Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2016
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 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 $2.023 billion as of December 31, 2016 and $1.936 billion as of December 31, 2015, 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 2016, 2015 and 2014, we recorded litigation-related net charges in the amount of $804 million, $1.105 billion, and $1.036 billion, respectively. 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 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 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 November 25, 2015, Dr. Jang filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law on literal infringement and/or for a new trial. On February 3, 2016, the court denied Dr. Jang’s motion for a new trial and judgment as a matter of law. Dr. Jang filed a notice of appeal. 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 September 2011, we amended the complaint to add Chek-Med Systems d/b/a GI Supply as a defendant. On December 22, 2016 the following defendants were dismissed: Taewoong Medical Co., Ltd., GI Supply, Inc., Standard Sci-Tech, Inc., Endochoice, Inc. and Sewoon Medical Co. Trial against the remaining parties is scheduled to begin September 11, 2017. 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. On February 25, 2016, we extended the action to allege infringement of a second patent related to adaptive sealing technology. The trial began on February 7, 2017. On November 9, 2015, Edwards Lifesciences, LLC filed an invalidity claim against one of our subsidiaries, Sadra Medical, Inc., in the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division Patents Court in the United Kingdom, alleging that a European patent owned by Sadra relating to a repositionable heart valve is invalid. On January 15, 2016, we filed our defense and counterclaim for a declaration that our European patent is valid and infringed by Edwards. On February 25, 2016, we amended our counterclaim to allege infringement of a second patent related to adaptive sealing technology. A trial was held from January 18 to January 27, 2017. On November 23, 2015, Edwards Lifesciences PVT, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against us and one of our subsidiaries, Boston Scientific Medizintechnik GmbH, in the District Court of Düsseldorf, Germany alleging a European patent (Spenser) owned by Edwards is infringed by our Lotus™ Transcatheter Heart Valve System. The trial began on February 7, 2017. On November 23, 2015, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation filed a patent infringement action against us and Boston Scientific Medizintechnik GmbH in the District Court of Düsseldorf, Germany alleging an European patent (Bourang) owned by Edwards is infringed by our Lotus Transcatheter Heart Valve System. The trial began on February 7, 2017. On April 19, 2016, a subsidiary of Boston Scientific filed suit against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware for patent infringement. We allege that Edwards’ SAPIEN™ 3 valve infringes a patent related to adaptive sealing technology. On June 9, 2016, Edwards filed a counterclaim alleging that our Lotus Transcatheter Heart Valve System infringes three patents owned by Edwards. On October 12, 2016, Edwards filed a petition for inter partes review of our patent with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The trial has been set to begin on July 30, 2018. On April 19, 2016, a subsidiary of Boston Scientific filed suit against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation in the United States District Court for the Central District of California for patent infringement. We allege that Edwards’ aortic valve delivery systems infringe eight of our catheter related patents. On October 13, 2016, Edwards filed a petition for inter partes review of one asserted patent with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The trial has been set to begin on May 29, 2018. On April 26, 2016, Edwards Lifesciences PVT, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against us and one of our subsidiaries, Boston Scientific Medizintechnik GmbH, in the District Court of Düsseldorf, Germany alleging a European patent (Spenser) owned by Edwards is infringed by our Lotus Transcatheter Heart Valve System. The trial began on February 7, 2017. On October 27, 2016, Edwards Lifesciences PVT, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against us and one of our subsidiaries, Boston Scientific, LTD, in the Federal Court of Canada alleging that three Canadian patents (Spenser) owned by Edwards are infringed by our Lotus Transcatheter Heart Valve System. On October 28, 2016, the Regents of the University of California filed a patent infringement action against us in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that two U.S. patents (Lesh) owned by the Regents of the University of California are infringed by certain of our catheters and other devices used to treat atrial fibrillation. On November 29, 2016 Nevro Corp. filed a patent infringement action against us and one of our subsidiaries, Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that six U.S. patents (Alataris) owned by Nevro Corp. are infringed by our spinal cord stimulation systems. On December 9, 2016, the Company and Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation, filed a patent infringement action against Nevro Corp. in United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that ten U.S. patents owned by Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation are infringed by Nevro’s Senza™ Spinal Cord Stimulation System. On December 22, 2016, Edwards Lifesciences PVT, Inc. and Edwards Lifesciences SA (AG) filed a plenary summons against Boston Scientific Limited and Boston Scientific Group Public Company in the High Court of Ireland alleging that a European patent (Spenser) owned by Edwards is infringed by our Lotus Transcatheter Heart Valve System. Product Liability Litigation No individual lawsuits remain pending in state court 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 8 Guidant product liability lawsuits pending in international jurisdictions associated with defibrillators or pacemakers, including devices involved in the 2005 and 2006 product communications. Four of these suits are pending in Canada involving certain models of Guidant pacemakers, three of which are stayed pending the outcome of one lead class action. 