Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2014
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 have received favorable legal rulings in several other matters; however, there continues to be outstanding intellectual property litigation. 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. In accordance with ASC Topic 450, Contingencies, we accrue anticipated costs of settlement, damages, losses for 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 $1.577 billion as of December 31, 2014 and $607 million as of December 31, 2013, and includes certain estimated costs of settlement, damages and defense. The increase in our legal accrual was primarily due to litigation-related charges recorded during the year. During 2014, 2013 and 2012, we recorded litigation-related charges in the amount of $1.036 billion, $221 million, and $192 million, respectively. The charges recorded in 2014 included $600 million related to the settlement agreement between our subsidiary, Guidant and Johnson & Johnson signed on February 13, 2015. 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 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 September 22, 2009, Cordis Corporation, Cordis LLC and Wyeth Corporation filed a complaint for patent infringement against Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. and us alleging that the PROMUS® coronary stent system, supplied to us by Abbott, infringes a patent (the Llanos patent) owned by Cordis and Wyeth. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey seeking monetary and injunctive relief. In August 2010, Cordis filed an amended complaint to add an additional patent and in September 2010, we filed counterclaims of invalidity and non-infringement. On October 26, 2011, the District Court granted Cordis' motion to add the Promus Element stent system to the case. On February 6, 2012, the District Court granted our motion to stay the action until the conclusion of the reexaminations against the Llanos patents that are pending in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. On May 19, 2005, G. David Jang, M.D. filed suit against us alleging breach of contract relating to certain patent rights covering stent technology. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California seeking monetary damages and rescission of contract. After a Markman ruling relating to the Jang patent rights, Dr. Jang stipulated to the dismissal of certain claims alleged in the complaint with a right to appeal and the parties subsequently agreed to settle the other claims. In May 2007, Dr. Jang filed an appeal with respect to the remaining patent claims and in July 2008, the Court of Appeals vacated the District Court's consent judgment and remanded the case back to the District Court for further clarification. In August 2011, the District Court entered a stipulated judgment that we did not infringe the Jang patent. Dr. Jang filed an appeal on September 21, 2011 and on August 22, 2012, the Court of Appeals vacated the District Court's judgment and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. On April 18, 2014, the case was stayed pending consideration of an interlocutory appeal. On September 16, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied our request for an interlocutory appeal. A trial is scheduled to begin on June 22, 2015. On May 17, 2010, Dr. Luigi Tellini filed suit against us and certain of our subsidiaries, Guidant Italia S.r.l. and Boston Scientific S.p.A., in the Civil Tribunal in Milan, Italy alleging certain of our Cardiac Rhythm Management products infringe an Italian patent (the Tellini patent) owned by Dr. Tellini and seeking monetary damages. In January 2011, Dr. Tellini refiled amended claims after his initial claims were dismissed without prejudice to refile. On September 27, 2010, Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc., Boston Scientific Ltd., Endovascular Technologies, Inc. and we filed suit against Taewoong Medical, Co., Ltd., Standard Sci-Tech, Inc., EndoChoice, Inc. and Sewoon Medical Co., Ltd for infringement of three patents on stents for use in the GI system (the Pulnev and Hankh patents) and against Cook Medical Inc. (and related entities) for infringement of the same three patents and an additional patent (the Thompson patent). The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. In December 2010, we amended our complaint to add infringement of six additional Pulnev patents. In January 2011, the defendants filed a counterclaim of invalidity and unenforceability. In December 2011, we amended the complaint to add Chek-Med Systems d/b/a GI Supply as a defendant. On February 18, 2014, Atlas IP, LLC filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging that the sale of our LATITUDE® Patient Management System and implantable devices that communicate with the LATITUDE® device infringe a patent owned by Atlas. On July 9, 2014, the District Court granted our motion to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. On January 12, 2015, Atlas dismissed its complaint. On September 22, 2014, The Board of Trustees for the University of Alabama filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama alleging that the sale of our cardiac resynchronization therapy devices infringe a patent owned by the University of Alabama. On October 14, 2014, MK Optics, LLC filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that the sale of our Spyglass Direct Visualization System infringes a patent owned by MK Optics. Product Liability Litigation Fewer than ten individual lawsuits remain pending in various state and federal jurisdictions against Guidant alleging personal injuries associated with defibrillators or pacemakers involved in certain 2005 and 2006 product communications. Further, we are aware of approximately 30 Guidant product liability lawsuits pending in international jurisdictions associated with defibrillators or pacemakers, including devices involved in the 2005 and 2006 product communications. Six of these suits are pending in Canada and were filed as class actions, four of which are stayed pending the outcome of two lead class actions. On April 10, 2008, the Justice of Ontario Court certified a class of persons in whom defibrillators were implanted in Canada and a class of family members with derivative claims. On May 8, 2009, the Justice of Ontario Court certified a class of persons in whom pacemakers were implanted in Canada and a class of family members with derivative claims. In each case, these matters generally seek monetary damages from us. The parties in the defibrillator class action have reached an agreement in principle to settle the matter for approximately $3 million. The presiding judge approved the settlement at a hearing on March 24, 2014. We paid the initial required payments during the second quarter of 2014 and funded the publication of the settlement notice during the third quarter of 2014. As of February 24, 2015, there were over 25,000 product liability cases or claims related to transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse pending against us. The cases are pending in various federal and state courts in the United States and include eight putative class actions. There were also fewer than 20 cases in Canada, inclusive of three putative class actions, and fewer than 10 claims in the United Kingdom. Generally, the plaintiffs allege personal injury associated with use of our transvaginal surgical mesh products. The plaintiffs assert design and manufacturing claims, failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims. Over 2,500 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. During the fourth quarter of 2013, we received written discovery requests from certain state attorneys general offices regarding our transvaginal surgical mesh products. We have responded to those requests. We have established a product liability accrual for known and estimated future cases and claims asserted against us as well as costs of defense thereof associated with our transvaginal surgical mesh products. While we believe that our accrual associated with this matter is adequate, changes to this accrual may be required in the future as additional information becomes available. We intend to vigorously contest the cases and claims asserted against us; however, the final resolution is uncertain and could have a material impact on our results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. Initial trials involving our transvaginal surgical mesh products have resulted in both favorable and unfavorable judgments for us. We do not believe that the judgment in any one trial is representative of potential outcomes of all cases or claims related to our 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. On February 6, 2013, the District Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice on standing and jurisdictional grounds. On September 18, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. On October 2, 2014, the plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing en banc. On December 2, 2014, the Second Circuit denied the petition for rehearing en banc. On March 12, 2010, we received a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) from the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) requesting documents and information relating to reimbursement advice offered by us relating to certain CRM devices. We are cooperating with the request. 