NOTE J – 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 U.S. 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 $929 million as of December 31, 2018 and $1.612 billion as of December 31, 2017 and includes certain estimated costs of settlement, damages and defense. The decrease in our legal accrual was primarily due to settlement payments authorized in 2018 associated with product liability cases or claims related to transvaginal surgical mesh products. A portion of our legal accrual is funded and included in our restricted cash and restricted cash equivalent balances in Other current assets of $655 million as of December 31, 2018 and $803 million as of December 31, 2017, as discussed in Note A – Significant Accounting Policies. We recorded litigation-related net charges in the amount of $103 million in 2018, $285 million in 2017 and $804 million in 2016. 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 November 29, 2016 Nevro Corp. (Nevro) filed a patent infringement action against us and one of our subsidiaries, Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that six U.S. patents (Alataris) owned by Nevro are infringed by our spinal cord stimulation systems. On June 29, 2017, Nevro amended the complaint to add an additional patent (Fang). We deny the plaintiff's allegations and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. On July 24, 2018, summary judgment was entered in favor of the Company and on July 31, 2018, we received final judgment and dismissal of the action. On July 31, 2018, Nevro filed an appeal.

On December 9, 2016, the Company and Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation filed a patent infringement action against Nevro in U.S. 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 March 10, 2017, Imran Niazi filed a patent infringement action against us in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin alleging that a U.S. patent owned by him is infringed by our Acuity™ Lead Delivery System. On June 30, 2017, we filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue and on November 7, 2017 the Wisconsin Court granted the motion to dismiss. On November 13, 2017 Niazi refiled the same action in the U.S. District of Minnesota.

On November 20, 2017, The Board of Regents, University of Texas System (UT) and TissueGen. Inc., served a lawsuit against us in the Western District of Texas. The complaint against us alleges patent infringement of two U.S. patents owned by UT, relating to “Drug Releasing Biodegradable Fiber Implant” and “Drug Releasing Biodegradable Fiber for Delivery of Therapeutics,” and affects the manufacture, use and sale of our Synergy™ Stent System. On March 12, 2018, the court dismissed the action and transferred it to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. UT has appealed the decision.

On April 21, 2018, the Company and Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation filed a patent infringement, theft of trade secrets and tortious interference with a contract action against Nevro in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, and amended the complaint on July 18, 2018, alleging that nine U.S. patents owned by Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation are infringed by Nevro’s Senza™ I and Senza™ II Spinal Cord Stimulation Systems.

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 six 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 5, 2019, approximately 53,000 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 U.S. and include eight putative class actions. There were also fewer than 25 cases in Canada, inclusive of one certified and three putative class actions and fewer than 25 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 5, 2019, 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 50,000 cases and claims. These 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 50,000 cases and claims, approximately 35,500 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 U.S. 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.

On February 27, 2017, Carolyn Turner filed a complaint against us and five 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 U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division and alleges violations of the RICO, negligence, strict liability, breach of an express or implied warranty, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, fraud and unjust enrichment. Ms. Turner served this complaint against us on April 7, 2017. As of April 27, 2017, this case has been stayed, pending resolution of the transfer petition to the mesh multidistrict litigation. 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 Corporation 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 Corporation 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. Following the completion of fact and expert discovery, we filed a motion for summary judgment against all claims on January 27, 2017, relators filed their own motion for summary judgment against our counterclaims that same date and the parties await the Court’s rulings on the motions. On December 15, 2017, the Court denied both motions for summary judgment. The case is set for trial beginning May 6, 2019.

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. We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on December 7, 2016 and the court heard our motion to dismiss on April 5, 2017. On August 29, 2017, the Court granted the motion to dismiss, without prejudice and on September 19, 2017, the relator filed a Second Amended Complaint. We filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on October 10, 2017 and the Court denied that motion on December 13, 2017. On July 31, 2018, relator filed a motion seeking leave to file a Third Amended Complaint. The Court denied the motion on October 30, 2018.

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. On November 10, 2017, the Court issued a ruling that convicted one Boston Scientific employee but acquitted two others, and levied a fine of €245 thousand against us and imposed joint and several civil damages of €620 thousand on all defendants. We continue to deny these allegations, timely appealed the decision on May 10, 2018 and intend to continue 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. On June 20, 2017, CADE, through the publication of a “technical note,” announced that it was launching a formal administrative proceeding against Boston Scientific’s Brazilian subsidiary, Boston Scientific do Brasil Ltda., as well as against the Brazilian operations of Medtronic, Biotronik and St. Jude Medical, two Brazilian associations, ABIMED and AMBIMO and 29 individuals for alleged anti-competitive behavior. We deny the allegations and intend to defend ourselves vigorously.

On December 14, 2016, we learned that the Associacao Brasileira de Medicina de Grupo d/b/a ABRAMGE filed a complaint against us, Arthrex and Zimmer Biomet Holdings, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. This complaint, which ABRAMGE never served against us, 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 us and the other defendants. The amended complaint does not contain any material changes in the allegations against us. Subsequently, on March 2, 2017, ABRAMGE filed a motion to consolidate this lawsuit with two other similar suits that it had brought against Stryker and Abbott Laboratories, in a multidistrict litigation proceeding. On April 13, 2017, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, as well as a separate opposition to the multidistrict litigation motion and on May 31, 2017, the Joint Panel on Multi-District Litigation denied ABRAMGE’s motion for the multidistrict litigation. On September 1, 2017, ABRAMGE filed a motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, while our motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint remained pending. On September 15, 2017, we filed an opposition to the motion seeking leave to amend. Both our motion to dismiss and the motion seeking leave to amend remain pending. On November 8, 2018, the Court granted ABRAMGE’s motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, while also granting us leave to renew our motion to dismiss. We filed our motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on January 18, 2019.

