Contingencies	15 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2013
Contingencies	7. Contingencies General In the ordinary course of business, the company is subject to various legal proceedings, investigations and claims, including, for example, environmental matters, employment disputes, disputes on agreements and other commercial disputes. In addition, the company operates in an industry susceptible to significant product liability and patent legal claims. The company accounts for estimated losses with respect to legal proceedings and claims when such losses are probable and reasonably estimable. Legal costs associated with these matters are expensed as incurred. At any given time, in the ordinary course of business, the company is involved as either a plaintiff or defendant in a number of patent infringement actions. If a third party’s patent infringement claim were to be determined against the company, the company might be required to make significant royalty or other payments or might be subject to an injunction or other limitation on its ability to manufacture or distribute one or more products. If a patent owned by or licensed to the company is found to be invalid or unenforceable, the company might be required to reduce the value of certain intangible assets on the company’s balance sheet and to record a corresponding charge, which could be significant in amount. The company believes that any of these proceedings and claims could have a material adverse effect on its business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. Product Liability Matters As of April 18, 2013, approximately 890 federal and 720 state lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 1,740 plaintiffs, as well as two putative class actions in the United States and three putative class actions in various Canadian provinces, are currently pending against the company with respect to its Composix^® Kugel^® and certain other hernia repair implant products (collectively, the “Hernia Product Claims”). One of the U.S. class action lawsuits consolidated ten previously-filed U.S. class action lawsuits. The putative class actions, none of which has been certified, seek: (i) medical monitoring; (ii) compensatory damages; (iii) punitive damages; (iv) a judicial finding of defect and causation; and/or (v) attorneys’ fees. A class certification hearing in one of the Canadian class actions is scheduled to take place in May 2013. Approximately 695 of the state lawsuits, involving individual claims by approximately 785 plaintiffs, are pending in the Superior Court of the State of Rhode Island, with the remainder in various other jurisdictions. The Hernia Product Claims also generally seek damages for personal injury resulting from use of the products. The company voluntarily recalled certain sizes and lots of the Composix^® Kugel^® products beginning in December 2005. In June 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) transferred Composix^® Kugel^® lawsuits pending in federal courts nationwide into one Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) for coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The MDL court subsequently determined to include other hernia repair products of the company in the MDL proceeding. On June 30, 2011, the company announced that it had reached agreements in principle with various plaintiffs’ law firms to settle the majority of its existing Hernia Product Claims. Each agreement is subject to certain conditions, including requirements for participation in the proposed settlements by a certain minimum number of plaintiffs. In addition, the company continues to engage in discussions with other plaintiffs’ law firms regarding potential resolution of unsettled Hernia Product Claims, and intends to vigorously defend Hernia Product Claims that do not settle, including through litigation. Additional trials are scheduled in the third quarter of 2013 and throughout the remainder of 2013. Based on these events, the company recorded a charge of $184.3 million ($180.6 million after tax) in the second quarter of 2011, which recognized the estimated costs of settling all Hernia Product Claims, including asserted and unasserted claims, and costs to administer the settlements. The charge excludes any costs associated with pending putative class action lawsuits. The company cannot give any assurances that the actual costs incurred with respect to the Hernia Product Claims will not exceed the amount of the charge together with amounts previously accrued. The company cannot give any assurances that the resolution of the Hernia Product Claims that have not settled, including asserted and unasserted claims and the putative class action lawsuits, will not have a material adverse effect on the company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. As of April 18, 2013, product liability lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 3,060 plaintiffs have been filed or asserted against the company in various federal and state jurisdictions alleging personal injuries associated with the use of certain of the company’s surgical continence products for women, including its Avaulta^®line of products. In addition, five putative class actions in the United States and one putative class action in Canada have been filed against the company (all lawsuits, collectively, the “Women’s Health Product Claims”). The Women’s Health Product Claims generally seek damages for personal injury resulting from use of the products. The