Litigation and Related Matters	12 Months Ended
Sep. 26, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation and Related Matters	Litigation and Related Matters On June 9, 2010, Smith & Nephew, Inc. ("Smith & Nephew") filed suit against Interlace, which the Company acquired on January 6, 2011, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint alleged that the Interlace MyoSure hysteroscopic tissue removal device infringed U.S. patent 7,226,459. On November 22, 2011, Smith & Nephew filed suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint alleged that use of the MyoSure hysteroscopic tissue removal system infringed U.S. patent 8,061,359. Both complaints sought permanent injunctive relief and unspecified damages. On September 4, 2012, following a two week trial, the jury returned a verdict of infringement of both the ‘459 and ‘359 patents and assessed damages of $4.0 million. A bench trial regarding the Company’s assertion of inequitable conduct on the part of Smith & Nephew with regard to the ‘359 patent was held on December 9, 2012 and oral arguments on the issue of inequitable conduct were presented on February 27, 2013. On June 27, 2013, the Court denied the Company’s motions related to inequitable conduct and allowed Smith & Nephew’s request for injunction, but ordered that enforcement of the injunction be stayed until final resolution, including appeal, of the current re-examinations of both patents at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). The Court also rejected the jury’s damage award and ordered the parties to identify a mechanism for resolving the damages issue. The Company intends to file post-trial motions seeking to reverse the jury’s verdict. The USPTO has issued final decisions that the claims of the ‘459 and the '359 patents asserted as part of the litigation are not patentable. Smith & Nephew has appealed these decisions to the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board. At this time, based on available information regarding this litigation, the Company is unable to reasonably assess the ultimate outcome of this case or determine an estimate, or a range of estimates, of potential losses. In January 2012 , Enzo filed suit against Gen-Probe in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The Gen-Probe complaint alleged that certain of Gen-Probe’s diagnostics products, including products that incorporate Gen-Probe’s patented hybridization protection assay technology, such as the Aptima Combo 2 and Aptima HPV assays, infringe Enzo’s U.S. patent 6,992,180. On March 6, 2012, Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. (“Enzo”) filed suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleged that certain of the Company’s molecular diagnostics products, including without limitation products based on its proprietary Invader chemistry, such as Cervista HPV HR and Cervista HPV 16/18, infringe Enzo’s U.S. patent 6,992,180. The complaint seeks permanent injunctive relief and unspecified damages. On September 30, 2013, Enzo amended its list of accused products to include Prodesse, MilliPROBE, PACE and Procleix assays. The complaint seeks permanent injunctive relief and unspecified damages. Enzo has asserted the ‘180 patent claims against six other companies. The court issued a Markman order on July 7, 2015 construing the claims, and it is expected that summary judgment motions will be heard in the fall of 2016. At this time, based on available information regarding this litigation, the Company is unable to reasonably assess the ultimate outcome of this case or determine an estimate, or a range of estimates, of potential losses. On March 27, 2015, Enzo filed an additional suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, The complaint alleged that certain additional Company molecular diagnostic products, including, inter alia, the Procleix Parvo/HAV assays and coagulation products, including the Invader Factor II test and the Invader Factor V test, also infringe U.S. Patent 6,992,180. The complaint further alleged that certain of the Company’s molecular diagnostic products, including Hologic’s Progensa PCA3 products, all Aptima products and all Procleix products infringe Enzo’s U. S. Patent 7,064,197. On June 11, 2015, this matter was stayed pending the resolution of summary judgment motions in the 2012 case referenced above. At this time, based on available information regarding this litigation, the Company is unable to reasonably assess the ultimate outcome of this case or determine an estimate, or a range of estimates, of potential losses. On October 29, 2013, the Interlace stockholder representatives filed a complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery alleging breach of contract for issues related to the payment of contingent consideration under the Interlace acquisition agreement, and sought $14.7 million in additional payments. On October 20, 2014, a trial was held in Delaware. The parties executed a settlement agreement in January 2015 for an amount less than that sought. The effect of this settlement was not material to the Company's financial statements. The Company is a party to various other legal proceedings and claims arising out of the ordinary course of its business. The Company believes that except for those matters described above there are no other proceedings or claims pending against it of which the ultimate resolution would have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of operations. In all cases, at each reporting period, the Company evaluates whether or not a potential loss amount or a potential range of loss is probable and reasonably estimable under ASC 450, Contingencies. Legal costs are expensed as incurred.

