Item 3. Legal Proceedings

Enzo Biochem, Inc. and Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. (collectively, “Enzo”) filed a complaint dated October 23, 2002 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Civil Action No. 02-8448, seeking injunctive and monetary relief against Amersham plc, Amersham BioSciences, PerkinElmer, Inc., PerkinElmer Life Sciences, Inc., Sigma-Aldrich Corporation, Sigma Chemical Company, Inc., Molecular Probes, Inc., and Orchid BioSciences, Inc. The complaint alleges that we breached our distributorship and settlement agreements with Enzo, infringed Enzo's patents, engaged in unfair competition and fraud, and committed torts against Enzo by, among other things, engaging in commercial development and exploitation of Enzo's patented products and technology, separately and together with the other defendants. We filed an answer and a counterclaim alleging that Enzo's patents are invalid. In 2007, after the court issued a decision in 2006 regarding the construction of the claims in Enzo's patents that effectively limited the coverage of certain of those claims and, we believe, excluded certain of our products from the coverage of Enzo's patents, summary judgment motions were filed by the defendants. The case was assigned to a new district court judge in January 2009 and in March 2009, the new judge denied the pending summary judgment motions without prejudice and ordered a stay of the case until the federal appellate court decided Enzo's appeal of the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut in Enzo Biochem vs. Applera Corp. and Tropix, Inc. (the “Connecticut Case”), which involved a number of the same patents and which could materially affect the scope of Enzo's case against us. In March 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part the judgment in the Connecticut Case. The district court permitted us and the other defendants to jointly file a motion for summary judgment on certain patent and other issues common to all of the defendants. On September 12, 2012, the court granted in part and denied in part our motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. On December 21, 2012, we filed a second motion for summary judgment on claims that were not addressed in the first motion, which the court also granted in part and denied in part. The case is expected to go to trial in March 2014.

We believe we have meritorious defenses to the matter described above, and we are contesting the action vigorously. While this matter is subject to uncertainty, in the opinion of our management, based on its review of the information available at this time, the resolution of this matter will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements included in this annual report on Form 10-K.

We are also subject to various other claims, legal proceedings and investigations covering a wide range of matters that arise in the ordinary course of our business activities. Although we have established accruals for potential losses that we believe are probable and reasonably estimable, in the opinion of our management, based on its review of the information available at this time, the total cost of resolving these other contingencies at December 29, 2013 should not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements included in this annual report on Form 10-K. However, each of these matters is subject to uncertainties, and it is possible that some of these matters may be resolved unfavorably to us.