COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

OPERATING LEASES

The Company leases space for operations in United States, Mexico, Japan, South Korea, and certain other foreign countries. The Company also leases automobiles for certain sales and field service employees. These leases have varying terms up to fifteen years.

Future minimum lease commitments under the Company’s operating leases as of December 31, 2017, are as follows (in millions):



Fiscal Year	Amount
2018	$	8.2
2019	5.8
2020	4.4
2021	3.4
2022	3.0
2023 and thereafter	16.8
Total	$	41.6

Other commitments include an estimated amount of approximately $478.1 million relating to the Company's open purchase orders and contractual obligations that occur in the ordinary course of business, including commitments with suppliers, for which we have not received the goods or services.

CONTINGENCIES

The Company is involved in a variety of claims, lawsuits, investigations and proceedings relating to securities laws, product liability, intellectual property, insurance, contract disputes, employment, and other matters. Certain of these lawsuits and claims are described in further detail below. It is not possible to predict what the outcome of these matters will be and the Company cannot guarantee that any resolution will be reached on commercially reasonable terms, if at all.

A liability and related charge to earnings are recorded in the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements for legal contingencies when the loss is considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. The assessment is re-evaluated each accounting period and is based on all available information, including impact of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to each case. Nevertheless, it is possible that additional future legal costs (including settlements, judgments, legal fees, and other related defense costs) could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, or future results of operations.

Purported Shareholder Class Action Lawsuits filed April 26, 2013 and May 24, 2013

On April 26, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit entitled Abrams v. Intuitive Surgical, et al., No. 5-13-cv-1920, was filed against a number of the Company’s current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. A substantially identical complaint, entitled Adel v. Intuitive Surgical, et al., No. 5:13-cv-02365, was filed in the same court against the same defendants on May 24, 2013. The Adel case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on August 20, 2013.

On October 15, 2013, plaintiffs in the Abrams matter filed an amended complaint. The case has since been retitled In re Intuitive Surgical Securities Litigation, No. 5:13-cv-1920. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s common stock between February 6, 2012, and July 18, 2013. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by allegedly making false and misleading statements and omitting certain material facts in certain public statements and in the Company’s filings with the SEC. On November 18, 2013, the court appointed the Employees’ Retirement System of the State of Hawaii as lead plaintiff and appointed lead counsel. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on December 16, 2013, which was granted in part and denied in part on August 21, 2014. The plaintiffs elected not to further amend their complaint at that time. On October 22, 2014, the court granted the Company’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the court’s August 21, 2014, order. The Company filed its motion for reconsideration on November 5, 2014. Following opposition and reply briefing, the court denied the motion on December 15, 2014, allowing the case to move forward on the claims that remained. The plaintiffs moved for class certification on September 1, 2015, and following opposition and reply briefing, the court held a hearing on the motion on January 21, 2016. While that motion remained pending, on October 11, 2016, the Company sent plaintiffs’ lead counsel, Labaton Sucharow LLP, a letter enclosing a draft motion for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, primarily based on statements to the court that lacked a proper factual basis. In response, on November 1, 2016, plaintiffs’ local counsel withdrew from the case entirely and withdrew their signatures from the disputed pleadings. On November 2, 2016, Labaton Sucharow LLP filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint that did not include the disputed statements. On November 16, 2016, the Company filed an opposition to plaintiffs’ motion, along with an independent motion to strike the amended complaint and the pleadings from which plaintiffs’ local counsel withdrew their signatures. Following additional briefing, the motion for leave to amend and motion to strike were fully submitted to the court on November 23, 2016, and December 7, 2016, respectively. On December 22, 2016, the court entered an order granting plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On January 5, 2017, the Company filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal from the order granting class certification in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On October 30, 2017, the court of appeals denied the Company’s petition. On January 12, 2017, plaintiffs sought leave to file a motion for partial reconsideration of the court’s class certification order, which the court granted on March 17, 2017. Plaintiffs filed the motion for reconsideration itself on April 3, 2017, and the Company filed its opposition on April 17, 2017. The court denied the motion on September 29, 2017. On January 25, 2017, the court entered an order granting plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint and denying the Company’s motion to strike. On February 9, 2017, the Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Following opposition and reply briefing, the matter was fully submitted to the court on March 2, 2017. The court denied the motion on September 29, 2017. On July 13, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation vacating the case schedule, which the court entered on July 14, 2017. On November 8, 2017, the court entered a new case schedule, with trial set to begin on October 30, 2018. While the Company intends to vigorously defend itself, the actual outcome of this matter is dependent on many variables that are difficult to predict. Based on currently available information, the Company is unable to make a reasonable estimate of loss or range of losses, if any, arising from this matter.

