Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2012

Contingencies

Contingencies

7. Contingencies

Litigation

From time to time, the Company is involved in legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of its business. Currently, management believes the Company does not have any probable and estimable loss related to any current legal proceedings and claims that would individually or in the aggregate materially adversely affect its financial condition or operating results. Litigation is inherently unpredictable and is subject to significant uncertainties, some of which are beyond the Company’s control. Should any of these estimates and assumptions change or prove to have been incorrect, the Company could incur significant charges related to legal matters which could have a material impact on its results of operations, financial position and cash flows.

Accuray Securities Litigation

On July 22, 2009, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its current and former directors and officers. On August 7, 2009 and August 9, 2009, two securities class action complaints, both similar to the one filed on July 22, 2009, were filed against the same defendants in the same court. These three actions were consolidated. The consolidated complaint generally alleged that the Company and the individual defendants made false or misleading public statements regarding its operations and sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On August 31, 2010, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint and granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint. On September 27, 2010, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint named the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors as defendants and generally alleged that the defendants made false or misleading public statements regarding its operations. The amended complaint sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On April 28, 2011, the parties filed a stipulation of settlement with the court, providing for the settlement of the litigation for a payment of $13.5 million which was covered by insurance. The court preliminarily approved the settlement on June 10, 2011. A hearing on the terms of the settlement was held on September 1, 2011. On December 8, 2011 the Court issued its final judgment and order of dismissal with prejudice.

Litigation relating to the TomoTherapy Acquisition

On March 11, 2011, a purported class action complaint was filed in the Circuit Court for the State of Wisconsin, Dane County, on behalf of a putative class of TomoTherapy shareholders and naming as defendants TomoTherapy and TomoTherapy’s board of directors (prior to the acquisition of TomoTherapy by the Company). Thereafter, four additional complaints were filed in the same court on behalf of the same class and against the same defendants, and two such complaints also named the Company and Jaguar Acquisition, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company (“Merger Sub”). On April 4, 2011, all five actions were consolidated. The complaints generally alleged that, in connection with the Company’s then proposed merger transaction with TomoTherapy, TomoTherapy’s board breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing to maximize the value of TomoTherapy to its shareholders and purportedly agreeing to certain terms in the merger agreement, which were allegedly preclusive and onerous. The complaints further alleged that the Company and Merger Sub aided and abetted TomoTherapy’s board of directors in their alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs sought, among other things, an injunction barring consummation of the merger, rescission or recessionary damages, costs and attorney’s fees. The Company and Merger Sub were dismissed from the litigation without prejudice on April 19, 2011. The consolidated complaint against TomoTherapy and the former directors of TomoTherapy was dismissed with prejudice and without costs to either party on July 5, 2011.

Best Medical Trade Secret Litigation

On September 3, 2009, Best Medical International, Inc. (“Best Medical”) filed a lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, claiming the Company induced certain individuals to leave the employment of Best Medical and join the Company in order to gain access to Best Medical’s confidential information and trade secrets. Best Medical is seeking monetary damages and other relief. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on May 20, 2011, Best Medical filed its response on June 21, 2011, and the Company filed a response to their response on July 8, 2011. On October 25, 2011, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Company on all counts. On November 21, 2011 Best Medical filed a notice of appeal, and the parties await a ruling by the appellate court.

Best Medical Patent Litigation

On August 6, 2010, Best Medical filed an additional lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, claiming it has infringed U.S. Patent No. 5,596,619 a patent that Best Medical alleges protects a method and apparatus for conformal radiation therapy. On December 2, 2010, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss, with leave to amend. On December 16, 2010, Best Medical filed an amended complaint, claiming that the Company also infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,038,283 and 7,266,175, both of which Best Medical alleges cover methods and apparatus for conformal radiation therapy. On March 9, 2011, the Court dismissed with prejudice all counts against the Company, except for two counts of alleged willful infringement of two of the patents. The Court issued a Scheduling Order on May 12, 2011 appointing a special master for claim construction, and setting a claim construction hearing on January 10, 2012. Best Medical moved to voluntarily dismiss one of the two remaining patent claims on June 28, 2011, which the court granted on June 30, 2011, leaving only one patent (U.S. Patent No. 6,038,283) at issue in the case. On September 1, 2011, the Court modified its Scheduling Order, setting a claim construction hearing on January 24-25, 2012. On January 4, 2012, the Court again modified its Scheduling Order, changing the claim construction hearing to May 16-17, 2012. Best Medical is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as unspecified compensatory and treble damages and other relief. At this time, the Company does not have enough information to estimate what, if any, financial impact this claim will have.