putative class actions, none of which has been certified, seek: (i) medical monitoring; (ii) compensatory damages; (iii) punitive damages; (iv) a judicial finding of defect and causation; and/or (v) attorneys’ fees. With respect to certain of these claims, the company believes that one of its suppliers has an obligation to defend and indemnify the company. In October 2010, the JPML transferred the Women’s Health Product Claims involving solely Avaulta^® products pending in federal courts nationwide into an MDL for coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. In February 2012, the JPML expanded the scope of and renamed the MDL pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia to include lawsuits involving all women’s surgical continence products that are manufactured or distributed by the company. In total, approximately 2,545 of the Women’s Health Product Claims are pending in federal courts and have been or will be transferred to the MDL in West Virginia, with the remainder of the Women’s Health Product Claims in other jurisdictions. Trial dates have been scheduled in the MDL beginning in July 2013 and are scheduled to continue throughout 2013. Additional trials are also scheduled in state courts in the second half of 2013. The first trial in one of these other jurisdictions was completed in July 2012 and resulted in a judgment against the company of approximately $3.6 million. The company has appealed this decision. The company does not believe that this verdict is representative of the potential outcomes of other Women’s Health Product Claims. While the company intends to vigorously defend the Women’s Health Product Claims, it cannot give any assurances that the resolution of these claims will not have a material adverse effect on the company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. As of April 18, 2013, product liability lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 25 plaintiffs are currently pending against the company in various federal and state jurisdictions alleging personal injuries associated with the use of the company’s vena cava filter products. In addition, three putative class actions have been filed against the company in various state courts on behalf of plaintiffs who are alleged to have no present injury (all lawsuits, collectively, the “Filter Product Claims”). The putative class actions, none of which has been certified, seek: (i) medical monitoring; (ii) punitive damages; (iii) a judicial finding of defect and causation; and/or (iv) attorneys’ fees. A class certification hearing in one of the class actions is scheduled to take place in June 2013. The first Filter Product Claim trial was completed in June 2012 and resulted in a judgment for the company based on the finding that the company was not liable for the plaintiff’s damages. The company expects additional trials of Filter Product Claims to take place over the next 12 months. The company has reached an agreement with a law firm that has more than 30 Filter Product Claims pending against the company. The company is in the process of finalizing these agreements with respect to such claims, and payments are expected to be made during the second quarter of 2013 within the amounts previously recorded. While the company intends to vigorously defend the remaining unsettled Filter Product Claims, it cannot give any assurances that the resolution of these claims will not have a material adverse effect on the company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. In most product liability litigations of this nature, including the remaining unsettled Hernia Product Claims, the Women’s Health Product Claims and the remaining unsettled Filter Product Claims, plaintiffs allege a wide variety of claims, ranging from allegations of serious injury caused by the products to efforts to obtain compensation notwithstanding the absence of any injury. In many of these cases, the company has not yet received and reviewed complete information regarding the plaintiffs and their medical conditions, and consequently, is unable to fully evaluate the claims. The company expects that it will receive and review additional information regarding the remaining unsettled Hernia Product Claims, the Women’s Health Product Claims, the remaining unsettled Filter Product Claims and related matters as these cases progress. The company believes that many settlements and judgments, as well as legal defense costs, relating to product liability matters are or may be covered in whole or in part under its product liability insurance policies with a limited number of insurance carriers. In certain circumstances, insurance carriers reserve their rights with respect to coverage, or contest or deny coverage, as has occurred with respect to certain claims. When this occurs, the company intends to vigorously contest disputes with respect to its insurance coverage and to enforce its rights under the terms of its insurance policies, and accordingly, will record receivables with respect to amounts due under these policies, when recovery is probable. Amounts recovered under the company’s product liability insurance policies may be less than the stated coverage limits and may not be adequate to cover damages and/or costs relating to claims. In addition, there is no guarantee that insurers will pay claims or that coverage will otherwise be available. The company’s insurance coverage with respect to the Hernia Product Claims has been depleted. In connection with the Hernia