Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2021
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 $548 million as of December 31, 2021 and $569 million as of December 31, 2020 and includes certain estimated costs of settlement, damages and defense. We recorded litigation-related net charges of $430 million in 2021, primarily related to ongoing litigation associated with our transvaginal surgical mesh products principally in the U.S. and Australia, as well as anticipated legal fees to defend certain other legal matters. We increased the accrual associated with transvaginal mesh claims to account for increased settlement and litigation activity related to the remaining cases and claims we face, 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. These increases were partially offset by settlement payments, primarily associated with a coalition of state attorneys general. A portion of our legal accrual for transvaginal surgical mesh product claims is already funded through our qualified settlement fund (QSF), which is included in restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents in Other current assets of $188 million as of December 31, 2021 and $208 million as of December 31, 2020. 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 surgical mesh product litigation, inclusive of a reserve related to claims made by a coalition of state attorneys general, which has since been settled. We recorded litigation-related net charges of $115 million in 2019, which included a net charge of $223 million, primarily related to litigation with Channel Medsystems, Inc., net charges of $40 million primarily related to transvaginal surgical mesh product liability litigation, and a gain of $148 million, 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 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, 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 Company seeks lost profits, a reasonable royalty and a permanent injunction. 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 December 9, 2016, the Company and Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation filed a patent infringement action against Nevro Corp. (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. The company seeks lost profits, a reasonable royalty and a permanent injunction. 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. Nevro seeks lost profits, a reasonable royalty and a permanent injunction. 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. On February 23, 2021, Nevro filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (21-cv-258). The complaint alleges infringement of five Nevro patents by certain of the Company’s spinal cord stimulation systems. Nevro seeks lost profits, a reasonable royalty and a permanent injunction. 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. UT seeks a reasonable royalty. 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 UT’s Petition for Certiorari. UT is proceeding with its case against BSC in Delaware. Trial is scheduled for November 14, 2022. Product Liability Litigation As of January 26, 2022, in the United States, 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. Outside the United States, approximately 2,700 cases or claims have been asserted, predominantly in Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland and Australia. Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages based on allegations of personal injury associated with the use of our transvaginal surgical mesh products, including design and manufacturing claims, failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims. As of January 26, 2022, 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 in the United States, 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 51,000 have met the conditions of the settlement and are final. In Canada, we have settled approximately 300 claims. All settlement agreements were entered into solely by way of compromise and without any admission or concession by us of any liability or wrongdoing. As of January 26, 2022, the company is facing fewer than 300 pending cases and claims asserted in various jurisdictions in the United States. Outside the United States, the company is facing fewer than 90 cases and claims in the United Kingdom, Ireland and Canada. In Australia, two class actions were filed against the Company in in the first quarter of 2021. In the second quarter of 2021, one of these class actions was permanently stayed, while the other was allowed to proceed. The registration process for this Australian action closed on January 28, 2022. Complete registration information is not yet available but preliminary information indicates that approximately 2,250 women have completed registration forms alleging they received and were injured by Boston Scientific implants in Australia. 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. 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 February 2021, the Multi-District Litigation (MDL) established in February 2012 by the United States Federal Courts was closed after all pending cases were dismissed or remanded to courts of primary jurisdiction. 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. 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 actively selling in the fourth quarter of 2018. The plaintiffs assert they are entitled to monetary damages related to alleged 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 January 26, 2022, 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. Under applicable guidance, BSB could be fined a percentage of BSB’s 2016 gross revenues. 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. 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. Labcoat seeks monetary damages related to an earn-out provision. On December 4, 2020 Enrique Jevons, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against the Company, 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 others similarly situated, filed a second, materially similar class action complaint against the Company, Michael F. Mahoney, Joseph M. Fitzgerald, and Daniel J. Brennan in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Subsequently, on March 30, 2021, the Court consolidated the two actions, and appointed Mariano Errichiello as the lead plaintiff. Under the terms of the Court-approved Scheduling Order, Counsel for Mr. Errichiello was required to file an Amended Complaint on or before June 4, 2021, which they did. The Amended Complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages in favor of the alleged class as well as unspecified equitable relief. In response, the Company brought a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint which it filed on July 19, 2021, and argued on November 19, 2021. On December 15, 2020, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Boston Regional Office (Boston SEC) notified the Company that it was conducting an investigation related to the Company’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 cooperated fully with the requests, and on January 3, 2022, the SEC informed us that it was concluding its investigation and that it did not intend to recommend an enforcement action. 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. The Trust subsequently agreed to stay its demand, pending the outcome of any dispositive motion against the Amended Complaint in the class action complaint described above. The Company received letters on behalf of the Union Excavators Local 731 Pension Fund and Diane Nachbaur, two stockholders of the Company, on July 26, 2021, and July 29, 2021, respectively, each demanding access to certain books and records of the Company, pursuant to 8 Delaware Section 220, regarding the business, operations, effectiveness and commercial viability of the LOTUS system, and related items. 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 arose 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 continued 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. The settlement did 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 sought information related 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 cooperated 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 alleged that certain BSC cardiovascular diagnostic devices infringed six Philips patents. The parties have settled the dispute through a confidential settlement agreement. On April 18, 2019, Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Louisiana and HMO Louisiana, Inc., alleged indirect purchasers of ZYTIGA™, 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 October 27, 2021, the court granted BTG and Janssen's motion to dismiss all claims in the indirect purchaser action. 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 December 17, 2021, the court granted BTG’s motion to dismiss the qui tam action. On January 10, 2022, the court granted the parties’ stipulation of dismissal with prejudice as to the claims of the direct purchaser plaintiff, whose claims had been stayed in the October 12, 2021, order compelling arbitration.

