Note 5 — Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments

Rental expense for all operating leases amounted to $65,941 in 2012, $68,545 in 2011, and $63,794 in 2010. Future minimum rental commitments on noncancelable leases are as follows: 2013 — $50,353; 2014 — $42,967; 2015 — $35,267; 2016 — $26,830; 2017 — $22,065 and an aggregate of $33,531 thereafter.

As of September 30, 2012, the Company has certain future purchase commitments aggregating to approximately $505,676, which will be expended over the next several years.

Contingencies

Given the uncertain nature of litigation generally, the Company is not able in all cases to estimate the amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome of the litigation to which the Company is a party. In accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, the Company establishes accruals to the extent probable future losses are estimable (in the case of environmental matters, without considering possible third-party recoveries). In view of the uncertainties discussed below, the Company could incur charges in excess of any currently established accruals and, to the extent available, excess liability insurance. In the opinion of management, any such future charges, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated results of operations and consolidated cash flows.

The Company is named as a defendant in the following purported class action suits brought on behalf of distributors and other entities that purchase the Company’s products (the “Distributor Plaintiffs”), alleging that the Company violated federal antitrust laws, resulting in the charging of higher prices for the Company’s products to the plaintiffs and other purported class members.


Case	Court	Date Filed
Louisiana Wholesale Drug Company, Inc., et. al. vs. Becton Dickinson and Company	U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey	March 25, 2005
SAJ Distributors, Inc. et. al. vs. Becton Dickinson & Co.	U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania	September 6, 2005
Dik Drug Company, et. al. vs. Becton, Dickinson and Company	U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey	September 12, 2005
American Sales Company, Inc. et. al. vs. Becton, Dickinson & Co.	U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania	October 3, 2005
Park Surgical Co. Inc. et. al. vs. Becton, Dickinson and Company	U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania	October 26, 2005

These actions have been consolidated under the caption “In re Hypodermic Products Antitrust Litigation.”

The Company is also named as a defendant in the following purported class action suits brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s products, such as hospitals (the “Hospital Plaintiffs”), alleging that the Company violated federal and state antitrust laws, resulting in the charging of higher prices for the Company’s products to the plaintiffs and other purported class members.


Case	Court	Date Filed
Jabo’s Pharmacy, Inc., et. al. v. Becton Dickinson & Company	U.S. District Court, Greenville, Tennessee	June 3, 2005
Drug Mart Tallman, Inc., et. al. v. Becton Dickinson and Company	U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey	January 17, 2006
Medstar v. Becton Dickinson	U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey	May 18, 2006
The Hebrew Home for the Aged at Riverdale v. Becton Dickinson and Company	U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York	March 28, 2007

The plaintiffs in each of the above antitrust class action lawsuits seek monetary damages. All of the antitrust class action lawsuits have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes in a Multi-District Litigation in Federal court in New Jersey.

On April 27, 2009, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the Distributor Plaintiffs in these actions. The settlement agreement provides for, among other things, the payment by the Company of $45,000 in exchange for a release by all potential class members of the direct purchaser claims under federal antitrust laws related to the products and acts enumerated in the complaint, and a dismissal of the case with prejudice, insofar as it relates to direct purchaser claims. The release would not cover potential class members that affirmatively opt out of the settlement or indirect purchaser claims. On September 30, 2010, the District Court denied a motion to approve the settlement agreement, ruling that the Hospital Plaintiffs, and not the Distributor Plaintiffs, are the direct purchasers with standing to sue under federal antitrust laws. On June 5, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the District Court’s standing decision and ruled that the Distributor Plaintiffs, not the Hospital Plaintiffs, are direct purchasers entitled to pursue damages. The Hospital Plaintiffs requested that the ruling be reconsidered, but that request was denied. The settlement agreement thus remains in effect, subject to certain termination provisions, and must be approved as to fairness by the District Court. The Distributor Plaintiffs have filed a motion requesting that the settlement agreement be preliminarily approved as fair and reasonable. Certain of the Hospital Plaintiffs have opposed that motion. The Company currently cannot estimate the range of reasonably possible losses with respect to these class action matters beyond the $45,000 already accrued and changes to the amount already recognized may be required in the future as additional information becomes available.

