Item 7.01 Regulation FD Disclosure



As previously reported by Quidel Corporation (the "Company"), among other
matters related to the lawsuit filed on November 27, 2017, by Beckman Coulter
Inc. ("Beckman") against the Company in the Superior Court for the County of San
Diego, California (the "Superior Court"), alleging that a provision of a
contractual arrangement between the Company and Beckman regarding the Triage®
BNP Test for the Beckman Coulter Access Family of Immunoassay Systems (the
"Beckman Agreement") violates certain state antitrust laws. Specifically,
Beckman challenges a provision that Beckman, for a specified period, cannot
research, develop, manufacture or sell an assay for use in the diagnosis of
cardiac diseases that measures or detects the presence or absence of BNP or
NT-pro-BNP (a related biomarker) (the "Exclusivity Provision").
1)On December 7, 2018, the Superior Court granted a motion by Beckman for
summary adjudication, holding that the Exclusivity Provision is void per se
under California law as an invalid restraint on trade in violation of Business
and Professions Code section 16600.
2)On February 7, 2019, the Superior Court stayed all the remaining litigation in
the lawsuit pending the outcome of our writ petition on the holding on the
Exclusivity Provision in the December 7, 2018 order and vacated all deadlines in
the case.
3)On August 29, 2019, the California Court of Appeal issued a written decision
ruling in the Company's favor and overturning the Superior Court's December 7,
2018 order, holding that the Superior Court erred by determining the validity of
the Exclusivity Provision under a per se standard.
4)On November 13, 2019, the California Supreme Court granted review of the Court
of Appeal ruling, with further action deferred pending disposition of a related
issue in Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc.
On August 3, 2020, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Ixchel
Pharma. In that case, the California Supreme Court held, among other matters,
that in evaluating whether a restraint in a business-to-business agreement
violates Business and Professions Code section 16600, "a rule of reason applies
to determine the validity of a contractual provision by which a business is
restrained from engaging in a lawful trade or business with another business."
That is, the California Supreme Court rejected the position that every contract
in restraint of trade in the business context is per se void, but rather each
must be evaluated based on a rule of reason.
The Ixchel Pharma ruling is in accord with the arguments the Company made in its
amicus brief in that case and the position it is asserting in the appeal from
the Court Appeal in the Beckman matter, which is still pending in the California
Supreme Court.
The information in this Item 7.01 of this current report on Form 8-K is being
furnished and shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the
liabilities of such section. Such information shall not be incorporated by
reference into any registration statement or other document pursuant to the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, except as expressly set forth by specific
reference in such filing.

Forward-Looking Statements This current report on Form 8-K contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the federal securities laws that involve material risks, assumptions and uncertainties. These forward-looking statements include statements about our legal positions and outcome in the legal proceeding between the Company and Beckman. These statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause our actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements expressed or implied in this current report on Form 8-K. As such, no forward-looking statement can be guaranteed. Differences in actual results may arise as a result of a number of factors including, without limitation, a determination by the courts that some or all of the provisions of the Beckman Agreement challenged in the Beckman lawsuit are unenforceable or otherwise not valid. Forward-looking statements typically are identified by the use of terms such as "may," "will," "should," "might," "expect," "anticipate," "estimate," "plan," "intend," "goal," "project," "strategy," "future," and similar words, although some forward-looking statements are expressed differently. The risks described in reports and registration statements that we file with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") from time to time, should be carefully considered. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on the forward-looking statements in this current report on Form 8-K, which reflect management's analysis and expectations only as of the date of this current report. Except as required by law, we undertake no obligation to publicly release the results of any revision or update of these forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. QDEL Litigation Developments.docx


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------








Date: Auguest 7, 2020

                       QUIDEL CORPORATION

                       By:      /s/ Phillip S. Askim
                       Name:    Phillip S. Askim
                       Its:     Secretary

© Edgar Online, source Glimpses