Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2019

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

NOTE I – 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 dynamics 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 $604 million as of June 30, 2019 and $929 million as of December 31, 2018 and includes certain estimated costs of settlement, damages and defense. The decrease in our legal accrual was mainly due to settlement payments associated with product liability cases or claims related to transvaginal surgical mesh products. A portion of our legal accrual is already funded through our qualified settlement fund (QSF), which is included in other restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents balance of $360 million as of June 30, 2019 and $655 million as of December 31, 2018. Refer to Note F – Supplemental Balance Sheet Information for additional information.

We recorded litigation-related net charges of $15 million in the second quarter of 2019 and litigation-related net credits of $133 million in the first six months of 2019. In the first quarter of 2019, we recorded $148 million of the total $180 million one-time settlement payment received from Edwards Lifesciences Corporation in January 2019 to Litigation-related net charges (credits) on our unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements. We record certain legal and product liability charges, credits and costs of defense, which we consider to be unusual or infrequent and significant as Litigation-related net charges (credits) in our unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements. All other legal and product liability charges, credits and costs are recorded within Selling, general and administrative expenses. As such, a portion of the related gain from this settlement was recorded in Selling, general and administrative expenses on our unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations. We continue to assess certain litigation and claims to determine the amounts, if any, that management believes will be paid as a result of such claims and litigation and, therefore, additional losses may be accrued and paid in the future, which could materially adversely impact our operating results, cash flows and/or our ability to comply with our debt covenants.

In management's opinion, we are not currently involved in any legal proceedings other than those disclosed in our most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K, our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2019 and those specifically identified below, which, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, operations and/or cash flows. Unless included in our legal accrual or otherwise indicated below, a range of loss associated with any individual material legal proceeding cannot be estimated.

Patent Litigation

On April 30, 2019, Tissue Anchor Innovations filed a complaint for patent infringement in the United States District Court Central District of California against Fountain Valley Regional Hospital and Medical Center, Los Alamitos Medical Center and us. The complaint alleges that the Solyx™ Sling System infringes US Patent 6,506,190. 

Product Liability Litigation

As of July 23, 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. On April 16, 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ordered that all manufacturers of surgical mesh products indicated for the transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse stop selling and distributing their products in the United States immediately, stemming from the FDA’s 2016 reclassification of these devices to class III (high risk) devices, and as a result, the Company ceased global sales and distribution of surgical mesh products indicated for transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse. 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 July 23, 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 52,000 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 52,000 cases and claims, approximately 42,000 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.

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 parties reached a settlement on May 2, 2019, and the Court subsequently ordered the case dismissed, except for any claim by relators to recover attorneys’ fees.

Other Proceedings

On November 1, 2017 we entered into a definitive agreement with Channel Medsystems, Inc. (Channel) where we could have been obligated to pay $145 million in cash up-front and a maximum of $130 million in contingent payments to acquire Channel. The agreement contained a provision allowing Channel to sell the remaining equity interests of the company to us upon achievement of a regulatory milestone and an option allowing us to acquire the remaining equity interests. We sent a notice of termination of that agreement to Channel in the second quarter of 2018. On September 12, 2018, Channel filed a complaint in Delaware Chancery Court against us for alleged breach of the 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. On April 2, 2019, Channel announced its receipt of FDA approval of the Cerene™ Cryotherapy Device. Trial testimony was taken in April 2019, and post-trial proceedings are concluding.

Proposed Acquisition

Refer to Note B – Acquisitions and Strategic Investments, Note D – Hedging Activities and Fair Value Measurements and Note E – Borrowings and Credit Arrangements for information regarding the proposed BTG Acquisition.

Matters Concluded Since December 31, 2018

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. 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 Device infringed a patent owned by the Company. On October 23, 2018, the court found that the Sapien 3 Ultra Device 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.

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. On February 28, 2019, ABRAMGE dismissed its Second Amended Complaint, concluding the lawsuit.

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 were in contact with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of West Virginia and responded voluntarily to their requests in connection with that office’s review of the allegations concerning the use of mesh resin in the complaint. We reached a settlement on this matter and this case was dismissed on May 13, 2019.

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 was stayed, pending resolution of the transfer petition to the mesh multidistrict litigation. We reached a settlement on this matter and this case was dismissed on February 25, 2019.