Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [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 FASB 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 $1.559 billion as of September 30, 2015 and $1.577 billion as of December 31, 2014, and includes estimated costs of settlement, damages and defense. We recorded $649 million of litigation-related charges during the first nine months of 2015 and $399 million of litigation-related charges during the first nine months of 2014. 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 2014 Annual Report on Form 10-K and our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the quarters ended March 31, 2015 and June 30, 2015 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 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 February 27, 2015, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a decision in which certain claims of the Llanos patent were deemed unpatentable. On April 24, 2015, Cordis filed an appeal before the Federal Circuit. 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. On July 8, 2015, a jury found that our Express Stent family did not literally infringe a Jang patent, but that the stents infringed under the doctrine of equivalents. The court reserved judgment until the conclusion of further proceedings related to the doctrine of equivalents finding. On September 29, 2015, the court ruled that our Express Stent family did not infringe under the doctrine of equivalents and, on October 30, 2015, the court entered judgment in our favor. 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, 2015, Atlas IP LLC filed a complaint in Federal Court in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada alleging that the sale of our LATITUDE® Patient Management System and implantable devices that communicate with the LATITUDE® device infringe certain claims of a Canadian patent owned by Atlas. 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 August 21, 2015, the court ordered a stay pending our request for inter partes review of all claims related to the patent before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. On October 30, 2015, a subsidiary of Boston Scientific filed suit against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Edwards Lifesciences Services GmbH in Düsseldorf District Court in Germany for patent infringement. We allege that Edwards’ SAPIEN 3 heart valve infringes our patent related to adaptive sealing technology. Product Liability Litigation As of November 2, 2015, there were over 30,000 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 four putative class actions, and fewer than 15 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 3,100 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. During April 2015, we entered into an initial master settlement agreement with certain plaintiffs’ counsel to settle 2,970 pending cases and claims, including the case in the District Court of Dallas County (TX) for which there is a judgment of approximately $35 million that is currently subject to appeal, for approximately $119 million. Subsequently, we entered into several additional master settlement agreements with certain plaintiffs’ counsel. As of November 2, 2015, we have entered into master settlement agreements to resolve an aggregate of over 6,000 cases and claims. Each master settlement agreement was entered into solely by way of compromise and without any admission or concession by us of any liability or wrongdoing and provides that the settlement and the distribution of settlement funds to participating claimants are conditioned upon, among other things, achieving minimum required claimant participation thresholds. If the participation thresholds under a master settlement agreement are not satisfied, we may terminate that agreement. In addition, we continue to engage in discussions with various plaintiffs’ counsel regarding potential resolution of pending cases and claims We have established a product liability accrual for known and estimated future cases and claims asserted against us as well as with respect to the actions that have resulted in verdicts against us and the 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. While we continue to engage in discussions with plaintiffs’ counsel regarding potential resolution of pending cases and claims and intend to vigorously contest the cases and claims asserted against us; that do not settle, the final resolution of the cases and claims 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 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. A qui tam complaint, originally filed under seal on April 22, 2014, was unsealed on August 20, 2015, along with a notice from the U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey that was declining to intervene in the lawsuit. The relator is a former Boston Scientific employee named Robin Levy. The complaint claims that we marketed the Chronic Total Occlusion (“CTO”) procedure as one requiring in-patient treatment and required purchases of coronary stents in order to receive training on the CTO procedure. The claims are both allegedly in violation of the federal, and various state, false claims acts. The complaint has not yet been served on us. Refer to Note I - Income Taxes for information regarding our tax litigation. Matters Concluded Since December 31, 2014 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 $5.500 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 made 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 dismissed 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 April 15, 2015, all remaining Boston Scientific affiliates were dismissed from the case. 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 2, 2015, the plaintiff filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court requesting judicial review of the Second Circuit’s decision. On June 15, 2015, the United States Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari. 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 February 12, 2015, the Tribunal found the Tellini patent invalid and dismissed the case. 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. The parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement and the case was dismissed on April 6, 2015.

