Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

NOTE H – 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 $548 million as of September 30, 2021 and $569 million as of December 31, 2020 and includes certain estimated costs of settlement, damages and defense primarily related to product liability cases or claims related to our transvaginal surgical mesh products. A portion of this 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 $155 million as of September 30, 2021 and $208 million as of December 31, 2020. Refer to Note F – Supplemental Balance Sheet Information for additional information.

We did not record any litigation-related net charges during the third quarter of 2021 and recorded $302 million during the first nine months of 2021, and $260 million during the third quarter and first nine months of 2020, primarily related to transvaginal mesh products, inclusive of a reserve related to claims made by a coalition of state attorneys general. These settlements were finalized in March of 2021 as described further below.

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 accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements. All other legal and product liability charges, credits and costs are recorded within Selling, general and administrative expenses in our accompanying unaudited 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 financial covenant.

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 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 reasonably estimated.

Patent Litigation

On October 28, 2015, the Company 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 (USPTO) against the four asserted patents. All IPRs have concluded and Cook and the Company 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 Company's patents remain valid, remanding two of the patents for further review by the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In November 2020, the Patent Office issued remand rulings invalidating several additional claims. The district court stayed the case pending the appeals court decision on the IPRs, which is now complete. The case is proceeding before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, with the Company asserting three patents against Cook. Trial is anticipated in February 2023.

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. Trial is scheduled for November 14, 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 (SCS) System. At a trial held in October and November 2021 regarding six of Boston Scientific's originally asserted patent claims, a jury granted Boston Scientific a monetary award, finding that each asserted claim is valid, that four of the six claims are infringed by Nevro, and that two of the claims are willfully infringed by Nevro.

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 SCS Systems. On December 9, 2019, Nevro filed an answer and counterclaims, in which it alleged that our SCS systems infringe five Nevro patents. No trial date has been set for the theft of trade secrets and patent counterclaims. 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.

Product Liability Litigation

As of October 20, 2021, approximately 54,500 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 October 20, 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 52,500 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 52,500 cases and claims, approximately 50,500 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. 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. The Court issued an Order closing the MDL on February 11, 2021, as all cases that had been pending were dismissed or remanded to courts of primary jurisdiction. Outside the United States, there are fewer than 80 claims in the United Kingdom and Ireland. In the first quarter of 2021, two class actions were filed against the Company in Australia. In the second quarter of 2021, one class action was permanently stayed, while the other is proceeding. The registration process for the class action closed on October 29, 2021. Complete registration information is not yet available but preliminary information indicates that fewer than 300 women have completed registration forms alleging they had Boston Scientific implants. 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. In April 2021 the Company's Board of Directors received a shareholder demand under section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, for inspection of books and records. The Company has notified our insurer and retained counsel to respond to the demand.

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. In the second quarter of 2021, we increased the accrual associated with this matter by $298 million to account for increased, post-COVID-19 pandemic settlement and litigation activity related to the remaining cases and claims the Company faces, our revision of the per-case settlement amount for these cases based on recent settlement and litigation activity and changes to our expectations regarding the rate of incoming cases and claims. We continue to engage in discussions with plaintiffs’ counsel regarding potential resolution of pending cases and claims. We continue to vigorously contest the cases and claims asserted against us that do not settle, and expect that more cases will go to trial through 2023. 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. 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 67 filed product liability cases involving our Greenfield Vena Cava Filter, which we discontinued marketing and active selling in the fourth quarter of 2018, 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 377 claims, none of which have been filed. As of October 20, 2021, we have entered into master settlement agreements in principle or are in the final stages of entering with certain plaintiffs’ counsel to resolve approximately 200 cases.

Governmental Investigations and Qui Tam Matters

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. (BSB), 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. In August 2021, the investigating commissioner issued a preliminary recommendation of liability against all of the involved companies, and also recommended that CADE impose fines and penalties. However, on October 25, 2021, the CADE Attorney General's office recommended dismissal of the charges and allegations against BSB and the individual BSB employees who were still individual defendants. The full Commission is considering this recommendation but has not yet issued its decision. We continue to deny the allegations, intend to defend ourselves vigorously and will appeal any decision of liability by the full Commission to the Brazilian courts. During such an appeal the decision would have no force and effect, and the Court would consider the case without being bound by CADE’s decision.

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, 29 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 Janssen and BTG by a direct purchaser of Zytiga on behalf of similarly situated entities. The complaint was amended in February 2021 and alleges that BTG and Janssen violated antitrust laws by attempting to enforce certain patents against potential generic competitors. On October 12, 2021, the court granted BTG and Janssen’s motion to compel arbitration in the direct purchaser action and stayed all direct purchaser proceedings. On October 27, 2021, the court granted BTG and Janssen's motion to dismiss all claims in the indirect purchaser action. A motion to dismiss the indirect purchaser and qui tam actions are pending.

Refer to Note G – Income Taxes for information regarding our tax litigation.

Matters Concluded Since December 31, 2020

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. This judgment of acquittal became final as to the Company and its employee on April 15, 2021 when the prosecution chose not to appeal.

During the fourth quarter of 2013, we received written discovery requests from certain state attorneys general regarding our transvaginal surgical mesh products and related alleged violations of states’ consumer protection statutes. On December 12,

2019, the Mississippi Attorney General filed suit against us in a Mississippi state court alleging violations of the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act. In the fourth quarter of 2020 and the first quarter of 2021, we reached settlements with 48 states, including Mississippi, and the District of Columbia. These settlements were finalized in March of 2021.

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 8, 2021, the parties settled the dispute, and, on April 12, 2021, the parties filed stipulations with the court to dismiss the remaining legal proceedings. We expect the settlement will not result in any material benefit or liability to the Company.

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™ CRT-D and Teligen™ ICD line of devices in 2008, the performance of those devices from 2007 to 2009 and the operation of our 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. federal 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 our 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. In February 2021, we filed a motion for summary judgment, which the relator opposed, and on August 13, 2021, the Court granted the motion in its entirety. Subsequently, the parties resolved the matter, effective October 4, 2021, and the matter is now concluded. The resolution did not result in any material liability to the Company.

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. The parties have settled the dispute through a confidential settlement agreement.