Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	NOTE K – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The medical device market in which we 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 ability to sell certain products and on our operating margins, 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 $569 million as of December 31, 2020 and $697 million as of December 31, 2019 and includes certain estimated costs of settlement, damages and defense. The decrease in our legal accrual was mainly due to settlement payments related to litigation with Channel Medsystems, Inc. (Channel), partially offset by charges 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 restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents in Other current assets of $208 million as of December 31, 2020 and $346 million as of December 31, 2019. Refer to Note A – Significant Accounting Policies for additional information. We recorded litigation-related net charges of $278 million in 2020, primarily related to transvaginal mesh products, inclusive of a reserve related to claims made by a coalition of state attorneys general. Those claims settled in principle in the fourth quarter of 2020. We recorded litigation-related net charges of $115 million in 2019, which included a net charge of $223 million in the fourth quarter of 2019, primarily related to litigation with Channel, net charges of $25 million in the third quarter of 2019 and $15 million in the second quarter of 2019, primarily related to transvaginal surgical mesh product liability litigation, and a gain of $148 million recorded in the first quarter of 2019, which represents a portion of the total $180 million one-time settlement payment received from Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (Edwards) in January 2019. 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 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 in our consolidated statements of operations. We recorded litigation-related net charges of $103 million in 2018, primarily related to transvaginal surgical mesh product liability litigation. 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 financial covenant. 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 reasonably estimated. Patent Litigation On October 28, 2015, BSC filed suit against Cook Group Limited and Cook Medical LLC (collectively, “Cook”) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (1:15-cv-00980) alleging infringement of certain Company patents regarding Cook’s Instinct Endoscopic Hemoclip. The case was transferred to the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. Cook filed seven Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) requests with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office against the four asserted patents. All IPRs have concluded, and Cook and Boston Scientific both appealed the Patent Office’s IPR decisions to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. On April 30, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that claims from two of the Boston Scientific patents remain valid, remanding two of the patents for further review by the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In November, the Patent Office issued remand rulings invalidating several additional claims. The district court had stayed the case pending the appeals court decision on the IPRs, which is now complete. In the first or second quarter of 2021, the case will proceed before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, with BSC asserting two patents against Cook. Trial is anticipated in 2022. On December 9, 2016, the Company and Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation filed a patent infringement action against Nevro in United States District Court for the District of Delaware (16-cv-1163) alleging that ten U.S. patents owned by Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation are infringed by Nevro’s Senza™ Spinal Cord Stimulation System. On June 22, 2020, this action was consolidated with case 18-cv-664, described below. The court set trial for October 2021. 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 District Court for the Western District of Texas dismissed the action and transferred it to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. On September 5, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the District Court for the Western District of Texas. In April 2020, the United States Supreme Court denied the University’s Petition for Certiorari. UT is proceeding with its case against BSC in Delaware. 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 United States District Court for the District of Delaware (18-cv-664), 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. On December 9, 2019, Nevro filed an answer and counterclaims, in which it alleged that our Spinal Cord Stimulation systems infringe five Nevro patents. On June 22, 2020, this action was consolidated with case 16-cv-1163. The theft of trade secrets, patent counterclaims, and patent infringement claims from case 16-cv-1163 were set for trial in October 2021. The patent infringement claims from case 18-cv-664 were stayed pending IPRs. On January 6, 2021, the court stayed one of the patent infringement claims from case 16-cv-1163, such that it will proceed with the stayed patent infringement claims from case 18-cv-664. On November 2, 2020, Koninklijke Philips N.V. and IP2IPO Innovations, Ltd. (“Philips”) served a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges that certain BSC cardiovascular diagnostic devices infringe six Philips patents. Product Liability Litigation As of January 27, 2021, approximately 54,000 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. As of January 27, 2021, 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, adjusted to reflect the Company's analysis of expected non-participation and duplicate 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 48,000 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. The pending cases are in various federal and state courts in the U.S. 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 were 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. On December 12, 2019 the Mississippi Attorney General filed suit against BSC in State Court alleging violations of the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act which the Company plans to vigorously defend. There are fewer than 60 claims in the United Kingdom and fewer than 125 cases in Australia. There are also fewer than 10 cases in Canada, inclusive of one certified class action, which has settled and received Court approval. 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. 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. We have also established an accrual related to the claims made by the coalition of state attorneys general. 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. We are currently named a defendant in 118 filed product liability cases involving our Greenfield Vena Cava Filter, alleging various injuries, including perforation of the vena cava, post-implant deep vein thrombosis, fracture, and other injuries. Most of the filed cases are part of a consolidated matter in Middlesex County, Massachusetts. We have received notice of an additional 597 claims, none of which have been filed. Governmental Investigations and Qui Tam Matters 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 United States 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, the 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 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 healthcare 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. 