Purported Derivative Actions filed on February 3, 2014, February 21, 2014, March 21, 2014, June 3, 2014, and March 5, 2015

On February 3, 2014, an alleged stockholder, Robert Berg, caused a purported stockholder’s derivative lawsuit entitled Berg v. Guthart et al., No. 4:14-CV-00515, to be filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit named the Company as a nominal defendant and named a number of the Company’s current and former officers and directors as defendants. The plaintiff sought to recover, on the Company’s behalf, unspecified damages purportedly sustained by the Company in connection with allegedly misleading statements and/or omissions made in connection with the Company’s financial reporting for the period between 2012 and early 2014. The plaintiff also sought a series of changes to the Company’s corporate governance policies and an award of attorneys’ fees. On April 3, 2014, the case was related to In re Intuitive Surgical Securities Litigation. On July 30, 2014, the court granted Berg’s motion to be appointed lead plaintiff, denied the City of Birmingham’s motion seeking such appointment (see below for additional description), and retitled the matter In re Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, No. 4:14-CV-00515. On August 13, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint, making allegations substantially similar to the allegations in the original complaint. On September 12, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, which the court denied on November 16, 2015. On January 26, 2016, the Company moved to stay this lawsuit in favor of Public School Teachers’ Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago v. Guthart et al. (see below for additional description). While the motion was pending, the Company and the plaintiff agreed in principle that the plaintiff would file a motion to intervene in the Public School Teachers’ Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago action. Following additional negotiations, the plaintiff filed an unopposed motion to intervene on April 29, 2016. After additional briefing, on May 23, 2016, the court in the Public School Teachers’ Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago action granted the motion. Accordingly, on May 31, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation requesting that the court stay In re Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, which the court granted on June 2, 2016. Additional discussions between the parties ensued, and on September 15, 2016, they executed a confidential Memorandum of Understanding that contained the essential terms of a settlement to which the parties agreed in principle. That settlement, as later finalized, provided for a dismissal with prejudice and release of all claims brought in both the In re Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation action and the Public School Teachers’ Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago action, as well as City of Plantation Police Officers’ Employees’ Retirement System v. Guthart et al. (see below for additional description). The settlement, which also included terms that required the Company to reimburse the plaintiffs’ lawyers’ legal fees, was approved by the court in the Public School Teachers’ Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago action on October 20, 2017, following the notice process described below. Accordingly, on December 26, 2017, the parties in the In re Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation action filed a stipulation requesting that the court dismiss the action with prejudice. The court entered the stipulation later the same day, and the matter is now resolved.

