Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Matters and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Patent Litigation In December 2011, we were named as a defendant in a complaint filed by plaintiff Aria Diagnostics, Inc., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, case no. 3:11-cv-06391-SI. Since the complaint was filed, Aria changed its name to Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., or Ariosa. In the complaint, the plaintiff seeks a judicial declaration that no activities related to the plaintiff's noninvasive, prenatal test using cell-free DNA circulating in the blood of a pregnant woman do or will infringe any claim of U.S Patent No. 6,258,540 entitled Noninvasive Prenatal Diagnosis, or the '540 Patent, which we have exclusively in-licensed from Isis. In March 2012, we filed an answer to the complaint and asserted counterclaims that Ariosa is infringing the '540 Patent and seeking unspecified damages and injunctive relief. Our counterclaims name our licensor Isis as a nominal counter-defendant for purposes of subject matter jurisdiction only and we seek to realign Isis as a co-counter plaintiff in the matter. In March 2012, Ariosa responded to our answer and counterclaims and asserted affirmative defenses including invalidity of the '540 Patent under United States patent laws. In March 2012 we filed a motion against Ariosa for preliminary injunctive relief. On July 5, 2012, the Court denied our motion for preliminary injunctive relief and on July 16, 2012 we filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) from the order denying the preliminary injunction motion. On August 9, 2013, the CAFC vacated and remanded the District Court’s decision, ruling that the District Court incorrectly interpreted the claims of the ‘540 patent and improperly balanced factors regarding issuance of a preliminary injunction. On August 16, 2013, Ariosa filed a motion for summary judgment in favor of Ariosa on our counterclaim for patent infringement on the ground that the claims of the ‘540 Patent are invalid because they are not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter under the patent code, Title 35 U.S.C. § 101. On October 16, 2013 the District Court issued its order on the interpretation of the claims of the patent. On October 30, 2013 the District Court issued its order granting Ariosa’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the’540 Patent is invalid under Title 35 U.S.C. §101. The Company disagrees with the Order and, following entry of judgment pursuant to the Order, intends to appeal the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. However, the Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter. In January 2012, we were named as a defendant in a complaint filed by plaintiff Natera, a Delaware corporation, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, case no. 3:12-cv-00132-SI. In the complaint, the plaintiff seeks a judicial declaration that (i) activities related to the plaintiff's noninvasive, prenatal paternity test do not directly or indirectly infringe any claim of the '540 Patent, which we have exclusively in-licensed from Isis, and (ii) one or more claims of the '540 Patent are invalid for failure to comply with the requirements of the patent laws of the United States. In April 2012, we filed an answer to the complaint and asserted counterclaims that Natera and DNA Diagnostics Center, Inc., or DDC, are infringing the '540 Patent based on their activities relating to noninvasive prenatal paternity testing and noninvasive prenatal aneuploidy testing and seeking unspecified damages and injunctive relief. Our counterclaims name our licensor Isis as a nominal counter-defendant for purposes of subject matter jurisdiction only and we seek to realign Isis as a co-counter plaintiff in the matter. On October 16, 2013 the District Court issued its order on the interpretation of the patent claims. Many of the ‘540 Patent claims asserted against Natera are the same claims that were invalidated by the same District Court on October 30, 2013 in the litigation involving Ariosa, set forth above. We intend to vigorously defend against the judicial declarations sought by Natera in its complaint and intend to vigorously pursue our claims against Natera for damages and injunctive relief. However, we cannot predict the outcome of this matter. In February 2012, we and Sequenom Center for Molecular Medicine, LLC were named as defendants in a complaint filed by plaintiffs Verinata Health, Inc., or Verinata, and The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, or Stanford, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, case no. 3:12-cv-00865-SI. In the complaint (i) Verinata seeks a judicial declaration that activities related to its noninvasive prenatal test using cell-free DNA circulating in the blood of a pregnant woman do not directly or indirectly infringe any claim of the '540 Patent, which we have exclusively in-licensed from Isis, (ii) Verinata seeks a judicial declaration that each claim of the '540 Patent is invalid for failure to comply with the requirements of the patent laws of the United States, and (iii) Verinata and Stanford allege that we and Sequenom Laboratories, by performing its noninvasive prenatal MaterniT21 LDT, have and continue to directly infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,008,018 (“‘018 Patent”)entitled Determination of Fetal Aneuploidies by Massively Parallel DNA Sequencing and U.S. Patent No. 7,888,017 (“’017 Patent”) entitled Noninvasive Fetal Genetic Screening by Digital Analysis, each of which have been exclusively licensed to Verinata by Stanford and seek unspecified damages. In March 2012, we filed an answer to the complaint and asserted counterclaims that Verinata is infringing the '540 Patent and seeking unspecified damages and injunctive relief. Our counterclaims name our licensor Isis as a nominal counter-defendant for purposes of subject matter jurisdiction only and we seek to realign Isis as a co-counter plaintiff in the matter. In June 2012, plaintiffs Verinata and Stanford amended their complaint and allege that we and Sequenom Laboratories, by performing its noninvasive prenatal MaterniT21 PLUS test, have and continue to directly infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,195,415 (“’415 Patent”) entitled Noninvasive Diagnosis of Fetal Aneuploidy by Sequencing, which has been exclusively licensed to Verinata by Stanford and seek unspecified damages. In July 2012, we filed an answer to the complaint. On March 12, 2013 the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, declared a patent interference (Patent Interference No. 105,920 (DK)) between Verinata's '018 Patent, which Verinata has asserted against us in the litigation, and our in-licensed pending patent application no. 13/070,275 (publication no. US2011/0318734 entitled “Diagnosing Fetal Chromosomal Aneuploidy Using Massively Parallel Genomic Sequencing”). On May 3, 2013, the USPTO declared a patent interference (Patent Interference No. 105,922 (DK)) between Verinata's '415 Patent, which Verinata has asserted against us in the litigation, and our in-licensed pending patent application no. 13/070,266 (publication no. US2012/0003637 entitled “Diagnosing Fetal Chromosomal Aneuploidy Using Massively Parallel Genomic Sequencing”). On October 16, 2013, the District Court issued its order on the interpretation of the ‘540 Patent, ‘018 Patent, ‘017 Patent, and ‘415 Patent claims. Many of the ‘540 Patent claims asserted against Verinata are the same claims that were invalidated by the same District Court on October 30, 2013 in the litigation involving Ariosa, set forth above. We intend to vigorously defend against the judicial declarations sought and allegations of infringement set forth by plaintiffs in their complaint and intend to vigorously pursue our claims against Verinata for damages and injunctive relief. However, we cannot predict the outcome of this matter. Verinata was acquired by Illumina, Inc. in the first quarter of 2013. Former Employee Litigation In August 2010, Paul Hawran, our former chief financial officer, sued the three directors who comprised the special committee that during 2009 conducted the investigation of activity related to a prior trisomy 21 test under development at that time, alleging that they had defamed him, invaded his privacy, negligently and intentionally interfered with his prospective economic advantage, and committed unfair business practices under California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, and seeking unspecified damages. Mr. Hawran alleged in his complaint that he was asked to resign because he had raised concerns about the conduct of certain of our directors. The lawsuit, Hawran v. Hixson et al, case no. 37-2010-00058632-CU-DF-NC, was filed in the Superior Court of California for the North County of San Diego. In September 2010, we were served with an amended complaint in this lawsuit, in which Mr. Hawran named us as a defendant in addition to the three individuals previously named and added claims of breach of contract and intentional and negligent misrepresentation. In October 2010, the defendants filed a motion to strike the complaint under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 on the grounds that Mr. Hawran's claims arise from acts in furtherance of the defendants' right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue and filed a demurrer to each and every cause of action in the complaint. On January 3, 2011, the Superior Court issued a minute order dismissing some, but not all, of the claims alleged in the amended complaint. The defendants filed a notice of appeal regarding the minute order on January 11, 2011 and Mr. Hawran filed a cross-appeal regarding the same on January 31, 2011. On September 13, 2012, the California Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate Division) affirmed the Superior Court's order. On October 23, 2012, the individual defendants and we filed a Petition for Review with the Supreme Court of California and on December 19, 2012, the Petition for Review was denied. On January 7, 2013, we and the individual defendants filed an answer to the complaint. The individual defendants and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the claims advanced. On January 7, 2013, we filed a cross-complaint against Mr. Hawran for breach of fiduciary duty and a demand for unspecified damages. Mr. Hawran subsequently made a demand to us for indemnity under contract and by law for legal fees and expenses in connection with his defense of the cross-complaint. On April 12, 2013, our Board of Directors denied on a preliminary basis Mr. Hawran's demand for indemnity. On May 14, 2013, Mr. Hawran filed a complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery seeking a determination of his right to indemnity and advancement as to expenses for defense of the cross-complaint. On May 17, 2013, we filed a request for dismissal without prejudice of the cross-complaint and dismissal of the cross-complaint was entered by the court on June 4, 2013. The Superior Court set a trial commencement date of April 11, 2014. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter. On September 18, 2013, Harry Stylli, Ph.D., our former chief executive officer, made an arbitration demand upon us pursuant to his employment agreement, alleging that, in September 2009, we terminated his employment without cause and breached his employment agreement by failing and refusing to pay Dr. Stylli the severance benefits provided for under his employment agreement. Dr. Stylli seeks damages in excess of $1.6 million, including but not limited to severance benefits, interest, and costs of arbitration. We intend to vigorously defend against Dr. Stylli’s demand. However, we cannot predict the outcome of this matter. Shareholder Derivative Litigation On September 30, 2013, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (captioned Borenstein, derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant Sequenom, Inc. v. Hixson, et al., case no. 13CV2339JAH NLS) against each of the nine members of our board of directors (two of our board members also being officers and employees). The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duties and abuse by the defendants of their ability to influence and control us, resulting in significant damages to us. In general, the complaint alleges that an unlawful billing policy was implemented for our MaterniT21 PLUS LDT and later changed, the change was not publicly disclosed by us, and the change was a major cause of lower test volumes and revenues for the second quarter of 2013. The complaint requests declaratory relief, unspecified damages and restitution, and reasonable attorneys’ fees. We intend to vigorously defend against the allegations and relief sought in the complaint. However, we cannot predict the outcome of this matter. In addition, from time to time, we may be involved in litigation relating to claims arising out of our operations in the normal course of business, including claims related to our products, tests, and services, including our laboratory developed test services. These other matters are, in the opinion of management, immaterial with respect to our consolidated financial position, liquidity, or results of operations. Claim estimates that are probable and can be reasonably estimated are reflected as liabilities. Because of the uncertainties related to our pending litigation, investigations, inquiries or claims, management is currently unable to predict the ultimate outcome of any litigation, investigation, inquiry or claim, determine whether a liability has been incurred, or make an estimate regarding the possible loss or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome. It is reasonably possible that some of the matters, which are pending or may be asserted, could be decided unfavorably to us. An adverse ruling or outcome in any lawsuit involving us could materially affect our business, liquidity, consolidated financial position or results of operations ability to sell one or more of our products or could result in additional competition. In view of the unpredictable nature of such matters, we cannot provide any assurances regarding the outcome of any litigation, investigation, inquiry or claim to which we are a party or the impact on us of an adverse ruling of such matters.