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. The Court denied relators’ motion to dismiss the counterclaims on September 4, 2014. On May 5, 2014, we were served with a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General. The subpoena seeks information relating to the launch of the Cognis and Teligen line of devices in 2008, the performance of those devices from 2007 to 2009, and the operation of the Physician Guided Learning Program. We are cooperating with this request. On July 11, 2014, we were served with a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey. The subpoena seeks information relating to BridgePoint Medical, Inc., which we acquired in October 2012, including information relating to its sale of CrossBoss^® and Stingray^® products, educational and training activities that relate to those sales and our acquisition of BridgePoint Medical. We are cooperating with this request. On February 23, 2015, a judge for the Court of Modena (Italy) ordered a trial for Boston Scientific SpA and three of its employees, as well as numerous other defendants charged in criminal proceedings. The charges arise from allegations that the defendants made improper donations to certain health care providers and other employees of the Hospital of Modena in order to induce them to conduct unauthorized clinical trials, as well as related government fraud in relation to the financing of such clinical trials. We deny these allegations and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. An initial trial hearing has been scheduled for October 28, 2015. Other Proceedings On September 25, 2006, Johnson & Johnson filed a lawsuit against us, Guidant and Abbott Laboratories in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that Guidant breached certain provisions of the amended merger agreement between Johnson & Johnson and Guidant (Merger Agreement) as well as the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. The complaint further alleges that Abbott and we tortiously interfered with the Merger Agreement by inducing Guidant's breach. The complaint seeks certain factual findings, damages in an amount no less than $5.5 billion and attorneys' fees, costs, and interest. In August 2007, the judge dismissed the tortious interference claims against us and Abbott and the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing claim against Guidant. On June 20, 2011, Guidant filed a motion for summary judgment, and the hearing on this motion was held on July 25, 2012. On July 7, 2014, the judge denied Guidant’s motion. The bench trial was held in November and December. On February 13, 2015, the parties reached a settlement agreement pursuant to which Guidant will make aggregate payments to Johnson & Johnson totaling $600 million, we agreed that neither we nor our affiliates will commence, or assist any third party in commencing, proceedings of any kind, against Johnson & Johnson or its affiliates for patent infringement or seeking any remedy for patent infringement based on Johnson & Johnson or its affiliates making, having made, using, selling, offering for sale or importing the S.M.A.R.T^®, S.M.A.R.T^® Control^®, and S.M.A.R.T^® Flex stent products and Johnson & Johnson has agreed to dismiss its actions against Guidant with prejudice. 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 was held on March 28, 2014 and a decision was made to take evidence at a hearing to be set at a later date. On January 23, 2015, the parties reached a confidential settlement agreement. 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 us 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. On September 10, 2013, we removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. On June 5, 2014, the District Court granted Mirowski’s motion to remand the case to the Montgomery County Circuit Court. On September 24, 2014, following a jury verdict against us, the Montgomery County Circuit Court entered a judgment that we breached our license agreement with Mirowski and awarded damages of $308 million. On October 28, 2014, the Montgomery County Circuit Court denied our post-trial motions seeking to overturn the judgment. On November 19, 2014, we filed an appeal with the Maryland Court of Special Appeals. On April 24, 2014, Dr. Qingsheng Zhu and Dr. Julio Spinelli, acting jointly on behalf of the stockholder representative committee of Action Medical, Inc. (Action Medical), filed a lawsuit against us and our subsidiary, Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. (CPI), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The stockholder representatives allege that we and CPI breached a contractual duty to pursue development and commercialization of certain patented heart pacing methods and devices and to return certain patents. Refer to Note J - Income Taxes for information regarding our tax litigation. Matters Concluded Since December 31, 2013 On February 1, 2008, Wyeth Corporation (Wyeth) 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 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 October 13, 2013, Wyeth’s motion for rehearing or rehearing en banc was denied. The deadline for further appeals lapsed on January 13, 2014. On May 25, 2010, G. David Jang, M.D. filed suit against Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. and us alleging breach of contract relating to certain patent rights covering stent technology. In October 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware entered judgment in favor of us on the pleadings. Dr. Jang filed an appeal on August 28, 2012. On September 5, 2013, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the ruling and remanded the case to the District Court. On March 31, 2014, the parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement. On April 2, 2014, the case was dismissed. On May 16, 2013, Vascular Solutions, Inc. filed suit against us, alleging that our 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, we 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 us. On December 12, 2013, the District Court granted the motion for a preliminary injunction and on December 26, 2013, we filed an appeal. On April 15, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction. On July 30, 2014, we and Vascular Solutions entered into a confidential settlement agreement and the case was subsequently dismissed. On August 2, 2013, Medtronic Ardian Luxembourg S.a.r.l. filed a complaint against Boston Scientific Corporation and Boston Scientific Medizintechnik, GmbH in the Düsseldorf District Court in Germany alleging that the sale of our Vessix renal denervation product infringes a German patent owned by Medtronic Ardian. On December 29, 2014, the parties reached a confidential settlement and dismissed the case. On September 23, 2013, Kardiametrics, LLC filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that the sale of our FilterWire EZ Embolic Protection System, Sterling balloon catheters, Carotid NexStent and Carotid WallStent products infringe two patents owned by Kardiametrics. On January 24, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the case or, in the alternative, to stay the case pending an arbitration. On February 18, 2014, Kardiametrics dismissed its original complaint and filed a new complaint. On March 14, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the new case or, in the alternative, to stay the new case pending an arbitration. On May 28, 2014, Kardiametrics voluntarily dismissed its case.