TomoTherapy Former Distributor in Japan

On July 17, 2009, Hi-Art Co., Ltd. (Hi-Art), TomoTherapy’s former distributor in Japan, filed a complaint against TomoTherapy in the Tokyo District Court seeking compensation it claimed was owed by TomoTherapy. The Company and Hi-Art entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which the Company agreed to pay 190,000,000 yen (or approximately $2.3 million) and Hi-Art dropped all claims against TomoTherapy and the Company. On July 26, 2011, the Court approved the settlement and issued a decree dismissing the case. The settlement amount was paid during the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2011.

Rotary Systems

On April 28, 2011, a former supplier to TomoTherapy, Rotary Systems Incorporated, filed suit in Minnesota state court, Tenth Judicial District, Anoka County, against TomoTherapy alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, as well as several other counts alleging various theories of injury. Rotary Systems alleges TomoTherapy misappropriated Rotary Systems’ trade secrets pertaining to a component previously purchased from Rotary Systems, which component TomoTherapy now purchases from a different supplier. The suit alleges TomoTherapy improperly supplied the alleged trade secrets to its present supplier, Dynamic Sealing Technologies Inc. (also a named defendant in the suit). Rotary Systems has made a claim for unspecified damages of greater than $50,000. TomoTherapy moved to dismiss the case in June 2011, and on August 29, 2011, the court granted the motion to dismiss with respect to all counts other than the count alleging misappropriation of trade secrets. At this time, the Company does not have enough information to estimate what, if any, financial impact this claim will have.

Radiation Stabilization Solutions Patent Litigation

On September 15, 2011, Radiation Stabilization Solutions LLC (“Radiation Stabilization Solutions”) filed a patent infringement complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. The complaint, alleged the Company’s sale of our TomoHD product induces infringement of or contributorily infringes U.S. Patent No. 6,118,848, or the ‘848 Patent, and sought unspecified monetary damages for the alleged infringement. The complaint also named Varian Medical Systems, Inc., BrainLab AG, BrainLab, Inc., Elekta AB and Elekta, Inc. as defendants, alleging that certain of their products also infringe the ‘848 patent. On October 27, 2011, the Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice because non-resident defendants had been improperly named in the complaint.

On October 28, 2011, Radiation Stabilization Solutions filed a new complaint against the Company and a customer of the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. The new complaint repeats the original complaint’s allegations against the Company, and seeks unspecified monetary damages for the alleged infringement. The complaint further alleges that the customer directly and indirectly infringes the ‘848 patent, and seeks unspecified monetary damages for the alleged infringement. Radiation Stabilization Solutions also filed individual suits against each of Varian and Elekta and several of their respective customers. Radiation Stabilization Solutions served the complaint on Accuray and its customer on December 7, 2011. At this time, the Company does not have enough information to estimate what, if any, financial impact this claim will have.

Software License Indemnity

Under the terms of the Company’s software license agreements with its customers, the Company agrees that in the event the software sold infringes upon any patent, copyright, trademark, or any other proprietary right of a third party, it will indemnify its customer licensees against any loss, expense, or liability from any damages that may be awarded against its customer. The Company includes this infringement indemnification in all of its software license agreements and selected managed services arrangements. In the event the customer cannot use the software or service due to infringement and the Company cannot obtain the right to use, replace or modify the license or service in a commercially feasible manner so that it no longer infringes, then the Company may terminate the license and provide the customer a refund of the fees paid by the customer for the infringing license or service. The Company has not recorded any liability associated with this indemnification, as it is not aware of any pending or threatened actions that represent probable losses as of March 31, 2012.