Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Commitments and Contingencies	Oct. 01, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	24. Commitments and Contingencies Employment and Severance Agreements In July 2017, the Company entered into the First Amendment to that certain Amended and Restated Employment Agreement entered into between the Company and Mr. Kiani on November 4, 2015 (as amended, the Amended Employment Agreement). Pursuant to the terms of the Amended Employment Agreement, upon a “Qualifying Termination” (as defined in the Amended Employment Agreement), Mr. Kiani will be entitled to receive a cash severance benefit equal to two times the sum of his then-current base salary and the average annual bonus paid to Mr. Kiani during the immediately preceding three years, the full amount of the “Award Shares” (as defined in the Amended Employment Agreement) and the full amount of the “Cash Payment” (as defined in the Amended Employment Agreement). In addition, in the event of a “Change in Control” (as defined in the Amended Employment Agreement) prior to a Qualifying Termination, on each of the first and second anniversaries of the Change in Control, 50% of the Cash Payment and 50% of the Award Shares will vest, subject in each case to Mr. Kiani’s continuous employment through each such anniversary date; however, in the event of a Qualifying Termination or a termination of Mr. Kiani’s employment due to death or disability prior to either of such anniversaries, any unvested amount of the Cash Payment and all of the unvested Award Shares shall vest and be paid in full. Additionally, in the event of a Change in Control prior to a Qualifying Termination, Mr. Kiani’s stock options and any other equity awards will vest in accordance with their terms, but in no event later than in two equal installments on each of the one year and two year anniversaries of the Change in Control, subject in each case to Mr. Kiani’s continuous employment through each such anniversary date. On January 14, 2022, the Company entered into the Second Amendment to the Amended Employment Agreement (Second Amendment) with Mr. Kiani. The Second Amendment provides that the RSUs granted to Mr. Kiani pursuant to the Amended Employment Agreement will vest in full upon the termination of Mr. Kiani’s employment with the Company pursuant to Mr. Kiani’s death or disability. As of October 1, 2022, the expense related to the Award Shares and Cash Payment that would be recognized in the Company’s consolidated financial statements upon the occurrence of a Qualifying Termination under the Amended Employment Agreement, as amended by the Second Amendment, was approximately $664.3 million. As of October 1, 2022, the Company had severance plan participation agreements with five executive officers. The participation agreements (the Agreements) are governed by the terms and conditions of the Company’s 2007 Severance Protection Plan (the Severance Plan), which became effective on July 19, 2007 and which was amended effective December 31, 2008. Under each of the Agreements, the applicable executive officer may be entitled to receive certain salary, equity, medical and life insurance benefits if he is terminated by the Company without cause or if he terminates his employment for good reason under certain circumstances. Each executive officer is also required to give the Company six months’ advance notice of his resignation under certain circumstances. On September 16, 2022, the Company appointed Blair Tripodi as its Chief Operating Officer (COO), Consumer Division. The offer letter entered into with Mr. Tripodi upon completion of the Sound United acquisition included certain compensation, retention and benefit provisions. In addition, Mr. Tripodi is also a limited participant in the Severance Plan, which provides that, if (a) Mr. Tripodi’s employment is terminated on the date of a Change in Control (as defined in the Severance Plan) specifically because his current job, or similar job, is not offered to him on the date of such Change in Control, or (b) Mr. Tripodi’s employment is terminated by the Company without cause or if he terminates his employment with the Company for Good Reason (as defined in the Severance Plan) upon or within 36 months of a Change in Control, fifty percent of Mr. Tripodi’s unvested and outstanding equity-based awards will immediately vest. Cercacor Cross-Licensing Agreement Provisions The Company’s Cross-Licensing Agreement with Cercacor contains annual minimum aggregate royalty obligations for use of the rainbow® licensed technology. The current annual minimum royalty obligation is $5.0 million. Upon a change in control (as defined in the Cross-Licensing Agreement) of the Company or Cercacor: (i) all rights to the “Masimo” trademark will be assigned to Cercacor if the surviving or acquiring entity ceases to use “Masimo” as a company name and trademark; (ii) the option to license technology developed by Cercacor for use in blood glucose monitoring will be deemed automatically exercised and a $2.5 million license fee for this technology will become immediately payable to Cercacor; and (iii) the minimum aggregate annual royalties payable to Cercacor for carbon monoxide, methemoglobin, fractional arterial oxygen saturation, hemoglobin and/or glucose measurements will increase to $15.0 million per year until the exclusivity period of the agreement ends, plus up to $2.0 million for each additional vital sign measurement with no maximum ceiling for non-vital sign measurements. Purchase Commitments Pursuant to contractual obligations with vendors, the Company had $386.8 million of purchase commitments as of October 1, 2022 that are expected to be