Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 28, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	Note 10. Commitments and Contingencies There are various lawsuits and claims pending against the company involving product liability, intellectual property, contract, commercial and other issues. The company establishes a liability that is an estimate of amounts needed to pay damages in the future for events that have already occurred. The company accrues the most likely amount or at least the minimum of the range of probable loss when a range of probable loss can be estimated. The accrued liabilities are based on management’s judgment as to the probability of losses for asserted and unasserted claims and, where applicable, actuarially determined estimates. The reserve estimates are adjusted as additional information becomes known or payments are made. The company records estimated amounts due from insurers related to certain product liabilities as an asset. Although the company believes that the amounts reserved and estimated recoveries are probable and appropriate based on available information, including actuarial studies of loss estimates, the process of estimating losses and insurance recoveries involves a considerable degree of judgment by management and the ultimate amounts could vary materially. Insurance contracts do not relieve the company of its primary obligation with respect to any losses incurred. The collectability of amounts due from its insurers is subject to the solvency and willingness of the insurer to pay, as well as the legal sufficiency of the insurance claims. Management monitors the financial condition and ratings of its insurers on an ongoing basis. The company is currently involved in various stages of investigation and remediation related to environmental matters. The company cannot predict all potential costs related to environmental remediation matters and the possible impact on future operations given the uncertainties regarding the extent of the required cleanup, the complexity and interpretation of applicable laws and regulations, the varying costs of alternative cleanup methods and the extent of the company’s responsibility. Expenses for environmental remediation matters related to the costs of permit requirements and installing, operating and maintaining groundwater-treatment systems and other remedial activities related to historical environmental contamination at the company’s domestic and international facilities were not material in any period presented. The company records accruals for environmental remediation liabilities, based on current interpretations of environmental laws and regulations, when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of such liability can be reasonably estimated. The company calculates estimates based upon several factors, including reports prepared by environmental specialists and management’s knowledge of and experience with these environmental matters. The company includes in these estimates potential costs for investigation, remediation and operation and maintenance of cleanup sites. On February 3, 2014, the company acquired Life Technologies. Life Technologies and its subsidiaries are party to several lawsuits in which plaintiffs claim infringement of their intellectual property, including the following: On June 6, 2004, Enzo Biochem, Enzo Life Sciences and Yale University filed a complaint against Life Technologies in United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The plaintiffs allege patent infringement by Applera’s labeled DNA terminator products used in DNA sequencing and fragment analysis. The plaintiff sought damages for alleged willful infringement, attorneys’ fees, costs, prejudgment interest, and injunctive relief. In November 2012, the jury awarded damages of $48.5 million. Prejudgment interest of $12.4 million was also granted. The $60.9 million judgment and interest was accrued by Life Technologies and the liability was assumed by the company as of the date of the acquisition. The case is currently on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On January 30, 2012, Enzo Life Sciences filed a complaint against Life Technologies in United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The plaintiff alleges patent infringement by Life Technologies’ Taqman probes and assays, Dynabead oligo-dT beads, NCode oligonucleotide array products, Ion Torrent beads and chips and SOLiD beads and chips. The plaintiff seeks damages for alleged willful infringement, attorneys’ fees, costs, prejudgment interest and injunctive relief. On May 26, 2010, Promega Corp. & Max-Planck-Gesellschaft Zur Forderung Der Wissenschaften EV filed a complaint against Life Technologies in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. The plaintiffs allege patent infringement by sales and uses of Applied Biosystems’ short tandem repeat DNA identification products outside the scope of a 2006 license agreement. The plaintiff sought damages for alleged willful infringement, attorneys’ fees, costs, prejudgment interest, and injunctive relief. Although a jury initially found willful infringement and assessed damages at $52 million, the District Court subsequently overturned the verdict on the grounds that the plaintiff had failed to prove infringement. The District Court entered judgment in favor of Life Technologies, and the case is currently on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The $52 million award was accrued by Life Technologies and the liability was assumed by the company as of the date of the acquisition. On September 29, 2009, Life Technologies filed a complaint against Illumina, Inc. and Solexa, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of patents relating to clonal amplification of nucleic acids by Illumina’s next generation Genome Analyzer, HiSeq, and MiSeq DNA sequencing systems. Illumina asserted counterclaims in that case alleging infringement of patents relating to optical tracking, generating linked pairs of nucleic acid segments, and genome-wide variation analysis by Life Technologies’ next generation SOLiD sequencing system and Ion Torrent’s semiconductor sequencing system. On April 6, 2011, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Life Technologies seeks damages for alleged willful infringement, attorneys’ fees, costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and injunctive relief. On its counterclaims, Illumina seeks damages for alleged infringement, attorneys’ fees, costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and injunctive relief. Final judgment of non-infringement in Illumina’s favor was entered on April 28, 2014, and Life Technologies filed an appeal from that judgment with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On December 27, 2011, Illumina Inc. filed a complaint against Life Technologies in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California alleging infringement of a patent relating to methods for making bead arrays by Ion Torrent’s semiconductor sequencing systems. Plaintiff seeks damages for alleged willful infringement, attorneys’ fees, costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and injunctive relief. On April 26, 2012, Esoterix Genetic Laboratories filed a complaint against Life Technologies in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina alleging infringement of patents relating to detection of subpopulations of cells with mutated sequences and multiplexed DNA amplification by Life Technologies’ OpenArray systems, next generation SOLiD sequencing system, and Ion Torrent semiconductor sequencing systems. Plaintiff seeks damages for alleged willful infringement, attorneys’ fees, costs, prejudgment interest, and injunctive relief. On October 31, 2012, Esoterix Genetic Laboratories and The Johns Hopkins University filed a complaint against Life Technologies in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina alleging infringement of patents relating to methods of determining a ratio of genetic sequences in a population of genetic sequences and methods of determining allelic imbalances in a biological sample by Life Technologies’ OpenArray systems, next generation SOLiD sequencing system, and Ion Torrent semiconductor sequencing systems. Plaintiffs seek damages for alleged willful infringement, attorneys’ fees, costs, prejudgment interest, and injunctive relief. On June 3, 2013, Unisone Strategic IP filed a complaint against Life Technologies in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California alleging patent infringement by Life Technologies’ supply chain management system software, which operates with product “supply centers” installed at customer sites. Plaintiff seeks damages for alleged willful infringement, attorneys’ fees, costs, and injunctive relief. An unfavorable outcome that differs materially from current reserve estimates for one or more of the matters described above could have a material adverse effect on the company’s results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 28, 2014