On February 21, 2014, a second alleged stockholder caused a substantially similar purported stockholder’s derivative lawsuit entitled Public School Teachers’ Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago v. Guthart et al., No. CIV 526930, to be filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, against the same parties and seeking the same relief. On March 26, 2014, the case was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, where it was related to In re Intuitive Surgical Securities Litigation and Berg v. Guthart on April 30, 2014. The district court remanded the case back to San Mateo County Superior Court on June 30, 2014. On August 28, 2014, the Company filed a motion seeking to stay the case in favor of the federal action and asking that the plaintiff be required to post a bond on the grounds that the action was duplicative and was not in the Company’s best interests. On November 13, 2014, the superior court entered an order denying in part the Company’s motion to stay and denying the Company’s request for plaintiff’s bond. On November 18, 2014, the Company petitioned the First Appellate District of the California, Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate directing the superior court to stay the case in its entirety. At the same time, the Company requested an immediate stay of proceedings pending resolution of the petition. On November 19, 2014, the court of appeal granted the Company’s request for an immediate stay of the proceedings and set a briefing schedule for the petition. The plaintiff filed its opposition to the petition on December 8, 2014, and the Company filed its reply on December 22, 2014. The petition was denied on January 8, 2015. On January 20, 2015, the Company filed a demurrer (moved to dismiss the complaint). The plaintiff filed its opposition to the demurrer on February 10, 2015, and the Company filed its reply on February 20, 2015. A hearing was held on February 27, 2015, and the court overruled the demurrer on March 27, 2015. The court’s order was entered on April 2, 2015. On June 19, 2015, the Company moved for summary judgment, and a hearing on the Company’s motion was set for September 4, 2015. On July 6, 2015, the court amended the case schedule, and the Company withdrew its motion for summary judgment. The court later further amended the case schedule, and trial was eventually reset for September 16, 2016. On May 23, 2016, the court granted an unopposed motion to intervene filed by the plaintiffs in In re Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation and City of Birmingham Relief and Retirement System v. Guthart et al. (see above and below for additional description). The Company filed a new motion for summary judgment on June 1, 2016, and the plaintiff filed a motion for summary adjudication regarding certain affirmative defenses on June 2, 2016. Following opposition and reply briefing, the court heard argument on the motions for summary judgment and summary adjudication on August 24, 2016. While the motions were pending, on September 15, 2016, the parties executed the confidential Memorandum of Understanding described above, which contained the essential terms of a settlement to which the parties agreed in principle. The parties notified the court of the Memorandum of Understanding on September 15, 2016, and on September 16, 2016, the court entered an order vacating the trial date and ruling that the motions for summary judgment and summary adjudication (along with other pre-trial motions) were moot. The parties finalized the settlement over the ensuing months, appearing before the court periodically to keep it apprised of their progress. The final settlement provided for a dismissal with prejudice and release of all claims brought in the Public School Teachers’ Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago action, as well as the In re Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation action and the City of Plantation Police Officers’ Employees’ Retirement System action and the other similar derivative cases (see above and below, respectively, for additional description). The settlement also included terms that required the Company to reimburse the plaintiffs’ lawyers’ legal fees. On July 7, 2017, the plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, and on July 18, 2017, the Company filed a statement of non-opposition. On August 9, 2017, the court entered an order preliminarily approving settlement, providing for notice to the Company’s shareholders, and setting a final settlement hearing. On October 20, 2017, the final settlement was approved by the court. During the year ended December 31, 2017, the Company recorded $11.7 million, respectively, of pre-tax charges to reflect the cost of settling this matter. As of December 31, 2017, the final settlement was paid in full.

On March 21, 2014, a third alleged stockholder caused a substantially similar purported stockholder’s derivative lawsuit entitled City of Birmingham Relief and Retirement System v. Guthart et al., No. 5-14-CV-01307, to be filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the same parties and seeking the same relief. On April 8, 2014, the lawsuit was related to In re Intuitive Surgical Securities Litigation and Berg v. Guthart. On July 30, 2014, the court consolidated the case with Berg v. Guthart and, as noted above, granted Berg’s motion to be appointed lead plaintiff and denied the City of Birmingham’s motion seeking such appointment. Accordingly, the City of Birmingham Relief and Retirement System action was resolved by the settlement of the In re Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation action (see above for additional description), and was subject to the December 26, 2017 stipulated dismissal of that action with prejudice. The matter is now resolved.