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. This class action has been inactive since 2011. On March 24, 2014, the Ontario Superior Court approved a $3 million settlement of a class action involving certain models of Guidant defibrillators. We believe Guidant has satisfied its obligations pursuant to the settlement agreement. As of February 21, 2017, approximately 43,000 product liability cases or claims related to transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse have been asserted against us. The pending cases are 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 one certified and three putative class actions, and fewer than 20 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. As of February 21, 2017, we have entered into master settlement agreements in principle or are in the final stages of entering one with certain plaintiffs' counsel to resolve an aggregate of approximately 31,000 cases and claims. The master settlement agreements provide that the settlement and distribution of settlement funds to participating claimants are conditional upon, among other things, achieving minimum required claimant participation thresholds. Of the approximately 31,000 cases and claims approximately 12,000 have met the conditions of the settlement and are final. All settlement agreements were entered into solely by way of compromise and without any admission or concession by us of any liability or wrongdoing. On or about January 12, 2016, Teresa L. Stevens filed a claim against us and three other defendants asserting for herself, and on behalf of a putative class of similarly-situated women, that she was harmed by a vaginal mesh implant that she alleges contained a counterfeit or adulterated resin product that we imported from China. The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, before the same Court that is hearing the mesh MDL. The complaint, which alleges Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) violations, fraud, misrepresentation, deceptive trade practices and unjust enrichment, seeks both equitable relief and damages under state and federal law. On January 26, 2016, the Court issued an order staying the case and directing the plaintiff to submit information to allow the FDA to issue a determination with respect to her allegations. In addition, we are in contact with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of West Virginia, and are responding voluntarily to their requests in connection with that office’s review of the allegations concerning the use of mesh resin in the complaint. We deny the plaintiff’s allegations and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. 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 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 May 6, 2016, a qui tam lawsuit in this matter was unsealed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. At the same time, we learned that the U.S. Government and the State of California had earlier declined to intervene in that lawsuit on April 15, 2016. The complaint was served on us on July 21, 2016. On October 7, 2016, the plaintiff/relator served an Amended Complaint that dropped the allegations relating to the Physician Guided Learning Program. 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. A trial began on February 24, 2016 and is ongoing. We deny these allegations and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. On December 1, 2015, the Brazilian governmental entity known as CADE (the Administrative Council of Economic Defense), served a search warrant on the offices of our Brazilian subsidiary, as well as on the Brazilian offices of several other major medical device makers who do business in Brazil, in furtherance of an investigation into alleged anti-competitive activity with respect to certain tender offers for government contracts. We are cooperating fully with CADE’s inquiry. On December 14, 2016, we learned that the Associacao Brasileira de Medicina de Grupo d/b/a ABRAMGE filed a Complaint against the Company, Arthrex and Zimmer Biomet Holdings, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. This Complaint, which ABRAMGE never served against the Company, alleges that the defendants or their agents paid kickbacks to health care providers in order to increase sales and prices, and are liable under a variety of common law theories. On February 6, 2017, ABRAMGE filed and served an Amended Complaint on the Company and the other defendants. The Amended Complaint does not contain any material changes in the allegations against the Company. We deny these allegations and intend to defend ourselves vigorously if ABRAMGE serves the Complaint. Other Proceedings In June of 2016, Guidant asserted three arbitrations claims, which are pending, related to three insurance policies for indemnity arising out of previously incurred and satisfied liabilities tied to allegedly defective cardiac rhythm management devices, which Guidant had manufactured. Guidant has claimed indemnities against such liabilities under insurance policies which it purchased for the 2004 policy year. The three insurance policies were issued respectively by Markel (Bermuda), Zurich (now Swiss Re International SE, UK Branch) and Swiss Re. On November 2, 2015, Acacia Research Corporation (ARC) filed an arbitration demand with the American Arbitration Association alleging that the Company breached an agreement relating to the sale of patents from the Company to ARC. The hearing began on February 20, 2017. Refer to Note J - Income Taxes for information regarding our tax litigation. Matters Concluded Since December 31, 2015 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 requests 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 (USPTO). Our requests were rejected on September 24, 2015 and October 19, 2015. On March 7, 2016, the USPTO granted our reconsideration motion and initiated an inter partes review and, on March 29, 2016, the District Court stayed the case pending a decision in the inter partes review. On October 6, 2016 the parties reached a settlement agreement. On October 19, 2016, the case was dismissed with prejudice. 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. On February 9, 2016, the DOJ informed us that we are no longer required to retain documents and information relating to the CID. 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. On August 20, 2015, the court unsealed a qui tam lawsuit brought by a former employee named Robin Levy against the company as well as a decision by the U.S. Attorney for New Jersey declining to intervene in the lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges that the company violated the federal and various state false claims acts through seeking to upcode Chronic Total Occlusion (“CTO”) procedures and requiring in-patient treatment and purchases of coronary stents in order for physicians to receive training on the CTO procedure. On January 26, 2016, the Court dismissed the qui tam lawsuit. On March 18, 2015, Denise Fretter and Maria Korsgaard, claiming to represent a class of current and former female field sales employees at Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation (BSNC), filed a lawsuit against BSNC in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs allege gender discrimination in pay, promotions and differential treatment against them and the putative class. On February 6, 2016, the parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement, and the case has been dismissed. 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 alleged 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. On March 15, 2016, the Court granted summary judgment in our favor as to all of plaintiffs’ claims for damages. The parties subsequently reached a resolution on the remaining claim and counterclaim concerning specific performance, and the case was dismissed on June 29, 2016. 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 October 25, 2016, the claim against us in Canada was dismissed. 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 January 29, 2016, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals affirmed the decision of the Montgomery County Circuit Court. On February 2, 2016, we filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. On July 12, 2016, the Maryland Court of Appeals denied our petition for certiorari. On July 26, 2016, we paid $366 million in satisfaction of the judgment and interest, subject to a right of rescission should the judgment be reversed. On October 7, 2016 we filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. On February 21, 2017, the Court denied our petition.