Commitments and Contingencies

Patent Litigation

In December 2011, we were named as a defendant in a complaint filed by plaintiff Aria Diagnostics, Inc., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, case no. 3:11-cv-06391-SI. Since the complaint was filed, Aria changed its name to Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., or Ariosa. In the complaint, the plaintiff seeks a judicial declaration that no activities related to the plaintiff's noninvasive, prenatal test using cell-free DNA circulating in the blood of a pregnant woman do or will infringe any claim of U.S Patent No. 6,258,540 entitled Noninvasive Prenatal Diagnosis, or the '540 Patent, which we have exclusively in-licensed from Isis. In March 2012, we filed an answer to the complaint and asserted counterclaims that Ariosa is infringing the '540 Patent and seeking unspecified damages and injunctive relief. Our counterclaims name our licensor Isis as a nominal counter-defendant for purposes of subject matter jurisdiction only and we seek to realign Isis as a co-counter plaintiff in the matter. In March 2012, Ariosa responded to our answer and counterclaims and asserted affirmative defenses including invalidity of the '540 Patent under United States patent laws. In March 2012 we filed a motion against Ariosa for preliminary injunctive relief. On July 5, 2012, the Court denied our motion for preliminary injunctive relief and on July 16, 2012 we filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) from the order denying the preliminary injunction motion. On August 9, 2013, the CAFC vacated and remanded the District Court’s decision, ruling that the District Court incorrectly interpreted the claims of the ‘540 patent and improperly balanced factors regarding issuance of a preliminary injunction. On August 16, 2013, Ariosa filed a motion for summary judgment in favor of Ariosa on our counterclaim for patent infringement on the ground that the claims of the ‘540 Patent are invalid because they are not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter under the patent code, Title 35 U.S.C. § 101. On October 16, 2013 the District Court issued its order on the interpretation of the claims of the patent. On October 30, 2013 the District Court issued its order granting Ariosa’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the’540 Patent is invalid under Title 35 U.S.C. §101. The Company disagrees with the Order and, following entry of judgment pursuant to the Order, intends to appeal the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. However, the Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