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, and timely appealed the decision on May 10, 2018. On November 9, 2020, the Court of Appeal in Bologna reversed the judgements against Boston Scientific and its employee and acquitted them of all charges. 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. 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, a company Boston Scientific purchased in 2008 that provided coating technology for drug-eluting stents. On September 6, 2019, Boston Scientific Corporation, Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc., and Fortis Advisors, LLC, as a Securityholder Representative for the former Securityholders of nVision Medical Corp. filed a declaratory judgment action against BioCardia, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to address threats and allegations by BioCardia challenging inventorship and ownership of various patents that Boston Scientific Corporation acquired through an April 13, 2018 merger with nVision as well as related threats and allegations by BioCardia of trade secret misappropriation and unjust enrichment. On December 11, 2019, BioCardia filed an amended answer and counterclaims. On April 23, 2020, BioCardia filed a complaint against nVision, which had not been named as a defendant in the original case. On May 22, 2020, BioCardia amended its complaint against nVision to add twenty former nVision shareholders as defendants. On August 20, 2020, BioCardia again amended its complaint against Boston Scientific Corporation/Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc./Fortis Advisors, LLC and its complaint against nVision/nVision shareholders. On April 18, 2019, Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Louisiana and HMO Louisiana, Inc. filed a class action complaint against Janssen Biotech, Inc, Janssen Oncology, Inc, Janssen Research & Development, LLC and BTG International Limited in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Sherman Act and the antitrust and consumer protections laws of several states by pursuing patent litigation relating to ZYTIGA™ in order to delay generic entry. On June 21, 2019, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and has been consolidated with similar complaints. On December 21, 2017, Janssen Biotech, Inc., Janssen Oncology, Inc, Janssen Research & Development, LLC, and Johnson & Johnson (collectively, Janssen) were served with a qui tam complaint filed on behalf of the United States, 28 states, and the District of Columbia. The complaint, which was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that Janssen violated the federal False Claims Act and state law when providing pricing information for ZYTIGA to the government in connection with direct government sales and government-funded drug reimbursement programs. The case has been transferred to United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. On June 20, 2019, the complaint was amended to include BTG International Limited as a defendant. In May 2020, a class action complaint was filed in New Jersey federal court against Johnson & Johnson and BTG by two direct purchasers of Zytiga on behalf of similarly situated entities. The complaint alleges that BTG and J&J violated antitrust laws by attempting to enforce certain patents against potential generic competitors. On December 4, 2020 Enrique Jevons, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against Boston Scientific Corporation, Michael F. Mahoney and Daniel J. Brennan, stemming from the recall and retirement of the LOTUS Edge™ Aortic Valve System (LOTUS System) in United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On December 14, 2020, the parties agreed to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On December 16, 2020, Mariano Errichiello, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, filed a second, materially similar class action complaint against Boston Scientific Corporation, Michael F. Mahoney, Joseph M. Fitzgerald, and Daniel J. Brennan in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The Company expects these cases to be superseded by a single amended and consolidated class action complaint in the first or second quarter of 2021. On December 15, 2020, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Boston Regional Office (Boston SEC) notified the Company that it is conducting an investigation related to Boston Scientific’s decision to retire the LOTUS System, and issued a voluntary request for documents and information related to that decision. On February 10, 2021, the Boston SEC issued a second voluntary request for additional documents and information. The Company is cooperating fully with the investigation. On February 8, 2021, the Company received a letter from The Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust, a shareholder, demanding that the Company’s Board of Directors conduct an investigation into actions by the Company’s directors and executive officers regarding statements made about the effectiveness and commercial viability of the LOTUS System. On December 16, 2020 Mariano Errichiello, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against Boston Scientific Corporation, Michael F. Mahoney, Joseph M. Fitzgerald and Daniel J. Brennan stemming from the recall and retirement of the LOTUS Edge™ Aortic Valve System in United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Refer to Note J – Income Taxes for information regarding our tax litigation. Matters Concluded Since December 31, 2019 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 alleged that the Solyx™ Sling System infringes US Patent 6,506,190. We reached a confidential settlement in this matter in July 2020, pursuant to which the action was dismissed. On March 10, 2017, Imran Niazi filed a patent infringement action against us in the United States 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. We reached a confidential settlement on this matter on February 3, 2020 pursuant to which the action was dismissed. On November 1, 2017, we entered into a definitive agreement with Channel pursuant to which 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 Channel 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 alleged that we breached the agreement by terminating it. We answered the complaint, denied the claims by Channel and 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 the post-trial briefing and hearing were completed. During the third quarter of 2019, Channel notified us that they were exercising their option to sell the remaining equity interests in Channel to us. We responded to the notification that we did not intend to purchase Channel since the previous agreement had been terminated. On December 18, 2019, the Chancery Court ruled that Boston Scientific was in breach of the agreement and granted Channel's request for specific performance to require the Company to complete the purchase. On January 10, 2020, we filed a Notice of Appeal of the Chancery Court’s decision to the Delaware Supreme Court. On February 4, 2020, the Company settled the dispute with Channel resulting in termination of the agreement, payment by the Company of an undisclosed sum and surrender of the Company's equity interest in Channel. 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). 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 April 9, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the finding of indefiniteness as to certain patents, provided claim constructions for those patents, and remanded the case. On December 16, 2020, the district court dismissed all remaining claims with prejudice, ending the case with Nevro receiving none of its requested relief.