Product Claims, the company was in dispute with one of its excess insurance carriers relating to an aggregate of $25 million of insurance coverage. On March 27, 2013, an arbitration panel issued its opinion denying the company’s claim for this insurance coverage. As a result, the company recorded a non-cash charge of $25.0 million ($24.5 million after tax) to other (income) expense, net, for the write-down of a related insurance receivable. In connection with the Women’s Health Product Claims, the company is in dispute with one of its excess insurance carriers relating to an aggregate of $50 million of insurance coverage. Other Legal Matters In January 2013, the company received subpoenas or Civil Investigative Demands from a number of State Attorneys General seeking information related to the sales and marketing of certain of the company’s products that are the subject of the Hernia Product Claims and the Women’s Health Product Claims. The company intends to cooperate with these requests. Since it is not feasible to predict the outcome of these proceedings, the company cannot give any assurances that the resolution of these proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on the company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. In November 2006, the company received a subpoena issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (“OIG”), under the authority of the federal healthcare fraud and false claims statutes, seeking documents related to the company’s brachytherapy business (the “Brachytherapy Matter”). On January 27, 2012, the company announced that it had reached a preliminary agreement with the civil and criminal divisions of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia to resolve claims with respect to the Brachytherapy Matter. In connection with this preliminary agreement, the company previously recorded a charge of approximately $51.0 million ($40.8 million after tax) in the fourth quarter of 2011. The ultimate settlement of this matter is subject to the negotiation and execution of definitive agreements. If the definitive agreements are not finalized, the eventual costs related to this matter could be materially different than the previously recorded charge, and the company cannot give any assurances that this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. In December 2007, a U.S. District Court jury in Arizona found that certain of W.L. Gore & Associates Inc.’s (“Gore”) ePTFE vascular grafts and stent-grafts infringe the company’s patent number 6,436,135 (the “135 patent”). The jury upheld the validity of the patent and awarded the company $185 million in past damages. The jury also found that Gore willfully infringed the patent. In a second phase of the trial, the District Court ruled that Gore failed to prove that the patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. In March 2009, the District Court doubled the jury award to approximately $371 million for damages through June 2007. The District Court also awarded the company attorneys’ fees of $19 million and prejudgment interest of approximately $20 million. In addition, the District Court denied Gore’s remaining motions, including its motions for a new trial and to set aside the jury’s verdict. In July 2010, the District Court awarded the company approximately $109 million in additional damages for the period from July 2007 through March 2009. Gore has deposited or secured the foregoing amounts with the District Court. The District Court also assessed a royalty rate of between 12.5% and 20%, depending on the product, that will be used to calculate damages for Gore’s infringing sales from April 2009 through the expiration of the patent. Gore has made additional deposits with the District Court of approximately $471 million, representing Gore’s calculation of royalties for its infringing sales through December 2012. Gore appealed this matter to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Court of Appeals”), which on February 10, 2012 affirmed the decision of the District Court. Gore filed a petition with the Court of Appeals for a rehearing of its appeal. On June 14, 2012, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed its February 10, 2012 decision, including the ongoing royalty rates as set by the District Court, with the exception of the issue of willfulness with respect to Gore’s infringement of the 135 patent, which was remanded to the District Court. On October 12, 2012, Gore filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court requesting a review of the portion of the decision that the Court of Appeals reaffirmed. The U.S. Supreme Court denied Gore’s petition on January 14, 2013. The District Court has scheduled oral argument for June 5, 2013 as to three pending motions before it, including the company’s motion to execute on the judgment other than with respect to the amounts related to willfulness. On January 28, 2013, Gore filed with the U.S. District Court a Request for Judicial Notice that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) granted Gore’s previously filed request for a re-examination of the 135 patent. On April 1, 2013, the USPTO issued a First Office Action initially rejecting all of the claims of the 135 patent that are the subject of the re-examination. The timing of final resolution of these matters remains uncertain. Since the company considers these matters a gain contingency, no amounts have been recorded. Even if the company is ultimately successful in this lawsuit, it