COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2013
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES On May 19, 2010, final judgment was entered in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division for the Company which ordered that the Company recover $5,000,000 plus prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and ordered a permanent injunction for BD’s 1mL and 3mL Integra syringes until the expiration of certain patents. The permanent injunction was stayed for the longer of the exhaustion of the appeal of the district court’s case or twelve months from May 19, 2010. In June 2010, BD filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit appealing the final judgment entered on May 19, 2010. In July 2011, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment that BD’s 3mL Integra infringed the Company’s ‘224 patent and ‘077 patent. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment that the 1mL Integra infringes the Company’s ‘244 and ‘733 patents. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit also affirmed the district court’s judgment that the ‘077 patent is not invalid for anticipation or obviousness. The Company had petitioned for a rehearing by all the judges of the Federal Circuit as to whether the three-judge panel properly construed the Company’s patent claim language in finding that the 3mL Integra did not infringe. The Company’s petition for rehearing by all of the judges of the Federal Circuit was denied with two dissents being issued. The Company filed a petition for certiorari asking the Supreme Court to review the matter. That petition was denied in January of 2013. On August 7, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued an order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and denying BD’s Rule 60 motion seeking a reduction in damages. On October 29, 2013, BD filed its Notice of Appeal of the August 7, 2013 order to the Federal Circuit. On September 30, 2013, the Company received payment of $7,724,826 (the “Judgment Amount”) from BD pursuant to a stipulation in this case. The stipulation provides that if, as a result of BD’s appeal of the District Court’s denial of BD’s Rule 60 motion, it is judicially determined that BD owes an amount less than the Judgment Amount, BD shall be entitled to restitution by the Company of any excess payment, with interest. Otherwise, the payment of the Judgment Amount shall constitute satisfaction of the patent infringement judgment and BD shall owe no further money damages to the Company in this case. The Judgment Amount has been reflected as a current liability in the Condensed Balance Sheets since the proceeds are not yet realizable. In May 2010, the Company and an officer’s suit against BD in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division alleging violations of antitrust acts, false advertising, product disparagement, tortious interference, and unfair competition was reopened. The Company and an officer filed a Second Amended Complaint on July 23, 2010 setting forth additional detail regarding the allegations of BD’s illegal conduct. BD filed a motion to dismiss and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division denied that motion in part and granted it in part, granting the Company the right to re-plead certain allegations by May 13, 2011. The Company and an officer filed a Third Amended Complaint in May 2011, setting forth additional detail regarding the alleged illegal conduct by BD. Trial was initially set for February 2012. However, in January 2012 the parties agreed to a continuance to allow the petition for certiorari to be considered. As stated above, the petition was denied in January of 2013. A hearing to re-set a trial date in light of BD’s motion for continuance was held May 3, 2013. The trial commenced on September 9, 2013 in Tyler, Texas, and the jury returned its verdict on September 19, 2013, finding that BD illegally engaged in anticompetitive conduct with the intent to acquire or maintain monopoly power in the safety syringe market and engaged in false advertising under the Lanham Act. The jury awarded the Company $113,508,014 in damages for the antitrust claim, which is subject to being trebled pursuant to statute. A final judgment in this matter has not been entered by the Court yet. The Court has set a hearing for post-trial motions on December 12, 2013. BD has stated that it plans to appeal the verdict. In September 2007, BD and MDC Investment Holdings, Inc. (“MDC”) sued the Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division, initially alleging that the Company is infringing two U.S. patents of MDC (6,179,812 and 7,090,656) that are licensed to BD. BD and MDC seek injunctive relief and unspecified damages. The Company counterclaimed for declarations of non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of the asserted patents. The plaintiffs subsequently dropped allegations with regard to patent no. 7,090,656 and the Company subsequently dropped its counterclaims for unenforceability of the asserted patents. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division conducted a claims construction hearing on September 25, 2008 and issued its claims construction order on November 14, 2008. The case has been stayed pending resolution of the Company’s first filed case against BD described above. As of November 7, 2013, there has been no activity in this case since the stay.

6. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

On May 19, 2010, final judgment was entered in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division for the Company which ordered that the Company recover $5,000,000 plus prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and ordered a permanent injunction for BD’s 1mL and 3mL Integra syringes until the expiration of certain patents. The permanent injunction was stayed for the longer of the exhaustion of the appeal of the district court’s case or twelve months from May 19, 2010. In June 2010, BD filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit appealing the final judgment entered on May 19, 2010. In July 2011, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment that BD’s 3mL Integra infringed the Company’s ‘224 patent and ‘077 patent. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment that the 1mL Integra infringes the Company’s ‘244 and ‘733 patents. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit also affirmed the district court’s judgment that the ‘077 patent is not invalid for anticipation or obviousness. The Company had petitioned for a rehearing by all the judges of the Federal Circuit as to whether the three-judge panel properly construed the Company’s patent claim language in finding that the 3mL Integra did not infringe. The Company’s petition for rehearing by all of the judges of the Federal Circuit was denied with two dissents being issued. The Company filed a petition for certiorari asking the Supreme Court to review the matter. That petition was denied in January of 2013. On August 7, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued an order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and denying BD’s Rule 60 motion seeking a reduction in damages. On October 29, 2013, BD filed its Notice of Appeal of the August 7, 2013 order to the Federal Circuit. On September 30, 2013, the Company received payment of $7,724,826 (the “Judgment Amount”) from BD pursuant to a stipulation in this case. The stipulation provides that if, as a result of BD’s appeal of the District Court’s denial of BD’s Rule 60 motion, it is judicially determined that BD owes an amount less than the Judgment Amount, BD shall be entitled to restitution by the Company of any excess payment, with interest. Otherwise, the payment of the Judgment Amount shall constitute satisfaction of the patent infringement judgment and BD shall owe no further money damages to the Company in this case. The Judgment Amount has been reflected as a current liability in the Condensed Balance Sheets since the proceeds are not yet realizable.

In May 2010, the Company and an officer’s suit against BD in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division alleging violations of antitrust acts, false advertising, product disparagement, tortious interference, and unfair competition was reopened. The Company and an officer filed a Second Amended Complaint on July 23, 2010 setting forth additional detail regarding the allegations of BD’s illegal conduct. BD filed a motion to dismiss and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division denied that motion in part and granted it in part, granting the Company the right to re-plead certain allegations by May 13, 2011. The Company and an officer filed a Third Amended Complaint in May 2011, setting forth additional detail regarding the alleged illegal conduct by BD. Trial was initially set for February 2012. However, in January 2012 the parties agreed to a continuance to allow the petition for certiorari to be considered. As stated above, the petition was denied in January of 2013. A hearing to re-set a trial date in light of BD’s motion for continuance was held May 3, 2013. The trial commenced on September 9, 2013 in Tyler, Texas, and the jury returned its verdict on September 19, 2013, finding that BD illegally engaged in anticompetitive conduct with the intent to acquire or maintain monopoly power in the safety syringe market and engaged in false advertising under the Lanham Act. The jury awarded the Company $113,508,014 in damages for the antitrust claim, which is subject to being trebled pursuant to statute. A final judgment in this matter has not been entered by the Court yet. The Court has set a hearing for post-trial motions on December 12, 2013. BD has stated that it plans to appeal the verdict.

In September 2007, BD and MDC Investment Holdings, Inc. (“MDC”) sued the Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division, initially alleging that the Company is infringing two U.S. patents of MDC (6,179,812 and 7,090,656) that are licensed to BD. BD and MDC seek injunctive relief and unspecified damages. The Company counterclaimed for declarations of non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of the asserted patents. The plaintiffs subsequently dropped allegations with regard to patent no. 7,090,656 and the Company subsequently dropped its counterclaims for unenforceability of the asserted patents. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division conducted a claims construction hearing on September 25, 2008 and issued its claims construction order on November 14, 2008. The case has been stayed pending resolution of the Company’s first filed case against BD described above. As of November 7, 2013, there has been no activity in this case since the stay.