On June 3, 2014, a fourth alleged stockholder caused a substantially similar purported stockholder’s derivative lawsuit entitled City of Plantation Police Officers’ Employees’ Retirement System v. Guthart et al., C.A. No. 9726-CB, to be filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The Company filed a motion to stay proceedings in favor of the earlier-filed stockholder derivative lawsuits pending in federal and state courts in California. In light of the Company’s motion, the plaintiff agreed to a stay of all proceedings in the case in favor of the earlier-filed actions. While the case was stayed, the parties agreed that the plaintiff would file a motion to intervene in the Public School Teachers’ Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago action (see above for additional description). The plaintiff filed an unopposed motion to intervene on April 29, 2016. After additional briefing, on May 23, 2016, the court in the Public School Teachers’ Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago action granted the plaintiff’s motion. However, on June 21, 2016, in response to discovery requests, the plaintiff admitted that it did not continuously hold the Company’s stock during all relevant times. Accordingly, on July 21, 2016, the plaintiff filed a request for dismissal as an additional plaintiff in the Public School Teachers’ Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago action, which the court in that action granted with prejudice on July 22, 2016. On September 15, 2016, the parties executed the confidential Memorandum of Understanding described above, which contained the essential terms of a settlement to which the parties had agreed in principle. That settlement, as later finalized, provided for a dismissal with prejudice and release of all claims brought in the City of Plantation Police Officers’ Employees’ Retirement System action, as well as both the In re Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation action and the Public School Teachers’ Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago action (see above for additional description). The settlement, which also included terms that required the Company to reimburse the plaintiffs’ lawyers’ legal fees, was approved by the court in the Public School Teachers’ Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago action as described above. Accordingly, on December 26, 2017, the parties in the City of Plantation Police Officers’ Employees’ Retirement System action filed a stipulation requesting that the court dismiss the action with prejudice. The court entered the stipulation on December 29, 2017, and the matter is now resolved.

On March 5, 2015, a fifth alleged stockholder caused a substantially similar purported stockholder’s derivative lawsuit entitled Back v. Guthart et al., No. 3:15-CV-01037, to be filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On April 7, 2015, the lawsuit was related to In re Intuitive Surgical Securities Litigation and Berg v. Guthart. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on July 10, 2015. On August 13, 2015, the parties stipulated to a complete stay of the matter and the court entered an order reflecting the stay on August 17, 2015. On September 11, 2017, the plaintiff filed a motion to lift the stay and reopen the case and for leave to file amended complaint. On September 25, 2017, the individual defendants filed an opposition to plaintiffs’ motion, which the Company joined on September 26, 2017. Plaintiff filed his reply October 2, 2017, and the Court set a hearing for January 25, 2018. While the motion was pending however, the settlement described above was approved by the court in the Public School Teachers’ Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago action. Accordingly, on November 22, 2017, the parties in the Back action filed a stipulation requesting that the court dismiss the action with prejudice. The court entered the stipulation later the same day, and the matter is now resolved.

Product Liability Litigation

The Company is currently named as a defendant in approximately 43 individual product liability lawsuits filed in various state and federal courts by plaintiffs who allege that they or a family member underwent surgical procedures that utilized the da Vinci Surgical System and sustained a variety of personal injuries and, in some cases death as a result of such surgery. The Company has also received a large number of product liability claims from plaintiffs’ attorneys, many of which are subject to certain tolling agreements further discussed below. The Company has also been named as a defendant in a multi-plaintiff lawsuit filed in Missouri state court. In total, plaintiffs in that case seek damages on behalf of 55 patients from 22 different states who had surgeries in which their surgeons used the da Vinci Surgical System. Several of the filed cases have trial dates in the next 12 months.