The medical device market in which we 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.

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 ability to sell certain products and on our operating margins, 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 $569 million as of December 31, 2020 and $697 million as of December 31, 2019 and includes certain estimated costs of settlement, damages and defense. The decrease in our legal accrual was mainly due to settlement payments related to litigation with Channel Medsystems, Inc. (Channel), partially offset by charges 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 restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents in Other current assets of $208 million as of December 31, 2020 and $346 million as of December 31, 2019. Refer to Note A – Significant Accounting Policies for additional information.

We recorded litigation-related net charges of $115 million in 2019, which included a net charge of $223 million in the fourth quarter of 2019, primarily related to litigation with Channel, net charges of $25 million in the third quarter of 2019 and $15 million in the second quarter of 2019, primarily related to transvaginal surgical mesh product liability litigation, and a gain of $148 million recorded in the first quarter of 2019, which represents a portion of the total $180 million one-time settlement payment received from Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (Edwards) in January 2019. 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 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 in our consolidated statements of operations.

We recorded litigation-related net charges of $103 million in 2018, primarily related to transvaginal surgical mesh product liability litigation. 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 financial covenant.

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 reasonably estimated.

On October 28, 2015, BSC filed suit against Cook Group Limited and Cook Medical LLC (collectively, “Cook”) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (1:15-cv-00980) alleging infringement of certain Company patents regarding Cook’s Instinct Endoscopic Hemoclip. The case was transferred to the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. Cook filed seven Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) requests with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office against the four asserted patents. All IPRs have concluded, and Cook and Boston Scientific both appealed the Patent Office’s IPR decisions to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. On April 30, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that claims from two of the Boston Scientific patents remain valid, remanding two of the patents for further review by the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In November, the Patent Office issued remand rulings invalidating several additional claims. The district court had stayed the case pending the appeals court decision on the IPRs, which is now complete. In the first or second quarter of 2021, the case will proceed before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, with BSC asserting two patents against Cook. Trial is anticipated in 2022.

