Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The medical device market in which we primarily participate is largely technology driven. As a result, intellectual property rights, particularly patents and trade secrets, play a significant role in product development and differentiation. Over the years, there has been litigation initiated against us by others, including our competitors, claiming that our current or former product offerings infringe patents owned or licensed by them. Intellectual property litigation is inherently complex and unpredictable. In addition, competing parties frequently file multiple suits to leverage patent portfolios across product lines, technologies and geographies and to balance risk and exposure between the parties. In some cases, several competitors are parties in the same proceeding, or in a series of related proceedings, or litigate multiple features of a single class of devices. These forces frequently drive settlement not only for individual cases, but also for a series of pending and potentially related and unrelated cases. Although monetary and injunctive relief is typically sought, remedies and restitution are generally not determined until the conclusion of the trial court proceedings and can be modified on appeal. Accordingly, the outcomes of individual cases are difficult to time, predict or quantify and are often dependent upon the outcomes of other cases in other geographies. During recent years, we successfully negotiated closure of several long-standing legal matters and recently received favorable legal rulings in several other matters; however, there continues to be outstanding intellectual property litigation particularly in the coronary stent market. Adverse outcomes in one or more of these matters could have a material adverse effect on our ability to sell certain products and on our operating margins, financial position, results of operations and/or liquidity. In the normal course of business, product liability, securities and commercial claims are asserted against us. Similar claims may be asserted against us in the future related to events not known to management at the present time. We maintain an insurance policy providing limited coverage against securities claims, and we are substantially self-insured with respect to product liability claims and fully self-insured with respect to intellectual property infringement claims. The absence of significant third-party insurance coverage increases our potential exposure to unanticipated claims or adverse decisions. Product liability claims, securities and commercial litigation, and other legal proceedings in the future, regardless of their outcome, could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and/or liquidity. In addition, like other companies in the medical device industry, we are subject to extensive regulation by national, state and local government agencies in the United States and other countries in which we operate. From time to time we are the subject of qui tam actions and governmental investigations often involving regulatory, marketing and other business practices. These qui tam actions and governmental investigations could result in the commencement of civil and criminal proceedings, substantial fines, penalties and administrative remedies and have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and/or liquidity. We record losses for claims in excess of the limits of purchased insurance in earnings at the time and to the extent they are probable and estimable. In accordance with ASC Topic 450, Contingencies, we accrue anticipated costs of settlement, damages, losses for general product liability claims and, under certain conditions, costs of defense, based on historical experience or to the extent specific losses are probable and estimable. Otherwise, we expense these costs as incurred. If the estimate of a probable loss is a range and no amount within the range is more likely, we accrue the minimum amount of the range. Our accrual for legal matters that are probable and estimable was $625 million as of June 30, 2013 and $491 million as of December 31, 2012, and includes estimated costs of settlement, damages and defense. The increase in our legal accrual was primarily due to $130 million in litigation-related charges recorded during the first half of 2013. During the first half of 2012, we recorded $69 million of litigation related charges, which consisted of a charge of $85 million, partially offset by credits of $16 million. We continue to assess certain litigation and claims to determine the amounts, if any, that management believes will be paid as a result of such claims and litigation and, therefore, additional losses may be accrued and paid in the future, which could materially adversely impact our operating results, cash flows and/or our ability to comply with our debt covenants. In management's opinion, we are not currently involved in any legal proceedings other than those disclosed in our 2012 Annual Report filed on Form 10-K and our Quarterly Report filed on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2013, and those specifically identified below, which, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, operations and/or cash flows. Unless included in our legal accrual or otherwise indicated below, a range of loss associated with any individual material legal proceeding cannot be estimated. Patent Litigation On February 1, 2008, Wyeth Corporation and Cordis Corporation filed an amended complaint for patent infringement against Abbott Laboratories, adding us and Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. as additional defendants to the complaint. The suit alleged that the PROMUS® coronary stent system, supplied to us by Abbott, infringes three U.S. patents (the Morris patents) owned by Wyeth and licensed to Cordis. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey seeking monetary and injunctive relief. Wyeth and Cordis subsequently withdrew their infringement claim as to one of the patents, and the District Court found the remaining two patents invalid. Wyeth and Cordis filed an appeal and on June 26, 2013, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment in favor of Boston Scientific. On January 15, 2010, Cordis Corporation filed a complaint against us and Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. alleging that the PROMUS® coronary stent system, supplied to us by Abbott Laboratories, infringes three patents (the Fischell patents) owned by Cordis. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and sought monetary and injunctive relief. We filed counterclaims of invalidity and non-infringement. The District Court found that the PROMUS stent system did not infringe the Fischell patents and that our sales of this product were authorized. On May 13, 2013, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment in favor of Boston Scientific. In February 2013, Orbus International B.V. filed suits against the Company and two of its Dutch subsidiaries in the Hague District Court in the Netherlands and Orbus Medical GmbH filed suits against the Company and one of its German subsidiaries in the Duesseldorf District Court in Germany. In March 2013, Orbus Medical Inc. and Orbus International B.V. filed suit against the Company and two of its Irish subsidiaries in the Irish Commercial Court in Dublin, Ireland. Each of these matters alleges that the Company's sale of stent systems using the Element design infringes European patents owned by Orbus Medical Inc. and licensed to other Orbus entities. In one Dutch matter, Orbus sought cross-border, preliminary injunctive relief, which the court denied on July 9, 2013. In the other Dutch matter, Orbus is seeking damages and injunctive relief, and a hearing is scheduled for December 20, 2013. In one German matter, Orbus sought preliminary injunctive relief, which the Duesseldorf District Court granted on April 30, 2013. On that same date, we appealed the injunction to the Court of Appeals of Duesseldorf. In the other German matter, Orbus is seeking damages and injunctive relief, and a hearing is scheduled for May 14, 2014. In the Irish matter, Orbus is seeking damages and injunctive relief. In March 2013, two of the Company's subsidiaries filed suit against Orbus Medical Inc. in the English High Court seeking a declaration that the sale of the stent systems with the Element design does not infringe two Orbus patents and seeking to have the two patents found invalid. On June 5, 2013, Orbus cancelled one of the two UK patents. On May 16, 2013, Vascular Solutions, Inc. filed suit against the Company, alleging that its Guidezilla™ guide extension catheter infringes three U.S. patents owned by Vascular Solutions. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota seeking monetary and injunctive relief. On May 28, 2013 Vascular Solutions filed an amended complaint adding an allegation of copyright infringement. On June 10, 2013, Vascular Solutions filed a motion requesting a preliminary injunction. On July 11, 2013 the Company answered the amended complaint and filed a counterclaim against Vascular Solutions, alleging that its Guideliner™ guide extension catheter infringes a U.S. patent owned by the Company. Product Liability Litigation As of August 5, 2013, there were over 12,000 product liability cases or claims asserted against us in various federal and state courts across the country alleging personal injury associated with use of our transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. Generally, the plaintiffs allege design and manufacturing claims, failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims. Many of the cases have been specially assigned to one judge in state court in Massachusetts. On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (MDL) established MDL-2326 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia and transferred the federal court transvaginal surgical mesh cases to MDL-2326 for coordinated pretrial proceedings. In addition, in October 2012 we were contacted by the Attorney General for the State of California informing us that their office and certain other state attorneys general offices intend to initiate a civil investigation into our sale of transvaginal surgical mesh products. Governmental Investigations and Qui Tam Matters On June 27, 2008, the Republic of Iraq filed a complaint against our wholly-owned subsidiary, BSSA France, and 92 other defendants in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that the defendants acted improperly in connection with the sale of products under the United Nations Oil for Food Program. The complaint also alleges Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) violations, conspiracy to commit fraud and the making of false statements and improper payments, and it seeks monetary and punitive damages. A hearing on the pending motion to dismiss was held on October 26, 2012, and on February 6, 2013, the District Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice on standing and jurisdictional grounds. On February 20, 2013, the plaintiff filed an appeal, and it filed its appellate brief on June 4, 2013. On October 17, 2008, we received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General requesting information related to the alleged use of a skin adhesive in certain of our CRM products. In early 2010, we learned that this subpoena was related to a qui tam action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. After the federal government declined to intervene in the original complaint, the relator in the qui tam action filed an amended complaint alleging that Guidant violated the False Claims Act by selling certain PRIZM 2 devices and seeking monetary damages. In July 2010, we were served with the amended unsealed qui tam complaint filed by James Allen, an alleged device recipient. The civil division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) was later allowed to intervene in the Allen qui tam action and to transfer the litigation to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. In January 2011, the DOJ filed a civil False Claims Act complaint against us and Guidant (and other related entities) in the Allen qui tam action. On May 7, 2013, the Chief Magistrate Judge stayed the previously set deadlines in the case and the parties are in settlement discussions. On March 22, 2010, we received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts seeking documents relating to the former Market Development Sales Organization that operated within our CRM business. We are cooperating with the request. On October 21, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts unsealed a qui tam complaint that relates to the subject matter of the U.S. Attorney's investigation, after the federal government declined to intervene in the matter. Subsequently, on January 30, 2012, the relator filed an amended complaint. On July 5, 2012, the District Court issued an opinion and order dismissing the amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On July 12, 2012, the relator appealed the judgment of dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and oral argument was held on February 7, 2013. On May 31, 2013, the Court of Appeals rejected the relator's appeal and affirmed the dismissal