COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Litigation

Silzone® Litigation and Insurance Receivables: The Company has been sued in various jurisdictions beginning in March 2000 by some patients who received a heart valve product with Silzone® coating, which the Company stopped selling in January 2000. The Company has vigorously defended against the claims that have been asserted and will continue to do so with respect to any remaining claims.

The Company's outstanding Silzone cases consist of two class actions in Ontario, one individual case in Ontario and one proposed class action in British Columbia by the provincial health insurer. In Ontario, a trial on common issues commenced in February 2010 in a class action case involving Silzone patients. In June 2012, the Court in that case ruled in the Company's favor on all nine common class issues and the Court ruled the case should be dismissed. The Court of Appeal for the Province of Ontario granted the plaintiff's request seeking to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal to September 14, 2012. An additional case seeking class action status in Ontario was originally stayed in 2003 pending resolution of the class action that went through the common issue proceeding, and the Company will seek dismissal of both class action matters when it seeks to have the Court effectuate its June 2012 order finding that a class action in Ontario involving Silzone products should be dismissed. The proposed class action lawsuit by the British Columbia provincial health insurer seeks to recover the cost of insured services furnished or to be furnished to patients who were also class members in a British Columbia class action that was resolved in 2010. Although that lawsuit remains pending in the British Columbia court, there has not been any activity since 2010. The individual case in Ontario requests damages in excess of $1 million (claiming unspecified special damages, health care costs and interest). Based on the Company’s historical experience, the amount ultimately paid, if any, often does not bear any relationship to the amount claimed.

The Company has recorded an accrual for probable legal costs, settlements and judgments for Silzone related litigation. The Company is not aware of any unasserted claims related to Silzone-coated products. For all Silzone legal costs incurred, the Company records insurance receivables for the amounts that it expects to recover based on its assessment of the specific insurance policies, the nature of the claim and the Company’s experience with similar claims. The Company’s current and final insurance layer for Silzone claims consists of $13 million of remaining coverage with two insurance carriers. To the extent that the Company’s future Silzone costs (the material components of which are settlements, judgments, legal fees and other related defense costs) exceed its remaining insurance coverage, the Company would be responsible for such costs. The Company has not recognized an expense related to any potential future damages as they are not probable or reasonably estimable at this time.

The following table summarizes the Company’s Silzone legal accrual and related insurance receivable at June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011 (in millions):



	June 30, 2012		December 31, 2011
Silzone legal accrual	$	4	$	22
Silzone insurance receivable	$	3	$	15

Volcano Corporation & LightLab Imaging Litigation: The Company’s subsidiary, LightLab Imaging, has pending litigation with Volcano Corporation (Volcano) and Axsun Technologies, Inc. (Axsun), a subsidiary of Volcano, in the Superior Court of Massachusetts and in state court in Delaware. LightLab Imaging makes and sells optical coherence tomography (OCT) imaging systems. Volcano is a LightLab Imaging competitor in medical imaging. Axsun makes and sells lasers and is a supplier of lasers to LightLab Imaging for use in OCT imaging systems. The lawsuits arise out of Volcano’s acquisition of Axsun in December 2008. Before Volcano acquired Axsun, LightLab Imaging and Axsun had worked together to develop a tunable laser for use in OCT imaging systems. While the laser was in development, LightLab Imaging and Axsun entered into an agreement pursuant to which Axsun agreed to sell its tunable lasers exclusively to LightLab in the field of human coronary artery imaging for a certain period of time.

After Volcano acquired Axsun in December 2008, LightLab Imaging sued Axsun and Volcano in Massachusetts, asserting a number of claims arising out of Volcano’s acquisition of Axsun. In January 2011, the Court ruled that Axsun’s and Volcano’s conduct constituted knowing and willful violations of a statute that prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices or acts of unfair competition, entitling LightLab Imaging to double damages, and furthermore, that LightLab Imaging was entitled to recover attorneys’ fees. In February 2011, Volcano and Axsun were ordered to pay the Company for reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and double damages, which Volcano paid to the Company in July 2011. The Court also issued certain injunctions against Volcano and Axsun when it entered its final judgment.