On December 9, 2016, the Company and Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation filed a patent infringement action against Nevro in United States District Court for the District of Delaware (16-cv-1163) alleging that ten U.S. patents owned by Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation are infringed by Nevro’s Senza™ Spinal Cord Stimulation System. On June 22, 2020, this action was consolidated with case 18-cv-664, described below. The court set trial for October 2021.

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 District Court for the Western District of Texas dismissed the action and transferred it to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. On September 5, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the District Court for the Western District of Texas. In April 2020, the United States Supreme Court denied the University’s Petition for Certiorari. UT is proceeding with its case against BSC in Delaware.

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 United States District Court for the District of Delaware (18-cv-664), 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. On December 9, 2019, Nevro filed an answer and counterclaims, in which it alleged that our Spinal Cord Stimulation systems infringe five Nevro patents. On June 22, 2020, this action was consolidated with case 16-cv-1163. The theft of trade secrets, patent counterclaims, and patent infringement claims from case 16-cv-1163 were set for trial in October 2021. The patent infringement claims from case 18-cv-664 were stayed pending IPRs. On January 6, 2021, the court stayed one of the patent infringement claims from case 16-cv-1163, such that it will proceed with the stayed patent infringement claims from case 18-cv-664.

As of January 27, 2021, approximately 54,000 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. As of January 27, 2021, 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, adjusted to reflect the Company's analysis of expected non-participation and duplicate 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 48,000 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. The pending cases are in various federal and state courts in the U.S. 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 were 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. On December 12, 2019 the Mississippi Attorney General filed suit against BSC in State Court alleging violations of the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act which the Company plans to vigorously defend. There are fewer than 60 claims in the United Kingdom and fewer than 125 cases in Australia. There are also fewer than 10 cases in Canada, inclusive of one certified class action, which has settled and received Court approval. 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.

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. We have also established an accrual related to the claims made by the coalition of state attorneys general. 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.

We are currently named a defendant in 118 filed product liability cases involving our Greenfield Vena Cava Filter, alleging various injuries, including perforation of the vena cava, post-implant deep vein thrombosis, fracture, and other injuries. Most of the filed cases are part of a consolidated matter in Middlesex County, Massachusetts. We have received notice of an additional 597 claims, none of which have been filed.

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 United States 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, the 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 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 healthcare 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. 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, and timely appealed the decision on May 10, 2018. On November 9, 2020, the Court of Appeal in Bologna reversed the judgements against Boston Scientific and its employee and acquitted them of all charges.

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

On September 6, 2019, Boston Scientific Corporation, Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc., and Fortis Advisors, LLC, as a Securityholder Representative for the former Securityholders of nVision Medical Corp. filed a declaratory judgment action against BioCardia, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to address threats and allegations by BioCardia challenging inventorship and ownership of various patents that Boston Scientific Corporation acquired through an April 13, 2018 merger with nVision as well as related threats and allegations by BioCardia of trade secret misappropriation and unjust enrichment. On December 11, 2019, BioCardia filed an amended answer and counterclaims. On April 23, 2020, BioCardia filed a complaint against nVision, which had not been named as a defendant in the original case. On May 22, 2020, BioCardia amended its complaint against nVision to add twenty former nVision shareholders as defendants. On August 20, 2020, BioCardia again amended its complaint against Boston Scientific Corporation/Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc./Fortis Advisors, LLC and its complaint against nVision/nVision shareholders.

