XML 33 R22.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.19.3

Litigation and Related Matters | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 28, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Litigation and Related Matters | Litigation and Related Matters On November 6, 2015, the Company filed a suit against Minerva Surgical, Inc. (“Minerva”) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that Minerva’s endometrial ablation device infringes U.S. Patent 6,872,183 (the '183 patent), U.S. Patent 8,998,898 and U.S. Patent 9,095,348 (the '348 patent). On January 25, 2016, the Company amended the complaint to include claims against Minerva for unfair competition, deceptive trade practices and tortious interference with business relationships. On February 5, 2016, the Company filed a second amended complaint to additionally allege that Minerva’s endometrial ablation device infringes U.S. Patent 9,247,989 (the '989 patent). On March 4, 2016, Minerva filed an answer and counterclaims against the Company, seeking declaratory judgment on the Company’s claims and asserting claims against the Company for unfair competition, deceptive trade practices, interference with contractual relationships, breach of contract and trade libel. On June 2, 2016, the Court denied the Company’s motion for a preliminary injunction on its patent claims and denied Minerva’s request for preliminary injunction related to the Company’s alleged false and deceptive statements regarding the Minerva product. On June 28, 2018, the Court granted the Company's summary judgment motions on infringement and no invalidity with respect to the ‘183 and ‘348 patents. The Court also granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment on assignor estoppel, which bars Minerva’s invalidity defenses or any reliance on collateral findings regarding invalidity from inter partes review proceedings. The Court also denied all of Minerva’s defenses, including its motions for summary judgment on invalidity, non-infringement, no willfulness, and no unfair competition. On July 27, 2018, after a two-week trial, a jury returned a verdict that: (1) awarded the Company $4.8 million in damages for Minerva’s infringement; (2) found that Minerva’s infringement was not willful; and (3) found for the Company regarding Minerva’s counterclaims. Damages will continue to accrue until Minerva ceases its infringing conduct. On May 2, 2019, the Court issued rulings that denied the parties' post-trial motions, including the Company's motion for a permanent injunction seeking to prohibit Minerva from selling infringing devices. Both parties appealed the Court's rulings regarding the post-trial motions, and oral argument for the appeals is scheduled for December 4, 2019. On March 4, 2016, Minerva filed two petitions at the USPTO for inter partes review of the '348 patent. On September 12, 2016, the PTAB declined both petitions to review patentability of the ‘348 patent. On April 11, 2016, Minerva filed a petition for inter partes review of the '183 patent. On October 6, 2016, the PTAB granted the petition and instituted a review of the '183 patent. On December 15, 2017, the PTAB issued a final written decision invalidating all claims of the ‘183 paten t. On February 9, 2018 the Company appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("Court of Appeals"). On April 19, 2019, the Court of Appeals affirmed the PTAB's final written decision regarding the '183 patent. On July 16, 2019, the Court of Appeals denied the Company’s petition for rehearing in the appeal regarding the '183 patent. On April 11, 2017, 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. On J anuary 5, 2018, the Court denied Minerva's motion for a preliminary injunction. On February 2, 2018, at the parties’ joint request, this action was transferred to the District of Delaware. On March 26, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a claims construction ruling regarding the disputed terms in the patent, which the District Court Judge adopted in all respects on October 21, 2019. Trial is scheduled for July 20, 2020. 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 January 30, 2012 and March 6, 2012, Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. ("Enzo") filed suit against the Company and its 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), infringe Enzo’s U.S. patent 6,992,180 (the '180 patent). On July 16, 2012, Enzo amended its complaint to include additional products that include HPA or TaqMan reagent chemistry. Both complaints sought preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and unspecified damages. On March 27, 2015, Enzo filed an additional suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that certain additional Company molecular diagnostic products also infringe the '180 patent. The complaint further alleged that certain of the Company’s molecular diagnostic products using target capture technology infringed Enzo’s U.S. Patent 7,064,197 (the '197 patent). On October 3, 2016, Enzo filed an additional suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that products employing the Company's proprietary target capture technologies infringed U.S. Patent 