XML 27 R16.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.2

Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | NOTE H – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The medical device market in which we participate is largely technology driven. As a result, intellectual property rights, particularly patents and trade secrets, play a significant role in product development and differentiation. In the normal course of business, product liability, securities and commercial claims are asserted against us. Similar claims may be asserted against us in the future related to events not known to management at the present time. In addition, like other companies in the medical device industry, we are subject to extensive regulation by national, state and local government agencies in the U.S. and other countries in which we operate. From time to time we are the subject of qui tam actions and governmental investigations often involving regulatory, marketing and other business practices. These qui tam actions and governmental investigations could result in the commencement of civil and criminal proceedings, substantial fines, penalties and administrative remedies and have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and/or liquidity. For additional information, refer to Note K – Commitments and Contingencies to our audited financial statements contained in Item 8 of our most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K. In accordance with FASB ASC Topic 450, Contingencies, we accrue anticipated costs of settlement, damages, losses for product liability claims and, under certain conditions, costs of defense, based on historical experience or to the extent specific losses are probable and estimable. Otherwise, we expense these costs as incurred. If the estimate of a probable loss is a range and no amount within the range is more likely, we accrue the minimum amount of the range. We record certain legal and product liability charges, credits and costs of defense, which we consider to be unusual or infrequent and significant as Litigation-related net charges (credits) within our accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements. All other legal and product liability charges, credits and costs are recorded within Selling, general and administrative expenses within our accompanying unaudited consolidated statements of operations. We continue to assess certain litigation and claims to determine the amounts, if any, that management believes will be paid as a result of such claims and litigation and, therefore, additional losses may be accrued and paid in the future, which could materially adversely impact our operating results, cash flows and/or our ability to comply with our financial covenant. Our accrual for legal matters that are probable and estimable was $514 million as of June 30, 2022 and $548 million as of December 31, 2021 and includes certain estimated costs of settlement, damages and defense primarily related to product liability cases or claims related to our transvaginal surgical mesh products. A portion of this accrual is already funded through our qualified settlement fund (QSF), which is included in restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents in Other current assets of $132 million as of June 30, 2022 and $188 million as of December 31, 2021. Refer to Note F – Supplemental Balance Sheet Information for additional information. We recorded litigation-related net charges of $42 million during the second quarter and first six months of 2022, $298 million during the second quarter of 2021 and $302 million during the first six months of 2021. During recent years, we successfully negotiated closure of several long-standing legal matters and have received favorable rulings in several other matters; however, there continues to be outstanding litigation. Adverse outcomes in one or more of these matters could have a material adverse effect on our ability to sell certain products and on our operating margins, financial position, results of operations and/or liquidity. In management's opinion, we are not currently involved in any legal proceedings other than those disclosed in our most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K and those specifically identified below, which, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, operations and/or cash flows. Unless included in our legal accrual or otherwise indicated below, a range of loss associated with any individual material legal proceeding cannot be reasonably estimated. Patent Litigation On October 28, 2015, the Company filed suit against Cook Group Limited and Cook Medical LLC (collectively, Cook) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (1:15-cv-00980) alleging infringement of certain Company patents regarding Cook’s Instinct™ Endoscopic Hemoclip. The Company seeks lost profits, a reasonable royalty and a permanent injunction. The case was transferred to the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. Cook filed Inter Partes Review (IPR) requests with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) against four then-asserted patents, which resulted in the court staying the case until 2020. All IPRs concluded and confirmed the validity of certain claims of each challenged patent. The case is proceeding before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, with the Company asserting three patents against Cook. Trial is anticipated in February 2023. The Company has also asserted patents against Cook in Germany and the United Kingdom. In January 2022, the Düsseldorf Regional Court, Patent Litigation Chamber ruled that Cook’s Instinct Endoscopic Clip technology infringes the Company’s patent, EP 3 023 061. The Düsseldorf Court granted an ex parte preliminary injunction giving the Company the right to enjoin Cook (Cook Medical EUDC GmbH, Germany, Cook Deutschland GmbH, Germany and Cook Medical Europe Ltd., Ireland) from offering and selling Instinct Endoscopic Clips in Germany. Product Liability Litigation As of June 30, 2022, in the United States, approximately 55,000 product liability cases or claims related to transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse have been asserted against us. Outside the United States, approximately 2,700 cases or claims have been asserted, predominantly in Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland and Australia. Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages based on allegations of personal injury associated with the use of our transvaginal surgical mesh products, including design and manufacturing claims, failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims. As of June 30, 2022, we have entered into master settlement agreements in principle or are in the final stages of entering one with certain plaintiffs' counsel to resolve an aggregate of approximately 53,000 cases and claims in the United States, adjusted to reflect the Company's analysis of expected non-participation and duplicate claims. These master settlement agreements provide that the settlement and distribution of settlement funds to participating claimants are conditional upon, among other things, achieving minimum required claimant participation thresholds. Of the approximately 53,000 cases and claims, approximately 52,000 have met the conditions of the settlement and are final. In Canada, we have settled approximately 300 claims. In Australia, the Company has reached a settlement, subject to court approval, that resolves the approximately 2,300 claims asserted in the consolidated class action filed against the Company in the first quarter of 2021. All settlement agreements were entered into solely by way of compromise and without any admission or concession by us of any liability or wrongdoing. As of June 30, 2022, the company is facing fewer than 90 cases and claims in the United Kingdom and Canada. In April 2021 the Company's Board of Directors received a shareholder demand under section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, for inspection of books and records. The Company has notified our insurer and retained counsel to respond to the demand. On April 16, 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ordered that all manufacturers of surgical mesh products indicated for the transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse stop selling and distributing their products in the United States immediately, stemming from the FDA’s 2016 reclassification of these devices to class III (high risk) devices, and as a result, the Company ceased global sales and distribution of surgical mesh products indicated for transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse. In February 2021, the Multi-District Litigation (MDL) established in February 2012 by the United States Federal Courts was closed after all pending cases were dismissed or remanded to courts of primary jurisdiction. We have established a product liability accrual for known and estimated future cases and claims asserted against us as well as with respect to the actions that have resulted in verdicts against us and the costs of defense thereof associated with our transvaginal surgical mesh products. We continue to engage in discussions with plaintiffs’ counsel regarding potential resolution of pending cases and claims. We continue to vigorously contest the cases and claims asserted against us that do not settle, and expect that more cases will go to trial through 2023. The final resolution of the cases and claims is uncertain and could have a material impact on our results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. Trials involving our transvaginal surgical mesh products have resulted in both favorable and unfavorable judgments for us. We do not believe that the judgment in any one trial is representative of potential outcomes of all cases or claims related to our transvaginal surgical mesh products. We are currently named a defendant in 127 filed product liability cases involving our Greenfield Vena Cava Filter, which we discontinued marketing and actively selling in the fourth quarter of 2018. The plaintiffs assert they are entitled to monetary damages related to alleged injuries, including perforation of the vena cava, post-implant deep vein thrombosis, fracture, and other injuries. Most of the filed cases are part of a consolidated matter in Middlesex County, Massachusetts. We have received notice of approximately 325 claims, none of which have been filed. As of June 30, 2022, we have entered into master settlement agreements with certain plaintiffs' counsel to resolve approximately 225 cases. Governmental Investigations and Qui Tam Matters On December 1, 2015, the Brazilian governmental entity known as CADE (the Administrative Council of Economic Defense), served a search warrant on the offices of our Brazilian subsidiary, as well as on the Brazilian offices of several other major medical device makers who do business in Brazil, in furtherance of an investigation into alleged anti-competitive activity with respect to certain tender offers for government contracts. On June 20, 2017, CADE, through the publication of a “technical note,” announced that it was launching a formal administrative proceeding against Boston Scientific’s Brazilian subsidiary, Boston Scientific do Brasil Ltda. (BSB), as well as against the Brazilian operations of Medtronic, Biotronik and St. Jude Medical, two Brazilian associations, ABIMED and AMBIMO and 29 individuals for alleged anti-competitive behavior. Under applicable guidance, BSB could be fined a percentage of BSB’s 2016 gross revenues. In August 2021, the investigating commissioner issued a preliminary recommendation of liability against all of the involved companies, and also recommended that CADE impose fines and penalties. However, on October 25, 2021, the CADE Attorney General's office recommended dismissal of the charges and allegations against BSB and the individual BSB employees who were still individual defendants. Subsequently, on March 30, 2022, the Federal Prosecutor’s office issued a non-binding recommendation that is contrary to the Attorney General’s recommendation. The full Commission is considering both of these recommendations but has not yet issued its decision. We continue to deny the allegations, intend to defend ourselves vigorously and will appeal any decision of liability by the full Commission to the Brazilian courts. During such an appeal, the decision would have no force and effect, and the Court would consider the case without being bound by CADE’s decision. In March 2022, the Company received a whistleblower letter alleging Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations in Vietnam. The Company is cooperating with government agencies while investigating these allegations. Matters Concluded Since December 31, 2021 On May 16, 2018, Arthur Rosenthal et al., filed a plenary summons against Boston Scientific Corporation and Boston Scientific Limited with the High Court of Ireland alleging that payments were due pursuant a transaction agreement regarding Labcoat Limited, a company Boston Scientific purchased in 2008 that provided coating technology for drug-eluting stents. Labcoat sought monetary damages related to an earn-out provision. On March 25, 2022, the parties agreed to a confidential settlement which resolves the dispute. The settlement did not have a material impact on our financial position or results of operations. On December 9, 2016, the Company and Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation filed a patent infringement action against Nevro Corp. (Nevro) in United States District Court for the District of Delaware (16-cv-1163) alleging that ten U.S. patents owned by Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation are infringed by Nevro's Senza™ Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) System. The company sought lost profits, a reasonable royalty and a permanent injunction. At a trial held in October and November 2021 regarding six of Boston Scientific's originally asserted patent claims, a jury granted Boston Scientific a monetary award, finding that each asserted claim was valid, that four of the six claims were infringed by Nevro, and that two of the claims were willfully infringed by Nevro. On July 29, 2022, the parties reached a confidential settlement agreement, pursuant to which the Company agreed to make a payment to Nevro of $85 million to resolve all pending litigation between the parties, including this matter and the 18-cv-664 and 21-cv-258 matters described below. On April 21, 2018, the Company and Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation filed a patent infringement, theft of trade secrets and tortious interference with a contract action against Nevro in United States District Court for the District of Delaware (18-cv-664), and amended the complaint on July 18, 2018, alleging that nine U.S. patents owned by Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation were infringed by Nevro’s Senza™ I and Senza™ II SCS Systems. On December 9, 2019, Nevro filed an answer and counterclaims, in which it alleged that our SCS systems infringed five Nevro patents. Nevro sought lost profits, a reasonable royalty and a permanent injunction. On July 29, 2022, the parties agreed to a confidential settlement, described above. On February 23, 2021, Nevro filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (21-cv-258). The complaint alleges infringement of five Nevro patents by certain of the Company’s spinal cord stimulation systems. Nevro sought lost profits, a reasonable royalty and a permanent injunction. On July 29, 2022, the parties agreed to a confidential settlement, described above.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration