XML 39 R20.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.8.0.1

Litigation and Related Matters | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Litigation and Related Matters | Litigation and Related Matters On June 9, 2010, Smith & Nephew, Inc. ("Smith & Nephew") filed suit against Interlace Medical, Inc. ("Interlace"), which the Company acquired on January 6, 2011, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint alleged that the Interlace MyoSure hysteroscopic tissue removal device infringed U.S. patent 7,226,459 (the '459 patent). On November 22, 2011, Smith & Nephew filed suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint alleged that use of the MyoSure tissue removal system infringed U.S. patent 8,061,359 (the '359 patent). Both complaints sought preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and unspecified damages. On September 4, 2012, following a two week trial, the jury returned a verdict of infringement of both the '459 and '359 patents and assessed damages of $4.0 million. A two-day bench trial regarding the Company’s assertion of inequitable conduct on the part of Smith & Nephew with regard to the '359 patent began on December 10, 2012 and oral arguments on the issue of inequitable conduct were presented on February 27, 2013. On June 27, 2013, the Court denied the Company’s motions related to inequitable conduct and allowed Smith & Nephew’s request for injunction, but ordered that enforcement of the injunction be stayed until final resolution, including appeal, of the current re-examinations of both patents at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). The Court also rejected the jury’s damage award and ordered the parties to identify a mechanism for resolving the damages issue. The USPTO issued final decisions that the claims of the '459 and the '359 patents asserted as part of the litigation are not patentable, which decisions Smith & Nephew appealed to the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In 2016, the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (i) affirmed the USPTO decision with respect to the '459 patent, holding that the claims at issue are invalid, and (ii) reversed the USPTO decision with respect to the '359 patent, holding that the claims at issue are not invalid. The Company and Smith & Nephew have appealed the decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on the '359 patent and the '459 patent, respectively, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Briefing on both appeals was completed on June 7, 2017. Oral argument on the ‘459 patent took place on October 4, 2017, and oral argument on the ‘359 patent is scheduled for December 7, 2017. At this time, based on available information regarding this litigation, the Company is unable to reasonably assess the ultimate outcome of this case or determine an estimate, or a range of estimates, of potential losses. On April 11, 2017, Minerva Surgical, Inc. (“Minerva”) filed suit against the Company and Cytyc Surgical Products, LLC (“Cytyc”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that the Company’s and Cytyc’s NovaSure ADVANCED endometrial ablation device infringes Minerva’s U.S. patent 9,186,208. Minerva is seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction against the Company and Cytyc from selling this NovaSure device as well as enhanced damages and interest, including lost profits, price erosion and/or royalty. A hearing on Minerva’s motion is scheduled for December 14, 2017. At this time, based on available information regarding this litigation, the Company is unable to reasonably assess the ultimate outcome of this case or determine an estimate, or a range of estimates, of potential losses. In January 2012, Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. ("Enzo") filed suit against the Company's subsidiary, Gen-Probe Incorporated ("Gen-Probe"), in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that certain of Gen-Probe’s diagnostics products, including products that incorporate Gen-Probe’s hybridization protection assay technology (HPA), which include the Aptima line of products, infringe Enzo’s U.S. patent 6,992,180 (the '180 patent). On March 6, 2012, Enzo filed suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that products based on the Company's Invader chemistry platform, such as Cervista HPV HR and Cervista HPV 16/18, infringe the '180 patent. On July 16, 2012, Enzo amended its complaint to include additional products that include HPA or TaqMan reagent chemistry, including the Progensa, AccuProbe and Prodesse product lines. The Company counter-claimed for non-infringement, invalidity and unenforceability of the '180 patent. On September 30, 2013, Enzo filed its infringement contentions which added products including "Torch" probes (e.g., MilliPROBE Real-Time Detection System for Mycoplasma), PACE and certain Procleix assays. Both complaints seek preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and unspecified damages. Enzo asserted the '180 patent claims against six other companies, three of which have settled with Enzo. Summary judgment and Daubert motions were filed by the parties on December 15, 2016. A hearing on the summary judgment motions was held on April 4, 2017, and on June 28, 2017, the Court ruled that the '180 patent is invalid for nonenablement. Final judgment was entered in the case on July 19, 2017, and on August 18, 2017, Enzo filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Enzo’s initial brief in support of its appeal is due on November 28, 2017. At this time, based on available information regarding this litigation, the Company is unable to reasonably assess the ultimate outcome of this case or determine an estimate, or a range of estimates, of potential losses. On March 27, 2015, Enzo filed an additional suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges that certain additional Company molecular diagnostic products, including, inter alia, the Procleix Parvo/HAV assays and coagulation products, including the Invader Factor II test and the Invader Factor V test, also infringe the '180 patent. The complaint further alleged that certain of the Company’s molecular diagnostic products, including the Company’s Progensa PCA3, Aptima and Procleix products using target capture technology infringe Enzo’s U. S. Patent 7,064,197 (the '197 patent). On June 11, 2015, this matter was stayed, and remains stayed, pending the resolution of summary judgment motions in other related suits involving the '197 patent. On March 30, 2016, Hologic filed two requests for inter partes review of the ‘197 patent at the USPTO. The USPTO instituted the two inter partes reviews on all challenged claims on October 4, 2016. Combined oral arguments for the two inter partes reviews were held on June 1, 2017. On September 28 and October 2, 2017, the PTAB issued final written decisions in the two inter partes reviews finding that all of the challenged claims of the’197 patent are unpatentable. Enzo will have an opportunity to appeal the decisions of the USPTO to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. At this time, based on available information regarding this litigation and