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 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 $2.023 billion as of December 31, 2016 and $1.936 billion as of December 31, 2015, 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 2016, 2015 and 2014, we recorded litigation-related net charges in the amount of $804 million, $1.105 billion, and $1.036 billion, respectively. 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 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 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 November 25, 2015, Dr. Jang filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law on literal infringement and/or for a new trial. On February 3, 2016, the court denied Dr. Jang’s motion for a new trial and judgment as a matter of law. Dr. Jang filed a notice of appeal.

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 September 2011, we amended the complaint to add Chek-Med Systems d/b/a GI Supply as a defendant. On December 22, 2016 the following defendants were dismissed: Taewoong Medical Co., Ltd., GI Supply, Inc., Standard Sci-Tech, Inc., Endochoice, Inc. and Sewoon Medical Co. Trial against the remaining parties is scheduled to begin September 11, 2017.

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. On February 25, 2016, we extended the action to allege infringement of a second patent related to adaptive sealing technology. The trial began on February 7, 2017.

On November 9, 2015, Edwards Lifesciences, LLC filed an invalidity claim against one of our subsidiaries, Sadra Medical, Inc., in the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division Patents Court in the United Kingdom, alleging that a European patent owned by Sadra relating to a repositionable heart valve is invalid. On January 15, 2016, we filed our defense and counterclaim for a declaration that our European patent is valid and infringed by Edwards. On February 25, 2016, we amended our counterclaim to allege infringement of a second patent related to adaptive sealing technology. A trial was held from January 18 to January 27, 2017.

On November 23, 2015, Edwards Lifesciences PVT, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against us and one of our subsidiaries, Boston Scientific Medizintechnik GmbH, in the District Court of Düsseldorf, Germany alleging a European patent (Spenser) owned by Edwards is infringed by our Lotus™ Transcatheter Heart Valve System. The trial began on February 7, 2017.

On November 23, 2015, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation filed a patent infringement action against us and Boston Scientific Medizintechnik GmbH in the District Court of Düsseldorf, Germany alleging an European patent (Bourang) owned by Edwards is infringed by our Lotus Transcatheter Heart Valve System. The trial began on February 7, 2017.