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

Note 10. Commitments and Contingencies

There are various lawsuits and claims pending against the company involving product liability, intellectual property, contract, commercial and other issues. The company establishes a liability that is an estimate of amounts needed to pay damages in the future for events that have already occurred. The company accrues the most likely amount or at least the minimum of the range of probable loss when a range of probable loss can be estimated. The accrued liabilities are based on management’s judgment as to the probability of losses for asserted and unasserted claims and, where applicable, actuarially determined estimates. The reserve estimates are adjusted as additional information becomes known or payments are made.

The company records estimated amounts due from insurers related to certain product liabilities as an asset. Although the company believes that the amounts reserved and estimated recoveries are probable and appropriate based on available information, including actuarial studies of loss estimates, the process of estimating losses and insurance recoveries involves a considerable degree of judgment by management and the ultimate amounts could vary materially. Insurance contracts do not relieve the company of its primary obligation with respect to any losses incurred. The collectability of amounts due from its insurers is subject to the solvency and willingness of the insurer to pay, as well as the legal sufficiency of the insurance claims. Management monitors the financial condition and ratings of its insurers on an ongoing basis.

The company is currently involved in various stages of investigation and remediation related to environmental matters. The company cannot predict all potential costs related to environmental remediation matters and the possible impact on future operations given the uncertainties regarding the extent of the required cleanup, the complexity and interpretation of applicable laws and regulations, the varying costs of alternative cleanup methods and the extent of the company’s responsibility. Expenses for environmental remediation matters related to the costs of permit requirements and installing, operating and maintaining groundwater-treatment systems and other remedial activities related to historical environmental contamination at the company’s domestic and international facilities were not material in any period presented. The company records accruals for environmental remediation liabilities, based on current interpretations of environmental laws and regulations, when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of such liability can be reasonably estimated. The company calculates estimates based upon several factors, including reports prepared by environmental specialists and management’s knowledge of and experience with these environmental matters. The company includes in these estimates potential costs for investigation, remediation and operation and maintenance of cleanup sites.

