XML 27 R16.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.10.0.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 29, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies 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. A hearing is scheduled on February 26, 2019 regarding the parties' post-trial motions, including the Company's motion for a permanent injunction seeking to prohibit Minerva from selling infringing devices. 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 patent. On February 9, 2018 the Company appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("Court of Appeals"), which appeal is pending. 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 in lost profits, price erosion and/or royalty. On January 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. 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 June 28, 2017, in ruling on the Company’s motion for summary judgment, the Court held that the '180 patent was invalid for nonenablement. On August 18, 2017, Enzo filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Oral argument in the appeal took place on January 7, 2019. 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, alleging that certain additional Company molecular diagnostic products also infringe the '180 patent. The complaint further alleges that certain of the Company’s molecular diagnostic 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 pending the resolution of summary judgment motions in the other related suits involving the '197 patent. On March 30, 2016, the Company petitioned 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. 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. On November 29, 2017, Enzo appealed the PTAB decisions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which appeals remain pending. 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, alleging that products employing the Company's proprietary target capture technologies infringe 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, 2017. On October 4, 2017, the Company filed for inter partes review of the ‘581 patent with the USPTO based on Enzo’s asserted claims. On April 18, 2018, the USPTO denied the Company’s petition for inter partes review. On May 18, 2018, the Company filed a request for rehearing of the USPTO denial order, which remains pending. On October 15, 2018, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order regarding claim construction of the '581 patent, ruling in favor of the Company and Grifols on nearly all disputed claim terms. On November 5, 2018, the Court entered final judgment in favor of the Company and Grifols following the filing of a Joint Stipulation of Noninfringement. On November 28, 2018, Enzo filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which appeal remains pending. 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 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 May 31, 2018, the Company filed a motion to sever and stay their arbitrable license defense. 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 orders, which requests are pending. 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. As a result of the settlement agreement, Cynosure recorded a charge of $9.2 million, in the period ended December 31, 2016, which continues to be accrued as of December 29, 2018. 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 United 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 license fee and an ongoing royalty related to the sale of Fujifilm’s mammography system. The execution of the settlement agreement is a non-recognized subsequent event. The payments to the Company are not material to its results of operations. 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 claims. 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
- 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 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration