CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
CONTINGENCIES	Jun. 30, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
CONTINGENCIES	CONTINGENCIES From time to time, the Company is involved in a variety of claims, lawsuits, investigations, and proceedings relating to securities laws, product liability, intellectual property, commercial, 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 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 the 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 condition, or future results of operations. 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 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. The Company disputes these allegations and is defending against these claims. The Company’s estimate of the anticipated cost of resolving the pending cases is based on negotiations with attorneys for the claimants. The final outcome of the pending lawsuits and claims, and others that might arise, is dependent on many variables that are difficult to predict, and the ultimate cost associated with these product liability lawsuits and 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 condition, or 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 (“’658”); 8,479,969 (“’969”); 9,113,874 (“’874”); 8,998,058 (“’058”); 8,991,677 (“’677”); 9,084,601 (“’601”); and 8,616,431 (“’431”). A claim construction hearing occurred on October 1, 2018, and the Court issued a scheduling order on December 28, 2018. On March 20, 2019, the Court granted the Company’s Motion to Stay pending an Inter Partes Review to be held at the Patent Trademark and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) to review patentability of six of the seven patents noted above and vacated the trial date. On August 1, 2019, the Court granted the parties’ joint stipulation to modify the stay in light of Ethicon’s U.S. International Trade Commission (“USITC”) complaint against Intuitive involving U.S. Patent Nos. 8,479,969 and 9,113,874. The PTAB has issued final written decisions finding the asserted claims of Patent Nos. ’658, ’058, ’677, ’601, and ’431 unpatentable. On October 3, 2023, Ethicon confirmed that it would not further appeal the decisions by the USITC in that proceeding that claim 24 of the ’969 Patent and claim 19 of the ’874 Patent were not infringed by the asserted Intuitive products and that those patents were invalid. Outside of the above USITC proceeding, on October 4, 2023, the parties filed a Joint Status Report in the district court in which Ethicon stated that it was prepared to proceed in this case with respect to its allegations that the accused EndoWrist Stapler instruments infringe asserted claim 24 of the ’969 Patent and asserted claim 20 of the ’874 Patent. On May 15, 2024, the trial court granted the Company’s motion to supplement the record with evidence and arguments from the ITC proceeding. On June 5, 2024, the Court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice. On October 19, 2022, a jury rendered a verdict against the Company awarding $10 million in damages to Rex Medical, L.P. in a patent infringement lawsuit. On September 20, 2023, the court granted the Company’s post-trial motion and reduced the damages to Rex Medical L.P. to nominal damages of $1. On October 18, 2023, Rex Medical filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and, on October 31, 2023, Intuitive filed its notice of cross appeal. Based on currently available information, the Company does not believe that any losses arising from this matter would be material. Commercial Litigation On May 10, 2021, Surgical Instrument Service Company, Inc. (“SIS”) filed a complaint in the Northern District of California Court alleging antitrust claims against the Company relating to EndoWrist service, maintenance, and repair processes. The Court granted in part and denied in part the Company’s Motion to Dismiss, and discovery has commenced. The Company filed an answer denying the antitrust allegations and filed counterclaims against SIS. The counterclaims allege that SIS violated the Federal Lanham Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law, and California’s False Advertising Law and that SIS is also liable to the Company for Unfair Competition and Tortious Interference with Contract. The parties have filed summary judgment and Daubert motions, and the court held a hearing on these motions on September 7, 2023. On March 31, 2024, the Court granted-in-part and denied-in-part both Intuitive’s and plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment, and issued additional rulings related to expert witnesses. The Court did not rule in favor of either party with respect to whether the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) requires 510(k) clearance for plaintiff’s services with respect to EndoWrists. In conjunction with this finding, the Court denied Intuitive’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s antitrust claims and found that these claims could proceed to trial. In addition, the Court ruled with Intuitive in dismissing plaintiff’s false statement claims against Intuitive, and the Court ruled with plaintiff in dismissing certain of Intuitive’s counterclaims against plaintiff. The Court has set a trial in this matter to commence on January 6, 2025. 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. Three class action complaints were filed against the Company in the Northern District of California Court alleging antitrust allegations relating to the service and repair of certain instruments manufactured by the Company. A complaint by Larkin Community Hospital was filed on May 20, 2021, a complaint by Franciscan Alliance, Inc. and King County Public Hospital District No. 1 was filed on July 6, 2021, and a complaint by Kaleida Health was filed on July 8, 2021. The Court has consolidated the Franciscan Alliance, Inc. and King County Public Hospital District No. 1 and Kaleida Health cases with the Larkin Community Hospital case, which is now captioned on the Larkin docket as “In Re: da Vinci Surgical Robot Antitrust Litigation.” A Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint has been filed on behalf of each plaintiff named in the earlier-filed cases. On January 14, 2022, Kaleida Health voluntarily dismissed itself as a party to this case. On January 18, 2022, the Company filed an answer against the plaintiffs in this matter, and discovery has commenced. With regard to this class action case, on September 7, 2023, the Court heard argument on the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment and motions related to expert testimony. On March 31, 2024, the Court granted-in-part and denied-in-part plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on certain market definition issues, and denied Intuitive’s motion on the antitrust claims. In denying Intuitive’s motion, the Court declined to decide whether third-party companies were required to obtain 510(k) clearance for their services with respect to EndoWrists, and in the absence of a formal ruling from the FDA on that question denied Intuitive’s motion for summary judgment challenging plaintiffs’ standing on that ground. There were additional rulings on the expert witness issues as well. In the summary judgment order, the Court ruled with plaintiffs that the da Vinci robot and EndoWrist instruments occupy separate product markets for antitrust purposes. The Court also ruled that there is an antitrust aftermarket for the repair and replacement of EndoWrist instruments, and that Intuitive holds monopoly power in that aftermarket. The Court denied summary judgment for plaintiffs on the issue of whether soft-tissue surgical robots constitute a relevant antitrust market or are part of a larger market that includes laparoscopic and open surgery for antitrust purposes. The Court has set a class certification hearing for October 10, 2024. 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, and no trial date has been set for this matter at this time.