COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2013
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 9. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Purchase Commitments. We have purchase commitments, comprising of supply and inventory related agreements, totaling approximately $14.6 million as of September 30, 2013. These purchase order commitments include our purchase obligations with SMB of Denmark to purchase VSpro specialty analyzers and related cartridges and Diatron MI PLC of Hungary to purchase Diatron hematology instruments. Patent Licensing Agreement. Effective January 2009, we entered into a license agreement with Alere. Under our license agreement, we licensed co-exclusively certain worldwide patent rights related to lateral flow immunoassay technology in the field of animal health diagnostics in the professional marketplace. The license agreement provides that Alere may not grant any future rights to any third parties under its current lateral flow patent rights in the animal health diagnostics field in the professional marketplace. The license agreement enables us to develop and market products under rights from Alere to address animal health and laboratory animal research markets. In exchange for the license rights, we (i) paid an up-front license fee of $5.0 million to Alere in January 2009, (ii) agreed to pay royalties during the term of the agreement, based solely on sales of products in a jurisdiction country covered by valid and unexpired claims in that jurisdiction under the licensed Alere patent rights, and (iii) agreed to pay a yearly minimum license fee of between $500,000 to $1.0 million per year, which fee will be creditable against any royalties due during such calendar year. The royalties, if any, are payable through the date of the expiration of the last valid patent licensed under the agreement that includes at least one claim in a jurisdiction covering products we sell in that jurisdiction. The yearly minimum fees are payable for so long as we desire to maintain exclusivity under the agreement. Litigation. On June 28, 2010, we filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Cepheid. On September 24, 2012, the parties agreed to terminate all pending and future claims connected with the litigation in exchange for a one-time payment by Cepheid of $17.3 million, which we recognized as an offset to operating expenses during the second quarter of fiscal 2013. On October 1, 2012, St. Louis Police Retirement System, a purported shareholder of Abaxis, filed a lawsuit against certain officers and each of our directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging, among other things, that the directors violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and breached their fiduciary duties by allegedly failing to disclose material information in our 2010 proxy statement, breached their fiduciary duties by allegedly violating the terms of our 2005 Equity Incentive Plan, and breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose alleged material information in our 2012 proxy statement regarding (1) the events leading up to our proposal to amend the 2005 Equity Incentive Plan to eliminate the limit on the number of shares that may be issued pursuant to restricted stock units, and (2) the effects of the proposed amendment on certain settled and outstanding restricted stock units. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, damages, disgorgement and attorney’s fees. In addition, the plaintiff sought, and on October 23, 2012 the court issued, an order preliminarily enjoining our shareholder vote on Proposal 2 in our 2012 proxy statement, regarding an amendment to the 2005 Equity Incentive Plan, until such time as additional disclosures could be made. The Company filed with the SEC and mailed to shareholders supplemental proxy materials approved by the court, the injunction was lifted and our shareholders approved the proposal to amend our 2005 Equity Incentive Plan. The defendants have filed motions to dismiss the claims. On October 1, 2013, before the court ruled on the motions to dismiss, the parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement of the lawsuit. The parties are in the process of formalizing the settlement agreement. Among other things, the proposed settlement terms provide for the claims against the defendants to be dismissed with prejudice and for the release of certain known or unknown claims that have been or could have been brought later in the court arising out of the same allegations. Abaxis has agreed that if the proposed settlement terms are approved by the court, it will adopt certain corporate governance measures, such measures to be in effect for at least five years. If the parties are not able to agree on the amount of an attorney’s fee award to be paid to the plaintiff’s counsel, subject to approval by the court, Abaxis anticipates that plaintiff will petition the court for an attorney’s fee award. The settlement is not contingent on the payment of any attorney’s fee award. We believe that any attorney’s fees that would be awarded to plaintiff’s counsel would not have a material adverse effect on Abaxis, our consolidated financial position and results of operations. We are involved from time to time in various litigation matters in the normal course of business. There can be no assurance that existing or future legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business or otherwise will not have a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

NOTE 9. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Purchase Commitments. We have purchase commitments, comprising of supply and inventory related agreements, totaling approximately $14.6 million as of September 30, 2013. These purchase order commitments include our purchase obligations with SMB of Denmark to purchase VSpro specialty analyzers and related cartridges and Diatron MI PLC of Hungary to purchase Diatron hematology instruments.