On April 18, 2019, Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Louisiana and HMO Louisiana, Inc. filed a class action complaint against Janssen Biotech, Inc, Janssen Oncology, Inc, Janssen Research & Development, LLC and BTG International Limited in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Sherman Act and the antitrust and consumer protections laws of several states by pursuing patent litigation relating to ZYTIGA™ in order to delay generic entry. On June 21, 2019, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and has been consolidated with similar complaints.

On December 21, 2017, Janssen Biotech, Inc., Janssen Oncology, Inc, Janssen Research & Development, LLC, and Johnson & Johnson (collectively, Janssen) were served with a qui tam complaint filed on behalf of the United States, 28 states, and the District of Columbia. The complaint, which was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that Janssen violated the federal False Claims Act and state law when providing pricing information for ZYTIGA to the government in connection with direct government sales and government-funded drug reimbursement programs. The case has been transferred to United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. On June 20, 2019, the complaint was amended to include BTG International Limited as a defendant. In May 2020, a class action complaint was filed in New Jersey federal court against Johnson & Johnson and BTG by two direct purchasers of Zytiga on behalf of similarly situated entities. The complaint alleges that BTG and J&J violated antitrust laws by attempting to enforce certain patents against potential generic competitors.

On December 4, 2020 Enrique Jevons, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against Boston Scientific Corporation, Michael F. Mahoney and Daniel J. Brennan, stemming from the recall and retirement of the LOTUS Edge™ Aortic Valve System (LOTUS System) in United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On December 14, 2020, the parties agreed to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On December 16, 2020, Mariano Errichiello, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, filed a second, materially similar class action complaint against Boston Scientific Corporation, Michael F. Mahoney, Joseph M. Fitzgerald, and Daniel J. Brennan in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The Company expects these cases to be superseded by a single amended and consolidated class action complaint in the first or second quarter of 2021. On December 15, 2020, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Boston Regional Office (Boston SEC) notified the Company that it is conducting an investigation related to Boston Scientific’s decision to retire the LOTUS System, and issued a voluntary request for documents and information related to that decision. On February 10, 2021, the Boston SEC issued a second voluntary request for additional documents and information. The Company is cooperating fully with the investigation. On February 8, 2021, the Company received a letter from The Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust, a shareholder, demanding that the Company’s Board of Directors conduct an investigation into actions by the Company’s directors and executive officers regarding statements made about the effectiveness and commercial viability of the LOTUS System.

On December 16, 2020 Mariano Errichiello, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against Boston Scientific Corporation, Michael F. Mahoney, Joseph M. Fitzgerald and Daniel J. Brennan stemming from the recall and retirement of the LOTUS Edge™ Aortic Valve System in United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

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 alleged that the Solyx™ Sling System infringes US Patent 6,506,190. We reached a confidential settlement in this matter in July 2020, pursuant to which the action was dismissed.

On March 10, 2017, Imran Niazi filed a patent infringement action against us in the United States 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. We reached a confidential settlement on this matter on February 3, 2020 pursuant to which the action was dismissed.

On November 1, 2017, we entered into a definitive agreement with Channel pursuant to which 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 Channel 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 alleged that we breached the agreement by terminating it. We answered the complaint, denied the claims by Channel and 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 the post-trial briefing and hearing were completed. During the third quarter of 2019, Channel notified us that they were exercising their option to sell the remaining equity interests in Channel to us. We responded to the notification that we did not intend to purchase Channel since the previous agreement had been terminated. On December 18, 2019, the Chancery Court ruled that Boston Scientific was in breach of the agreement and granted Channel's request for specific performance to require the Company to complete the purchase. On January 10, 2020, we filed a Notice of Appeal of the Chancery Court’s decision to the Delaware Supreme Court. On February 4, 2020, the Company settled the dispute with Channel resulting in termination of the agreement, payment by the Company of an undisclosed sum and surrender of the Company's equity interest in Channel.

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). 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 April 9, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the finding of indefiniteness as to certain patents, provided claim constructions for those patents, and remanded the case. On December 16, 2020, the district court dismissed all remaining claims with prejudice, ending the case with Nevro receiving none of its requested relief.