purchased within one year. These purchase commitments have been made for certain inventory items in order to secure sufficient levels of those items, other critical inventory and manufacturing supplies, and to achieve better pricing. Other Contractual Commitments In the normal course of business, the Company may provide bank guarantees to support government hospital tenders in certain foreign jurisdictions. As of October 1, 2022, the Company had approximately $4.7 million in outstanding unsecured bank guarantees. In certain circumstances, the Company also provides limited indemnification within its various customer contracts whereby the Company indemnifies the parties to whom it sells its products with respect to potential infringement of intellectual property, and against bodily injury caused by a defective Company product. It is not possible to predict the maximum potential amount of future payments under these or similar agreements, due to the conditional nature of the Company’s obligations and the unique facts and circumstances involved. As of October 1, 2022, the Company had not incurred any significant costs related to contractual indemnification of its customers. Concentrations of Risk The Company is exposed to credit loss for the amount of its cash deposits with financial institutions in excess of federally insured limits. The Company invests a portion of its excess cash with major financial institutions. As of October 1, 2022, the Company had $219.5 million of bank balances, of which $8.2 million was covered by either the U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation limit or foreign countries’ deposit insurance organizations. The Company’s ability to sell its healthcare products to U.S. hospitals depends in part on its relationships with GPOs. Many existing and potential healthcare customers for the Company’s products become members of GPOs. GPOs negotiate pricing arrangements and contracts, sometimes exclusively, with medical supply manufacturers and distributors, and these negotiated prices are made available to a GPO’s affiliated hospitals and other members. During the three months ended October 1, 2022 and October 2, 2021, revenue from the sale of the Company’s healthcare products to customers that are members of GPOs approximated 54.0% and 55.0% of healthcare revenue, respectively. During the nine months ended October 1, 2022 and October 2, 2021, revenue from the sale of the Company’s healthcare products to customers that are members of GPOs approximated 52.9% and 51.8% of healthcare revenue, respectively. For the three months ended October 1, 2022, the Company had sales through one just-in-time distributor that represented 8.9% of revenue. For the three months ended October 2, 2021, the Company had sales through two just-in-time distributors that represented 15.0% and 10.4% of revenue, respectively. For the nine months ended October 1, 2022, the Company had sales through one just-in-time distributor that represented 10.5% revenue. For the nine months ended October 2, 2021, the Company had sales through two just-in-time distributors that represented 14.6% and 10.4% of revenue, respectively. As of October 1, 2022 and January 1, 2022, one customer represented 12.2% and 15.7%, respectively, of the Company’s accounts receivable balance. The receivable balance related to such customer is fully secured by a letter of credit. Litigation On January 2, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (District Court) by Physicians Healthsource, Inc. The complaint alleged that the Company sent unsolicited facsimile advertisements in violation of the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005 and related regulations. The complaint sought $500 for each alleged violation, treble damages if the District Court found the alleged violations to be knowing, plus interest, costs and injunctive relief. On March 26, 2019, an amended complaint was filed adding Radha Geismann, M.D. PC as an additional named plaintiff. On June 17, 2019, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. On November 21, 2019, the District Court issued an order denying the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and granting in part and denying in part the Company’s motion for summary judgment, and deferring ruling on the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. On December 5, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a petition for permission to appeal the order denying class certification, which was denied on January 24, 2020. On July 13, 2020, the District Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. On July 27, 2022, the parties filed a joint stipulation to dismiss the case with prejudice. On January 9, 2020, the Company filed a complaint against Apple Inc. (Apple) in the District Court for infringement of a number of patents, for trade secret misappropriation, and for ownership and correction of inventorship of a number of Apple patents listing one of its former employees as an inventor. The Company is seeking damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory judgment regarding ownership of the Apple patents. Apple filed petitions for Inter Partes review (IPR) of the asserted patents in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). The PTO instituted IPR of the asserted patents. On October 13, 2020, the District Court stayed the patent infringement claims pending completion of the IPR proceedings. On February 5, 2021, the Company filed a fourth amended complaint. On February 26, 2021, Apple filed a partial motion to dismiss the trade secrets claim in the fourth amended complaint. On April 21, 2021, the District Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss. On