Litigation and Related Matters

On June 9, 2010, Smith & Nephew, Inc. ("Smith & Nephew") filed suit against Interlace, which the Company acquired on January 6, 2011, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint alleged that the Interlace MyoSure hysteroscopic tissue removal device infringed U.S. patent 7,226,459. On November 22, 2011, Smith & Nephew filed suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint alleged that use of the MyoSure hysteroscopic tissue removal system infringed U.S. patent 8,061,359. Both complaints sought permanent injunctive relief and unspecified damages. On September 4, 2012, following a two week trial, the jury returned a verdict of infringement of both the ‘459 and ‘359 patents and assessed damages of $4.0 million. A bench trial regarding the Company’s assertion of inequitable conduct on the part of Smith & Nephew with regard to the ‘359 patent was held on December 9, 2012 and oral arguments on the issue of inequitable conduct were presented on February 27, 2013. On June 27, 2013, the Court denied the Company’s motions related to inequitable conduct and allowed Smith & Nephew’s request for injunction, but ordered that enforcement of the injunction be stayed until final resolution, including appeal, of the current re-examinations of both patents at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). The Court also rejected the jury’s damage award and ordered the parties to identify a mechanism for resolving the damages issue. The Company intends to file post-trial motions seeking to reverse the jury’s verdict. The USPTO has issued final decisions that the claims of the ‘459 and the '359 patents asserted as part of the litigation are not patentable. Smith & Nephew has appealed these decisions to the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board. At this time, based on available information regarding this litigation, the Company is unable to reasonably assess the ultimate outcome of this case or determine an estimate, or a range of estimates, of potential losses.

In January 2012 , Enzo filed suit against Gen-Probe in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The Gen-Probe complaint alleged that certain of Gen-Probe’s diagnostics products, including products that incorporate Gen-Probe’s patented hybridization protection assay technology, such as the Aptima Combo 2 and Aptima HPV assays, infringe Enzo’s U.S. patent 6,992,180. On March 6, 2012, Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. (“Enzo”) filed suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleged that certain of the Company’s molecular diagnostics products, including without limitation products based on its proprietary Invader chemistry, such as Cervista HPV HR and Cervista HPV 16/18, infringe Enzo’s U.S. patent 6,992,180. The complaint seeks permanent injunctive relief and unspecified damages. On September 30, 2013, Enzo amended its list of accused products to include Prodesse, MilliPROBE, PACE and Procleix assays. The complaint seeks permanent injunctive relief and unspecified damages. Enzo has asserted the ‘180 patent claims against six other companies. The court issued a Markman order on July 7, 2015 construing the claims, and it is expected that summary judgment motions will be heard in the fall of 2016. At this time, based on available information regarding this litigation, the Company is unable to reasonably assess the ultimate outcome of this case or determine an estimate, or a range of estimates, of potential losses.

On March 27, 2015, Enzo filed an additional suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, The complaint alleged that certain additional Company molecular diagnostic products, including, inter alia, the Procleix Parvo/HAV assays and coagulation products, including the Invader Factor II test and the Invader Factor V test, also infringe U.S. Patent 6,992,180. The complaint further alleged that certain of the Company’s molecular diagnostic products, including Hologic’s Progensa PCA3 products, all Aptima products and all Procleix products infringe Enzo’s U. S. Patent 7,064,197. On June 11, 2015, this matter was stayed pending the resolution of summary judgment motions in the 2012 case referenced above. At this time, based on available information regarding this litigation, the Company is unable to reasonably assess the ultimate outcome of this case or determine an estimate, or a range of estimates, of potential losses.

On October 29, 2013, the Interlace stockholder representatives filed a complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery alleging breach of contract for issues related to the payment of contingent consideration under the Interlace acquisition agreement, and sought $14.7 million in additional payments. On October 20, 2014, a trial was held in Delaware. The parties executed a settlement agreement in January 2015 for an amount less than that sought. The effect of this settlement was not material to the Company's financial statements.

The Company is a party to various other legal proceedings and claims arising out of the ordinary course of its business. The Company believes that except for those matters described above there are no other proceedings or claims pending against it of which the ultimate resolution would have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of operations. In all cases, at each reporting period, the Company evaluates whether or not a potential loss amount or a potential range of loss is probable and reasonably estimable under ASC 450, Contingencies. Legal costs are expensed as incurred.