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 FASB 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 $1.559 billion as of September 30, 2015 and $1.577 billion as of December 31, 2014, and includes estimated costs of settlement, damages and defense. We recorded $649 million of litigation-related charges during the first nine months of 2015 and $399 million of litigation-related charges during the first nine months of 2014. 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 2014 Annual Report on Form 10-K and our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the quarters ended March 31, 2015 and June 30, 2015 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 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 February 27, 2015, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a decision in which certain claims of the Llanos patent were deemed unpatentable. On April 24, 2015, Cordis filed an appeal before the Federal Circuit.

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. On July 8, 2015, a jury found that our Express Stent family did not literally infringe a Jang patent, but that the stents infringed under the doctrine of equivalents. The court reserved judgment until the conclusion of further proceedings related to the doctrine of equivalents finding. On September 29, 2015, the court ruled that our Express Stent family did not infringe under the doctrine of equivalents and, on October 30, 2015, the court entered judgment in our favor.

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, 2015, Atlas IP LLC filed a complaint in Federal Court in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada alleging that the sale of our LATITUDE® Patient Management System and implantable devices that communicate with the LATITUDE® device infringe certain claims of a Canadian patent owned by Atlas.

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 August 21, 2015, the court ordered a stay pending our request for inter partes review of all claims related to the patent before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

On October 30, 2015, a subsidiary of Boston Scientific filed suit against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Edwards Lifesciences Services GmbH in Düsseldorf District Court in Germany for patent infringement. We allege that Edwards’ SAPIEN 3 heart valve infringes our patent related to adaptive sealing technology.

Product Liability Litigation

As of November 2, 2015, there were over 30,000 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 four putative class actions, and fewer than 15 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 3,100 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. During April 2015, we entered into an initial master settlement agreement with certain plaintiffs’ counsel to settle 2,970 pending cases and claims, including the case in the District Court of Dallas County (TX) for which there is a judgment of approximately $35 million that is currently subject to appeal, for approximately $119 million. Subsequently, we entered into several additional master settlement agreements with certain plaintiffs’ counsel. As of November 2, 2015, we have entered into master settlement agreements to resolve an aggregate of over 6,000 cases and claims. Each master settlement agreement was entered into solely by way of compromise and without any admission or concession by us of any liability or wrongdoing and provides that the settlement and the distribution of settlement funds to participating claimants are conditioned upon, among other things, achieving minimum required claimant participation thresholds. If the participation thresholds under a master settlement agreement are not satisfied, we may terminate that agreement. In addition, we continue to engage in discussions with various plaintiffs’ counsel regarding potential resolution of pending cases and claims

We have established a product liability accrual for known and estimated future cases and claims asserted against us as well as with respect to the actions that have resulted in verdicts against us and the 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. While we continue to engage in discussions with plaintiffs’ counsel regarding potential resolution of pending cases and claims and intend to vigorously contest the cases and claims asserted against us; that do not settle, the final resolution of the cases and claims 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 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. A qui tam complaint, originally filed under seal on April 22, 2014, was unsealed on August 20, 2015, along with a notice from the U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey that was declining to intervene in the lawsuit. The relator is a former Boston Scientific employee named Robin Levy. The complaint claims that we marketed the Chronic Total Occlusion (“CTO”) procedure as one requiring in-patient treatment and required purchases of coronary stents in order to receive training on the CTO procedure. The claims are both allegedly in violation of the federal, and various state, false claims acts. The complaint has not yet been served on us.

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

Matters Concluded Since December 31, 2014

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 $5.500 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 made 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 dismissed 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 April 15, 2015, all remaining Boston Scientific affiliates were dismissed from the case.

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 2, 2015, the plaintiff filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court requesting judicial review of the Second Circuit’s decision. On June 15, 2015, the United States Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

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 February 12, 2015, the Tribunal found the Tellini patent invalid and dismissed the case.

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. The parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement and the case was dismissed on April 6, 2015.