of the amended complaint. On August 3, 2012, we were served with a qui tam complaint that had previously been filed under seal against Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 2, 2011. On August 8, 2012, we learned that the federal government had previously declined to intervene in this matter. The relators' complaint, now unsealed, alleges that Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corp. violated the federal and various states' false claims acts through submission of fraudulent bills for implanted devices, under-reporting of certain adverse events and promotion of off-label uses. On September 10, 2012, the relators filed an amended complaint revising and restating certain of the claims in the original complaint. Our motion to dismiss, filed subsequently, was denied on May 31, 2013, and on June 28, 2013, we answered the amended complaint and brought certain counterclaims arising from relators' unauthorized removal of documents from the business during their employments, which the relators moved to dismiss on July 22, 2013. Other Proceedings On October 5, 2007, Dr. Tassilo Bonzel filed a complaint against Pfizer, Inc. and our Schneider subsidiaries and us in the District Court in Kassel, Germany alleging that a 1995 license agreement related to a catheter patent is invalid under German law and seeking monetary damages. In June 2009, the District Court dismissed all but one of Dr. Bonzel's claims and in October 2009, he added new claims. We opposed the addition of the new claims. The District Court ordered Dr. Bonzel to select the claims he would pursue and in January 2011, he made that selection. A hearing is scheduled for August 23, 2013. On September 28, 2011, we served a complaint against Mirowski Family Ventures LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana for a declaratory judgment that we have paid all royalties owed and did not breach any contractual or fiduciary obligations arising out of a license agreement. Mirowski answered and filed counterclaims requesting damages. On May 13, 2013, Mirowski Family Ventures served the Company with a complaint alleging breach of contract in Montgomery County Circuit Court, Maryland, and they amended this complaint on August 1, 2013. On July 29, 2013, the Indiana case was dismissed. Refer to Note I - Income Taxes for information regarding our tax litigation. Matters Concluded Since December 31, 2012 On December 4, 2009, we, along with Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc., filed a complaint for patent infringement against Cordis Corporation alleging that its Cypher Mini™ stent product infringes a U.S. patent (the Jang patent) owned by us. In April 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware granted summary judgment that Cordis willfully infringed the Jang patent. After a trial on damages in May 2011, the jury found in favor of Boston Scientific for lost profits of approximately $18.5 million and royalties of approximately $1 million. On March 13, 2012, the District Court granted our motion for enhanced damages, resulting in a total damages award of approximately $41 million. On February 12, 2013, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment in favor of Boston Scientific. On November 17, 2009, Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. filed suit against OrbusNeich Medical, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries in the Hague District Court in the Netherlands alleging that OrbusNeich's sale of the Genous stent infringes a patent owned by us (the Keith patent) and seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. On March 13, 2012, the Hague Court of Appeals denied our request for preliminary relief. On April 2, 2013, the Hague Court of Appeals found the Keith patent invalid. In December 2007, we were informed by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Texas that it was conducting an investigation of allegations related to improper promotion of biliary stents for off-label uses. The allegations were set forth in a qui tam complaint, which named us and certain of our competitors. Following the federal government's decision not to intervene in the case, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas unsealed the complaint. In March 2011, the District Court issued an order granting our motion to dismiss and, in March 2012, issued its opinion ordering that all claims against us be dismissed, some of which were dismissed with prejudice and some of which were dismissed without prejudice to the relator's right to amend those claims. On September 14, 2012, the relator filed and served an amended complaint restating the claims that the District Court dismissed without prejudice. On January 17, 2013, the District Court granted our motion to dismiss with prejudice all of the relator's remaining claims against us, and on April 12, 2013, the District Court amended its order of dismissal to specify that it was final and appealable. On May 3, 2013, the relator voluntarily moved to dismiss his appeal of the January 17, 2013 order of dismissal, which he had filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on February 15, 2013. The deadline for further appeals lapsed on May 13, 2013.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The medical device market in which we primarily participate is largely technology driven. As a result, intellectual property rights, particularly patents and trade secrets, play a significant role in product development and differentiation. Over the years, there has been litigation initiated against us by others, including our competitors, claiming that our current or former product offerings infringe patents owned or licensed by them. Intellectual property litigation is inherently complex and unpredictable. In addition, competing parties frequently file multiple suits to leverage patent portfolios across product lines, technologies and geographies and to balance risk and exposure between the parties. In some cases, several competitors are parties in the same proceeding, or in a series of related proceedings, or litigate multiple features of a single class of devices. These forces frequently drive settlement not only for individual cases, but also for a series of pending and potentially related and unrelated cases. Although monetary and injunctive relief is typically sought, remedies and restitution are generally not determined until the conclusion of the trial court proceedings and can be modified on appeal. Accordingly, the outcomes of individual cases are difficult to time, predict or quantify and are often dependent upon the outcomes of other cases in other geographies.