cannot give any assurances that royalties for Gore’s future infringing sales will remain at or near historic levels. The company is subject to numerous federal, state, local and foreign environmental protection laws governing, among other things, the generation, storage, use and transportation of hazardous materials and emissions or discharges into the ground, air or water. The company is or may become a party to proceedings brought under various federal laws including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act and similar state or foreign laws. These proceedings seek to require the owners or operators of contaminated sites, transporters of hazardous materials to the sites and generators of hazardous materials disposed of at the sites to clean up the sites or to reimburse the government for cleanup costs. In most cases, there are other potentially responsible parties that may be liable for remediation costs. In these cases, the government alleges that the defendants are jointly and severally liable for the cleanup costs; however, these proceedings are frequently resolved so that the allocation of cleanup costs among the parties more closely reflects the relative contributions of the parties to the site contamination. The company’s potential liability varies greatly from site to site. For some sites, the potential liability is de minimis and for others the costs of cleanup have not yet been determined. Accruals for estimated losses from environmental remediation obligations generally are recognized no later than completion of the remedial feasibility study and are adjusted as further information develops or circumstances change. Costs of future expenditures for environmental remediation obligations are not discounted to their present value. Recoveries of environmental remediation costs from other parties are recorded as assets when their receipt is deemed probable. The company believes that the proceedings and claims described above will likely be resolved over an extended period of time. While it is not feasible to predict the outcome of these proceedings, based upon the company’s experience, current information and applicable law, the company does not expect these proceedings to have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and/or liquidity. However, one or more of the proceedings could be material to the company’s business and/or results of operations. The company regularly monitors and evaluates the status of product liability and other legal matters, and may, from time-to-time, engage in settlement and mediation discussions taking into consideration developments in the matters and the risks and uncertainties surrounding litigation. These discussions could result in settlements of one or more of these claims at any time. Accruals for product liability and other legal matters amounted to $157.8 million and $158.1 million at March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively. The company made total payments of $164.6 million to qualified settlement funds (“QSFs”), of which $7.0 million were made during the three months ended March 31, 2013 subject to certain settlement conditions, for certain Hernia Product Claims. Payments to QSFs were recorded as a component of restricted cash. Total payments of $138.6 million from these QSFs have been made to qualified claimants, of which $6.0 million were made during the three months ended March 31, 2013. In addition, other payments of $12.9 million have been made to qualified claimants, of which $2.3 million were made during the three months ended March 31, 2013. The company recorded receivables from insurance companies for product liability matters amounting to $22.5 million and $45.6 million at March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively, of which approximately $12.5 million, at March 31, 2013, is the subject of a dispute with one of the company’s excess insurance carriers, as noted above. After considering the nature of the claims, coverage provisions under the policies, relevant legal issues, the advice and judgment of outside legal counsel, and other pertinent factors, the company believes its claims are meritorious and that it should collect these receivables. The company is unable to estimate the reasonably possible losses or range of losses, if any, arising from certain existing product liability matters and other legal matters. Under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, an event is “reasonably possible” if “the chance of the future event or events occurring is more than remote but less than likely” and an event is “remote” if “the chance of the future event or events occurring is slight”. With respect to the remaining unsettled Hernia Product Claims, including the putative class action lawsuits, Women’s Health Product Claims and the remaining unsettled Filter Product Claims, the company is unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses for the following reasons: (i) all or certain of the proceedings are in early stages; (ii) the company has not received and reviewed complete information regarding all or certain of the plaintiffs and their medical conditions; and/or (iii) there are significant factual issues to be resolved. In addition, with respect to the putative class action lawsuits that are part of the Hernia Product Claims, the Women’s Health Product Claims and the Filter Product Claims, there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class being certified or the ultimate size of the class.

