Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 29, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies On April 12, 2024, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action complaint under the federal securities laws against the Company and three of its current and former executives. The complaint, which is captioned Bristol County Retirement System v. QuidelOrtho Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-02804-JAV (S.D.N.Y.) (the “Bristol County Complaint”), asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder related to statements regarding sales of the Company’s COVID-19 diagnostic tests and the 510(k) submission for its SAVANNA RVP4 assay. The Bristol County Complaint seeks a judgment determining that the lawsuit can be maintained as a class action and awarding the plaintiff and putative class damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ and experts’ fees, and costs. On December 16, 2024, the court appointed Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Health and Welfare Fund and Teamsters Local 710 Pension Fund (“Teamsters Funds”) as lead plaintiffs in the action, and approved their selection of lead counsel. Teamsters Funds filed an amended complaint on February 7, 2025, and added as additional defendants three current and former executives of the Company not previously named in the Bristol County Complaint. On April 4, 2025, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On April 25, 2024, and June 21, 2024, two purported stockholders of the Company filed separate stockholder derivative complaints, purportedly on behalf of the Company, against the current and certain former members of the Board and three of the Company’s current and former executives. The complaints, which are captioned Matthew Whitfield v. Kenneth F. Buechler, Ph.D., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-03176-JAV (S.D.N.Y.) (the “Whitfield Complaint”), and Steven Pinkney v. Douglas Bryant, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-4753-JAV (S.D.N.Y.) (the “Pinkney Complaint”), assert claims for violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets related to statements regarding sales of the Company’s COVID-19 diagnostic tests and the 510(k) submission for its SAVANNA RVP4 assay. The Whitfield and Pinkney Complaints seek judgments awarding compensatory and punitive damages against the individual defendants, directing an accounting by the individual defendants, directing the Company and the individual defendants to take actions to improve the Company’s governance and procedures, and awarding the costs and disbursements of the action, including attorneys’ fees, accountants’ and experts’ fees, costs, and expenses. On December 16, 2024, the court consolidated the Whitfield and Pinkney Complaints into a single action and stayed the consolidated derivative action. The Company disputes the allegations of wrongdoing and intends to defend itself vigorously in these matters. The Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from these lawsuits or to determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. From time to time, the Company is involved in litigation and other legal proceedings, including matters related to product liability claims, commercial disputes and intellectual property claims, as well as regulatory, employment, and other claims related to its business. The Company accrues for legal claims when, and to the extent that, amounts associated with the claims become probable and are reasonably estimable. If the reasonable estimate of a known or probable loss is a range, and no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other, the minimum amount of the range is accrued. When determining the estimated loss or range of loss, significant judgment is required to estimate the amount and timing of a loss to be recorded. Estimates of probable losses resulting from these matters are inherently difficult to predict. The actual costs of resolving legal claims may be substantially higher or lower than the amounts accrued for those claims. For those matters as to which the Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss, the Company is not able to determine whether the loss will have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. Management believes that all current legal actions, to which the Company is able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss, in the aggregate, are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company. However, the resolution of, or increase in any accruals for, one or more matters may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations and cash flows.

On April 12, 2024, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action complaint under the federal securities laws against the Company and three of its current and former executives. The complaint, which is captioned Bristol County Retirement System v. QuidelOrtho Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-02804-JAV (S.D.N.Y.) (the “Bristol County Complaint”), asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder related to statements regarding sales of the Company’s COVID-19 diagnostic tests and the 510(k) submission for its SAVANNA RVP4 assay. The Bristol County Complaint seeks a judgment determining that the lawsuit can be maintained as a class action and awarding the plaintiff and putative class damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ and experts’ fees, and costs. On December 16, 2024, the court appointed Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Health and Welfare Fund and Teamsters Local 710 Pension Fund (“Teamsters Funds”) as lead plaintiffs in the action, and approved their selection of lead counsel. Teamsters Funds filed an amended complaint on February 7, 2025, and added as additional defendants three current and former executives of the Company not previously named in the Bristol County Complaint. On April 4, 2025, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

On April 25, 2024, and June 21, 2024, two purported stockholders of the Company filed separate stockholder derivative complaints, purportedly on behalf of the Company, against the current and certain former members of the Board and three of the Company’s current and former executives. The complaints, which are captioned Matthew Whitfield v. Kenneth F. Buechler, Ph.D., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-03176-JAV (S.D.N.Y.) (the “Whitfield Complaint”), and Steven Pinkney v. Douglas Bryant, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-4753-JAV (S.D.N.Y.) (the “Pinkney Complaint”), assert claims for violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets related to statements regarding sales of the Company’s COVID-19 diagnostic tests and the 510(k) submission for its SAVANNA RVP4 assay. The Whitfield and Pinkney Complaints seek judgments awarding compensatory and punitive damages against the individual defendants, directing an accounting by the individual defendants, directing the Company and the individual defendants to take actions to improve the Company’s governance and procedures, and awarding the costs and disbursements of the action, including attorneys’ fees, accountants’ and experts’ fees, costs, and expenses. On December 16,

The Company disputes the allegations of wrongdoing and intends to defend itself vigorously in these matters. The Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from these lawsuits or to determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

From time to time, the Company is involved in litigation and other legal proceedings, including matters related to product liability claims, commercial disputes and intellectual property claims, as well as regulatory, employment, and other claims related to its business. The Company accrues for legal claims when, and to the extent that, amounts associated with the claims become probable and are reasonably estimable. If the reasonable estimate of a known or probable loss is a range, and no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other, the minimum amount of the range is accrued. When determining the estimated loss or range of loss, significant judgment is required to estimate the amount and timing of a loss to be recorded. Estimates of probable losses resulting from these matters are inherently difficult to predict. The actual costs of resolving legal claims may be substantially higher or lower than the amounts accrued for those claims. For those matters as to which the Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss, the Company is not able to determine whether the loss will have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

Management believes that all current legal actions, to which the Company is able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss, in the aggregate, are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company. However, the resolution of, or increase in any accruals for, one or more matters may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations and cash flows.