During recent years, we successfully negotiated closure of several long-standing legal matters and recently received favorable legal rulings in several other matters; however, there continues to be outstanding intellectual property litigation particularly in the coronary stent market. Adverse outcomes in one or more of these matters could have a material adverse effect on our ability to sell certain products and on our operating margins, financial position, results of operations and/or liquidity.

In the normal course of business, product liability, securities and commercial claims are asserted against us. Similar claims may be asserted against us in the future related to events not known to management at the present time. We maintain an insurance policy providing limited coverage against securities claims, and we are substantially self-insured with respect to product liability claims and fully self-insured with respect to intellectual property infringement claims. The absence of significant third-party insurance coverage increases our potential exposure to unanticipated claims or adverse decisions. Product liability claims, securities and commercial litigation, and other legal proceedings in the future, regardless of their outcome, could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and/or liquidity.

In addition, like other companies in the medical device industry, we are subject to extensive regulation by national, state and local government agencies in the United States and other countries in which we operate. From time to time we are the subject of qui tam actions and governmental investigations often involving regulatory, marketing and other business practices. These qui tam actions and governmental investigations could result in the commencement of civil and criminal proceedings, substantial fines, penalties and administrative remedies and have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and/or liquidity.

We record losses for claims in excess of the limits of purchased insurance in earnings at the time and to the extent they are probable and estimable. In accordance with ASC Topic 450, Contingencies, we accrue anticipated costs of settlement, damages, losses for general product liability claims and, under certain conditions, costs of defense, based on historical experience or to the extent specific losses are probable and estimable. Otherwise, we expense these costs as incurred. If the estimate of a probable loss is a range and no amount within the range is more likely, we accrue the minimum amount of the range.

Our accrual for legal matters that are probable and estimable was $625 million as of June 30, 2013 and $491 million as of December 31, 2012, and includes estimated costs of settlement, damages and defense. The increase in our legal accrual was primarily due to $130 million in litigation-related charges recorded during the first half of 2013. During the first half of 2012, we recorded $69 million of litigation related charges, which consisted of a charge of $85 million, partially offset by credits of $16 million. We continue to assess certain litigation and claims to determine the amounts, if any, that management believes will be paid as a result of such claims and litigation and, therefore, additional losses may be accrued and paid in the future, which could materially adversely impact our operating results, cash flows and/or our ability to comply with our debt covenants.

In management's opinion, we are not currently involved in any legal proceedings other than those disclosed in our 2012 Annual Report filed on Form 10-K and our Quarterly Report filed on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2013, and those specifically identified below, which, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, operations and/or cash flows. Unless included in our legal accrual or otherwise indicated below, a range of loss associated with any individual material legal proceeding cannot be estimated.

Patent Litigation

On February 1, 2008, Wyeth Corporation and Cordis Corporation filed an amended complaint for patent infringement against Abbott Laboratories, adding us and Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. as additional defendants to the complaint. The suit alleged that the PROMUS® coronary stent system, supplied to us by Abbott, infringes three U.S. patents (the Morris patents) owned by Wyeth and licensed to Cordis. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey seeking monetary and injunctive relief. Wyeth and Cordis subsequently withdrew their infringement claim as to one of the patents, and the District Court found the remaining two patents invalid. Wyeth and Cordis filed an appeal and on June 26, 2013, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment in favor of Boston Scientific.