7. Contingencies

General

In the ordinary course of business, the company is subject to various legal proceedings, investigations and claims, including, for example, environmental matters, employment disputes, disputes on agreements and other commercial disputes. In addition, the company operates in an industry susceptible to significant product liability and patent legal claims. The company accounts for estimated losses with respect to legal proceedings and claims when such losses are probable and reasonably estimable. Legal costs associated with these matters are expensed as incurred. At any given time, in the ordinary course of business, the company is involved as either a plaintiff or defendant in a number of patent infringement actions. If a third party’s patent infringement claim were to be determined against the company, the company might be required to make significant royalty or other payments or might be subject to an injunction or other limitation on its ability to manufacture or distribute one or more products. If a patent owned by or licensed to the company is found to be invalid or unenforceable, the company might be required to reduce the value of certain intangible assets on the company’s balance sheet and to record a corresponding charge, which could be significant in amount. The company believes that any of these proceedings and claims could have a material adverse effect on its business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.

Product Liability Matters

As of April 18, 2013, approximately 890 federal and 720 state lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 1,740 plaintiffs, as well as two putative class actions in the United States and three putative class actions in various Canadian provinces, are currently pending against the company with respect to its Composix^® Kugel^® and certain other hernia repair implant products (collectively, the “Hernia Product Claims”). One of the U.S. class action lawsuits consolidated ten previously-filed U.S. class action lawsuits. The putative class actions, none of which has been certified, seek: (i) medical monitoring; (ii) compensatory damages; (iii) punitive damages; (iv) a judicial finding of defect and causation; and/or (v) attorneys’ fees. A class certification hearing in one of the Canadian class actions is scheduled to take place in May 2013. Approximately 695 of the state lawsuits, involving individual claims by approximately 785 plaintiffs, are pending in the Superior Court of the State of Rhode Island, with the remainder in various other jurisdictions. The Hernia Product Claims also generally seek damages for personal injury resulting from use of the products. The company voluntarily recalled certain sizes and lots of the Composix^® Kugel^® products beginning in December 2005.

In June 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) transferred Composix^® Kugel^® lawsuits pending in federal courts nationwide into one Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) for coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The MDL court subsequently determined to include other hernia repair products of the company in the MDL proceeding. On June 30, 2011, the company announced that it had reached agreements in principle with various plaintiffs’ law firms to settle the majority of its existing Hernia Product Claims. Each agreement is subject to certain conditions, including requirements for participation in the proposed settlements by a certain minimum number of plaintiffs. In addition, the company continues to engage in discussions with other plaintiffs’ law firms regarding potential resolution of unsettled Hernia Product Claims, and intends to vigorously defend Hernia Product Claims that do not settle, including through litigation. Additional trials are scheduled in the third quarter of 2013 and throughout the remainder of 2013. Based on these events, the company recorded a charge of $184.3 million ($180.6 million after tax) in the second quarter of 2011, which recognized the estimated costs of settling all Hernia Product Claims, including asserted and unasserted claims, and costs to administer the settlements. The charge excludes any costs associated with pending putative class action lawsuits. The company cannot give any assurances that the actual costs incurred with respect to the Hernia Product Claims will not exceed the amount of the charge together with amounts previously accrued. The company cannot give any assurances that the resolution of the Hernia Product Claims that have not settled, including asserted and unasserted claims and the putative class action lawsuits, will not have a material adverse effect on the company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.

