XML 32 R16.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.22.0.1
Commitments And Contingencies
 12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments And Contingencies COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
Commitments
As of December 31, 2021, the Company’s commitments include an estimated amount of approximately $1.51 billion relating to the Company’s open purchase orders and contractual obligations that occur in the ordinary course of business, including commitments with contract manufacturers and suppliers for which the Company has not received the goods or services, commitments for capital expenditures and construction-related activities for which the Company has not received the services, and acquisition and licensing of intellectual property. Although open purchase orders are considered enforceable and legally binding, the terms generally allow the Company the option to cancel, reschedule, and adjust its requirements based on its business needs prior to the delivery of goods or performance of services. Additionally, the Company has committed to make certain future milestone payments to third parties as part of licensing, collaboration, and development arrangements. Payments
under these arrangements generally become due and payable only upon the achievement of certain specified developmental, regulatory, and/or commercial milestones. For instances in which the achievement of these milestones is neither probable nor reasonably estimable, such contingencies are not included in the estimated amount.
Contingencies
From time to time, the Company is involved in a variety of claims, lawsuits, investigations, and proceedings relating to securities laws, product liability, intellectual property, insurance, contract disputes, employment, and other matters. Certain of these lawsuits and claims are described in further detail below. It is not possible to predict what the outcome of these matters will be, and the Company cannot guarantee that any resolution will be reached on commercially reasonable terms, if at all.
A liability and related charge to earnings are recorded in the Consolidated Financial Statements for legal contingencies when the loss is considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. The assessment is re-evaluated each accounting period and is based on all available information, including the impact of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to each case. Nevertheless, it is possible that additional future legal costs (including settlements, judgments, legal fees, and other related defense costs) could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, and future results of operations.
During the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020, and 2019, pre-tax litigation charges (benefits) related to securities class action lawsuits and product liability claims were not material.
Product Liability Litigation
The Company is currently named as a defendant in a number of individual product liability lawsuits filed in various state and federal courts. The plaintiffs generally allege that they or a family member underwent surgical procedures that utilized the da Vinci Surgical System and sustained a variety of personal injuries and, in some cases, death as a result of such surgery. Several of the filed cases have trial dates in the next 12 months.
The cases raise a variety of allegations including, to varying degrees, that plaintiffs’ injuries resulted from purported defects in the da Vinci Surgical System and/or failure on the Company’s part to provide adequate training resources to the healthcare professionals who performed plaintiffs’ surgeries. The cases further allege that the Company failed to adequately disclose and/or misrepresented the potential risks and/or benefits of the da Vinci Surgical System. Plaintiffs also assert a variety of causes of action, including, for example, strict liability based on purported design defects, negligence, fraud, breach of express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and loss of consortium. Plaintiffs seek recovery for alleged personal injuries and, in many cases, punitive damages. The Company disputes these allegations and is defending against these claims.
The Company’s estimate of the anticipated cost of resolving the pending cases is based on negotiations with attorneys for the claimants. The final outcome of the pending lawsuits and claims, and others that might arise, is dependent on many variables that are difficult to predict, and the ultimate cost associated with these product liability lawsuits and claims may be materially different than the amount of the current estimate and accruals and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, and future results of operations. Although there is a reasonable possibility that a loss in excess of the amount recognized exists, the Company is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amount recognized at this time.
Patent Litigation
On June 30, 2017, Ethicon LLC, Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., and Ethicon US LLC (collectively, “Ethicon”) filed a complaint for patent infringement against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint, which was served on the Company on July 12, 2017, alleges that the Company’s EndoWrist Stapler instruments infringe several of Ethicon’s patents. Ethicon asserts infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,585,658; 8,479,969; 9,113,874; 8,998,058; 8,991,677; 9,084,601; and 8,616,431. A claim construction hearing occurred on October 1, 2018, and the court issued a scheduling order on December 28, 2018. On March 20, 2019, the court granted the Company’s Motion to Stay pending an Inter Partes Review to be held at the Patent Trademark and Appeals Board to review patentability of six of the seven patents noted above and vacated the trial date. On August 1, 2019, the court granted the parties’ joint stipulation to modify the stay in light of Ethicon’s U.S. International Trade Commission (“USITC”) complaint against Intuitive involving U.S. Patent Nos. 8,479,969 and 9,113,874, discussed below. There is currently no trial date scheduled for this matter.
On August 27, 2018, Ethicon filed a second complaint for patent infringement against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges that the Company’s SureForm 60 Staplers infringe five of Ethicon’s patents. Ethicon asserts infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,884,369; 7,490,749; 8,602,288; 8,602,287; and 9,326,770. The Company filed an answer denying all claims. On March 19, 2019, Ethicon filed a Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint, removing allegations related to U.S. Patent No. 9,326,770 and adding allegations related to U.S. Patent Nos. 9,844,379 and 8,479,969. On July 17, 2019, the court entered an order denying the amendment, without prejudice, and granting
the parties’ joint stipulation to stay the case in its entirety in light of the USITC investigation involving U.S. Patent Nos. 9,844,369 and 7,490,749, discussed below. There is currently no trial date scheduled for this matter.
Based on currently available information, the Company is unable to make a reasonable estimate of loss or range of losses, if any, arising from these matters.
