XML 28 R18.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT

Litigation	3 Months Ended
Aug. 31, 2011
Litigation
Litigation	NOTE K – LITIGATION *AngioDynamics v. biolitec* On September 27, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York granted key portions of our motion for summary judgment in our legal case against biolitec. We initiated legal action against biolitec in January 2008 seeking to enforce the indemnification provisions of our April 1, 2002, Supply and Distribution Agreement with biolitec and to recover costs incurred by us in defending and settling two patent infringement cases. Specifically, we are seeking to recover the costs of our $7 million settlement with Diomed in April 2008, our $6.8 million settlement with VNUS Medical Technologies in June 2008 and the legal fees associated with the two cases. The Court's order was filed under seal. As of this date, the order has not yet been entered as a judgment and therefore does not contain specified amounts with respect to damages, and there can be no assurance that we will recover the full amount, or any amount, of the damages we have sought against biolitec and, accordingly, we have not recognized any contingent gains or related receivables with respect to this matter. The Court also dismissed biolitec's counterclaims against us. The court denied one portion of our summary judgment motion, which sought to recover additional costs from biolitec, leaving this for adjudication at trial. We are party to other legal actions that arise in the ordinary course of business. We believe that any liability resulting from any currently pending litigation will not, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

Litigation

3 Months Ended

Aug. 31, 2011

NOTE K – LITIGATION

AngioDynamics v. biolitec

On September 27, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York granted key portions of our motion for summary judgment in our legal case against biolitec.

We initiated legal action against biolitec in January 2008 seeking to enforce the indemnification provisions of our April 1, 2002, Supply and Distribution Agreement with biolitec and to recover costs incurred by us in defending and settling two patent infringement cases. Specifically, we are seeking to recover the costs of our $7 million settlement with Diomed in April 2008, our $6.8 million settlement with VNUS Medical Technologies in June 2008 and the legal fees associated with the two cases.

The Court's order was filed under seal. As of this date, the order has not yet been entered as a judgment and therefore does not contain specified amounts with respect to damages, and there can be no assurance that we will recover the full amount, or any amount, of the damages we have sought against biolitec and, accordingly, we have not recognized any contingent gains or related receivables with respect to this matter.

The Court also dismissed biolitec's counterclaims against us. The court denied one portion of our summary judgment motion, which sought to recover additional costs from biolitec, leaving this for adjudication at trial.

We are party to other legal actions that arise in the ordinary course of business. We believe that any liability resulting from any currently pending litigation will not, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.