On January 15, 2010, Cordis Corporation filed a complaint against us and Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. alleging that the PROMUS® coronary stent system, supplied to us by Abbott Laboratories, infringes three patents (the Fischell patents) owned by Cordis. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and sought monetary and injunctive relief. We filed counterclaims of invalidity and non-infringement. The District Court found that the PROMUS stent system did not infringe the Fischell patents and that our sales of this product were authorized. On May 13, 2013, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment in favor of Boston Scientific.

In February 2013, Orbus International B.V. filed suits against the Company and two of its Dutch subsidiaries in the Hague District Court in the Netherlands and Orbus Medical GmbH filed suits against the Company and one of its German subsidiaries in the Duesseldorf District Court in Germany. In March 2013, Orbus Medical Inc. and Orbus International B.V. filed suit against the Company and two of its Irish subsidiaries in the Irish Commercial Court in Dublin, Ireland. Each of these matters alleges that the Company's sale of stent systems using the Element design infringes European patents owned by Orbus Medical Inc. and licensed to other Orbus entities. In one Dutch matter, Orbus sought cross-border, preliminary injunctive relief, which the court denied on July 9, 2013. In the other Dutch matter, Orbus is seeking damages and injunctive relief, and a hearing is scheduled for December 20, 2013. In one German matter, Orbus sought preliminary injunctive relief, which the Duesseldorf District Court granted on April 30, 2013. On that same date, we appealed the injunction to the Court of Appeals of Duesseldorf. In the other German matter, Orbus is seeking damages and injunctive relief, and a hearing is scheduled for May 14, 2014. In the Irish matter, Orbus is seeking damages and injunctive relief. In March 2013, two of the Company's subsidiaries filed suit against Orbus Medical Inc. in the English High Court seeking a declaration that the sale of the stent systems with the Element design does not infringe two Orbus patents and seeking to have the two patents found invalid. On June 5, 2013, Orbus cancelled one of the two UK patents.

On May 16, 2013, Vascular Solutions, Inc. filed suit against the Company, alleging that its Guidezilla™ guide extension catheter infringes three U.S. patents owned by Vascular Solutions. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota seeking monetary and injunctive relief. On May 28, 2013 Vascular Solutions filed an amended complaint adding an allegation of copyright infringement. On June 10, 2013, Vascular Solutions filed a motion requesting a preliminary injunction. On July 11, 2013 the Company answered the amended complaint and filed a counterclaim against Vascular Solutions, alleging that its Guideliner™ guide extension catheter infringes a U.S. patent owned by the Company.

Product Liability Litigation

As of August 5, 2013, there were over 12,000 product liability cases or claims asserted against us in various federal and state courts across the country alleging personal injury associated with use of our transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. Generally, the plaintiffs allege design and manufacturing claims, failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims. Many of the cases have been specially assigned to one judge in state court in Massachusetts. On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (MDL) established MDL-2326 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia and transferred the federal court transvaginal surgical mesh cases to MDL-2326 for coordinated pretrial proceedings. In addition, in October 2012 we were contacted by the Attorney General for the State of California informing us that their office and certain other state attorneys general offices intend to initiate a civil investigation into our sale of transvaginal surgical mesh products.

Governmental Investigations and Qui Tam Matters

On June 27, 2008, the Republic of Iraq filed a complaint against our wholly-owned subsidiary, BSSA France, and 92 other defendants in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that the defendants acted improperly in connection with the sale of products under the United Nations Oil for Food Program. The complaint also alleges Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) violations, conspiracy to commit fraud and the making of false statements and improper payments, and it seeks monetary and punitive damages. A hearing on the pending motion to dismiss was held on October 26, 2012, and on February 6, 2013, the District Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice on standing and jurisdictional grounds. On February 20, 2013, the plaintiff filed an appeal, and it filed its appellate brief on June 4, 2013.

On October 17, 2008, we received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General requesting information related to the alleged use of a skin adhesive in certain of our CRM products. In early 2010, we learned that this subpoena was related to a qui tam action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. After the federal government declined to intervene in the original complaint, the relator in the qui tam action filed an amended complaint alleging that Guidant violated the False Claims Act by selling certain PRIZM 2 devices and seeking monetary damages. In July 2010, we were served with the amended unsealed qui tam complaint filed by James Allen, an alleged device recipient. The civil division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) was later allowed to intervene in the Allen qui tam action and to transfer the litigation to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. In January 2011, the DOJ filed a civil False Claims Act complaint against us and Guidant (and other related entities) in the Allen qui tam action. On May 7, 2013, the Chief Magistrate Judge stayed the previously set deadlines in the case and the parties are in settlement discussions.