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 have received favorable legal rulings in several other matters; however, there continues to be outstanding intellectual property litigation. 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.

In accordance with ASC Topic 450, Contingencies, we accrue anticipated costs of settlement, damages, losses for 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 $1.577 billion as of December 31, 2014 and $607 million as of December 31, 2013, and includes certain estimated costs of settlement, damages and defense. The increase in our legal accrual was primarily due to litigation-related charges recorded during the year. During 2014, 2013 and 2012, we recorded litigation-related charges in the amount of $1.036 billion, $221 million, and $192 million, respectively. The charges recorded in 2014 included $600 million related to the settlement agreement between our subsidiary, Guidant and Johnson & Johnson signed on February 13, 2015. 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 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 September 22, 2009, Cordis Corporation, Cordis LLC and Wyeth Corporation filed a complaint for patent infringement against Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. and us alleging that the PROMUS® coronary stent system, supplied to us by Abbott, infringes a patent (the Llanos patent) owned by Cordis and Wyeth. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey seeking monetary and injunctive relief. In August 2010, Cordis filed an amended complaint to add an additional patent and in September 2010, we filed counterclaims of invalidity and non-infringement. On October 26, 2011, the District Court granted Cordis' motion to add the Promus Element stent system to the case. On February 6, 2012, the District Court granted our motion to stay the action until the conclusion of the reexaminations against the Llanos patents that are pending in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