On April 19, 2016, a subsidiary of Boston Scientific filed suit against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware for patent infringement. We allege that Edwards’ SAPIEN™ 3 valve infringes a patent related to adaptive sealing technology. On June 9, 2016, Edwards filed a counterclaim alleging that our Lotus Transcatheter Heart Valve System infringes three patents owned by Edwards. On October 12, 2016, Edwards filed a petition for inter partes review of our patent with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The trial has been set to begin on July 30, 2018.

On April 19, 2016, a subsidiary of Boston Scientific filed suit against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation in the United States District Court for the Central District of California for patent infringement. We allege that Edwards’ aortic valve delivery systems infringe eight of our catheter related patents. On October 13, 2016, Edwards filed a petition for inter partes review of one asserted patent with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The trial has been set to begin on May 29, 2018.

On April 26, 2016, Edwards Lifesciences PVT, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against us and one of our subsidiaries, Boston Scientific Medizintechnik GmbH, in the District Court of Düsseldorf, Germany alleging a European patent (Spenser) owned by Edwards is infringed by our Lotus Transcatheter Heart Valve System. The trial began on February 7, 2017.

On October 27, 2016, Edwards Lifesciences PVT, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against us and one of our subsidiaries, Boston Scientific, LTD, in the Federal Court of Canada alleging that three Canadian patents (Spenser) owned by Edwards are infringed by our Lotus Transcatheter Heart Valve System.

On October 28, 2016, the Regents of the University of California filed a patent infringement action against us in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that two U.S. patents (Lesh) owned by the Regents of the University of California are infringed by certain of our catheters and other devices used to treat atrial fibrillation.

On November 29, 2016 Nevro Corp. filed a patent infringement action against us and one of our subsidiaries, Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that six U.S. patents (Alataris) owned by Nevro Corp. are infringed by our spinal cord stimulation systems.

On December 9, 2016, the Company and Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation, filed a patent infringement action against Nevro Corp. in United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that ten U.S. patents owned by Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation are infringed by Nevro’s Senza™ Spinal Cord Stimulation System.

On December 22, 2016, Edwards Lifesciences PVT, Inc. and Edwards Lifesciences SA (AG) filed a plenary summons against Boston Scientific Limited and Boston Scientific Group Public Company in the High Court of Ireland alleging that a European patent (Spenser) owned by Edwards is infringed by our Lotus Transcatheter Heart Valve System.

Product Liability Litigation

No individual lawsuits remain pending in state court 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 8 Guidant product liability lawsuits pending in international jurisdictions associated with defibrillators or pacemakers, including devices involved in the 2005 and 2006 product communications. Four of these suits are pending in Canada involving certain models of Guidant pacemakers, three of which are stayed pending the outcome of one lead class action. 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. This class action has been inactive since 2011. On March 24, 2014, the Ontario Superior Court approved a $3 million settlement of a class action involving certain models of Guidant defibrillators. We believe Guidant has satisfied its obligations pursuant to the settlement agreement.

As of February 21, 2017, approximately 43,000 product liability cases or claims related to transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse have been asserted against us. The pending cases are 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 one certified and three putative class actions, and fewer than 20 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. As of February 21, 2017, we have entered into master settlement agreements in principle or are in the final stages of entering one with certain plaintiffs' counsel to resolve an aggregate of approximately 31,000 cases and claims. The master settlement agreements provide that the settlement and distribution of settlement funds to participating claimants are conditional upon, among other things, achieving minimum required claimant participation thresholds. Of the approximately 31,000 cases and claims approximately 12,000 have met the conditions of the settlement and are final. All settlement agreements were entered into solely by way of compromise and without any admission or concession by us of any liability or wrongdoing.

On or about January 12, 2016, Teresa L. Stevens filed a claim against us and three other defendants asserting for herself, and on behalf of a putative class of similarly-situated women, that she was harmed by a vaginal mesh implant that she alleges contained a counterfeit or adulterated resin product that we imported from China. The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, before the same Court that is hearing the mesh MDL. The complaint, which alleges Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) violations, fraud, misrepresentation, deceptive trade practices and unjust enrichment, seeks both equitable relief and damages under state and federal law. On January 26, 2016, the Court issued an order staying the case and directing the plaintiff to submit information to allow the FDA to issue a determination with respect to her allegations. In addition, we are in contact with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of West Virginia, and are responding voluntarily to their requests in connection with that office’s review of the allegations concerning the use of mesh resin in the complaint. We deny the plaintiff’s allegations and intend to defend ourselves vigorously.