On February 3, 2014, the company acquired Life Technologies. Life Technologies and its subsidiaries are party to several lawsuits in which plaintiffs claim infringement of their intellectual property, including the following:

On June 6, 2004, Enzo Biochem, Enzo Life Sciences and Yale University filed a complaint against Life Technologies in United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The plaintiffs allege patent infringement by Applera’s labeled DNA terminator products used in DNA sequencing and fragment analysis. The plaintiff sought damages for alleged willful infringement, attorneys’ fees, costs, prejudgment interest, and injunctive relief. In November 2012, the jury awarded damages of $48.5 million. Prejudgment interest of $12.4 million was also granted. The $60.9 million judgment and interest was accrued by Life Technologies and the liability was assumed by the company as of the date of the acquisition. The case is currently on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

On January 30, 2012, Enzo Life Sciences filed a complaint against Life Technologies in United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The plaintiff alleges patent infringement by Life Technologies’ Taqman probes and assays, Dynabead oligo-dT beads, NCode oligonucleotide array products, Ion Torrent beads and chips and SOLiD beads and chips. The plaintiff seeks damages for alleged willful infringement, attorneys’ fees, costs, prejudgment interest and injunctive relief.

On May 26, 2010, Promega Corp. & Max-Planck-Gesellschaft Zur Forderung Der Wissenschaften EV filed a complaint against Life Technologies in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. The plaintiffs allege patent infringement by sales and uses of Applied Biosystems’ short tandem repeat DNA identification products outside the scope of a 2006 license agreement. The plaintiff sought damages for alleged willful infringement, attorneys’ fees, costs, prejudgment interest, and injunctive relief. Although a jury initially found willful infringement and assessed damages at $52 million, the District Court subsequently overturned the verdict on the grounds that the plaintiff had failed to prove infringement. The District Court entered judgment in favor of Life Technologies, and the case is currently on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The $52 million award was accrued by Life Technologies and the liability was assumed by the company as of the date of the acquisition.

On September 29, 2009, Life Technologies filed a complaint against Illumina, Inc. and Solexa, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of patents relating to clonal amplification of nucleic acids by Illumina’s next generation Genome Analyzer, HiSeq, and MiSeq DNA sequencing systems. Illumina asserted counterclaims in that case alleging infringement of patents relating to optical tracking, generating linked pairs of nucleic acid segments, and genome-wide variation analysis by Life Technologies’ next generation SOLiD sequencing system and Ion Torrent’s semiconductor sequencing system. On April 6, 2011, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Life Technologies seeks damages for alleged willful infringement, attorneys’ fees, costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and injunctive relief. On its counterclaims, Illumina seeks damages for alleged infringement, attorneys’ fees, costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and injunctive relief. Final judgment of non-infringement in Illumina’s favor was entered on April 28, 2014, and Life Technologies filed an appeal from that judgment with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

On December 27, 2011, Illumina Inc. filed a complaint against Life Technologies in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California alleging infringement of a patent relating to methods for making bead arrays by Ion Torrent’s semiconductor sequencing systems. Plaintiff seeks damages for alleged willful infringement, attorneys’ fees, costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and injunctive relief.

On April 26, 2012, Esoterix Genetic Laboratories filed a complaint against Life Technologies in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina alleging infringement of patents relating to detection of subpopulations of cells with mutated sequences and multiplexed DNA amplification by Life Technologies’ OpenArray systems, next generation SOLiD sequencing system, and Ion Torrent semiconductor sequencing systems. Plaintiff seeks damages for alleged willful infringement, attorneys’ fees, costs, prejudgment interest, and injunctive relief.

On October 31, 2012, Esoterix Genetic Laboratories and The Johns Hopkins University filed a complaint against Life Technologies in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina alleging infringement of patents relating to methods of determining a ratio of genetic sequences in a population of genetic sequences and methods of determining allelic imbalances in a biological sample by Life Technologies’ OpenArray systems, next generation SOLiD sequencing system, and Ion Torrent semiconductor sequencing systems. Plaintiffs seek damages for alleged willful infringement, attorneys’ fees, costs, prejudgment interest, and injunctive relief.

On June 3, 2013, Unisone Strategic IP filed a complaint against Life Technologies in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California alleging patent infringement by Life Technologies’ supply chain management system software, which operates with product “supply centers” installed at customer sites. Plaintiff seeks damages for alleged willful infringement, attorneys’ fees, costs, and injunctive relief.

An unfavorable outcome that differs materially from current reserve estimates for one or more of the matters described above could have a material adverse effect on the company’s results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

- Definition

The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.

+ References+ Details