Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2021
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 16. Commitments and Contingencies From time to time, the Company is involved in legal and administrative proceedings and claims of various types. In some actions, the claimants seek damages, as well as other relief, which, if granted, would require significant expenditures. The Company records a liability in its consolidated financial statements for these matters when a loss is known or considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. The Company reviews these estimates each accounting period as additional information is known and adjusts the loss provision when appropriate. If a matter is both probable to result in liability and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company estimates and discloses the possible loss or range of loss. If the loss is not probable or cannot be reasonably estimated, a liability is not recorded in its consolidated financial statements. Maquet Matters The Company has been litigating certain patents owned by Maquet Cardiovascular LLC (“Maquet”) in two separate cases pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (“D. Mass” or “the Court”) since 2016. In May 2016, the Company filed a declaratory judgment action (the “2016 Action”) alleging that it does not infringe Maquet’s patent. Following the claim construction (“Markman”) order issued in November 2018, and prior to the close of discovery, both parties filed series of motions. On September 30, 2021, the Court granted the Company’s Motion for Summary Judgement (“MSJ”) for non-infringement of the two claims remaining in this case. Maquet moved for reconsideration of the MSJ order, which the Court denied on November 30, 2021. The Court has not entered a final judgement; therefore, the case is not yet appealable to the Federal Circuit. In November 2017, Maquet filed a new action in D. Mass alleging that the Company’s Impella 2.5^®, Impella CP^®, and Impella 5.0^® heart pumps infringe certain claims of another patent in the same family (the seventh patent overall between both cases). The Parties submitted Markman briefs and argued their respective positions in November 2019. A Markman order has not yet issued, and discovery remains ongoing. The asserted patents in both cases expired on September 1, 2020. The Company is unable to estimate the potential liability with respect to the legal matters noted above. There are numerous factors that make it difficult to meaningfully estimate possible loss or range of loss at this stage of the legal proceedings, including the significant number of legal and factual issues still to be resolved in the Maquet patent disputes. Thoratec Matters The Company has been involved in two ongoing patent infringement actions against Thoratec Corporation (“Thoratec”), a subsidiary of Abbott Laboratories (“Abbott”) for the sales and marketing of Thoratec’s Heartmate PHP™ pump in 2016. In August 2021, the Appellate Court (the Court of 2nd Instance) in Düsseldorf affirmed that Thoratec infringes both patents. The Company can now enforce the judgment in one case by seeking a court ordered injunction if Thoratec sells Heartmate PHP™ in Germany. Thoratec had appealed the second case to the Federal Court of Justice (the Court of 3rd and Last Instance) and in January 2022, Thoratec withdrew its appeal. These actions relate solely to Thoratec’s ability to manufacture and sell its PHP product in Europe and have no impact on the Company's ability to manufacture or sell its Impella^® line of medical devices. The actions do not expose the Company to liability risk, except under local German law, which requires a losing party in a proceeding to pay a portion of the other party’s legal fees. Securities Class Action Litigation On or about August 6, 2019, the Company received a securities class action complaint filed on behalf of a single shareholder in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”), on behalf of himself and persons or entities that purchased or acquired the Company’s securities between January 31, 2019 through July 31, 2019. On October 7, 2019, a similar purported class action complaint was filed by a different shareholder on behalf of himself and persons or entities that purchased or acquired the Company’s securities between November 1, 2018 and July 31, 2019. Also, on October 7, 2019, four shareholders filed applications to be appointed lead plaintiff and for their counsel to be appointed lead counsel for the class. Two of those shareholders also filed motions to consolidate the two cases and two of the shareholders have withdrawn their applications to be lead plaintiff. The complaints alleged that the Company violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act, in connection with allegedly misleading disclosures made by the Company regarding its financial condition and results of operations. On June 29, 2020, SDNY issued an order consolidating the two cases and appointed Local 705 International Brotherhood of Teamsters Pension Fund as the lead plaintiff and Labaton Sucharow LLP as lead counsel. On September 17, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint in which it proposed a new class period of May 3, 2018 to July 31, 2019. As prescribed by a scheduling order, the Company filed a motion to dismiss on November 16, 2020. On September 21, 2021, SDNY granted the Company’s motion, dismissed the amended complaint, and gave the lead plaintiff leave to move to amend the complaint by October 12, 2021. On October 12, 2021, the Company and the lead plaintiff entered into a stipulation to voluntarily dismiss the securities class action and SDNY ordered dismissal of the case with prejudice on the same day. Under the terms of the stipulation, the lead plaintiff has agreed not to move for leave to amend the complaint and not to appeal the dismissal of the action. Shareholder Derivative Litigation On November 6 and 7, 2019, two shareholders filed derivative actions in SDNY that were subsequently consolidated. On November 8, 2019, another shareholder filed a derivative action in Massachusetts Suffolk County Superior Court. On January 7, 2020, another shareholder derivative action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaints in these actions relied on many of the same allegations as in the securities class actions, and asserted that, between November 1, 2018 and July 31, 2019, the directors of the Company made or allowed to be made misleading public statements regarding the Company’s growth, ultimately harming the Company. The Company agreed with the plaintiffs in all three actions to stay the cases pending resolution of a motion to dismiss in the securities class actions. As a result of the stay, the Delaware action was administratively closed. Following dismissal of the securities class action, the Company agreed with the plaintiffs in all three actions to voluntarily dismiss the derivative actions. In all three actions, the respective courts have entered judgment dismissing the action without prejudice. Litigation Demand On March 3, 2020, a shareholder sent a letter to the Board of Directors asserting that the directors of the Company made or allowed to be made misleading public statements regarding the Company’s growth. The letter relied on many of the same allegations as the securities class actions and derivative actions, and demanded that the Board (i) undertake an independent investigation of the directors, (ii) bring suit against the directors on behalf of the Company, and (iii) take a number of additional affirmative actions to redress the purported wrongs. On March 30, 2020, the Company, after discussions with the Board of Directors, sent a written response to the shareholder’s counsel which they responded to on June 1, 2020. The Company then sent a further response to the shareholder’s counsel on June 15, 2020, affirming the decision to defer consideration of the litigation demand pending further developments in the securities class action suit. Following the filing of the amended complaint in the securities class action, described above, the same shareholder renewed their demand on September 29, 2020. The Company responded on October 9, 2020 and once again affirmed that it would defer consideration of the demand pending further substantive developments in the securities class action suit. On November 5, 2020, a second shareholder sent a letter to the Board of Directors that made essentially the same demands as the September 29, 2020 letter from the first shareholder. The Company responded on November 23, 2020, noting that it would defer consideration of the demand pending further substantive developments in the securities class action suit. On November 22, 2021, the Company sent letters to each shareholder’s counsel noting the dismissal of the securities class action suit and derivative actions and communicating the Company’s expectation that the shareholders would withdraw their demands.

Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2021

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Note 16. Commitments and Contingencies

From time to time, the Company is involved in legal and administrative proceedings and claims of various types. In some actions, the claimants seek damages, as well as other relief, which, if granted, would require significant expenditures. The Company records a liability in its consolidated financial statements for these matters when a loss is known or considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. The Company reviews these estimates each accounting period as additional information is known and adjusts the loss provision when appropriate. If a matter is both probable to result in liability and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company estimates and discloses the possible loss or range of loss. If the loss is not probable or cannot be reasonably estimated, a liability is not recorded in its consolidated financial statements.

Maquet Matters

The Company has been litigating certain patents owned by Maquet Cardiovascular LLC (“Maquet”) in two separate cases pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (“D. Mass” or “the Court”) since 2016.

In May 2016, the Company filed a declaratory judgment action (the “2016 Action”) alleging that it does not infringe Maquet’s patent. Following the claim construction (“Markman”) order issued in November 2018, and prior to the close of discovery, both parties filed series of motions. On September 30, 2021, the Court granted the Company’s Motion for Summary Judgement (“MSJ”) for non-infringement of the two claims remaining in this case. Maquet moved for reconsideration of the MSJ order, which the Court denied on November 30, 2021. The Court has not entered a final judgement; therefore, the case is not yet appealable to the Federal Circuit.

In November 2017, Maquet filed a new action in D. Mass alleging that the Company’s Impella 2.5^®, Impella CP^®, and Impella 5.0^® heart pumps infringe certain claims of another patent in the same family (the seventh patent overall between both cases). The Parties submitted Markman briefs and argued their respective positions in November 2019. A Markman order has not yet issued, and discovery remains ongoing.

The asserted patents in both cases expired on September 1, 2020.

The Company is unable to estimate the potential liability with respect to the legal matters noted above. There are numerous factors that make it difficult to meaningfully estimate possible loss or range of loss at this stage of the legal proceedings, including the significant number of legal and factual issues still to be resolved in the Maquet patent disputes.

Thoratec Matters

The Company has been involved in two ongoing patent infringement actions against Thoratec Corporation (“Thoratec”), a subsidiary of Abbott Laboratories (“Abbott”) for the sales and marketing of Thoratec’s Heartmate PHP™ pump in 2016. In August 2021, the Appellate Court (the Court of 2nd Instance) in Düsseldorf affirmed that Thoratec infringes both patents. The Company can now enforce the judgment in one case by seeking a court ordered injunction if Thoratec sells Heartmate PHP™ in Germany. Thoratec

had appealed the second case to the Federal Court of Justice (the Court of 3rd and Last Instance) and in January 2022, Thoratec withdrew its appeal.