Patent Licensing Agreement. Effective January 2009, we entered into a license agreement with Alere. Under our license agreement, we licensed co-exclusively certain worldwide patent rights related to lateral flow immunoassay technology in the field of animal health diagnostics in the professional marketplace. The license agreement provides that Alere may not grant any future rights to any third parties under its current lateral flow patent rights in the animal health diagnostics field in the professional marketplace. The license agreement enables us to develop and market products under rights from Alere to address animal health and laboratory animal research markets.

In exchange for the license rights, we (i) paid an up-front license fee of $5.0 million to Alere in January 2009, (ii) agreed to pay royalties during the term of the agreement, based solely on sales of products in a jurisdiction country covered by valid and unexpired claims in that jurisdiction under the licensed Alere patent rights, and (iii) agreed to pay a yearly minimum license fee of between $500,000 to $1.0 million per year, which fee will be creditable against any royalties due during such calendar year. The royalties, if any, are payable through the date of the expiration of the last valid patent licensed under the agreement that includes at least one claim in a jurisdiction covering products we sell in that jurisdiction. The yearly minimum fees are payable for so long as we desire to maintain exclusivity under the agreement.

Litigation. On June 28, 2010, we filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Cepheid. On September 24, 2012, the parties agreed to terminate all pending and future claims connected with the litigation in exchange for a one-time payment by Cepheid of $17.3 million, which we recognized as an offset to operating expenses during the second quarter of fiscal 2013.

On October 1, 2012, St. Louis Police Retirement System, a purported shareholder of Abaxis, filed a lawsuit against certain officers and each of our directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging, among other things, that the directors violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and breached their fiduciary duties by allegedly failing to disclose material information in our 2010 proxy statement, breached their fiduciary duties by allegedly violating the terms of our 2005 Equity Incentive Plan, and breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose alleged material information in our 2012 proxy statement regarding (1) the events leading up to our proposal to amend the 2005 Equity Incentive Plan to eliminate the limit on the number of shares that may be issued pursuant to restricted stock units, and (2) the effects of the proposed amendment on certain settled and outstanding restricted stock units. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, damages, disgorgement and attorney’s fees. In addition, the plaintiff sought, and on October 23, 2012 the court issued, an order preliminarily enjoining our shareholder vote on Proposal 2 in our 2012 proxy statement, regarding an amendment to the 2005 Equity Incentive Plan, until such time as additional disclosures could be made. The Company filed with the SEC and mailed to shareholders supplemental proxy materials approved by the court, the injunction was lifted and our shareholders approved the proposal to amend our 2005 Equity Incentive Plan. The defendants have filed motions to dismiss the claims. On October 1, 2013, before the court ruled on the motions to dismiss, the parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement of the lawsuit. The parties are in the process of formalizing the settlement agreement. Among other things, the proposed settlement terms provide for the claims against the defendants to be dismissed with prejudice and for the release of certain known or unknown claims that have been or could have been brought later in the court arising out of the same allegations. Abaxis has agreed that if the proposed settlement terms are approved by the court, it will adopt certain corporate governance measures, such measures to be in effect for at least five years. If the parties are not able to agree on the amount of an attorney’s fee award to be paid to the plaintiff’s counsel, subject to approval by the court, Abaxis anticipates that plaintiff will petition the court for an attorney’s fee award. The settlement is not contingent on the payment of any attorney’s fee award. We believe that any attorney’s fees that would be awarded to plaintiff’s counsel would not have a material adverse effect on Abaxis, our consolidated financial position and results of operations.

We are involved from time to time in various litigation matters in the normal course of business. There can be no assurance that existing or future legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business or otherwise will not have a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.