On March 22, 2010, we received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts seeking documents relating to the former Market Development Sales Organization that operated within our CRM business. We are cooperating with the request. On October 21, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts unsealed a qui tam complaint that relates to the subject matter of the U.S. Attorney's investigation, after the federal government declined to intervene in the matter. Subsequently, on January 30, 2012, the relator filed an amended complaint. On July 5, 2012, the District Court issued an opinion and order dismissing the amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On July 12, 2012, the relator appealed the judgment of dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and oral argument was held on February 7, 2013. On May 31, 2013, the Court of Appeals rejected the relator's appeal and affirmed the dismissal of the amended complaint.

On August 3, 2012, we were served with a qui tam complaint that had previously been filed under seal against Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 2, 2011. On August 8, 2012, we learned that the federal government had previously declined to intervene in this matter. The relators' complaint, now unsealed, alleges that Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corp. violated the federal and various states' false claims acts through submission of fraudulent bills for implanted devices, under-reporting of certain adverse events and promotion of off-label uses. On September 10, 2012, the relators filed an amended complaint revising and restating certain of the claims in the original complaint. Our motion to dismiss, filed subsequently, was denied on May 31, 2013, and on June 28, 2013, we answered the amended complaint and brought certain counterclaims arising from relators' unauthorized removal of documents from the business during their employments, which the relators moved to dismiss on July 22, 2013.

Other Proceedings

On October 5, 2007, Dr. Tassilo Bonzel filed a complaint against Pfizer, Inc. and our Schneider subsidiaries and us in the District Court in Kassel, Germany alleging that a 1995 license agreement related to a catheter patent is invalid under German law and seeking monetary damages. In June 2009, the District Court dismissed all but one of Dr. Bonzel's claims and in October 2009, he added new claims. We opposed the addition of the new claims. The District Court ordered Dr. Bonzel to select the claims he would pursue and in January 2011, he made that selection. A hearing is scheduled for August 23, 2013.

On September 28, 2011, we served a complaint against Mirowski Family Ventures LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana for a declaratory judgment that we have paid all royalties owed and did not breach any contractual or fiduciary obligations arising out of a license agreement. Mirowski answered and filed counterclaims requesting damages. On May 13, 2013, Mirowski Family Ventures served the Company with a complaint alleging breach of contract in Montgomery County Circuit Court, Maryland, and they amended this complaint on August 1, 2013. On July 29, 2013, the Indiana case was dismissed.

Refer to Note I - Income Taxes for information regarding our tax litigation.

Matters Concluded Since December 31, 2012

On December 4, 2009, we, along with Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc., filed a complaint for patent infringement against Cordis Corporation alleging that its Cypher Mini™ stent product infringes a U.S. patent (the Jang patent) owned by us. In April 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware granted summary judgment that Cordis willfully infringed the Jang patent. After a trial on damages in May 2011, the jury found in favor of Boston Scientific for lost profits of approximately $18.5 million and royalties of approximately $1 million. On March 13, 2012, the District Court granted our motion for enhanced damages, resulting in a total damages award of approximately $41 million. On February 12, 2013, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment in favor of Boston Scientific.

On November 17, 2009, Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. filed suit against OrbusNeich Medical, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries in the Hague District Court in the Netherlands alleging that OrbusNeich's sale of the Genous stent infringes a patent owned by us (the Keith patent) and seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. On March 13, 2012, the Hague Court of Appeals denied our request for preliminary relief. On April 2, 2013, the Hague Court of Appeals found the Keith patent invalid.

In December 2007, we were informed by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Texas that it was conducting an investigation of allegations related to improper promotion of biliary stents for off-label uses. The allegations were set forth in a qui tam complaint, which named us and certain of our competitors. Following the federal government's decision not to intervene in the case, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas unsealed the complaint. In March 2011, the District Court issued an order granting our motion to dismiss and, in March 2012, issued its opinion ordering that all claims against us be dismissed, some of which were dismissed with prejudice and some of which were dismissed without prejudice to the relator's right to amend those claims. On September 14, 2012, the relator filed and served an amended complaint restating the claims that the District Court dismissed without prejudice. On January 17, 2013, the District Court granted our motion to dismiss with prejudice all of the relator's remaining claims against us, and on April 12, 2013, the District Court amended its order of dismissal to specify that it was final and appealable. On May 3, 2013, the relator voluntarily moved to dismiss his appeal of the January 17, 2013 order of dismissal, which he had filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on February 15, 2013. The deadline for further appeals lapsed on May 13, 2013.