Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jul. 01, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies The Company is conducting a number of environmental investigations and remedial actions at current and former locations of the Company and, along with other companies, has been named a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) for certain waste disposal sites. The Company accrues for environmental issues in the accounting period that the Company’s responsibility is established and when the cost can be reasonably estimated. The Company has accrued $5.5 million as of July 1, 2012, which represents management’s estimate of the total cost of ultimate disposition of known environmental matters. This amount is not discounted and does not reflect the recovery of any amounts through insurance or indemnification arrangements. These cost estimates are subject to a number of variables, including the stage of the environmental investigations, the magnitude of the possible contamination, the nature of the potential remedies, possible joint and several liability, the time period over which remediation may occur, and the possible effects of changing laws and regulations. For sites where the Company has been named a PRP, management does not currently anticipate any additional liability to result from the inability of other significant named parties to contribute. The Company expects that the majority of such accrued amounts could be paid out over a period of up to ten years. As assessment and remediation activities progress at each individual site, these liabilities are reviewed and adjusted to reflect additional information as it becomes available. There have been no environmental problems to date that have had, or are expected to have, a material adverse effect on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements. While it is possible that a loss exceeding the amounts recorded in the condensed consolidated financial statements may be incurred, the potential exposure is not expected to be materially different from those amounts recorded. Enzo Biochem, Inc. and Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. (collectively, “Enzo”) filed a complaint dated October 23, 2002 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Civil Action No. 02-8448, against Amersham plc, Amersham BioSciences, PerkinElmer, Inc., PerkinElmer Life Sciences, Inc., Sigma-Aldrich Corporation, Sigma Chemical Company, Inc., Molecular Probes, Inc., and Orchid BioSciences, Inc. (the “New York Case”). The complaint alleges that the Company has breached its distributorship and settlement agreements with Enzo, infringed Enzo’s patents, engaged in unfair competition and fraud, and committed torts against Enzo by, among other things, engaging in commercial development and exploitation of Enzo’s patented products and technology, separately and together with the other defendants. Enzo seeks injunctive and monetary relief. In 2003, the court severed the lawsuit and ordered Enzo to serve individual complaints against the five defendants. The Company subsequently filed an answer and a counterclaim alleging that Enzo’s patents are invalid. In July 2006, the court issued a decision regarding the construction of the claims in Enzo’s patents that effectively limited the coverage of certain of those claims and, the Company believes, excludes certain of the Company’s products from the coverage of Enzo’s patents. Summary judgment motions were filed by the defendants in January 2007, and a hearing with oral argument on those motions took place in July 2007. In January 2009, the case was assigned to a new district court judge and in March 2009, the new judge denied the pending summary judgment motions without prejudice and ordered a stay of the case until the federal appellate court decides Enzo’s appeal of the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut in Enzo Biochem vs. Applera Corp. and Tropix, Inc. (the “Connecticut Case”), which involves a number of the same patents and which could materially affect the scope of Enzo’s case against the Company. On March 26, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part the judgment in the Connecticut Case. The New York Case against the Company and other defendants remains stayed except that the district court has permitted the Company and the other defendants to jointly file a motion for summary judgment on certain patent and other issues common to all of the defendants. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the matter described above, and it is contesting the action vigorously. While this matter is subject to uncertainty, in the opinion of the Company’s management, based on its review of the information available at this time, the resolution of this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements. The Company is also subject to various other claims, legal proceedings and investigations covering a wide range of matters that arise in the ordinary course of its business activities. Although the Company has established accruals for potential losses that it believes are probable and reasonably estimable, in the opinion of the Company’s management, based on its review of the information available at this time, the total cost of resolving these other contingencies at July 1, 2012 should not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements. However, each of these matters is subject to uncertainties, and it is possible that some of these matters may be resolved unfavorably to the Company.

Contingencies

The Company is conducting a number of environmental investigations and remedial actions at current and former locations of the Company and, along with other companies, has been named a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) for certain waste disposal sites. The Company accrues for environmental issues in the accounting period that the Company’s responsibility is established and when the cost can be reasonably estimated. The Company has accrued $5.5 million as of July 1, 2012, which represents management’s estimate of the total cost of ultimate disposition of known environmental matters. This amount is not discounted and does not reflect the recovery of any amounts through insurance or indemnification arrangements. These cost estimates are subject to a number of variables, including the stage of the environmental investigations, the magnitude of the possible contamination, the nature of the potential remedies, possible joint and several liability, the time period over which remediation may occur, and the possible effects of changing laws and regulations. For sites where the Company has been named a PRP, management does not currently anticipate any additional liability to result from the inability of other significant named parties to contribute. The Company expects that the majority of such accrued amounts could be paid out over a period of up to ten years. As assessment and remediation activities progress at each individual site, these liabilities are reviewed and adjusted to reflect additional information as it becomes available. There have been no environmental problems to date that have had, or are expected to have, a material adverse effect on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements. While it is possible that a loss exceeding the amounts recorded in the condensed consolidated financial statements may be incurred, the potential exposure is not expected to be materially different from those amounts recorded.

Enzo Biochem, Inc. and Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. (collectively, “Enzo”) filed a complaint dated October 23, 2002 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Civil Action No. 02-8448, against Amersham plc, Amersham BioSciences, PerkinElmer, Inc., PerkinElmer Life Sciences, Inc., Sigma-Aldrich Corporation, Sigma Chemical Company, Inc., Molecular Probes, Inc., and Orchid BioSciences, Inc. (the “New York Case”). The complaint alleges that the Company has breached its distributorship and settlement agreements with Enzo, infringed Enzo’s patents, engaged in unfair competition and fraud, and committed torts against Enzo by, among other things, engaging in commercial development and exploitation of Enzo’s patented products and technology, separately and together with the other defendants. Enzo seeks injunctive and monetary relief. In 2003, the court severed the lawsuit and ordered Enzo to serve individual complaints against the five defendants. The Company subsequently filed an answer and a counterclaim alleging that Enzo’s patents are invalid. In July 2006, the court issued a decision regarding the construction of the claims in Enzo’s patents that effectively limited the coverage of certain of those claims and, the Company believes, excludes certain of the Company’s products from the coverage of Enzo’s patents. Summary judgment motions were filed by the defendants in January 2007, and a hearing with oral argument on those motions took place in July 2007. In January 2009, the case was assigned to a new district court judge and in March 2009, the new judge denied the pending summary judgment motions without prejudice and ordered a stay of the case until the federal appellate court decides Enzo’s appeal of the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut in Enzo Biochem vs. Applera Corp. and Tropix, Inc. (the “Connecticut Case”), which involves a number of the same patents and which could materially affect the scope of Enzo’s case against the Company. On March 26, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part the judgment in the Connecticut Case. The New York Case against the Company and other defendants remains stayed except that the district court has permitted the Company and the other defendants to jointly file a motion for summary judgment on certain patent and other issues common to all of the defendants.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the matter described above, and it is contesting the action vigorously. While this matter is subject to uncertainty, in the opinion of the Company’s management, based on its review of the information available at this time, the resolution of this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements.

The Company is also subject to various other claims, legal proceedings and investigations covering a wide range of matters that arise in the ordinary course of its business activities. Although the Company has established accruals for potential losses that it believes are probable and reasonably estimable, in the opinion of the Company’s management, based on its review of the information available at this time, the total cost of resolving these other contingencies at July 1, 2012 should not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements. However, each of these matters is subject to uncertainties, and it is possible that some of these matters may be resolved unfavorably to the Company.