May 5, 2021, Apple filed its answer to the fourth amended complaint. On December 7, 2021, Apple filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the trade secrets claim, which was denied on February 17, 2022. Trial is currently set to begin on March 27, 2023. In the IPR proceedings, one or more of the challenged claims of three of the asserted patents were found valid. The challenged claims of nine of the asserted patents were found invalid. The Company and Apple filed notices of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit seeking review of the IPR decisions on all asserted patents. The Company filed an opening brief in one consolidated appeal for five asserted patents on August 5, 2022, and Apple filed a reply brief on October 5, 2022. Apple filed opening briefs in two appeals for two asserted patents on October 19, 2022. On June 30, 2021, the Company filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) against Apple for infringement of a number of other patents. The Company filed an amended complaint on July 12, 2021. On August 13, 2021, the ITC issued a Notice of Institution of Investigation on the asserted patents. From June 6, 2022 to June 10, 2022, the ITC conducted an evidentiary hearing. The current target date for completion of the ITC investigation is April 19, 2023, with an initial determination due December 19, 2022. The Company is seeking an exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order. Apple filed petitions for IPR of the asserted patents in the PTO and the Company has responded and will continue to respond to each of the petitions before the PTO determines whether to institute IPRs. On October 20, 2022, Apple filed two complaints against the Company in the District Court of Delaware alleging that the Masimo W1™ watch infringes a number of patents. Apple is seeking damages, injunctive relief and declaratory relief. On October 20, 2022, Apple also filed a motion seeking expedited discovery that allegedly relates to a potential motion for a preliminary injunction against the Masimo W1™ watch. The Company intends to vigorously pursue all of its legal remedies in its litigation against Apple and believes the Company has good and substantial defenses to Apple’s claims, but there is no guarantee that the Company will be successful in these efforts. On October 21, 2022, a complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company and the members of the Company’s Board (Director Defendants) by Politan Capital Management LP and Politan Capital NY LLC (Activist Plaintiffs). The complaint seeks relief to (i) declare certain amendments to the Company’s bylaws that became effective on September 9, 2022 (Bylaw Amendments) unenforceable, (ii) find that the Director Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by approving and implementing the Bylaw Amendments and the shareholder rights plan adopted by the Company on September 9, 2022, and refusing to invalidate certain change of control provisions in the Company’s employment agreement with Joe Kiani, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO), (iii) invalidate certain change of control provisions in Mr. Kiani’s employment agreement, (iv) permanently enjoin the Company and its Board from taking any actions to prevent the Activist Plaintiffs from exercising their rights in accordance with the Company’s prior bylaws to nominate directors, and (v) award the Activist Plaintiffs their fees, costs and expenses in connection with the action covered by the complaint. In response to the complaint, on October 24, 2022, the Company and the Director Defendants filed a counterclaim, answer and defense in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the Activist Plaintiffs, seeking relief to (i) have the court declare that the Bylaw Amendments are valid and enforceable and that the Company is permitted to invalidate any director nominations by the Activist Plaintiffs that are not made in accordance with the amended bylaws and (ii) award the Company reasonable costs, including attorneys’ fees and expenses. The Company stated in the counterclaim that, among other things, the Bylaw Amendments were adopted by the Board after thoughtful deliberation and were designed to increase transparency to ensure that stockholders are sufficiently informed regarding who is being nominated to the Board and who is backing the nomination so that they may have a reasonable opportunity to thoughtfully consider the nominations. On October 28, 2022, the Activist Plaintiffs filed a counterclaim and answer generally denying substantially all of the allegations raised in the Company’s counterclaim and raising a number of affirmative defenses against the Company’s counterclaim. The Company intends to vigorously pursue all of its legal remedies in its litigation against the Activist Plaintiffs and believes that the Company and the Director Defendants have good and substantial defenses to the claims (including those raised in the counterclaim), but there is no guarantee that the Company and the Director Defendants will be successful in these efforts. The Company is unable to determine whether any loss will ultimately occur or to estimate the range of such loss; therefore, no amount of loss has been accrued by the Company in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements. From time to time, the Company may be involved in other litigation and investigations relating to claims and matters arising out of its operations in the normal course of business. The Company believes that it currently is not a party to any other legal proceedings which, individually or in the aggregate, would have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.