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 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 May 6, 2016, a qui tam lawsuit in this matter was unsealed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. At the same time, we learned that the U.S. Government and the State of California had earlier declined to intervene in that lawsuit on April 15, 2016. The complaint was served on us on July 21, 2016. On October 7, 2016, the plaintiff/relator served an Amended Complaint that dropped the allegations relating to the Physician Guided Learning Program.

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. A trial began on February 24, 2016 and is ongoing. We deny these allegations and intend to defend ourselves vigorously.

On December 1, 2015, the Brazilian governmental entity known as CADE (the Administrative Council of Economic Defense), served a search warrant on the offices of our Brazilian subsidiary, as well as on the Brazilian offices of several other major medical device makers who do business in Brazil, in furtherance of an investigation into alleged anti-competitive activity with respect to certain tender offers for government contracts. We are cooperating fully with CADE’s inquiry.

On December 14, 2016, we learned that the Associacao Brasileira de Medicina de Grupo d/b/a ABRAMGE filed a Complaint against the Company, Arthrex and Zimmer Biomet Holdings, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. This Complaint, which ABRAMGE never served against the Company, alleges that the defendants or their agents paid kickbacks to health care providers in order to increase sales and prices, and are liable under a variety of common law theories. On February 6, 2017, ABRAMGE filed and served an Amended Complaint on the Company and the other defendants. The Amended Complaint does not contain any material changes in the allegations against the Company. We deny these allegations and intend to defend ourselves vigorously if ABRAMGE serves the Complaint.

Other Proceedings

In June of 2016, Guidant asserted three arbitrations claims, which are pending, related to three insurance policies for indemnity arising out of previously incurred and satisfied liabilities tied to allegedly defective cardiac rhythm management devices, which Guidant had manufactured. Guidant has claimed indemnities against such liabilities under insurance policies which it purchased for the 2004 policy year. The three insurance policies were issued respectively by Markel (Bermuda), Zurich (now Swiss Re International SE, UK Branch) and Swiss Re.

On November 2, 2015, Acacia Research Corporation (ARC) filed an arbitration demand with the American Arbitration Association alleging that the Company breached an agreement relating to the sale of patents from the Company to ARC. The hearing began on February 20, 2017.

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

Matters Concluded Since December 31, 2015

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 requests 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 (USPTO). Our requests were rejected on September 24, 2015 and October 19, 2015. On March 7, 2016, the USPTO granted our reconsideration motion and initiated an inter partes review and, on March 29, 2016, the District Court stayed the case pending a decision in the inter partes review. On October 6, 2016 the parties reached a settlement agreement. On October 19, 2016, the case was dismissed with prejudice.

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. On February 9, 2016, the DOJ informed us that we are no longer required to retain documents and information relating to the CID.

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. On August 20, 2015, the court unsealed a qui tam lawsuit brought by a former employee named Robin Levy against the company as well as a decision by the U.S. Attorney for New Jersey declining to intervene in the lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges that the company violated the federal and various state false claims acts through seeking to upcode Chronic Total Occlusion (“CTO”) procedures and requiring in-patient treatment and purchases of coronary stents in order for physicians to receive training on the CTO procedure. On January 26, 2016, the Court dismissed the qui tam lawsuit.

On March 18, 2015, Denise Fretter and Maria Korsgaard, claiming to represent a class of current and former female field sales employees at Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation (BSNC), filed a lawsuit against BSNC in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs allege gender discrimination in pay, promotions and differential treatment against them and the putative class. On February 6, 2016, the parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement, and the case has been dismissed.

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 alleged 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. On March 15, 2016, the Court granted summary judgment in our favor as to all of plaintiffs’ claims for damages. The parties subsequently reached a resolution on the remaining claim and counterclaim concerning specific performance, and the case was dismissed on June 29, 2016.

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 October 25, 2016, the claim against us in Canada was dismissed.

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 January 29, 2016, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals affirmed the decision of the Montgomery County Circuit Court. On February 2, 2016, we filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. On July 12, 2016, the Maryland Court of Appeals denied our petition for certiorari. On July 26, 2016, we paid $366 million in satisfaction of the judgment and interest, subject to a right of rescission should the judgment be reversed. On October 7, 2016 we filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. On February 21, 2017, the Court denied our petition.