XML 38 R22.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.23.3

Litigation and Related Matters | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2023
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. 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 continued to accrue as Minerva continued 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. On March 4, 2016, Minerva filed two petitions at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for inter partes review of the '348 patent. On September 12, 2016, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the USPTO (“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”). 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 22, 2020, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of the Company of no invalidity and infringement, and summary judgment that assignor estoppel bars Minerva from challenging the validity of the ‘348 patent. The Court of Appeals also denied the Company’s motion for a permanent injunction and ongoing royalties for infringement of the ‘183 patent. The Court of Appeals denied Minerva’s arguments for no damages or, alternatively, a new trial. On May 22, 2020 both parties petitioned for en banc review of the Court of Appeals decision. On July 22, 2020, the Court of Appeals denied both parties’ petitions for en banc review. On August 28, 2020, the district court entered final judgment against Minerva but stayed execution pending resolution of Minerva’s petition for Supreme Court review. On September 30, 2020, Minerva filed a petition requesting Supreme Court review on the issue of assignor estoppel. On November 5, 2020, the Company filed a cross-petition requesting Supreme Court review on the issue of assignor estoppel. On January 8, 2021, the Supreme Court granted Minerva’s petition to address the issue of assignor estoppel and denied the Company’s petition. Oral argument before the Supreme Court was held on April 21, 2021. On June 29, 2021, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to uphold the assignor estoppel but limited its application to situations in which an assignor’s claim of invalidity contradicts a prior representation the assignor made in assigning the patent. The Court also vacated the ruling of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. On August 11, 2022, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court ruling on the issue of assignor estoppel, which barred Minerva from challenging the validity of the patent rights it assigned to the Company and reinstated its earlier judgment against Minerva on infringement. On September 11, 2022, Minerva petitioned for en banc review of the Court of Appeals decision. The Company filed its response on October 25, 2022, and on November 10, 2022, the Court of Appeals denied Minerva's petition ending the appeals process. During the first quarter of 2023, the Company received a payment for infringement damages in the amount of $7.4 million, which included the original award of $4.8 million plus post-trial damages and interest. This amount was recorded as a credit to general and administrative expenses in the first quarter of fiscal 2023. 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 (the '208 patent). 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 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. 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. On July 27, 2021, the Delaware district court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment on invalidity of the '208 patent and entered judgment in favor of the Company. On August 24, 2021, Minerva appealed this and the other rulings to the Court of Appeals. On February 15, 2023, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of the Company and dismissed the other rulings Minerva appealed as moot. On April 18, 2023, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with Minerva to resolve all remaining patent litigation matters, the impact of which was immaterial. On November 4, 2022, a product liability complaint was filed against the Company in Massachusetts state court by a group of plaintiffs who claim they sustained injuries caused by the BioZorb 3D Bioabsorbable Marker, and additional complaints were subsequently filed alleging similar claims. The BioZorb device is an implantable three-dimensional marker that helps clinicians overcome certain challenges presented by breast conserving cancer surgery (lumpectomy). The complaints allege that the plaintiffs suffered side effects that were not disclosed in the BioZorb instructions for use and make various additional claims related to the design, manufacture and marketing of the device. Complaints have been filed on behalf of 74 plaintiffs, one pending in Massachusetts state court, which has set a November 2025 trial date, and the remainder in United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, which has not set a trial date. Discovery is ongoing. While the Company believes it has valid defenses and plans to vigorously defend its position, litigation can be costly and unpredictable, and at this early stage the Company cannot reasonably assess the outcome of this matter. 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. 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: | dtr-types1: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