Litigation	9 Months Ended
Oct. 02, 2011
Litigation [Abstract]
Legal Matters and Contingencies	Litigation Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation On October 26, 2001, a putative securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against certain investment banks that underwrote QuickLogic's initial public offering, QuickLogic and some of QuickLogic's officers and directors. The complaint alleged excessive and undisclosed commissions in connection with the allocation of shares of common stock in QuickLogic's initial and secondary public offerings and artificially high prices through “tie-in” arrangements which required the underwriters' customers to buy shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices in violation of the federal securities laws. Plaintiffs sought an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of persons who purchased QuickLogic's stock pursuant to the registration statements between October 14, 1999 and December 6, 2000. Various plaintiffs filed similar actions asserting virtually identical allegations against over 300 other public companies, their underwriters, and their officers and directors arising out of each company's public offering. These actions, including the action against QuickLogic, were coordinated for pretrial purposes and captioned In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92, or IPO Securities Litigation. The parties have reached a global settlement of the litigation. Under the settlement, the insurers are to pay the full amount of the settlement share allocated to the Company, and the Company will bear no financial liability. The Company and the other defendants will receive complete dismissals from the case. In 2009, the district court granted final approval of the settlement. Several groups of objectors appealed; a number of those appeals have been dismissed. Currently on appeal is the district court's August 2011 ruling that the appellant is not a class member with standing to object to the settlement. The Company did not accrue any amounts related to the proposed settlement because it was not reasonably estimable.

Litigation

Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation

On October 26, 2001, a putative securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against certain investment banks that underwrote QuickLogic's initial public offering, QuickLogic and some of QuickLogic's officers and directors. The complaint alleged excessive and undisclosed commissions in connection with the allocation of shares of common stock in QuickLogic's initial and secondary public offerings and artificially high prices through “tie-in” arrangements which required the underwriters' customers to buy shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices in violation of the federal securities laws. Plaintiffs sought an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of persons who purchased QuickLogic's stock pursuant to the registration statements between October 14, 1999 and December 6, 2000. Various plaintiffs filed similar actions asserting virtually identical allegations against over 300 other public companies, their underwriters, and their officers and directors arising out of each company's public offering. These actions, including the action against QuickLogic, were coordinated for pretrial purposes and captioned In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92, or IPO Securities Litigation.

The parties have reached a global settlement of the litigation. Under the settlement, the insurers are to pay the full amount of the settlement share allocated to the Company, and the Company will bear no financial liability. The Company and the other defendants will receive complete dismissals from the case. In 2009, the district court granted final approval of the settlement. Several groups of objectors appealed; a number of those appeals have been dismissed. Currently on appeal is the district court's August 2011 ruling that the appellant is not a class member with standing to object to the settlement. The Company did not accrue any amounts related to the proposed settlement because it was not reasonably estimable.