Other Proceedings

On May 16, 2018, Arthur Rosenthal et al., filed a plenary summons against Boston Scientific Corporation and Boston Scientific Limited with the High Court of Ireland alleging that payments are due pursuant a transaction agreement regarding Labcoat Limited.

On September 12, 2018, Channel Medsystems, Inc. (Channel) filed a complaint in Delaware Chancery Court against us for alleged breach of a $275 million purchase agreement. Channel alleges that we breached the agreement by terminating it. We have answered the complaint, denied the claims by Channel and have counterclaimed to recover part of our investment in Channel, alleging fraud in the inducement. The court has set a trial date of April 15, 2019.

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

Proposed Acquisition

Refer to Note B – Acquisitions and Strategic Investments and Note E – Borrowings and Credit Arrangements for information regarding the proposed BTG Acquisition.

Matters Concluded Since December 31, 2017

On October 28, 2016, the Regents of the University of California filed a patent infringement action against us in the U.S. 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. The Company and the Regents settled the matter, and the case was dismissed on June 20, 2018.

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 29, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment that our Express Stent did not infringe the Jang patents and we did not owe Dr. Jang any payments. On October 30, 2017, Jang filed a petition for rehearing and on December 21, 2017 the rehearing was denied. On March 21, 2018, Jang filed a petition for United States Supreme Court review and, on October 1, 2018, the Supreme Court denied his petition.

On January 15, 2019, we announced that we reached an agreement with Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (Edwards) to settle all outstanding patent disputes between us and Edwards in all venues around the world. All pending cases or appeals in courts and patent offices between the two companies will be dismissed, and the parties will not litigate patent disputes related to current portfolios of transcatheter aortic valves, certain mitral valve repair devices, and left atrial appendage closure devices. Any injunctions currently in place will be lifted. Under the terms of the agreement, Edwards made a one-time payment to us of $180 million. No further royalties will be owed by either party under the agreement. All other terms remain confidential. The previously disclosed matters that have been resolved as a result of this settlement include:

•

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 March 9, 2017, the court found that Edwards infringed both patents and Edwards appealed.

•

On November 9, 2015, Edwards Lifesciences, LLC filed an invalidity claim against one of our subsidiaries, Sadra Medical, Inc. (Sadra), 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 March 3, 2017, the court found one of our patents valid and infringed and some claims of the second patent invalid and the remaining claims not infringed. Both parties have filed an appeal. On March 28, 2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the High Court.

•

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 '672) owned by Edwards is infringed by our Lotus™ Valve System. The trial began on February 7, 2017. On March 9, 2017, the court found that we did not infringe the Spenser '672 patent. Edwards filed an appeal.

•

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 Valve System. The trial began on February 7, 2017. On March 28, 2017, the European Patent Office revoked the Bourang patent and on April 3, 2017, the court suspended the infringement action pending Edwards' appeal of the revocation of the patent at the European Patent Office.

•

On April 19, 2016, a subsidiary of Boston Scientific filed suit against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (Edwards) in the U.S. 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 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 (USPTO), Patent Trial and Appeal Board. On March 29, 2017, the USPTO granted the inter partes review request. On April 18, 2017, Edwards filed a second petition for inter partes review of our patent with the USPTO. On March 23, 2018, the USPTO found our patent invalid. The Company filed an appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 24, 2018.

•

On April 19, 2016, a subsidiary of Boston Scientific filed suit against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation in the U.S. 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 USPTO, Patent Trial and Appeal Board. On April 21, 2017, the USPTO denied the petition. On April 19 and 20, 2017, Edwards filed multiple inter partes review petitions against the patents in suit. On September 8, 2017, the court granted a stay of the action pending an inter partes review of the patents in suit.

•

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 '550) owned by Edwards is infringed by our Lotus Transcatheter Heart Valve System. The trial began on February 7, 2017. On March 9, 2017, the court found that we infringed the Spenser '550 patent. The Company filed an appeal. The appeal hearing is scheduled for May 17, 2018. On April 13, 2018, the ‘550 patent was revoked by the European Patent Office.


•	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 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 Valve System. On April 13, 2018, the ‘550 patent was revoked by the European Patent Office.


•	On August 1, 2018, the Company filed a patent infringement action on the merits in Dusseldorf, Germany against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Edwards Lifesciences GmbH (collectively Edwards) alleging that the Sapien 3™ device and Sapien 3 Ultra device infringed a patent owned by the Company.


•	On August 3, 2018, the Company filed a preliminary injunction request in Dusseldorf, Germany against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Edwards Lifesciences GmbH (collectively Edwards) alleging that the Sapien 3 Ultra infringed a patent owned by the Company. On October 23, 2018, the court found that the Sapien 3 Ultra infringed the patent. Edwards had the right to appeal.


•	On August 22, 2018, Edwards Lifesciences LLC filed a patent infringement action against Boston Scientific Corporation, in the U. S. District Court of Delaware, alleging that two U.S. patents (Schweich) owned by them are infringed by our Watchman™ Left Atrial Appendage Closure Device, Watchman Delivery System and Watchman Access System.