CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
CONTINGENCIES	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 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. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2018, the Company recorded pre-tax charges of $42.5 million and $47.0 million, respectively, related to the securities class action lawsuits and the tolled product liability claims described below. A total of $58.3 million and $12.8 million associated with these matters were included in other accrued liabilities in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of June 30, 2018, and December 31, 2017, respectively. 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 U.S. 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. 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. On November 2, 2016, Labaton Sucharow LLP filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. On December 22, 2016, the court entered an order granting plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On January 25, 2017, the court entered an order granting plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint. 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. On December 6, 2017, plaintiffs moved for approval of a proposed notice to the class members; the Company partially opposed that motion. The court held a hearing regarding the motion on March 8, 2018, and ordered the parties to edit the proposed notice and submit it to the court for approval. On March 9, 2018, the parties submitted a joint proposed notice, which the court approved on March 12, 2018. On February 9, 2018, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment, which plaintiffs opposed on March 23, 2018. On June 11, 2018, the Company reached an agreement in principle to enter into a settlement agreement which stipulates a payment of $42.5 million by the Company, subject to approval by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The agreement in principle is subject to certain conditions, including court approval of a final settlement agreement. There can be no assurance that the parties will enter into a final settlement agreement or that such agreement will be approved by the court. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2018, the Company recorded a pre-tax charge of $42.5 million for this matter. Product Liability Litigation The Company is currently named as a defendant in a number of individual product liability lawsuits filed in various state and federal courts. The plaintiffs generally 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. Several of these 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. In addition to the filed cases, the Company received a substantial number of claims relating 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. As of June 30, 2018, all such “tolling agreements” have expired and the majority of the “tolled claims” have either been resolved or the matters have been filed. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2018, the Company recorded pre-tax charges of zero and $4.5 million, respectively, compared with $2.5 million and $16.0 million, for the three and six months ended June 30, 2017, respectively, to reflect the estimated cost of settling a number of the product liability claims that are or that had been covered by the tolling agreements. As of June 30, 2018, and December 31, 2017, a total of $15.8 million and $12.8 million, respectively, were included in other accrued liabilities in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets related to the tolled product liability claims. The Company’s estimate of the anticipated cost of resolving the pending cases is based on negotiations with attorneys for the claimants. Nonetheless, it is possible that more claims will be made by additional individuals. 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. 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 U.S. 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. Ethicon asserts infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,585,658, 8,479,969, 9,113,874, 8,998,058, 8,991,677, 9,084,601, and 8,616,431. The parties are currently engaged in fact discovery regarding Ethicon’s allegations. A claim construction hearing is set for October 1, 2018. 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.

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 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. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2018, the Company recorded pre-tax charges of $42.5 million and $47.0 million, respectively, related to the securities class action lawsuits and the tolled product liability claims described below. A total of $58.3 million and $12.8 million associated with these matters were included in other accrued liabilities in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of June 30, 2018, and December 31, 2017, respectively.

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 U.S. 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. 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. On November 2, 2016, Labaton Sucharow LLP filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. On December 22, 2016, the court entered an order granting plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On January 25, 2017, the court entered an order granting plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint. 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.

On December 6, 2017, plaintiffs moved for approval of a proposed notice to the class members; the Company partially opposed that motion. The court held a hearing regarding the motion on March 8, 2018, and ordered the parties to edit the proposed notice and submit it to the court for approval. On March 9, 2018, the parties submitted a joint proposed notice, which the court approved on March 12, 2018. On February 9, 2018, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment, which plaintiffs opposed on March 23, 2018. On June 11, 2018, the Company reached an agreement in principle to enter into a settlement agreement which stipulates a payment of $42.5 million by the Company, subject to approval by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The agreement in principle is subject to certain conditions, including court approval of a final settlement agreement. There can be no assurance that the parties will enter into a final settlement agreement or that such agreement will be approved by the court. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2018, the Company recorded a pre-tax charge of $42.5 million for this matter.

Product Liability Litigation

The Company is currently named as a defendant in a number of individual product liability lawsuits filed in various state and federal courts. The plaintiffs generally 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. Several of these 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.

In addition to the filed cases, the Company received a substantial number of claims relating 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. As of June 30, 2018, all such “tolling agreements” have expired and the majority of the “tolled claims” have either been resolved or the matters have been filed.

During the three and six months ended June 30, 2018, the Company recorded pre-tax charges of zero and $4.5 million, respectively, compared with $2.5 million and $16.0 million, for the three and six months ended June 30, 2017, respectively, to reflect the estimated cost of settling a number of the product liability claims that are or that had been covered by the tolling agreements. As of June 30, 2018, and December 31, 2017, a total of $15.8 million and $12.8 million, respectively, were included in other accrued liabilities in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets related to the tolled product liability claims.

The Company’s estimate of the anticipated cost of resolving the pending cases is based on negotiations with attorneys for the claimants. Nonetheless, it is possible that more claims will be made by additional individuals. 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.

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 U.S. 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. Ethicon asserts infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,585,658, 8,479,969, 9,113,874, 8,998,058, 8,991,677, 9,084,601, and 8,616,431. The parties are currently engaged in fact discovery regarding Ethicon’s allegations. A claim construction hearing is set for October 1, 2018. 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.