As of April 18, 2013, product liability lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 3,060 plaintiffs have been filed or asserted against the company in various federal and state jurisdictions alleging personal injuries associated with the use of certain of the company’s surgical continence products for women, including its Avaulta^®line of products. In addition, five putative class actions in the United States and one putative class action in Canada have been filed against the company (all lawsuits, collectively, the “Women’s Health Product Claims”). The Women’s Health Product Claims generally seek damages for personal injury resulting from use of the products. The putative class actions, none of which has been certified, seek: (i) medical monitoring; (ii) compensatory damages; (iii) punitive damages; (iv) a judicial finding of defect and causation; and/or (v) attorneys’ fees. With respect to certain of these claims, the company believes that one of its suppliers has an obligation to defend and indemnify the company. In October 2010, the JPML transferred the Women’s Health Product Claims involving solely Avaulta^® products pending in federal courts nationwide into an MDL for coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. In February 2012, the JPML expanded the scope of and renamed the MDL pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia to include lawsuits involving all women’s surgical continence products that are manufactured or distributed by the company. In total, approximately 2,545 of the Women’s Health Product Claims are pending in federal courts and have been or will be transferred to the MDL in West Virginia, with the remainder of the Women’s Health Product Claims in other jurisdictions. Trial dates have been scheduled in the MDL beginning in July 2013 and are scheduled to continue throughout 2013. Additional trials are also scheduled in state courts in the second half of 2013. The first trial in one of these other jurisdictions was completed in July 2012 and resulted in a judgment against the company of approximately $3.6 million. The company has appealed this decision. The company does not believe that this verdict is representative of the potential outcomes of other Women’s Health Product Claims. While the company intends to vigorously defend the Women’s Health Product Claims, it cannot give any assurances that the resolution of these claims will not have a material adverse effect on the company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.

As of April 18, 2013, product liability lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 25 plaintiffs are currently pending against the company in various federal and state jurisdictions alleging personal injuries associated with the use of the company’s vena cava filter products. In addition, three putative class actions have been filed against the company in various state courts on behalf of plaintiffs who are alleged to have no present injury (all lawsuits, collectively, the “Filter Product Claims”). The putative class actions, none of which has been certified, seek: (i) medical monitoring; (ii) punitive damages; (iii) a judicial finding of defect and causation; and/or (iv) attorneys’ fees. A class certification hearing in one of the class actions is scheduled to take place in June 2013. The first Filter Product Claim trial was completed in June 2012 and resulted in a judgment for the company based on the finding that the company was not liable for the plaintiff’s damages. The company expects additional trials of Filter Product Claims to take place over the next 12 months. The company has reached an agreement with a law firm that has more than 30 Filter Product Claims pending against the company. The company is in the process of finalizing these agreements with respect to such claims, and payments are expected to be made during the second quarter of 2013 within the amounts previously recorded. While the company intends to vigorously defend the remaining unsettled Filter Product Claims, it cannot give any assurances that the resolution of these claims will not have a material adverse effect on the company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.

In most product liability litigations of this nature, including the remaining unsettled Hernia Product Claims, the Women’s Health Product Claims and the remaining unsettled Filter Product Claims, plaintiffs allege a wide variety of claims, ranging from allegations of serious injury caused by the products to efforts to obtain compensation notwithstanding the absence of any injury. In many of these cases, the company has not yet received and reviewed complete information regarding the plaintiffs and their medical conditions, and consequently, is unable to fully evaluate the claims. The company expects that it will receive and review additional information regarding the remaining unsettled Hernia Product Claims, the Women’s Health Product Claims, the remaining unsettled Filter Product Claims and related matters as these cases progress.

The company believes that many settlements and judgments, as well as legal defense costs, relating to product liability matters are or may be covered in whole or in part under its product liability insurance policies with a limited number of insurance carriers. In certain circumstances, insurance carriers reserve their rights with respect to coverage, or contest or deny coverage, as has occurred with respect to certain claims. When this occurs, the company intends to vigorously contest disputes with respect to its insurance coverage and to enforce its rights under the terms of its insurance policies, and accordingly, will record receivables with respect to amounts due under these policies, when recovery is probable. Amounts recovered under the company’s product liability insurance policies may be less than the stated coverage limits and may not be adequate to cover damages and/or costs relating to claims. In addition, there is no guarantee that insurers will pay claims or that coverage will otherwise be available.

