Medafor Matters	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2017
Medafor Matters [Abstract]
Medafor Matters	8. Medafor Matters Investment in Medafor Common Stock In 2009 and 2010 we purchased shares of common stock in Medafor, a developer and supplier of plant based hemostatic agents. We initially recorded our investment using the cost method as a long-term asset, investment in equity securities, on our Consolidated Balance Sheets. On October 1, 2013 Bard (“Bard”), previously C. R. Bard, Inc. and its subsidiaries, now a wholly owned subsidiary of Becton, Dickinson and Company (“BD”) and a developer, manufacturer, and marketer of medical technologies in the fields of vascular, urology, oncology, and surgical specialty products completed its acquisition of all outstanding shares of Medafor common stock. We received an initial payment of approximately $15.4 million in 2013, $530,000 in 2014, and $891,000 in 2015 for our 2.4 million shares of Medafor common stock. Legal Action In April 2014 we filed a declaratory judgment lawsuit against Bard, and its subsidiaries Davol, Inc. (“Davol”), and Medafor (collectively, “Defendants”), in the District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Court”). We requested that the Court declare that our manufacture, use, offer for sale, and sale of PerClot in the U.S. does not, and would not, infringe BD’s U.S. Patent No. 6,060,461 (the “‘461 Patent”). In addition, we requested that the Court declare that the claims of the ‘461 Patent are invalid. We also requested injunctive relief and an award of attorneys’ fees. In August 2014 Medafor filed a counterclaim against us for infringement of the ‘461 Patent. In September 2014 Medafor filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, asking the Court to enjoin our marketing and sale of PerClot in the U.S. In March 2015 the Court ruled that our declaratory judgment lawsuit against Medafor may proceed but dismissed Bard from the lawsuit. The Court also granted Medafor’s motion for a preliminary injunction, which prohibited us from marketing, selling, and distributing PerClot in the U.S. while the litigation proceeded. In March 2015 we ceased all marketing, sales, and distribution of PerClot in the U.S., including PerClot Topical, in accordance with the Court’s order. In April 2015 we appealed the Court’s ruling on the preliminary injunction motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. We dismissed this appeal in June 2015. On November 18, 2015, the lawsuit was resolved by entry by the Court of the Parties’ Joint Stipulation for Dismissal, which resulted in the dismissal with prejudice of all parties’ claims and counterclaims in the lawsuit, the continuation of the preliminary injunction prohibiting us from marketing, selling and distributing PerClot in the U.S. until expiration of the ‘461 Patent on February 8, 2019, each party bearing its own attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the lawsuit, and the continuation of the Court’s jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the resolution.

8. Medafor Matters

Investment in Medafor Common Stock

In 2009 and 2010 we purchased shares of common stock in Medafor, a developer and supplier of plant based hemostatic agents. We initially recorded our investment using the cost method as a long-term asset, investment in equity securities, on our Consolidated Balance Sheets.

On October 1, 2013 Bard (“Bard”), previously C. R. Bard, Inc. and its subsidiaries, now a wholly owned subsidiary of Becton, Dickinson and Company (“BD”) and a developer, manufacturer, and marketer of medical technologies in the fields of vascular, urology, oncology, and surgical specialty products completed its acquisition of all outstanding shares of Medafor common stock. We received an initial payment of approximately $15.4 million in 2013, $530,000 in 2014, and $891,000 in 2015 for our 2.4 million shares of Medafor common stock.

Legal Action

In April 2014 we filed a declaratory judgment lawsuit against Bard, and its subsidiaries Davol, Inc. (“Davol”), and Medafor (collectively, “Defendants”), in the District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Court”). We requested that the Court declare that our manufacture, use, offer for sale, and sale of PerClot in the U.S. does not, and would not, infringe BD’s U.S. Patent No. 6,060,461 (the “‘461 Patent”). In addition, we requested that the Court declare that the claims of the ‘461 Patent are invalid. We also requested injunctive relief and an award of attorneys’ fees.

In August 2014 Medafor filed a counterclaim against us for infringement of the ‘461 Patent. In September 2014 Medafor filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, asking the Court to enjoin our marketing and sale of PerClot in the U.S. In March 2015 the Court ruled that our declaratory judgment lawsuit against Medafor may proceed but dismissed Bard from the lawsuit. The Court also granted Medafor’s motion for a preliminary injunction, which prohibited us from marketing, selling, and distributing PerClot in the U.S. while the litigation proceeded. In March 2015 we ceased all marketing, sales, and distribution of PerClot in the U.S., including PerClot Topical, in accordance with the Court’s order. In April 2015 we appealed the Court’s ruling on the preliminary injunction motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. We dismissed this appeal in June 2015. On November 18, 2015, the lawsuit was resolved by entry by the Court of the Parties’ Joint Stipulation for Dismissal, which resulted in the dismissal with prejudice of all parties’ claims and counterclaims in the lawsuit, the continuation of the preliminary injunction prohibiting us from marketing, selling and distributing PerClot in the U.S. until expiration of the ‘461 Patent on February 8, 2019, each party bearing its own attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the lawsuit, and the continuation of the Court’s jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the resolution.