $500,000 of which is to be paid out of insurance proceeds, and $400,000 to be paid by the Company. These fees have been paid in accordance with the March 15^th order and on May 4, 2012, the court granted final approval of the settlement. The Company recorded the $400,000 in fees in its 2011 financial results.

Indemnification

In the normal course of business, the Company periodically enters into agreements that require the Company to indemnify and defend its customers for, among other things, claims alleging that the Company's products infringe third-party patents or other intellectual property rights. The Company's maximum exposure under these indemnification provisions cannot be estimated but the Company does not believe that there are any matters individually or collectively that would have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

The Company has accrued $150,000 as of March 31, 2012 related to our best estimate of potential settlements on legal and indemnification matters for which we have deemed the outcome probable.