The company’s insurance coverage with respect to the Hernia Product Claims has been depleted. In connection with the Hernia Product Claims, the company was in dispute with one of its excess insurance carriers relating to an aggregate of $25 million of insurance coverage. On March 27, 2013, an arbitration panel issued its opinion denying the company’s claim for this insurance coverage. As a result, the company recorded a non-cash charge of $25.0 million ($24.5 million after tax) to other (income) expense, net, for the write-down of a related insurance receivable.

In connection with the Women’s Health Product Claims, the company is in dispute with one of its excess insurance carriers relating to an aggregate of $50 million of insurance coverage.

Other Legal Matters

In January 2013, the company received subpoenas or Civil Investigative Demands from a number of State Attorneys General seeking information related to the sales and marketing of certain of the company’s products that are the subject of the Hernia Product Claims and the Women’s Health Product Claims. The company intends to cooperate with these requests. Since it is not feasible to predict the outcome of these proceedings, the company cannot give any assurances that the resolution of these proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on the company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.

In November 2006, the company received a subpoena issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (“OIG”), under the authority of the federal healthcare fraud and false claims statutes, seeking documents related to the company’s brachytherapy business (the “Brachytherapy Matter”). On January 27, 2012, the company announced that it had reached a preliminary agreement with the civil and criminal divisions of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia to resolve claims with respect to the Brachytherapy Matter. In connection with this preliminary agreement, the company previously recorded a charge of approximately $51.0 million ($40.8 million after tax) in the fourth quarter of 2011. The ultimate settlement of this matter is subject to the negotiation and execution of definitive agreements. If the definitive agreements are not finalized, the eventual costs related to this matter could be materially different than the previously recorded charge, and the company cannot give any assurances that this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.

In December 2007, a U.S. District Court jury in Arizona found that certain of W.L. Gore & Associates Inc.’s (“Gore”) ePTFE vascular grafts and stent-grafts infringe the company’s patent number 6,436,135 (the “135 patent”). The jury upheld the validity of the patent and awarded the company $185 million in past damages. The jury also found that Gore willfully infringed the patent. In a second phase of the trial, the District Court ruled that Gore failed to prove that the patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. In March 2009, the District Court doubled the jury award to approximately $371 million for damages through June 2007. The District Court also awarded the company attorneys’ fees of $19 million and prejudgment interest of approximately $20 million. In addition, the District Court denied Gore’s remaining motions, including its motions for a new trial and to set aside the jury’s verdict. In July 2010, the District Court awarded the company approximately $109 million in additional damages for the period from July 2007 through March 2009. Gore has deposited or secured the foregoing amounts with the District Court. The District Court also assessed a royalty rate of between 12.5% and 20%, depending on the product, that will be used to calculate damages for Gore’s infringing sales from April 2009 through the expiration of the patent. Gore has made additional deposits with the District Court of approximately $471 million, representing Gore’s calculation of royalties for its infringing sales through December 2012. Gore appealed this matter to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Court of Appeals”), which on February 10, 2012 affirmed the decision of the District Court. Gore filed a petition with the Court of Appeals for a rehearing of its appeal. On June 14, 2012, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed its February 10, 2012 decision, including the ongoing royalty rates as set by the District Court, with the exception of the issue of willfulness with respect to Gore’s infringement of the 135 patent, which was remanded to the District Court. On October 12, 2012, Gore filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court requesting a review of the portion of the decision that the Court of Appeals reaffirmed. The U.S. Supreme Court denied Gore’s petition on January 14, 2013. The District Court has scheduled oral argument for June 5, 2013 as to three pending motions before it, including the company’s motion to execute on the judgment other than with respect to the amounts related to willfulness. On January 28, 2013, Gore filed with the U.S. District Court a Request for Judicial Notice that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) granted Gore’s previously filed request for a re-examination of the 135 patent. On April 1, 2013, the USPTO issued a First Office Action initially rejecting all of the claims of the 135 patent that are the subject of the re-examination. The timing of final resolution of these matters remains uncertain. Since the company considers these matters a gain contingency, no amounts have been recorded. Even if the company is ultimately successful in this lawsuit, it cannot give any assurances that royalties for Gore’s future infringing sales will remain at or near historic levels.

