12. Legal Proceedings	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2015
Loss Contingency, Information about Litigation Matters [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings.	12. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS On January 23, 2015, the City of Riviera Beach General Employees’ Retirement System filed a shareholder derivative lawsuit in the Superior Court of Contra Costa County against three of our current directors and one former director. We are also named as a nominal defendant. In the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that our directors breached their fiduciary duty of loyalty by failing to ensure that we had sufficient internal controls and systems for compliance with the FCPA; that we failed to provide adequate training on the FCPA; and that based on these actions, the directors have been unjustly enriched. Purportedly seeking relief on our behalf, the plaintiff seeks an award of restitution and unspecified damages, costs and expenses (including attorneys’ fees). On April 23, 2015, we and the individual defendants filed a demurrer requesting dismissal of the complaint in this case. The demurrer was heard on August 6, 2015, and the Court granted the demurrer for failure to make a demand on our Board of Directors on August 17, 2015, but provided leave to amend. On September 4, 2015, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint and simultaneously served a litigation demand letter on our Board of Directors via its counsel in this action. The letter demands that we investigate and bring appropriate legal action against certain individuals, including the defendants in the City of Riviera Beach case and six current and former employees. The plaintiff also moved for a temporary stay in the proceedings, purportedly to enable the Board to respond to the demand. The Board has formed a demand review committee to respond to the demand. On October 6, 2015, we and the individual defendants filed a second demurrer, seeking to dismiss the case for failure to make a timely pre-suit demand. A hearing will be held on the motion on November 19, 2015. The caption is City of Riviera Beach General Employees’ Retirement System v. Schwartz et al., Case No. C-15-00140. On August 13, 2015 and August 18, 2015, respectively, each of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 38 Pension Fund and Wayne County Employees’ Retirement System filed a stockholder derivative complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery against four of our current directors and one former director. Bio-Rad is named as a nominal defendant in the complaints. The complaints allege that the defendants failed to cause Bio-Rad to develop internal controls sufficient to ensure our compliance with the FCPA. The plaintiffs assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment and request an award of the damages Bio-Rad sustained as a result of the alleged violations, among other relief. The two lawsuits were consolidated on August 27, 2015. The caption of the consolidated case is In re Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 11387-VCN (Del. Ch.). 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 current directors and one former director. The plaintiff’s suit alleges whistleblower retaliation in violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Dodd-Frank Act for raising FCPA-related concerns. He also alleges wrongful termination in violation of public policy, non-payment of wages and waiting time penalties in violation of the California Labor Code. The plaintiff seeks 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. We believe this lawsuit is without merit, and 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 Dodd-Frank and California Labor Code 1102.5 and the claims against the directors under Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank. 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 Dodd-Frank as against both us and the director defendants. On November 24, 2014, we filed a demand for arbitration in the San Francisco office of the American Arbitration Association against three former key employees and security holders of QuantaLife, Inc., a company we acquired in October 2011. We seek injunctive relief prohibiting the respondents from using our confidential information, among other things, as well as damages and attorneys’ fees. In the event our claims are rejected, we may be required to pay some or all of the respondents’ attorneys’ fees, which may be material. We are vigorously defending against, or pursuing, as the case may be, the claims above. We cannot at this time reasonably estimate a range of exposure, if any, of the potential liability. In addition, we are party to various other claims, legal actions and complaints arising in the ordinary course of business. 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. However, 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.

12. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

On January 23, 2015, the City of Riviera Beach General Employees’ Retirement System filed a shareholder derivative lawsuit in the Superior Court of Contra Costa County against three of our current directors and one former director. We are also named as a nominal defendant. In the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that our directors breached their fiduciary duty of loyalty by failing to ensure that we had sufficient internal controls and systems for compliance with the FCPA; that we failed to provide adequate training on the FCPA; and that based on these actions, the directors have been unjustly enriched. Purportedly seeking relief on our behalf, the plaintiff seeks an award of restitution and unspecified damages, costs and expenses (including attorneys’ fees). On April 23, 2015, we and the individual defendants filed a demurrer requesting dismissal of the complaint in this case. The demurrer was heard on August 6, 2015, and the Court granted the demurrer for failure to make a demand on our Board of Directors on August 17, 2015, but provided leave to amend. On September 4, 2015, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint and simultaneously served a litigation demand letter on our Board of Directors via its counsel in this action. The letter demands that we investigate and bring appropriate legal action against certain individuals, including the defendants in the City of Riviera Beach case and six current and former employees. The plaintiff also moved for a temporary stay in the proceedings, purportedly to enable the Board to respond to the demand. The Board has formed a demand review committee to respond to the demand. On October 6, 2015, we and the individual defendants filed a second demurrer, seeking to dismiss the case for failure to make a timely pre-suit demand. A hearing will be held on the motion on November 19, 2015. The caption is City of Riviera Beach General Employees’ Retirement System v. Schwartz et al., Case No. C-15-00140.

On August 13, 2015 and August 18, 2015, respectively, each of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 38 Pension Fund and Wayne County Employees’ Retirement System filed a stockholder derivative complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery against four of our current directors and one former director. Bio-Rad is named as a nominal defendant in the complaints. The complaints allege that the defendants failed to cause Bio-Rad to develop internal controls sufficient to ensure our compliance with the FCPA. The plaintiffs assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment and request an award of the damages Bio-Rad sustained as a result of the alleged violations, among other relief. The two lawsuits were consolidated on August 27, 2015. The caption of the consolidated case is In re Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 11387-VCN (Del. Ch.).

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 current directors and one former director. The plaintiff’s suit alleges whistleblower retaliation in violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Dodd-Frank Act for raising FCPA-related concerns. He also alleges wrongful termination in violation of public policy, non-payment of wages and waiting time penalties in violation of the California Labor Code. The plaintiff seeks 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. We believe this lawsuit is without merit, and 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 Dodd-Frank and California Labor Code 1102.5 and the claims against the directors under Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank. 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 Dodd-Frank as against both us and the director defendants.

On November 24, 2014, we filed a demand for arbitration in the San Francisco office of the American Arbitration Association against three former key employees and security holders of QuantaLife, Inc., a company we acquired in October 2011. We seek injunctive relief prohibiting the respondents from using our confidential information, among other things, as well as damages and attorneys’ fees. In the event our claims are rejected, we may be required to pay some or all of the respondents’ attorneys’ fees, which may be material.

We are vigorously defending against, or pursuing, as the case may be, the claims above. We cannot at this time reasonably estimate a range of exposure, if any, of the potential liability. In addition, we are party to various other claims, legal actions and complaints arising in the ordinary course of business. 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. However, 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.