6,221,581 (the '581 patent). The Court granted Enzo’s motion to file an amended complaint adding Grifols Diagnostic Solutions Inc. and Grifols, S.A. (“Grifols”) as parties on November 9, 2 017. On April 16, 2019, Enzo, the Company and Grifols entered into a Settlement and License Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement"), to resolve all litigation among the parties. Under the Settlement Agreement, Enzo granted the Company and Grifols a fully-paid up, royalty-free, non-exclusive and non-transferable (except in certain limited circumstances) world-wide license regarding the subject Enzo patents. Enzo also granted the Company and Grifols a covenant not to sue on certain products, as defined in the Settlement Agreement. In exchange, the Company and Grifols agreed to pay Enzo $10.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, for a total amount of $14.0 million. The Company recorded the $10.5 million charge in the second quarter of fiscal 2019. 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 ("MDNC"), alleging that the Company’s HIV products, including blood screening products previously manufactured by the Company for its former blood screening partner Grifols Diagnostic Solutions Inc. ("Grifols USA"), infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 8,697,352 and 9,074,262. On January 3, 2018, the MDNC Court granted the parties’ consent motion to transfer the case to Delaware. On June 11, 2019, the Court issued a claim construction ruling regarding the disputed terms in the patents. Motions for summary judgment and Daubert motions were filed by the parties on September 30, 2019. A hearing on these motions is schedule for November 26, 2019, and the trial is scheduled for February 18, 2020. The Company filed petitions for inter partes review of the asserted patents on February 6, 2018. The USPTO denied the Company’s petitions for inter partes review in August and September 2018. The Company filed requests for rehearing of the denial ord ers, which requests were denied. 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. On March 14, 2019, the Court entered an order providing preliminary approval of the settlement. During a hearing on July 11, 2019, the Court requested additional information from the parties in assessing whether to grant final approval of the settleme nt. As a result of the settlement agreement, Cynosure recorded a charge of $9.2 million, in the period ended December 31, 2016, and $8.5 million continues to be accrued as of September 28, 2019. On June 26 and 28, 2017, the Company filed suit against FUJIFILM Corp., FUJIFILM Medical Systems USA, Inc., and FUJIFILM Techno Products Co., Ltd. (collectively “Fujifilm”) in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut and the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”), respectively, alleging that Fujifilm’s Aspire Cristalle mammography system infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 7,831,296; 8,452,379; 7,688,940; and 7,986,765. The Company seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions and an exclusion order against Fujifilm from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing into the United States allegedly infringing product and also seeks enhanced damages and interest. A hearing was held at the ITC before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) from April 9, 2018 to April 13, 2018. On July 26, 2018, the ALJ issued an initial determination finding that Fujifilm infringed all of the patents brought to trial and rejected Fujifilm’s defenses against these patents. The ALJ recommended an exclusion order that prevents the importation of infringing Fujifilm products into the United States, as well as a cease-and-desist order preventing the further sale and marketing of infringing Fujifilm products in the Unit ed States. On January 25, 2019, the parties entered into a Patent Cross License and Settlement Agreement to resolve all litigation among the parties. Under the agreement, in consideration of the licenses, releases, non-asserts and other immunities that the parties granted to each other, Fujifilm agreed to pay the Company an upfront fee and an ongoing royalty related to the sale of Fujifilm’s mammography system. The execution of the settlement agreement was not material to the Company's results of operations for fiscal 2019. On March 2, 2018, FUJIFILM Corporation and FUJIFILM Medical Systems U.S.A., Inc. (collectively “Fujifilm2”) filed suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that certain of the Company’s mammography systems infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 7,453,979; 7,639,779; RE44,367; and 8,684,948. Fujifilm2 further alleges that the Company violated United States antitrust laws and Delaware competition laws regarding the sale of certain of the Company’s mammography systems. Fujifilm2 seeks injunctive relief and unspecified monetary damages including statutory treble damages for certain clai ms. The parties agreed to resolve all litigation among them, including this case, pursuant to the Patent Cross License and Settlement Agreement described in the preceding paragraph. 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