Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Contingencies [Abstract]
Contingencies	Note 9 — Contingencies *Contingent Consideration* In connection with the acquisition of Prodesse, the Company was originally obligated to make certain contingent payments to former Prodesse securityholders of up to $25.0 million based on multiple performance measures, including commercial and regulatory milestones. As a result of the failure to achieve a specified milestone, the maximum amount of contingent consideration the Company may be required to pay for its acquisition of Prodesse has been reduced to $15.0 million. The Company initially recorded $18.0 million as of the date of acquisition as the fair value of this potential contingent consideration liability. In July 2010, the Company received FDA clearance of its ProFAST+ assay, thereby satisfying one of the acquisition-related milestones and triggering a $10.0 million payment to former Prodesse securityholders. The fair value of the remaining contingent consideration is $0 at June 30, 2011, because the Company does not currently expect to make any further milestone payments related to its acquisition of Prodesse. Future milestone payments, if any, will occur by the second quarter of 2012. *Litigation* The Company is a party to the following litigation and may also be involved in other litigation arising in the ordinary course of business from time to time. The Company intends to vigorously defend its interests in these matters. The Company expects that the resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition or results of operations. However, due to the uncertainties inherent in litigation, no assurance can be given as to the outcome of these proceedings. Becton, Dickinson and Company In October 2009, the Company filed a patent infringement action against Becton, Dickinson and Company (“BD”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint alleges that BD’s Viper^tm XTR^tm testing system infringes five of the Company’s U.S. patents covering automated processes for preparing, amplifying and detecting nucleic acid targets. The complaint also alleges that BD’s ProbeTec^tm Female Endocervical and Male Urethral Specimen Collection Kits for Amplified Chlamydia trachomatis/Neisseria gonorrhoeae (CT/GC) DNA assays used with the Viper XTR testing system infringe two of the Company’s U.S. patents covering penetrable caps for specimen collection tubes. The complaint seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. In March 2010, the Company filed a second complaint for patent infringement against BD in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California alleging that BD’s BD MAX System^tm (formerly known as the HandyLab Jaguar system) infringes four of the Company’s U.S. patents covering automated processes for preparing, amplifying and detecting nucleic acid targets. The second complaint also seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. In June 2010, these two actions were consolidated into a single legal proceeding. There can be no assurances as to the final outcome of this litigation.

Note 9 — Contingencies

Contingent Consideration

In connection with the acquisition of Prodesse, the Company was originally obligated to make certain contingent payments to former Prodesse securityholders of up to $25.0 million based on multiple performance measures, including commercial and regulatory milestones. As a result of the failure to achieve a specified milestone, the maximum amount of contingent consideration the Company may be required to pay for its acquisition of Prodesse has been reduced to $15.0 million.

The Company initially recorded $18.0 million as of the date of acquisition as the fair value of this potential contingent consideration liability. In July 2010, the Company received FDA clearance of its ProFAST+ assay, thereby satisfying one of the acquisition-related milestones and triggering a $10.0 million payment to former Prodesse securityholders. The fair value of the remaining contingent consideration is $0 at June 30, 2011, because the Company does not currently expect to make any further milestone payments related to its acquisition of Prodesse. Future milestone payments, if any, will occur by the second quarter of 2012.

Litigation

The Company is a party to the following litigation and may also be involved in other litigation arising in the ordinary course of business from time to time. The Company intends to vigorously defend its interests in these matters. The Company expects that the resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition or results of operations. However, due to the uncertainties inherent in litigation, no assurance can be given as to the outcome of these proceedings.

Becton, Dickinson and Company

In October 2009, the Company filed a patent infringement action against Becton, Dickinson and Company (“BD”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint alleges that BD’s Viper^tm XTR^tm testing system infringes five of the Company’s U.S. patents covering automated processes for preparing, amplifying and detecting nucleic acid targets. The complaint also alleges that BD’s ProbeTec^tm Female Endocervical and Male Urethral Specimen Collection Kits for Amplified Chlamydia trachomatis/Neisseria gonorrhoeae (CT/GC) DNA assays used with the Viper XTR testing system infringe two of the Company’s U.S. patents covering penetrable caps for specimen collection tubes. The complaint seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. In March 2010, the Company filed a second complaint for patent infringement against BD in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California alleging that BD’s BD MAX System^tm (formerly known as the HandyLab Jaguar system) infringes four of the Company’s U.S. patents covering automated processes for preparing, amplifying and detecting nucleic acid targets. The second complaint also seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. In June 2010, these two actions were consolidated into a single legal proceeding. There can be no assurances as to the final outcome of this litigation.