On May 19, 2005, G. David Jang, M.D. filed suit against us alleging breach of contract relating to certain patent rights covering stent technology. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California seeking monetary damages and rescission of contract. After a Markman ruling relating to the Jang patent rights, Dr. Jang stipulated to the dismissal of certain claims alleged in the complaint with a right to appeal and the parties subsequently agreed to settle the other claims. In May 2007, Dr. Jang filed an appeal with respect to the remaining patent claims and in July 2008, the Court of Appeals vacated the District Court's consent judgment and remanded the case back to the District Court for further clarification. In August 2011, the District Court entered a stipulated judgment that we did not infringe the Jang patent. Dr. Jang filed an appeal on September 21, 2011 and on August 22, 2012, the Court of Appeals vacated the District Court's judgment and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. On April 18, 2014, the case was stayed pending consideration of an interlocutory appeal. On September 16, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied our request for an interlocutory appeal. A trial is scheduled to begin on June 22, 2015.

On May 17, 2010, Dr. Luigi Tellini filed suit against us and certain of our subsidiaries, Guidant Italia S.r.l. and Boston Scientific S.p.A., in the Civil Tribunal in Milan, Italy alleging certain of our Cardiac Rhythm Management products infringe an Italian patent (the Tellini patent) owned by Dr. Tellini and seeking monetary damages. In January 2011, Dr. Tellini refiled amended claims after his initial claims were dismissed without prejudice to refile.

On September 27, 2010, Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc., Boston Scientific Ltd., Endovascular Technologies, Inc. and we filed suit against Taewoong Medical, Co., Ltd., Standard Sci-Tech, Inc., EndoChoice, Inc. and Sewoon Medical Co., Ltd for infringement of three patents on stents for use in the GI system (the Pulnev and Hankh patents) and against Cook Medical Inc. (and related entities) for infringement of the same three patents and an additional patent (the Thompson patent). The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. In December 2010, we amended our complaint to add infringement of six additional Pulnev patents. In January 2011, the defendants filed a counterclaim of invalidity and unenforceability. In December 2011, we amended the complaint to add Chek-Med Systems d/b/a GI Supply as a defendant.

On February 18, 2014, Atlas IP, LLC filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging that the sale of our LATITUDE® Patient Management System and implantable devices that communicate with the LATITUDE® device infringe a patent owned by Atlas. On July 9, 2014, the District Court granted our motion to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. On January 12, 2015, Atlas dismissed its complaint.

On September 22, 2014, The Board of Trustees for the University of Alabama filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama alleging that the sale of our cardiac resynchronization therapy devices infringe a patent owned by the University of Alabama.

On October 14, 2014, MK Optics, LLC filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that the sale of our Spyglass Direct Visualization System infringes a patent owned by MK Optics.