The company is subject to numerous federal, state, local and foreign environmental protection laws governing, among other things, the generation, storage, use and transportation of hazardous materials and emissions or discharges into the ground, air or water. The company is or may become a party to proceedings brought under various federal laws including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act and similar state or foreign laws. These proceedings seek to require the owners or operators of contaminated sites, transporters of hazardous materials to the sites and generators of hazardous materials disposed of at the sites to clean up the sites or to reimburse the government for cleanup costs. In most cases, there are other potentially responsible parties that may be liable for remediation costs. In these cases, the government alleges that the defendants are jointly and severally liable for the cleanup costs; however, these proceedings are frequently resolved so that the allocation of cleanup costs among the parties more closely reflects the relative contributions of the parties to the site contamination. The company’s potential liability varies greatly from site to site. For some sites, the potential liability is de minimis and for others the costs of cleanup have not yet been determined. Accruals for estimated losses from environmental remediation obligations generally are recognized no later than completion of the remedial feasibility study and are adjusted as further information develops or circumstances change. Costs of future expenditures for environmental remediation obligations are not discounted to their present value. Recoveries of environmental remediation costs from other parties are recorded as assets when their receipt is deemed probable. The company believes that the proceedings and claims described above will likely be resolved over an extended period of time. While it is not feasible to predict the outcome of these proceedings, based upon the company’s experience, current information and applicable law, the company does not expect these proceedings to have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and/or liquidity. However, one or more of the proceedings could be material to the company’s business and/or results of operations.

The company regularly monitors and evaluates the status of product liability and other legal matters, and may, from time-to-time, engage in settlement and mediation discussions taking into consideration developments in the matters and the risks and uncertainties surrounding litigation. These discussions could result in settlements of one or more of these claims at any time.

Accruals for product liability and other legal matters amounted to $157.8 million and $158.1 million at March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively. The company made total payments of $164.6 million to qualified settlement funds (“QSFs”), of which $7.0 million were made during the three months ended March 31, 2013 subject to certain settlement conditions, for certain Hernia Product Claims. Payments to QSFs were recorded as a component of restricted cash. Total payments of $138.6 million from these QSFs have been made to qualified claimants, of which $6.0 million were made during the three months ended March 31, 2013. In addition, other payments of $12.9 million have been made to qualified claimants, of which $2.3 million were made during the three months ended March 31, 2013.

The company recorded receivables from insurance companies for product liability matters amounting to $22.5 million and $45.6 million at March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively, of which approximately $12.5 million, at March 31, 2013, is the subject of a dispute with one of the company’s excess insurance carriers, as noted above. After considering the nature of the claims, coverage provisions under the policies, relevant legal issues, the advice and judgment of outside legal counsel, and other pertinent factors, the company believes its claims are meritorious and that it should collect these receivables.

The company is unable to estimate the reasonably possible losses or range of losses, if any, arising from certain existing product liability matters and other legal matters. Under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, an event is “reasonably possible” if “the chance of the future event or events occurring is more than remote but less than likely” and an event is “remote” if “the chance of the future event or events occurring is slight”. With respect to the remaining unsettled Hernia Product Claims, including the putative class action lawsuits, Women’s Health Product Claims and the remaining unsettled Filter Product Claims, the company is unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses for the following reasons: (i) all or certain of the proceedings are in early stages; (ii) the company has not received and reviewed complete information regarding all or certain of the plaintiffs and their medical conditions; and/or (iii) there are significant factual issues to be resolved. In addition, with respect to the putative class action lawsuits that are part of the Hernia Product Claims, the Women’s Health Product Claims and the Filter Product Claims, there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class being certified or the ultimate size of the class.