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

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.

Our accrual for legal matters that are probable and estimable was $548 million as of December 31, 2021 and $569 million as of December 31, 2020 and includes certain estimated costs of settlement, damages and defense. We recorded litigation-related net charges of $430 million in 2021, primarily related to ongoing litigation associated with our transvaginal surgical mesh products principally in the U.S. and Australia, as well as anticipated legal fees to defend certain other legal matters. We increased the accrual associated with transvaginal mesh claims to account for increased settlement and litigation activity related to the remaining cases and claims we face, 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. These increases were partially offset by settlement payments, primarily associated with a coalition of state attorneys general. A portion of our legal accrual for transvaginal surgical mesh product claims is already funded through our qualified settlement fund (QSF), which is included in restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents in Other current assets of $188 million as of December 31, 2021 and $208 million as of December 31, 2020. 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, primarily related to litigation with Channel Medsystems, Inc., net charges of $40 million primarily related to transvaginal surgical mesh product liability litigation, and a gain of $148 million, 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 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, 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 Company seeks lost profits, a reasonable royalty and a permanent injunction. 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

On December 9, 2016, the Company and Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation filed a patent infringement action against Nevro Corp. (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. The company seeks lost profits, a reasonable royalty and a permanent injunction. 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. Nevro seeks lost profits, a reasonable royalty and a permanent injunction. 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.

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. UT seeks a reasonable royalty. 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 UT’s Petition for Certiorari. UT is proceeding with its case against BSC in Delaware. Trial is scheduled for November 14, 2022.

As of January 26, 2022, in the United States, 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. Outside the United States, approximately 2,700 cases or claims have been asserted, predominantly in Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland and Australia. Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages based on allegations of personal injury associated with the use of our transvaginal surgical mesh products, including design and manufacturing claims, failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims.

As of January 26, 2022, 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 in the United States, 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 51,000 have met the conditions of the settlement and are final. In Canada, we have settled approximately 300 claims. All settlement agreements were entered into solely by way of compromise and without any admission or concession by us of any liability or wrongdoing.

As of January 26, 2022, the company is facing fewer than 300 pending cases and claims asserted in various jurisdictions in the United States. Outside the United States, the company is facing fewer than 90 cases and claims in the United Kingdom, Ireland and Canada. In Australia, two class actions were filed against the Company in in the first quarter of 2021. In the second quarter of 2021, one of these class actions was permanently stayed, while the other was allowed to proceed. The registration process for this Australian action closed on January 28, 2022. Complete registration information is not yet available but preliminary

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 February 2021, the Multi-District Litigation (MDL) established in February 2012 by the United States Federal Courts was closed after all pending cases were dismissed or remanded to courts of primary jurisdiction.

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. 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 actively selling in the fourth quarter of 2018. The plaintiffs assert they are entitled to monetary damages related to alleged 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 January 26, 2022, 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.

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. Under applicable guidance, BSB could be fined a percentage of BSB’s 2016 gross revenues. 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.

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 others similarly situated, filed a second, materially similar class action complaint against the Company, Michael F. Mahoney, Joseph M. Fitzgerald, and Daniel J. Brennan in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Subsequently, on March 30, 2021, the Court consolidated the two actions, and appointed Mariano Errichiello as the lead plaintiff. Under the terms of the Court-approved Scheduling Order, Counsel for Mr. Errichiello was required to file an Amended Complaint on or before June 4, 2021, which they did. The Amended Complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages in favor of the alleged class as well as unspecified equitable relief. In response, the Company brought a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint which it filed on July 19, 2021, and argued on November 19, 2021. On December 15, 2020, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Boston Regional Office (Boston SEC) notified the Company that it was conducting an investigation related to the Company’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 cooperated fully with the requests, and on January 3, 2022, the SEC informed us that it was concluding its investigation and that it did not intend to recommend an enforcement action. 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. The Trust subsequently agreed to stay its demand, pending the outcome of any dispositive motion against the Amended Complaint in the class action complaint described above. The Company received letters on behalf of the Union Excavators Local 731 Pension Fund and Diane Nachbaur, two stockholders of the Company, on July 26, 2021, and July 29, 2021, respectively, each demanding access to certain books and records of the Company, pursuant to 8 Delaware Section 220, regarding the business, operations, effectiveness and commercial viability of the LOTUS system, and related items.

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 arose 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 continued 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.

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. The settlement did 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 sought information related 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 cooperated 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 April 18, 2019, Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Louisiana and HMO Louisiana, Inc., alleged indirect purchasers of ZYTIGA™, 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 October 27, 2021, the court granted BTG and Janssen's motion to dismiss all claims in the indirect purchaser action.

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 December 17, 2021, the court granted BTG’s motion to dismiss the qui tam action. On January 10, 2022, the court granted the parties’ stipulation of dismissal with prejudice as to the claims of the direct purchaser plaintiff, whose claims had been stayed in the October 12, 2021, order compelling arbitration.