In Delaware, Axsun and Volcano commenced an action in February 2010 against LightLab Imaging, seeking a declaration as to whether Axsun may supply a certain light source for use in OCT imaging systems to Volcano. Axsun’s and Volcano’s position is that this light source is not a tunable laser and hence falls outside Axsun’s exclusivity obligations to Volcano. LightLab Imaging’s position, among other things, is that this light source is a tunable laser. Though the trial of this matter was expected to occur in early 2011, in a March 2011 ruling, the Delaware Court postponed the trial of this case because Axsun and Volcano did not yet have a finalized light source product to present to the Court.

In May 2011, LightLab Imaging initiated a lawsuit against Volcano and Axsun in the Delaware state court. The suit seeks to enforce LightLab Imaging’s exclusive contract with Axsun, to prevent Volcano from interfering with that contract, to bar Axsun and Volcano from using LightLab Imaging confidential information and trade secrets, and to prevent Volcano and Axsun from violating a Massachusetts statute prohibiting unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices relating to LightLab Imaging’s tunable laser technology. In October 2011, LightLab Imaging filed an amended and supplemental complaint in this action, and in early November 2011, the Company received Volcano and Axsun’s response, including motions to dismiss some of the claims and stay the prosecution of other claims. In May 2012, the Court granted Volcano's motion to stay the proceedings until Volcano provides notice of its intent to begin clinical trials or engage in other public activities with an OCT imaging system that uses a type of light source that is in dispute in the lawsuit. Volcano is under an order to provide such a notice at least 45 days before beginning such trials or engaging in such activities.

Volcano Corporation & St. Jude Medical Patent Litigation: In July 2010, the Company filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Delaware against Volcano for patent infringement. In the suit, the Company asserted five patents against Volcano and seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages. The infringed patents are part of the St. Jude Medical PressureWire® technology platform, which was acquired as part of St. Jude Medical’s purchase of Radi Medical Systems in December 2008. Volcano has filed counterclaims against the Company in this case, alleging certain St. Jude Medical patent claims are unenforceable and that certain St. Jude Medical products infringe four Volcano patents. The Company believes the assertions and claims made by Volcano are without merit. The hearing on the proper constructions of the patent claims, and for all dispositive motions is scheduled for September 2012. Trial on liability issues in this case is scheduled for October 2012. On July 31, 2012, the Court issued an order organizing the case into two separate trials, explaining that the case involving the five patents the Company has asserted against Volcano will be tried in a one week jury trial beginning October 15, 2012, and that the case involving the four patents Volcano has asserted against the Company will be tried in a one week jury trial beginning on October 22, 2012.

March 2010 Securities Class Action Litigation: In March 2010, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in federal district court in Minnesota against the Company and certain officers on behalf of purchasers of St. Jude Medical common stock between April 22, 2009 and October 6, 2009. The lawsuit relates to the Company’s earnings announcements for the first, second and third quarters of 2009, as well as a preliminary earnings release dated October 6, 2009. The complaint, which seeks unspecified damages and other relief as well as attorneys’ fees, alleges that the Company failed to disclose that it was experiencing a slowdown in demand for its products and was not receiving anticipated orders for CRM (Cardiac Rhythm Management) devices. Class members allege that the Company’s failure to disclose the above information resulted in the class purchasing St. Jude Medical stock at an artificially inflated price. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in this lawsuit. In December 2011, the Court issued a decision denying a motion to dismiss filed by the defendants in October 2010. The defendants filed their answer in January 2012, and the discovery phase in the case has begun.

June 2012 Securities Class Action Litigation: On June 14, 2012, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in federal district court in Minnesota against the Company and a company officer for alleged violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of all purchasers of the publicly traded securities of the Company between December 15, 2010 and April 4, 2012 who were damaged thereby. The complaint, which seeks unspecified damages and other relief as well as attorneys' fees, alleges that the Company failed to disclose information concerning its Riata, QuickFlex and QuickSite leads. Class members allege that the Company's failure to disclose this information resulted in the class purchasing St. Jude Medical stock at an artificially inflated price. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in this lawsuit. The lawsuit is in a very early stage and is awaiting appointment of a lead plaintiff and lead counsel to represent the putative class.

Other than disclosed above, the Company has not recorded an expense related to any potential damages in connection with these litigation matters because any potential loss is not probable or reasonably estimable. Additionally, other than disclosed above, the Company cannot reasonably estimate a loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from these litigation matters.

