XML 31 R14.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.10.0.1

Contingencies Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2018
Loss Contingency [Abstract] |
Contingencies | Contingencies Litigation On March 28, 2016, AgaMatrix, Inc., or AgaMatrix, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against us in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, asserting that certain of our products infringe certain patents held by AgaMatrix. On June 6, 2016, AgaMatrix filed a First Amended Complaint asserting the same three patents. On February 24, 2017, the Court granted AgaMatrix’s motion to substitute WaveForm Technologies, Inc., or WaveForm, as the new plaintiff following AgaMatrix’s transfer of the three patents to its newly formed entity. On August 25, 2016, we filed petitions for inter partes review with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, or PTAB, of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office seeking a determination that two of the three asserted patents are invalid under U.S. patent law and those petitions were granted on March 6, 2017. On March 8, 2017, we filed a petition for inter partes review with the PTAB seeking a determination that the third of the three asserted patents is invalid under U.S. patent law. This petition was granted on September 15, 2017. The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision for each of the first two patents on February 28, 2018, where the PTAB found the majority of asserted claims from the first patent unpatentable and the remaining claims under review not unpatentable. The PTAB found all claims under review from the second patent not unpatentable. We believe the PTAB erred in finding any claims of the first two patents not unpatentable, and appealed the PTAB’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, or Federal Circuit, on March 30, 2018. Briefing of the appeal is complete and we are currently awaiting the dates for oral argument from the Court of Appeals. The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision for the third patent on September 12, 2018, where the PTAB found all claims of the third patent asserted against us in the District of Oregon litigation unpatentable. WaveForm did not appeal this decision. On January 4, 2019, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of all claims and counterclaims regarding the third asserted patent. Most activity in the patent infringement lawsuit against us in the District of Oregon was stayed until the PTAB completed the inter partes review proceedings. That stay was lifted on October 10, 2018. The remaining claims and counterclaims will continue with an estimated date of trial in February 2020. It is our position that Waveform’s assertions of infringement have no merit. We have also filed several lawsuits against AgaMatrix. We filed a patent infringement lawsuit against AgaMatrix in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, or C.D. Cal., which is currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit based on a Final Judgment of non-infringement entered by the C.D. Cal. judge on February 23, 2018. AgaMatrix sought attorneys’ fees for this lawsuit and as of December 31, 2018 we have accrued an immaterial amount for those fees. On September 15, 2017, we filed a patent infringement lawsuit against AgaMatrix in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, asserting certain single-point blood glucose monitoring products of AgaMatrix infringe two patents held by us. In addition, on September 18, 2017, we filed a Complaint against AgaMatrix in the International Trade Commission, referred to as the ITC, requesting that the ITC institute an investigation and issue an order excluding certain products of AgaMatrix from importation into or sale in the United States based on AgaMatrix’s infringement of the same two patents asserted in the Delaware litigation. On September 14, 2018, AgaMatrix filed two petitions for inter partes review for each of the same two patents we asserted in the District of Delaware and the ITC. We filed a response to all four petitions on December 17, 2018. AgaMatrix had requested additional briefing on the matter and the PTAB has authorized both sides to do so. Briefing was completed in January 2019. Neither the outcome of these lawsuits nor the amount and range of potential loss associated with the lawsuits can be assessed at this time. Other than the attorneys’ fees described above, as of December 31, 2018 we have accrued no amounts for contingent losses associated with these suits. We are subject to various claims, complaints and legal actions that arise from time to time in the normal course of business, including commercial insurance, product liability and employment related matters. In addition, from time to time we may bring claims or initiate lawsuits against various third parties with respect to matters arising out of the ordinary course of our business, including commercial and employment related matters. We do not expect that the resolution of these matters would, or will, have a material adverse effect or material impact on our financial position or results of operations.

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for legal proceedings, legal contingencies, litigation, regulatory and environmental matters and other 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 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

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