These actions relate solely to Thoratec’s ability to manufacture and sell its PHP product in Europe and have no impact on the Company's ability to manufacture or sell its Impella^® line of medical devices. The actions do not expose the Company to liability risk, except under local German law, which requires a losing party in a proceeding to pay a portion of the other party’s legal fees.

Securities Class Action Litigation

On or about August 6, 2019, the Company received a securities class action complaint filed on behalf of a single shareholder in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”), on behalf of himself and persons or entities that purchased or acquired the Company’s securities between January 31, 2019 through July 31, 2019. On October 7, 2019, a similar purported class action complaint was filed by a different shareholder on behalf of himself and persons or entities that purchased or acquired the Company’s securities between November 1, 2018 and July 31, 2019. Also, on October 7, 2019, four shareholders filed applications to be appointed lead plaintiff and for their counsel to be appointed lead counsel for the class. Two of those shareholders also filed motions to consolidate the two cases and two of the shareholders have withdrawn their applications to be lead plaintiff.

The complaints alleged that the Company violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act, in connection with allegedly misleading disclosures made by the Company regarding its financial condition and results of operations.

On June 29, 2020, SDNY issued an order consolidating the two cases and appointed Local 705 International Brotherhood of Teamsters Pension Fund as the lead plaintiff and Labaton Sucharow LLP as lead counsel. On September 17, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint in which it proposed a new class period of May 3, 2018 to July 31, 2019. As prescribed by a scheduling order, the Company filed a motion to dismiss on November 16, 2020. On September 21, 2021, SDNY granted the Company’s motion, dismissed the amended complaint, and gave the lead plaintiff leave to move to amend the complaint by October 12, 2021. On October 12, 2021, the Company and the lead plaintiff entered into a stipulation to voluntarily dismiss the securities class action and SDNY ordered dismissal of the case with prejudice on the same day. Under the terms of the stipulation, the lead plaintiff has agreed not to move for leave to amend the complaint and not to appeal the dismissal of the action.

Shareholder Derivative Litigation

On November 6 and 7, 2019, two shareholders filed derivative actions in SDNY that were subsequently consolidated. On November 8, 2019, another shareholder filed a derivative action in Massachusetts Suffolk County Superior Court. On January 7, 2020, another shareholder derivative action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaints in these actions relied on many of the same allegations as in the securities class actions, and asserted that, between November 1, 2018 and July 31, 2019, the directors of the Company made or allowed to be made misleading public statements regarding the Company’s growth, ultimately harming the Company.

The Company agreed with the plaintiffs in all three actions to stay the cases pending resolution of a motion to dismiss in the securities class actions. As a result of the stay, the Delaware action was administratively closed.

Following dismissal of the securities class action, the Company agreed with the plaintiffs in all three actions to voluntarily dismiss the derivative actions. In all three actions, the respective courts have entered judgment dismissing the action without prejudice.

Litigation Demand

On March 3, 2020, a shareholder sent a letter to the Board of Directors asserting that the directors of the Company made or allowed to be made misleading public statements regarding the Company’s growth. The letter relied on many of the same allegations as the securities class actions and derivative actions, and demanded that the Board (i) undertake an independent investigation of the directors, (ii) bring suit against the directors on behalf of the Company, and (iii) take a number of additional affirmative actions to redress the purported wrongs. On March 30, 2020, the Company, after discussions with the Board of Directors, sent a written response to the shareholder’s counsel which they responded to on June 1, 2020. The Company then sent a further response to the shareholder’s counsel on June 15, 2020, affirming the decision to defer consideration of the litigation demand pending further developments in the securities class action suit. Following the filing of the amended complaint in the securities class action, described above, the same shareholder renewed their demand on September 29, 2020. The Company responded on October 9, 2020 and once again affirmed that it would defer consideration of the demand pending further substantive developments in the securities class action suit.

On November 5, 2020, a second shareholder sent a letter to the Board of Directors that made essentially the same demands as the September 29, 2020 letter from the first shareholder. The Company responded on November 23, 2020, noting that it would defer consideration of the demand pending further substantive developments in the securities class action suit.

On November 22, 2021, the Company sent letters to each shareholder’s counsel noting the dismissal of the securities class action suit and derivative actions and communicating the Company’s expectation that the shareholders would withdraw their demands.