In January 2012, we were named as a defendant in a complaint filed by plaintiff Natera, a Delaware corporation, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, case no. 3:12-cv-00132-SI. In the complaint, the plaintiff seeks a judicial declaration that (i) activities related to the plaintiff's noninvasive, prenatal paternity test do not directly or indirectly infringe any claim of the '540 Patent, which we have exclusively in-licensed from Isis, and (ii) one or more claims of the '540 Patent are invalid for failure to comply with the requirements of the patent laws of the United States. In April 2012, we filed an answer to the complaint and asserted counterclaims that Natera and DNA Diagnostics Center, Inc., or DDC, are infringing the '540 Patent based on their activities relating to noninvasive prenatal paternity testing and noninvasive prenatal aneuploidy testing and seeking unspecified damages and injunctive relief. Our counterclaims name our licensor Isis as a nominal counter-defendant for purposes of subject matter jurisdiction only and we seek to realign Isis as a co-counter plaintiff in the matter. On October 16, 2013 the District Court issued its order on the interpretation of the patent claims. Many of the ‘540 Patent claims asserted against Natera are the same claims that were invalidated by the same District Court on October 30, 2013 in the litigation involving Ariosa, set forth above. We intend to vigorously defend against the judicial declarations sought by Natera in its complaint and intend to vigorously pursue our claims against Natera for damages and injunctive relief. However, we cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

In February 2012, we and Sequenom Center for Molecular Medicine, LLC were named as defendants in a complaint filed by plaintiffs Verinata Health, Inc., or Verinata, and The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, or Stanford, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, case no. 3:12-cv-00865-SI. In the complaint (i) Verinata seeks a judicial declaration that activities related to its noninvasive prenatal test using cell-free DNA circulating in the blood of a pregnant woman do not directly or indirectly infringe any claim of the '540 Patent, which we have exclusively in-licensed from Isis, (ii) Verinata seeks a judicial declaration that each claim of the '540 Patent is invalid for failure to comply with the requirements of the patent laws of the United States, and (iii) Verinata and Stanford allege that we and Sequenom Laboratories, by performing its noninvasive prenatal MaterniT21 LDT, have and continue to directly infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,008,018 (“‘018 Patent”)entitled Determination of Fetal Aneuploidies by Massively Parallel DNA Sequencing and U.S. Patent No. 7,888,017 (“’017 Patent”) entitled Noninvasive Fetal Genetic Screening by Digital Analysis, each of which have been exclusively licensed to Verinata by Stanford and seek unspecified damages. In March 2012, we filed an answer to the complaint and asserted counterclaims that Verinata is infringing the '540 Patent and seeking unspecified damages and injunctive relief. Our counterclaims name our licensor Isis as a nominal counter-defendant for purposes of subject matter jurisdiction only and we seek to realign Isis as a co-counter plaintiff in the matter. In June 2012, plaintiffs Verinata and Stanford amended their complaint and allege that we and Sequenom Laboratories, by performing its noninvasive prenatal MaterniT21 PLUS test, have and continue to directly infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,195,415 (“’415 Patent”) entitled Noninvasive Diagnosis of Fetal Aneuploidy by Sequencing, which has been exclusively licensed to Verinata by Stanford and seek unspecified damages. In July 2012, we filed an answer to the complaint. On March 12, 2013 the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, declared a patent interference (Patent Interference No. 105,920 (DK)) between Verinata's '018 Patent, which Verinata has asserted against us in the litigation, and our in-licensed pending patent application no. 13/070,275 (publication no. US2011/0318734 entitled “Diagnosing Fetal Chromosomal Aneuploidy Using Massively Parallel Genomic Sequencing”). On May 3, 2013, the USPTO declared a patent interference (Patent Interference No. 105,922 (DK)) between Verinata's '415 Patent, which Verinata has asserted against us in the litigation, and our in-licensed pending patent application no. 13/070,266 (publication no. US2012/0003637 entitled “Diagnosing Fetal Chromosomal Aneuploidy Using Massively Parallel Genomic Sequencing”). On October 16, 2013, the District Court issued its order on the interpretation of the ‘540 Patent, ‘018 Patent, ‘017 Patent, and ‘415 Patent claims. Many of the ‘540 Patent claims asserted against Verinata are the same claims that were invalidated by the same District Court on October 30, 2013 in the litigation involving Ariosa, set forth above. We intend to vigorously defend against the judicial declarations sought and allegations of infringement set forth by plaintiffs in their complaint and intend to vigorously pursue our claims against Verinata for damages and injunctive relief. However, we cannot predict the outcome of this matter. Verinata was acquired by Illumina, Inc. in the first quarter of 2013.

