10.	Commitments and Contingencies

In certain of its contracts, the Company warrants to its customers that the products it manufactures conform to the product specifications as in effect at the time of delivery of the product. The Company may also warrant that the products it manufactures do not infringe, violate or breach any patent or intellectual property rights, trade secret or other proprietary information of any third party. On occasion, the Company contractually indemnifies its customers against any and all losses arising out of, or in any way connected with, any claim or claims of breach of its warranties or any actual or alleged defect in any product caused by the negligence or acts or omissions of the Company. The Company maintains a products liability insurance policy that limits its exposure. Based on the Company’s historical activity in combination with its insurance policy coverage, the Company believes the estimated fair value of these indemnification agreements is minimal. The Company has no accrued warranties and has no history of claims paid.

On July 7, 2010, Genzyme Corporation (“Genzyme”) filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking unspecified damages and equitable relief. The Complaint alleges that the Company has infringed U.S. Patent No. 5,143,724 by manufacturing MONOVISC in the United States for sale outside the United States and will infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 5,143,724 and 5,399,351 if the Company begins manufacture and sale of MONOVISC in the United States. On August 30, 2010, the Company filed an answer denying liability. On April 26, 2011, Genzyme filed a motion to add its newly-issued U.S. Patent No. 7,931,030 to this litigation and also filed a separate new complaint in the District of Massachusetts alleging that the Company's manufacture and sale of MONOVISC in the United States will infringe that patent. On May 23, 2011, the Court entered orders permitting Genzyme to file its supplemental complaint adding its newly-issued U.S. Patent No. 7,931,030 to this litigation and requiring Genzyme to withdraw its separately filed complaint. On July 14, 2011, the Company filed an answer to the supplemental complaint, denying liability. On May 10, 2012, Genzyme dismissed its claim of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,399,351 and is no longer asserting that patent against the Company. The Company believes that neither MONOVISC, nor its manufacture, does or will infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the asserted patents. Management has assessed and determined that contingent losses related to this matter are not probable. Therefore, pursuant to ASC 450, Contingencies, an accrual has not been recorded for this loss contingency. Pursuant to the terms of the licensing and supply agreement entered into with Depuy Mitek, Inc. in December 2011, DePuy Mitek agreed to assume certain obligations of the Company related to this litigation. On August 3, 2012, a jury in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts held U.S. Patent No. 7,931,030 invalid as obvious and not infringed in litigation between Genzyme and Seikagaku Corporation, Zimmer Holdings Inc., Zimmer, Inc. and Zimmer U.S., Inc. concerning the Gel-One product. On September 19, 2012, Genzyme and the Company jointly requested that the Court stay Genzyme’s lawsuit against the Company pending the full resolution of the Seikagaku/Zimmer lawsuit, including through any appeal of the judgment entered in that lawsuit. The District Court granted the motion on September 28, 2012.

In 2011, Merogel Injectable was withdrawn from the market due to a labeling error on the product’s packaging, discovered by the Company. We settled the matter related to this dispute with Medtronic in August, 2012. This labeling error relates to conduct that initially occurred prior to our acquisition of Anika S.r.l. from Fidia Farmaceutici S.p.A. and, as a result, we have made claims against Fidia for indemnification for Anika’s losses related to this issue. Fidia has informed us that it does not believe that it has liability for this matter, and has asserted a counterclaim against Anika for failing to consent to the release of the remaining shares held in escrow upon the closing of the Anika S.r.l. acquisition. We have begun an arbitration process with Fidia in the London Court of International Arbitration to resolve the matter. Management has assessed Fidia’s claims and determined that contingent losses related to this matter are not probable. Therefore, pursuant to ASC 450, Contingencies, an accrual has not been recorded for this loss contingency.

We are also involved in various other legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business. Although the outcomes of these other legal proceedings are inherently difficult to predict, we do not expect the resolution of these other legal proceedings to have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flow.