On May 30, 2019, Ethicon filed a complaint with the USITC, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,884,369 (“’369”); 7,490,749 (“’749”); 9,844,379 (“’379”); 9,113,874 (“’874”); and 8,479,969 (“’969”). On June 28, 2019, the USITC voted to institute an investigation (No. 337-TA-1167) with respect to the claims in this complaint. The accused products include the Company’s EndoWrist 30, EndoWrist 45, SureForm 45, and SureForm 60 Staplers, as well as the stapler reload cartridges. In March 2020, Ethicon dismissed its claims concerning the ’749 patent. The evidentiary hearing took place in February 2021. On June 8, 2021, the Chief Administrative Law Judge issued an Initial Determination concluding that (1) the accused products do not infringe the asserted claims in the ’874 or ’969 patents; (2) the asserted claims in the ’874 and ’969 patents are invalid; (3) the accused SureForm staplers and associated reload cartridges infringe two claims of the ’369 patent; (4) the accused SureForm staplers and associated reload cartridges infringe two claims of the ’379 patent; and (5) the Company was estopped from contending that the asserted claims in the ’379 patent are invalid. Ethicon has not challenged the Initial Determination with regard to the findings that absolve Intuitive of any liability regarding the accused EndoWrist staplers and associated reload cartridges. On October 14, 2021, the USITC issued its Opinion in which it made the following rulings: (1) the USITC absolved Intuitive from any liability regarding the ’874, ’969, and ’369 patents; and (2) the USITC found that, while the SureForm staplers and their associated reload cartridges infringe the asserted claims in the ’379 patent, it has suspended the imposition of any remedial order pending an opinion from the Federal Circuit Court of Appeal of whether the Patent and Trademark Office correctly found the asserted claims in this patent to be invalid. The Company and Ethicon have filed Notices of Appeal regarding the USITC Opinion. A lifting of the suspension of any remedial order by the USITC could result in a prohibition on importing the accused SureForm products into the U.S. or necessitating workarounds. Based on currently available information, the Company does not believe that any losses arising from this matter would be material.
Commercial Litigation
On February 27, 2019, Restore Robotics LLC and Restore Repair LLC (“Restore”) filed a complaint in the Northern District of Florida alleging anti-trust claims against the Company. On May 13, 2019, Restore filed an amended complaint alleging anti-trust claims relating to the da Vinci Surgical System and EndoWrist service, maintenance, and repair processes. On September 16, 2019, the Court partially granted and partially denied the Company’s Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint.
On September 30, 2019, the Company filed an answer denying the anti-trust allegations and filed a counterclaim against Restore. The Company filed amended counterclaims after the Court partially granted and partially denied Restore’s Motion to Dismiss the counterclaim. The amended counterclaims allege that Restore violated the Federal Lanham Act, the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and that Restore is also liable to the Company for Unfair Competition and Tortious Interference with Contract. On January 7, 2020, the Court denied Restore’s Motion to Dismiss the amended counterclaims.
Motions for Summary Judgment have been filed by the Company and Restore. Subject to the rulings on those motions, the Court anticipates a trial date in later summer or early fall 2022. Based on currently available information, the Company is unable to make a reasonable estimate of loss or range of losses, if any, arising from these matters.
On September 28, 2020, Rebotix Repair Inc. (“Rebotix”) filed a complaint in the Middle District of Florida alleging anti-trust claims against the Company relating to EndoWrist service, maintenance, and repair processes. The complaint was formally served on the Company on October 6, 2020. On March 8, 2021, the Court partially granted and partially denied the Company’s Motion to Dismiss the complaint. The Company filed an answer denying the anti-trust allegations and filed counterclaims against Rebotix. The counterclaims allege that Rebotix violated the Federal Lanham Act and Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and that Rebotix is also liable to the Company for Tortious Interference with Contract.
Motions for Summary Judgment have been filed by the Company and Rebotix. Subject to the rulings on these motions, the Court anticipates a trial date in or around May 2022. Based on currently available information, the Company is unable to make a reasonable estimate of loss or range of losses, if any, arising from this matter.
Similar to the claims asserted in the Restore case, on May 10, 2021, Surgical Instrument Service Company, Inc. filed a complaint in the Northern District of California Court alleging anti-trust claims against the Company relating to EndoWrist service, maintenance, and repair processes. The Court denied the Company's Motion to Dismiss, and discovery has commenced. Based on currently available information, the Company is unable to make a reasonable estimate of loss or range of losses, if any, arising from this matter.
Three class action complaints were filed against the Company in the Northern District of California Court alleging anti-trust allegations relating to the service and repair of certain instruments manufactured by the Company. A complaint by Larkin
Community Hospital was filed on May 20, 2021, a complaint by Franciscan Alliance, Inc. and King County Public Hospital District No. 1 was filed on July 6, 2021, and a complaint by Kaleida Health was filed on July 8, 2021. The Court has consolidated the Franciscan Alliance, Inc. and King County Public Hospital District No. 1 and Kaleida Health cases with the Larkin Community Hospital case, which is now captioned on the Larkin docket as “In Re: da Vinci Surgical Robot Antitrust Litigation.” A Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint has been filed on behalf of each plaintiff named in the earlier-filed cases. On January 14, 2022, Kaleida Health voluntarily dismissed itself as a party to this case. On January 18, 2022, the Company filed an answer against the plaintiffs in this matter, and discovery has commenced. Based on currently available information, the Company is unable to make a reasonable estimate of loss or range of losses, if any, arising from these matters.