Former Employee Litigation

In August 2010, Paul Hawran, our former chief financial officer, sued the three directors who comprised the special committee that during 2009 conducted the investigation of activity related to a prior trisomy 21 test under development at that time, alleging that they had defamed him, invaded his privacy, negligently and intentionally interfered with his prospective economic advantage, and committed unfair business practices under California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, and seeking unspecified damages. Mr. Hawran alleged in his complaint that he was asked to resign because he had raised concerns about the conduct of certain of our directors. The lawsuit, Hawran v. Hixson et al, case no. 37-2010-00058632-CU-DF-NC, was filed in the Superior Court of California for the North County of San Diego. In September 2010, we were served with an amended complaint in this lawsuit, in which Mr. Hawran named us as a defendant in addition to the three individuals previously named and added claims of breach of contract and intentional and negligent misrepresentation. In October 2010, the defendants filed a motion to strike the complaint under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 on the grounds that Mr. Hawran's claims arise from acts in furtherance of the defendants' right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue and filed a demurrer to each and every cause of action in the complaint. On January 3, 2011, the Superior Court issued a minute order dismissing some, but not all, of the claims alleged in the amended complaint. The defendants filed a notice of appeal regarding the minute order on January 11, 2011 and Mr. Hawran filed a cross-appeal regarding the same on January 31, 2011. On September 13, 2012, the California Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate Division) affirmed the Superior Court's order. On October 23, 2012, the individual defendants and we filed a Petition for Review with the Supreme Court of California and on December 19, 2012, the Petition for Review was denied. On January 7, 2013, we and the individual defendants filed an answer to the complaint. The individual defendants and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the claims advanced. On January 7, 2013, we filed a cross-complaint against Mr. Hawran for breach of fiduciary duty and a demand for unspecified damages. Mr. Hawran subsequently made a demand to us for indemnity under contract and by law for legal fees and expenses in connection with his defense of the cross-complaint. On April 12, 2013, our Board of Directors denied on a preliminary basis Mr. Hawran's demand for indemnity. On May 14, 2013, Mr. Hawran filed a complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery seeking a determination of his right to indemnity and advancement as to expenses for defense of the cross-complaint. On May 17, 2013, we filed a request for dismissal without prejudice of the cross-complaint and dismissal of the cross-complaint was entered by the court on June 4, 2013. The Superior Court set a trial commencement date of April 11, 2014. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

On September 18, 2013, Harry Stylli, Ph.D., our former chief executive officer, made an arbitration demand upon us pursuant to his employment agreement, alleging that, in September 2009, we terminated his employment without cause and breached his employment agreement by failing and refusing to pay Dr. Stylli the severance benefits provided for under his employment agreement. Dr. Stylli seeks damages in excess of $1.6 million, including but not limited to severance benefits, interest, and costs of arbitration. We intend to vigorously defend against Dr. Stylli’s demand. However, we cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Shareholder Derivative Litigation

On September 30, 2013, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (captioned Borenstein, derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant Sequenom, Inc. v. Hixson, et al., case no. 13CV2339JAH NLS) against each of the nine members of our board of directors (two of our board members also being officers and employees). The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duties and abuse by the defendants of their ability to influence and control us, resulting in significant damages to us. In general, the complaint alleges that an unlawful billing policy was implemented for our MaterniT21 PLUS LDT and later changed, the change was not publicly disclosed by us, and the change was a major cause of lower test volumes and revenues for the second quarter of 2013. The complaint requests declaratory relief, unspecified damages and restitution, and reasonable attorneys’ fees. We intend to vigorously defend against the allegations and relief sought in the complaint. However, we cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

In addition, from time to time, we may be involved in litigation relating to claims arising out of our operations in the normal course of business, including claims related to our products, tests, and services, including our laboratory developed test services. These other matters are, in the opinion of management, immaterial with respect to our consolidated financial position, liquidity, or results of operations.

Claim estimates that are probable and can be reasonably estimated are reflected as liabilities. Because of the uncertainties related to our pending litigation, investigations, inquiries or claims, management is currently unable to predict the ultimate outcome of any litigation, investigation, inquiry or claim, determine whether a liability has been incurred, or make an estimate regarding the possible loss or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome. It is reasonably possible that some of the matters, which are pending or may be asserted, could be decided unfavorably to us. An adverse ruling or outcome in any lawsuit involving us could materially affect our business, liquidity, consolidated financial position or results of operations ability to sell one or more of our products or could result in additional competition. In view of the unpredictable nature of such matters, we cannot provide any assurances regarding the outcome of any litigation, investigation, inquiry or claim to which we are a party or the impact on us of an adverse ruling of such matters.