the related inter partes reviews, the Company is unable to reasonably assess the ultimate outcome of this case or determine an estimate, or a range of estimates, of potential losses. On October 3, 2016, Enzo filed an additional suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges that all of the Company's Progensa PCA3, Aptima and Procleix products infringe U.S. Patent 6,221,581 (the '581 patent). On November 28, 2016, the Company filed an answer and counterclaims of non-infringement, invalidity and unenforceability. On June 30, 2017, Hologic filed its initial invalidity contentions, which provide support for finding that the asserted claims of the '581 patent are invalid based on anticipation, obviousness, lack of adequate written description and enablement, and indefiniteness. On August 31, 2017, the Company and Enzo filed supplemental invalidity charts and supplemental infringement charts, respectively. On October 4, 2017, the Company filed for inter partes review of the ‘581 patent with the USPTO based on Enzo’s asserted claims. A decision on whether to institute inter partes review is expected in April 2018. At this time, based on available information regarding this litigation and the related request for inter partes review, the Company is unable to reasonably assess the ultimate outcome of this case or determine an estimate, or a range of estimates, of potential losses. On February 3, 2017, bioMérieux, S.A. and bioMérieux, Inc. (collectively “bioMérieux”) filed suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The complaint alleges that the Company’s Aptima HIV-1 RNA Qualitative assay and Aptima HIV-1 Quant Dx assay, as well as products manufactured by the Company and sold to Grifols, S.A. and Grifols Diagnostic Solutions Inc. (“Grifols USA”) for resale under the names Procleix HIV-1/HCV assay, Procleix Ultrio assay, and Procleix Ultrio Plus assay, infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 8,697,352 and 9,074,262. On April 3, 2017, the Company and Grifols USA filed a motion to dismiss asking the Court to dismiss the complaint in its entirety for bioMérieux’s failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On June 9, 2017, Hologic and Grifols USA filed a supplemental motion to dismiss for improper venue. bioMérieux filed a response to the venue motion on June 30, 2017, and Hologic and Grifols USA responded by filing a brief in further support of their motion to dismiss for improper venue on July 14, 2017. At this time, based on available information regarding this litigation, the Company is unable to reasonably assess the ultimate outcome of this case or determine an estimate, or range of estimates, of potential losses. On July 27, 2016, plaintiff ARcare, Inc., individually and as putative representative of a purported nationwide class, filed a complaint against Cynosure. The plaintiff alleges that Cynosure violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by: (i) sending fax advertisements that did not comply with statutory and Federal Communications Commission requirements that senders provide recipients with certain information about how to opt out from receiving faxed advertisements in the future; and (ii) sending unsolicited fax advertisements. The complaint sought damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees on behalf of a purported class of all recipients of purported fax advertisements that the plaintiff alleges did not receive an adequate opt-out notice. On September 30, 2016, Cynosure answered the complaint and denied liability. On September 7, 2016, the plaintiff sent a demand letter seeking a class settlement for statutory damages under Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 93A § 9 (“Chapter 93A”). On October 7, 2016, Cynosure responded denying any liability under Chapter 93A, but offering the plaintiff statutory damages of $25 on an individual basis. In March 2017, Cynosure and ARcare entered into a settlement agreement, subject to court approval, which requires Cynosure to pay settlement compensation of $8.5 million notwithstanding the number of claims filed. If approved, Cynosure would receive a full release from the settlement class concerning the conduct alleged in the complaint. A preliminary approval hearing was held on November 6, 2017. As a result of the settlement agreement, Cynosure recorded a charge of $9.2 million, in the period ended December 31, 2016, which was accrued on the Company's balance sheet as of September 30, 2017. On March 17, 2017, prior to the consummation of Hologic’s acquisition of Cynosure, Hologic received a written demand for appraisal from BlueMountain Capital Management LLC and its affiliates with respect to 1,200,000 shares of Cynosure (value of $79.2 million at $66.00 per share). On April 17, 2017, the shareholders filed a Petition for Appraisal of Stock in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware requesting appraisal and payment of the fair value of their shares. The Company filed a response on May 5, 2017. On August 30, 2017, the shareholders withdrew their Petition, and the matter is fully resolved. On March 17, 2017, a purported shareholder of Cynosure, Michael Guido, filed an action against Cynosure in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law seeking the production of certain books and records, including books and records related to the acquisition of Cynosure by Hologic. The action follows Cynosure’s rejection of Mr. Guido’s demand for these books and records on the ground that he had not met the requirements of the statute. In addition to books and records, the complaint seeks reasonable attorneys’ fees. The Company filed an answer to the complaint on April 10, 2017. On June 29, 2017, the parties agreed to stay all proceedings in the action and to suspend all the current deadlines in an attempt to resolve the matter. Hologic has since provided certain board minutes and materials to plaintiff's counsel on a Rule 408 "settlement purposes only" basis, and plaintiff's counsel is evaluating whether or not they intend to continue to pursue the action. At this time, based on available information regarding this matter, the Company is unable to reasonably assess the ultimate outcome of this case or determine an estimate, or range of estimates, of potential losses. The Company is a party to various other legal proceedings and claims arising out of the ordinary course of its business. The Company believes that except for those matters described above there are no other proceedings or claims pending against it the ultimate resolution of which could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of operations. In all cases, at each reporting period, the Company evaluates whether or not a potential loss amount or a potential range of loss is probable and reasonably estimable under ASC 450, Contingencies. Legal costs are expensed as incurred.

X
- Definition Litigation And Other Matters [Text Block] + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | holx_LitigationAndOtherMattersTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | holx_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

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