The cases raise a variety of allegations including, to varying degrees, that plaintiffs’ injuries resulted from purported defects in the da Vinci Surgical System and/or failure on the Company’s part to provide adequate training resources to the healthcare professionals who performed plaintiffs’ surgeries. The cases further allege that the Company failed to adequately disclose and/or misrepresented the potential risks and/or benefits of the da Vinci Surgical System. Plaintiffs also assert a variety of causes of action, including for example, strict liability based on purported design defects, negligence, fraud, breach of express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and loss of consortium. Plaintiffs seek recovery for alleged personal injuries and, in many cases, punitive damages.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys have also engaged in well-funded national advertising efforts seeking patients dissatisfied with surgery utilizing the da Vinci Surgical System. The Company has received a significant number of such claims from plaintiffs’ attorneys that it believes are a result of these advertising efforts. A substantial number of claims relate to alleged complications from surgeries performed with certain versions of Monopolar Curved Scissor (“MCS”) instruments which included an MCS tip cover accessory that was the subject of a market withdrawal in 2012 and MCS instruments that were the subject of a recall in 2013. In an effort to avoid the expense and distraction of defending multiple lawsuits, the Company entered into tolling agreements to pause the applicable statutes of limitations for many of these claims and engaged in confidential mediation efforts.

After an extended confidential mediation process with legal counsel for many of the claimants covered by the tolling agreements, the Company determined during 2014 that, while it denies any and all liability, in light of the costs and risks of litigation, settlement of certain claims was appropriate. During the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015, the Company recorded $16.3 million, $8.3 million, and $13.8 million, respectively, of pre-tax charges to reflect the estimated cost of settling a number of the product liability claims covered by the tolling agreements. As of December 31, 2017, and 2016, a total of $12.8 million and $20.5 million, respectively, were included in other accrued liabilities in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets related to the pending product-liability cases and the tolled product liability claims.

The Company’s estimate of the anticipated cost of resolving both the pending cases and the tolled claims is based on negotiations with attorneys for claimants who have participated in the mediation process. Nonetheless, it is possible that more claims will be made by additional individuals and that the claimants whose claims were not resolved through the mediation program, as well as those claimants who have not participated in mediations, will choose to pursue greater amounts in a court of law. Consequently, the final outcome of these claims is dependent on many variables that are difficult to predict and the ultimate cost associated with these product liability claims may be materially different than the amount of the current estimate and accruals and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, and future results of operations. Although there is a reasonable possibility that a loss in excess of the amount recognized exists, the Company is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amount recognized at this time.

In February 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in a product liability action that had originally been filed in Washington State Superior Court for Kitsap County against the healthcare providers and hospital involved in a decedent’s surgery on such decedent’s behalf (Josette Taylor, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Fred E. Taylor, deceased; and on behalf of the Estate of Fred E. Taylor v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 09-2-03136-5). In Taylor, plaintiff asserted wrongful death and product liability claims against the Company, generally alleging that the decedent died four years after surgery as a result of injuries purportedly suffered during the surgery, which was conducted with the use of the da Vinci Surgical System. The plaintiff in Taylor asserted that such injuries were caused, in whole or in part, by the Company’s purported failure to properly train, warn, and instruct the surgeon. The lawsuit sought unspecified damages for past medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of consortium as well as punitive damages. A trial commenced on April 15, 2013. On May 23, 2013, the jury returned a defense verdict, finding that the Company was not negligent. Judgment was entered in the Company’s favor on June 7, 2013. Subsequent to the verdict, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. That appeal was denied on July 7, 2015. On July 27, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration with the court of appeal; the court of appeal denied the motion for reconsideration on August 10, 2015. On September 9, 2015, plaintiff filed a Petition for Review with the Washington State Supreme Court (“Washington Supreme Court”). On February 10, 2016, the Washington Supreme Court issued an order granting the plaintiff’s Petition for Review. Oral argument on the appeal before the Washington Supreme Court was heard on June 7, 2016. On February 9, 2017, the Washington Supreme Court vacated the defense verdict and remanded the case for retrial. In November 2017, the Company reached a confidential settlement with the plaintiff, which did not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, or future results of operations.

Patent Litigation

On June 30, 2017, Ethicon LLC, Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., and Ethicon US LLC (collectively, “Ethicon”) filed a complaint for patent infringement against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint, which was served on the Company on July 12, 2017, alleges that the Company’s EndoWrist Stapler instruments infringe several of Ethicon’s patents. Based on currently available information, the Company is unable to make a reasonable estimate of loss or range of losses, if any, arising from this matter.