Product Liability Litigation

Fewer than ten individual lawsuits remain pending in various state and federal jurisdictions against Guidant alleging personal injuries associated with defibrillators or pacemakers involved in certain 2005 and 2006 product communications. Further, we are aware of approximately 30 Guidant product liability lawsuits pending in international jurisdictions associated with defibrillators or pacemakers, including devices involved in the 2005 and 2006 product communications. Six of these suits are pending in Canada and were filed as class actions, four of which are stayed pending the outcome of two lead class actions. On April 10, 2008, the Justice of Ontario Court certified a class of persons in whom defibrillators were implanted in Canada and a class of family members with derivative claims. On May 8, 2009, the Justice of Ontario Court certified a class of persons in whom pacemakers were implanted in Canada and a class of family members with derivative claims. In each case, these matters generally seek monetary damages from us. The parties in the defibrillator class action have reached an agreement in principle to settle the matter for approximately $3 million. The presiding judge approved the settlement at a hearing on March 24, 2014. We paid the initial required payments during the second quarter of 2014 and funded the publication of the settlement notice during the third quarter of 2014.

As of February 24, 2015, there were over 25,000 product liability cases or claims related to transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse pending against us. The cases are pending in various federal and state courts in the United States and include eight putative class actions. There were also fewer than 20 cases in Canada, inclusive of three putative class actions, and fewer than 10 claims in the United Kingdom. Generally, the plaintiffs allege personal injury associated with use of our transvaginal surgical mesh products. The plaintiffs assert design and manufacturing claims, failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims. Over 2,500 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. During the fourth quarter of 2013, we received written discovery requests from certain state attorneys general offices regarding our transvaginal surgical mesh products. We have responded to those requests. We have established a product liability accrual for known and estimated future cases and claims asserted against us as well as costs of defense thereof associated with our transvaginal surgical mesh products. While we believe that our accrual associated with this matter is adequate, changes to this accrual may be required in the future as additional information becomes available. We intend to vigorously contest the cases and claims asserted against us; however, the final resolution is uncertain and could have a material impact on our results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. Initial trials involving our transvaginal surgical mesh products have resulted in both favorable and unfavorable judgments for us. We do not believe that the judgment in any one trial is representative of potential outcomes of all cases or claims related to our 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. On February 6, 2013, the District Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice on standing and jurisdictional grounds. On September 18, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. On October 2, 2014, the plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing en banc. On December 2, 2014, the Second Circuit denied the petition for rehearing en banc.

On March 12, 2010, we received a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) from the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) requesting documents and information relating to reimbursement advice offered by us relating to certain CRM devices. We are cooperating with the request.

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. The Court denied relators’ motion to dismiss the counterclaims on September 4, 2014.

On May 5, 2014, we were served with a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General. The subpoena seeks information relating to the launch of the Cognis and Teligen line of devices in 2008, the performance of those devices from 2007 to 2009, and the operation of the Physician Guided Learning Program. We are cooperating with this request.

On July 11, 2014, we were served with a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey. The subpoena seeks information relating to BridgePoint Medical, Inc., which we acquired in October 2012, including information relating to its sale of CrossBoss^® and Stingray^® products, educational and training activities that relate to those sales and our acquisition of BridgePoint Medical. We are cooperating with this request.

On February 23, 2015, a judge for the Court of Modena (Italy) ordered a trial for Boston Scientific SpA and three of its employees, as well as numerous other defendants charged in criminal proceedings. The charges arise from allegations that the defendants made improper donations to certain health care providers and other employees of the Hospital of Modena in order to induce them to conduct unauthorized clinical trials, as well as related government fraud in relation to the financing of such clinical trials. We deny these allegations and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. An initial trial hearing has been scheduled for October 28, 2015.