Regulatory Matters

The FDA inspected the Company’s manufacturing facility in Minnetonka, Minnesota at various times between December 8 and December 19, 2008. On December 19, 2008, the FDA issued a Form 483 identifying certain observed non-conformity with current Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMP) primarily related to the manufacture and assembly of the Safire™ ablation catheter with a 4 mm or 5 mm non-irrigated tip. Following the receipt of the Form 483, the Company’s AF (Atrial Fibrillation) division provided written responses to the FDA detailing proposed corrective actions and immediately initiated efforts to address the FDA’s observations of non-conformity. The Company subsequently received a warning letter dated April 17, 2009 from the FDA relating to these non-conformities with respect to this facility. Following re-inspection by the FDA in early 2012, the Company has now completed the corrective actions to adequately address the issues noted in the warning letter and the associated restrictions are no longer applicable.

The FDA inspected the Company’s Plano, Texas manufacturing facility at various times between March 5 and April 6, 2009. On April 6, 2009, the FDA issued a Form 483 identifying certain observed nonconformities with cGMP. Following the receipt of the Form 483, the Company’s Neuromodulation division provided written responses to the FDA detailing proposed corrective actions and immediately initiated efforts to address FDA’s observations of nonconformity. The Company subsequently received a warning letter dated June 26, 2009 from the FDA relating to these non-conformities with respect to its Neuromodulation division’s Plano, Texas and Hackettstown, New Jersey facilities.

With respect to this warning letter, the FDA notes that it will not grant requests for exportation certificates to foreign governments or approve pre-market approval applications for Class III devices to which the quality system regulation deviations are reasonably related until the violations have been corrected. The Company is working cooperatively with the FDA to resolve all of its concerns.

Customer orders have not been and are not expected to be impacted while the Company works to resolve the FDA’s concerns. The Company is working diligently to respond timely and fully to the FDA’s requests. While the Company believes the issues raised by the FDA can be resolved without a material impact on the Company’s financial results, the FDA has recently been increasing its scrutiny of the medical device industry and raising the threshold for compliance. The government is expected to continue to scrutinize the industry closely with inspections, and possibly enforcement actions, by the FDA or other agencies. The Company is regularly monitoring, assessing and improving its internal compliance systems and procedures to ensure that its activities are consistent with applicable laws, regulations and requirements, including those of the FDA.

Other Matters

Boston U.S. Attorney Investigation: In December 2008, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Boston delivered a subpoena issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General (OIG) requesting the production of documents relating to implantable cardiac rhythm device and pacemaker warranty claims. In June 2012, without an admission of liability, the Company agreed to settle this matter and paid $4 million. The settlement resolves allegations that the Company failed to properly apply warranty credits for certain purchases by the U.S. Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs.

U.S. Department of Justice - Civil Investigative Demand: In March 2010, the Company received a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) from the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. The CID requests documents and sets forth interrogatories related to communications by and within the Company on various indications for tachycardia implantable cardioverter defibrillator systems (ICDs) and a National Coverage Decision issued by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Similar requests were made of the Company’s major competitors. The Company has produced all documents and information requested in the CID. The Company has not recorded an expense related to any potential damages in connection with this matter because any potential loss is not probable or reasonably estimable. The Company cannot reasonably estimate a loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter.

The Company is also involved in various other lawsuits, claims and proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business.

Product Warranties

The Company offers a warranty on various products, the most significant of which relates to its ICDs and pacemakers systems. The Company estimates the costs that may be incurred under its warranties and records a liability in the amount of such costs at the time the product is sold. Factors that affect the Company’s warranty liability include the number of units sold, historical and anticipated rates of warranty claims and cost per claim. The Company periodically assesses the adequacy of its recorded warranty liabilities and adjusts the amounts as necessary.

Changes in the Company’s product warranty liability during the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 and July 2, 2011 were as follows (in millions):



	Three Months Ended					Six Months Ended
	June 30, 2012		July 2, 2011			June 30, 2012			July 2, 2011
Balance at beginning of period	$	37	$	27		$	36		$	25
Warranty expense recognized	1		3			3			6
Warranty credits issued	—		(1		)	(1		)	(2		)
Balance at end of period	$	38	$	29		$	38		$	29

Other Commitments

The Company has certain contingent commitments to acquire various businesses involved in the distribution of the Company’s products and to pay other contingent acquisition consideration payments. While it is not certain if and/or when these payments will be made, as of June 30, 2012, the Company estimates it could be required to pay approximately $11 million in future periods to satisfy such commitments. Refer to Part II, Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations of the Company’s 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K for additional information.