12. Legal Proceedings	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2019
Loss Contingency, Information about Litigation Matters [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings.	12. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS On May 27, 2015, our former general counsel, Sanford S. Wadler, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, against us and four of our then current directors and one former director. The plaintiff’s suit alleged whistleblower retaliation in violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Dodd-Frank Act for raising FCPA-related concerns. Mr. Wadler also alleged wrongful termination in violation of public policy, non-payment of wages and waiting time penalties in violation of the California Labor Code. The plaintiff sought back pay, compensatory damages for lost wages, earnings, retirement benefits and other employee benefits, compensation for mental pain and anguish and emotional distress, waiting time penalties, punitive damages, litigation costs (including attorneys’ fees) and reinstatement of employment. On July 28, 2015 we filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint and specifically requested dismissal of the claims alleged against us under the Dodd-Frank Act and California Labor Code 1102.5 and the claims against the directors under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Dodd-Frank Act. On October 23, 2015, the District Court granted our motion with respect to the alleged violations of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act against all the director defendants except Norman Schwartz with prejudice. The Court denied our motion to dismiss the claims under the Dodd-Frank Act as against both us and the director defendants. The trial commenced on January 17, 2017 and concluded on February 6, 2017. Mr. Wadler was awarded $10.92 million, plus prejudgment interest of $141,608, post-judgment interest, and Mr. Wadler’s litigation costs, expert witness fees, and reasonable attorneys’ fees as approved by the Court. We previously accrued for the judgment, interest and Mr. Wadler's litigation costs. On June 6, 2017, we filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Oral arguments occurred on November 14, 2018. On February 26, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its decision, reversing in part, vacating in part, and affirming in part. Specifically, the court: (1) reversed the Dodd-Frank claim, which amounts to about $2.96 million plus interest, and directed the district court to enter judgment in Bio-Rad’s favor on that claim; (2) vacated the SOX claim due to instructional error and remanded for further proceedings, including whether a new trial is needed; and (3) affirmed the California public policy claim and the $7.96 million in damages attributable to it. On March 12, 2019 we filed a petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and this petition was denied on April 8, 2019. On September 24, 2019, Mr. Wadler filed a dismissal with prejudice of all remaining claims under the lawsuit with the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California as a result of a Confidential Settlement Agreement and Satisfaction of Judgment that the parties entered into that was last executed on September 6, 2019. This matter did not have a material impact on the third quarter 2019 results of operations and is now closed. We are also party to various other claims, legal actions and complaints arising in the ordinary course of business. We cannot at this time reasonably estimate a range of exposure, if any, of the potential liability with respect to these matters. While we do not believe, at this time, that any ultimate liability resulting from any of these other matters will have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position or liquidity, we cannot give any assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of these other matters and their resolution could be material to our operating results for any particular period, depending on the level of income for the period.

On May 27, 2015, our former general counsel, Sanford S. Wadler, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, against us and four of our then current directors and one former director. The plaintiff’s suit alleged whistleblower retaliation in violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Dodd-Frank Act for raising FCPA-related concerns. Mr. Wadler also alleged wrongful termination in violation of public policy, non-payment of wages and waiting time penalties in violation of the California Labor Code. The plaintiff sought back pay, compensatory damages for lost wages, earnings, retirement benefits and other employee benefits, compensation for mental pain and anguish and emotional distress, waiting time penalties, punitive damages, litigation costs (including attorneys’ fees) and reinstatement of employment. On July 28, 2015 we filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint and specifically requested dismissal of the claims alleged against us under the Dodd-Frank Act and California Labor Code 1102.5 and the claims against the directors under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Dodd-Frank Act. On October 23, 2015, the District Court granted our motion with respect to the alleged violations of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act against all the director defendants except Norman Schwartz with prejudice. The Court denied our motion to dismiss the claims under the Dodd-Frank Act as against both us and the director defendants. The trial commenced on January 17, 2017 and concluded on February 6, 2017. Mr. Wadler was awarded $10.92 million, plus prejudgment interest of $141,608, post-judgment interest, and Mr. Wadler’s litigation costs, expert witness fees, and reasonable attorneys’ fees as approved by the Court. We previously accrued for the judgment, interest and Mr. Wadler's litigation costs. On June 6, 2017, we filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Oral arguments occurred on November 14, 2018. On February 26, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its decision, reversing in part, vacating in part, and affirming in part. Specifically, the court: (1) reversed the Dodd-Frank claim, which amounts to about $2.96 million plus interest, and directed the district court to enter judgment in Bio-Rad’s favor on that claim; (2) vacated the SOX claim due to instructional error and remanded for further proceedings, including whether a new trial is needed; and (3) affirmed the California public policy claim and the $7.96 million in damages attributable to it. On March 12, 2019 we filed a petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and this petition was denied on April 8, 2019. On September 24, 2019, Mr. Wadler filed a dismissal with prejudice of all remaining claims under the lawsuit with the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California as a result of a Confidential Settlement Agreement and Satisfaction of Judgment that the parties entered into that was last executed on September 6, 2019. This matter did not have a material impact on the third quarter 2019 results of operations and is now closed.

We are also party to various other claims, legal actions and complaints arising in the ordinary course of business. We cannot at this time reasonably estimate a range of exposure, if any, of the potential liability with respect to these matters. While we do not believe, at this time, that any ultimate liability resulting from any of these other matters will have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position or liquidity, we cannot give any assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of these other matters and their resolution could be material to our operating results for any particular period, depending on the level of income for the period.