Other Proceedings

On September 25, 2006, Johnson & Johnson filed a lawsuit against us, Guidant and Abbott Laboratories in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that Guidant breached certain provisions of the amended merger agreement between Johnson & Johnson and Guidant (Merger Agreement) as well as the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. The complaint further alleges that Abbott and we tortiously interfered with the Merger Agreement by inducing Guidant's breach. The complaint seeks certain factual findings, damages in an amount no less than $5.5 billion and attorneys' fees, costs, and interest. In August 2007, the judge dismissed the tortious interference claims against us and Abbott and the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing claim against Guidant. On June 20, 2011, Guidant filed a motion for summary judgment, and the hearing on this motion was held on July 25, 2012. On July 7, 2014, the judge denied Guidant’s motion. The bench trial was held in November and December. On February 13, 2015, the parties reached a settlement agreement pursuant to which Guidant will make aggregate payments to Johnson & Johnson totaling $600 million, we agreed that neither we nor our affiliates will commence, or assist any third party in commencing, proceedings of any kind, against Johnson & Johnson or its affiliates for patent infringement or seeking any remedy for patent infringement based on Johnson & Johnson or its affiliates making, having made, using, selling, offering for sale or importing the S.M.A.R.T^®, S.M.A.R.T^® Control^®, and S.M.A.R.T^® Flex stent products and Johnson & Johnson has agreed to dismiss its actions against Guidant with prejudice.

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 was held on March 28, 2014 and a decision was made to take evidence at a hearing to be set at a later date. On January 23, 2015, the parties reached a confidential settlement agreement.

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 us 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. On September 10, 2013, we removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. On June 5, 2014, the District Court granted Mirowski’s motion to remand the case to the Montgomery County Circuit Court. On September 24, 2014, following a jury verdict against us, the Montgomery County Circuit Court entered a judgment that we breached our license agreement with Mirowski and awarded damages of $308 million. On October 28, 2014, the Montgomery County Circuit Court denied our post-trial motions seeking to overturn the judgment. On November 19, 2014, we filed an appeal with the Maryland Court of Special Appeals.

On April 24, 2014, Dr. Qingsheng Zhu and Dr. Julio Spinelli, acting jointly on behalf of the stockholder representative committee of Action Medical, Inc. (Action Medical), filed a lawsuit against us and our subsidiary, Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. (CPI), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The stockholder representatives allege that we and CPI breached a contractual duty to pursue development and commercialization of certain patented heart pacing methods and devices and to return certain patents.

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

Matters Concluded Since December 31, 2013

On February 1, 2008, Wyeth Corporation (Wyeth) 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 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 October 13, 2013, Wyeth’s motion for rehearing or rehearing en banc was denied. The deadline for further appeals lapsed on January 13, 2014.

On May 25, 2010, G. David Jang, M.D. filed suit against Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. and us alleging breach of contract relating to certain patent rights covering stent technology. In October 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware entered judgment in favor of us on the pleadings. Dr. Jang filed an appeal on August 28, 2012. On September 5, 2013, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the ruling and remanded the case to the District Court. On March 31, 2014, the parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement. On April 2, 2014, the case was dismissed.

On May 16, 2013, Vascular Solutions, Inc. filed suit against us, alleging that our 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, we 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 us. On December 12, 2013, the District Court granted the motion for a preliminary injunction and on December 26, 2013, we filed an appeal. On April 15, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction. On July 30, 2014, we and Vascular Solutions entered into a confidential settlement agreement and the case was subsequently dismissed.

On August 2, 2013, Medtronic Ardian Luxembourg S.a.r.l. filed a complaint against Boston Scientific Corporation and Boston Scientific Medizintechnik, GmbH in the Düsseldorf District Court in Germany alleging that the sale of our Vessix renal denervation product infringes a German patent owned by Medtronic Ardian. On December 29, 2014, the parties reached a confidential settlement and dismissed the case.

On September 23, 2013, Kardiametrics, LLC filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that the sale of our FilterWire EZ Embolic Protection System, Sterling balloon catheters, Carotid NexStent and Carotid WallStent products infringe two patents owned by Kardiametrics. On January 24, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the case or, in the alternative, to stay the case pending an arbitration. On February 18, 2014, Kardiametrics dismissed its original complaint and filed a new complaint. On March 14, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the new case or, in the alternative, to stay the new case pending an arbitration. On May 28, 2014, Kardiametrics voluntarily dismissed its case.