In June 2007, Retractable Technologies, Inc. (“RTI”) filed a complaint against the Company under the caption Retractable Technologies, Inc. vs. Becton Dickinson and Company (Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-250, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas). RTI alleges that the BD Integra^TM syringes infringe patents licensed exclusively to RTI. In its complaint, RTI also alleges that the Company engaged in false advertising with respect to certain of the Company’s safety-engineered products in violation of the Lanham Act; acted to exclude RTI from various product markets and to maintain its market share through, among other things, exclusionary contracts in violation of state and federal antitrust laws; and engaged in unfair competition. In January 2008, the court severed the patent and non-patent claims into separate cases, and stayed the non-patent claims during the pendency of the patent claims at the trial court level. RTI seeks money damages and injunctive relief. On April 1, 2008, RTI filed a complaint against BD under the caption Retractable Technologies, Inc. and Thomas J. Shaw v. Becton Dickinson and Company (Civil Action No.2:08-cv-141, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas). RTI alleges that the BD Integra^TM syringes infringe another patent licensed exclusively to RTI. RTI seeks money damages and injunctive relief. On August 29, 2008, the court ordered the consolidation of the patent cases. On November 9, 2009, at a trial of these consolidated cases, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of RTI on all but one of its infringement claims, but did not find any willful infringement, and awarded RTI $5,000 in damages. On May 19, 2010, the court granted RTI’s motion for a permanent injunction against the continued sale by the Company of its BD Integra^TM products in their current form, but stayed the injunction for the duration of the Company’s appeal. At the same time, the court lifted a stay of RTI’s non-patent claims. On July 8, 2011, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the District Court judgment that the Company’s 3ml BD Integra™ products infringed the asserted RTI patents and affirmed the District Court judgment of infringement against the Company’s discontinued 1ml BD Integra™ products. On October 31, 2011, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals denied RTI’s request for an en banc rehearing. RTI has filed a petition for review with the U.S. Supreme Court. The trial on RTI’s antitrust and false advertising claims has been postponed pending resolution of RTI’s appeal of the patent ruling.

With respect to RTI’s antitrust and false advertising claims, BD cannot estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss as there are significant legal and factual issues to be resolved. These include discovery regarding RTI’s alleged damages and liability theories, which has not been completed. Each party has filed motions seeking to exclude portions of the other party’s expert testimony and to preclude the other party from introducing certain other evidence at trial. RTI’s appeal of the appellate court’s patent ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court adds further uncertainty to the possible future outcomes of RTI’s antitrust and false advertising claims. In the event that RTI ultimately succeeds at trial and subsequent appeals on its antitrust and false advertising claims, any potential loss could be material as RTI is seeking to recover substantial damages including disgorgement of profits and damages under the federal antitrust laws, which are trebled. BD believes RTI’s allegations are without merit.

On October 19, 2009, Gen-Probe Incorporated (“Gen-Probe”) filed a patent infringement action against BD in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint alleges that the BD Viper™ and BD Viper™ XTR™ systems and BD ProbeTec™ specimen collection products infringe certain U.S. patents of Gen-Probe. On March 23, 2010, Gen-Probe filed a complaint, also in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, alleging that the BD Max^TM instrument infringes Gen-Probe patents. The patents alleged to be infringed are a subset of the Gen-Probe patents asserted against the Company in the October 2009 suit. On June 8, 2010, the court consolidated these cases. In a decision dated September 28, 2012, the District Court for the Southern District of California issued a ruling on pre-trial summary judgment motions. The court ruled that some of Gen-Probe’s asserted patent claims are infringed, but other claims are not infringed, thus reducing from six to four the number of patents to be contested at the trial and significant defense issues relating to patent invalidity, inequitable conduct and standing, remain to be adjudicated. Gen-Probe is seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. The Company currently cannot estimate the range of reasonably possible losses for this matter as there are significant issues to be resolved either prior to, or at, trial, including patent invalidity, inequitable conduct and standing issues as well as motions seeking to exclude portions of the other party’s expert testimony and to preclude the other party from introducing certain other evidence at trial.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to each of the above-mentioned suits pending against the Company and is engaged in a vigorous defense of each of these matters.

The Company is also involved both as a plaintiff and a defendant in other legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of business.

The Company is a party to a number of Federal proceedings in the United States brought under the Comprehensive Environment Response, Compensation and Liability Act, also known as “Superfund,” and similar state laws. The affected sites are in varying stages of development. In some instances, the remedy has been completed, while in others, environmental studies are commencing. For all sites, there are other potentially responsible parties that may be jointly or severally liable to pay all cleanup costs.