INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LITIGATION EXPENSES (INCOME), NET

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2016

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LITIGATION EXPENSES (INCOME), NET

In May 2014, the Company entered into an agreement with Medtronic, Inc. and its affiliates ("Medtronic") to settle all outstanding patent litigation between the companies, including all cases related to transcatheter heart valves. Pursuant to the agreement, all pending cases or appeals in courts and patent offices worldwide have been dismissed, and the parties will not litigate patent disputes with each other in the field of transcatheter valves for the eight-year term of the agreement. Under the terms of a patent cross-license that is part of the agreement, Medtronic made a one-time, upfront payment to the Company for past damages in the amount of $750.0 million. In addition, Medtronic will pay the Company quarterly license royalty payments through April 2022. For sales in the United States, subject to certain conditions, the royalty payments will be based on a percentage of Medtronic's sales of transcatheter aortic valves, with a minimum annual payment of $40.0 million and a maximum annual payment of $60.0 million. A separate royalty payment will be calculated based on sales of Medtronic transcatheter aortic valves manufactured in the United States but sold elsewhere.

The Company accounted for the settlement agreement as a multiple-element arrangement and allocated the total consideration to the identifiable elements based upon their relative fair value. The consideration assigned to each element was as follows (in millions):



Past damages	$	754.3
License agreement	238.0
Covenant not to sue	77.7
Total	$	1,070.0

The Company recognized the upfront payment of $750.0 million in "Intellectual Property Litigation Expenses (Income), net" during the second quarter of 2014. The accounting guidance limits the amount to be recognized upfront to the amount of cash received. The remaining fair value associated with the past damages element, as well as the license agreement and the covenant not to sue, will be recognized in "Net Sales" over the term of the license agreement as delivery occurs since the Company considers the future royalties to be part of its revenue-earning activities that constitute its ongoing major or central operations.

The Company incurred external legal costs related to intellectual property litigation of $32.6 million, $7.0 million, and $9.6 million during 2016, 2015, and 2014, respectively. The increase in intellectual property litigation expenses in 2016 was primarily due to the resolution of an intellectual property litigation matter, and the increased costs associated with ongoing litigation in the United States and Europe.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

On October 30, 2015, Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc., a subsidiary of Boston Scientific Corporation ("Boston Scientific"), filed a lawsuit in the district court in Düsseldorf, Germany against Edwards Lifesciences and its German subsidiary, Edwards Lifesciences Services GmbH, alleging that Edwards Lifesciences’ SAPIEN 3 heart valve infringes certain claims of a Boston Scientific German national patent arising from EP 2 749 254 B1 (the "'254 patent") related to paravalvular sealing technology. On February 26, 2016, Boston Scientific added the German national patent arising from EP 2 926 766 (the "'766 Patent") to the infringement allegations. On April 8, 2016, Boston Scientific filed a similar patent infringement action in district court in Paris, France relating to these patents. The complaints seek unspecified money damages and injunctive relief. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in these matters. Trial in the German matter was held in February 2017 and the German district court's decision is expected in the first quarter of 2017. The French suit has been stayed pending the outcome of validity proceedings on the '766 and '254 patents.

On November 2, 2015, Edwards Lifesciences LLC, a U.S. subsidiary of Edwards Lifesciences, filed a lawsuit against Sadra Medical, Inc. and Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc., two subsidiaries of Boston Scientific, in the United Kingdom in the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court to declare invalid and revoke the U.K. national patent corresponding to the '254 patent. Edwards Lifesciences later added Boston Scientific’s UK national patent corresponding to the '766 patent to this invalidity lawsuit. The Boston Scientific subsidiaries filed counterclaims against Edwards Lifesciences and three of its European subsidiaries alleging that the SAPIEN 3 heart valve infringes certain claims of the same patents and seeking unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief. Trial on the U.K. matter was held in January 2017 and a decision is expected in the first half of 2017.

On November 23, 2015, Edwards Lifesciences PVT, Inc., a U.S. subsidiary of Edwards Lifesciences, filed a lawsuit in the district court in Düsseldorf, Germany for patent infringement against Boston Scientific and a German subsidiary, Boston Scientific Medizintechnik GmbH, alleging that the Lotus heart valve infringes certain claims of Edwards Lifesciences’ German national patents EP 1 441 672 B1 and 2 255 753 B1 related to prosthetic valve and delivery system technology. Edwards Lifesciences later added its German national patent EP 2 399 550 to this suit. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief. Trial in the German matter was held in February 2017 and the German district court's decision is expected in the first quarter of 2017.

On April 19, 2016, Boston Scientific filed a lawsuit against Edwards Lifesciences in the Federal District Court in the District of Delaware alleging that the SAPIEN 3 heart valve infringes certain claims of Boston Scientific’s U.S. Patent 8,992,608 (the "'608 patent") related to paravalvular sealing technology and seeking unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief. On June 9, 2016, Edwards Lifesciences LLC and Edwards Lifesciences PVT, Inc. filed counterclaims alleging that Boston Scientific’s Lotus heart valve infringes Edwards Lifesciences’ U.S. Patents 9,168,133; 9,339,383; and 7,510,575 related to prosthetic valve technology. Trial is scheduled for July 2018. On October 12, 2016, Edwards Lifesciences filed an Inter Partes Review ("IPR") request with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of Boston Scientific’s '608 patent.

Also on April 19, 2016, Boston Scientific filed a lawsuit against Edwards Lifesciences in the Federal District Court in the Central District of California alleging that five of its transcatheter heart valve delivery systems and a valve crimper infringe certain claims of eight Boston Scientific U.S. patents. The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief. Trial is scheduled for May 2018. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in these matters and has filed an IPR request related to the crimping device patent.

Because the ultimate outcome of the above matters involve judgments, estimates and inherent uncertainties, and cannot be predicted with certainty, charges related to such matters could have a material adverse impact on Edwards Lifesciences' financial position, results of operations, and liquidity.

In addition, Edwards Lifesciences is or may be a party to, or may otherwise be responsible for, pending or threatened lawsuits related primarily to products and services currently or formerly manufactured or performed, as applicable, by Edwards Lifesciences (the "Other Lawsuits"). The Other Lawsuits raise difficult and complex factual and legal issues and are subject to many uncertainties, including, but not limited to, the facts and circumstances of each particular case or claim, the jurisdiction in which each suit is brought, and differences in applicable law. Management does not believe that any charge relating to the Other Lawsuits would have a material adverse effect on Edwards Lifesciences’ overall financial position, results of operations, or liquidity. However, the resolution of one or more of the Other Lawsuits in any reporting period, could have a material adverse impact on Edwards Lifesciences' net income or cash flows for that period. The Company is not able to estimate the amount or range of any loss for legal contingencies for which there is no reserve or additional loss for matters already reserved.

Edwards Lifesciences is subject to various environmental laws and regulations both within and outside of the United States. The operations of Edwards Lifesciences, like those of other medical device companies, involve the use of substances regulated under environmental laws, primarily in manufacturing and sterilization processes. While it is difficult to quantify the potential impact of continuing compliance with environmental protection laws, management believes that such compliance will not have a material impact on Edwards Lifesciences' financial position, results of operations, or liquidity.