COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Leases

The Company is committed under non-cancelable operating leases for facilities and equipment. During fiscal 2017, 2016 and 2015, aggregate rental costs under all operating leases were approximately $2.5 million, $2.5 million and $3.4 million, respectively. Future annual payments under non-cancelable operating leases in the aggregate, of which one includes an escalation clause, with initial remaining terms of more than one year at May 31, 2017, are summarized as follows (in thousands):



(in thousands)
2018	$	2,214
2019	2,066
2020	1,860
2021	1,025
2022 and thereafter	2,552
	$	9,717

Other Commitments and Contingencies

The following table summarizes the Company's other future commitments and contingencies as of May 31, 2017.



(in thousands)	Total		2018		2019		2020		2021		2022 and thereafter
Purchase obligations (1)	$	49,762	$	8,443	$	8,726	$	9,162	$	8,709	$	14,722
Royalties	44,000		2,500		3,000		3,500		3,500		31,500
Other	834		167		167		167		167		166
	$	94,596	$	11,110	$	11,893	$	12,829	$	12,376	$	46,388


(1)	The non-cancelable inventory purchase obligations are not reflected on our consolidated balance sheets under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Legal Proceedings

The Company is involved in various legal proceedings, including commercial, intellectual property, product liability, and regulatory matters of a nature considered normal for its business. The Company accrues for amounts related to these matters if it is probable that a liability has been incurred, and an amount can be reasonably estimated. The Company discloses such matters when there is at least a reasonable possibility that a material loss may have been incurred. However, the Company cannot predict the outcome of any litigation or the potential for future litigation.

C.R. Bard, Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc.

On January 11, 2012, C.R. Bard, Inc. (“Bard”) filed a suit in the United States District Court of Utah claiming certain of our implantable port products infringe on three U.S. patents held by Bard (the "Utah Action"). Bard is seeking unspecified damages and other relief. The Court denied Bard’s motion for pre-trial consolidation with separate actions it filed on the same day against Medical Components, Inc. and Smiths Medical ASD, Inc., but had asked for supplemental briefing on the issue of whether to conduct a common Markman hearing. Meanwhile, we filed petitions for reexamination in the US Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") which seek to invalidate all three patents asserted by Bard in the litigation. Our petitions were granted and 40 of Bard's 41 patent claims were rejected and, following further proceedings, the Patent Office issued a Final Rejection of all 40 claims subject to reexamination. Thereafter, Bard filed appeals to the PTO Board of Appeals and Interferences for all three reexams. The parties completed briefing on the appeals and oral argument was held on June 18, 2015. The Patent Office issued decisions in the three appeals. In one (issued on March 11, 2016 for US Patent No. 7,785,302), the rejections of six of the ten claims under reexamination were affirmed, but were reversed on four of the ten claims. In the second (issued on March 24, 2016 for U.S. Patent No. 7,959,615), the rejections of eight of the ten claims under reexamination were affirmed but the rejections of the other two of the ten claims were reversed. In the third (issued on March 29 for U.S. Patent No. 7,947.022) the rejections of all twenty claims under reexamination were affirmed. Bard has since filed Requests for Rehearing in all three reexamination appeals and the Company filed Requests for Rehearing in two of the reexamination appeals (the ‘302 and ‘615 patent reexaminations). Each party has filed comments in Opposition to the other party’s Rehearing Requests,. The PTO has since issued decisions denying all Rehearing Requests - - on February 1, 2017 for the ‘302; on February 17, 2017 for the ‘022; and on February 21, 2017 for the ‘615. In the ‘302 and ‘022, the PTO modified its characterization of one prior art reference. Bard has since filed a Notice of Appeal to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in all three reexams and we filed Cross-Appeals in the ‘302 and the ‘615 reexams. The parties are in the process of preparing and filing the various appellate briefs, starting with Bard’s Opening Brief which is currently due on July 31, 2017 and ending with our Reply Brief which is currently due on November 6, 2017. The Utah Action has been stayed pending final resolution of the PTO process. We believe these claims are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously. We have not recorded an expense related to the outcome of this litigation because it is not yet possible to determine if a potential loss is probable nor reasonably estimable.

On March 10, 2015, C.R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. (“Bard”) filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware claiming certain of our implantable port products infringe on three U.S. patents held by Bard (the “Delaware Action). Bard is seeking unspecified damages and other relief. The patents asserted in the Delaware Action are different than those asserted in the Utah Action. On June 1, 2015, we filed two motions in response to Bard’s Complaint - one sought transfer to the District of Utah where the Utah Action is currently pending, and the other sought dismissal of the entire complaint on grounds that none of the claims in the asserted patents is directed to patent eligible subject matter under Section 101 of the Patent Statute and in light of recent authority from the U. S. Supreme Court. On January 12, 2016, the court issued a decision denying both motions. We have since served an Answer and Counterclaim to which Bard has served a Reply. On March 10, 2016, the Court held a case management conference, and, on March 14, 2016, the court entered a Scheduling Order which set, inter alia, a Markman hearing for March 10, 2017, a summary judgment hearing for December 8, 2017 and trial for March 12, 2018. The parties have served various discovery requests on each other, and have been producing documents to each other; on May 27, 2016 Bard served its Infringement Contentions which identified all the port products accused of infringement; and, on June 24, 2016, we served Invalidity Contentions which detail various grounds for invalidating the three asserted patents. The parties completed briefing on the claim construction issues and the Markman hearing was held on March 10, 2017 and the Court issued its Claim Construction Order on May 19, 2017. The Court has since amended the Scheduling Order to provide for the completion of Expert Discovery on October 30, 2017; briefing on Case-Dispositive Motions between November 17, 2017 and January 24, 2018 with oral argument set for February 22, 2018 and trial to commence May 29, 2018. We believe these claims are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously. We have not recorded an expense related to the outcome of this litigation because it is not yet possible to determine if a potential loss is probable nor reasonably estimable.

AngioDynamics, Inc. v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

On May 30, 2017, we commenced an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York entitled AngioDynamics, Inc. v. C.R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Access Systems, Inc. (“Bard”). In this action, we allege that Bard has illegally tied the sales of its tip location systems to the sales of its PICCs. We allege that this practice violates the federal antitrust laws and has had, and continues to have, an anti-competitive effect in the market for PICCs. We seek both monetary damages and injunctive relief. The Court has set an initial case management conference for August 29, 2017.

Governmental Investigations

In June 2014 we received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) requesting documents in relation to a criminal and civil investigation the DOJ is conducting regarding BTG International, Inc.’s LC Bead® product beginning in 2003. RITA Medical Systems and AngioDynamics, Inc., after its acquisition of RITA, was the exclusive distributor of LC Beads in the United States from 2006 through December 31, 2011. We are cooperating fully with this investigation.

In April 2015 we received a subpoena from the DOJ requesting documents in relation to a criminal and civil investigation the DOJ is conducting regarding purported promotion of certain of AngioDynamics’ VenaCure EVLT products for un-cleared indications. We are cooperating fully with this investigation.

As of May 31, 2017 the Company accrued $12.5 million for these matters and in August 2017, the Company agreed in principle with the government to resolve these matters for approximately $12.5 million.