Litigation	6 Months Ended
Nov. 30, 2012
Litigation [Abstract]
LITIGATION	NOTE L – LITIGATION *AngioDynamics v. biolitec* On January 2, 2008, we commenced an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York entitled AngioDynamics, Inc. v. biolitec, Inc. In this action, we are seeking judgment against biolitec for defense and indemnification in two lawsuits which we previously settled. Our claims arise out of a Supply and Distribution Agreement (“SDA”) entered into with biolitec on April 1, 2002. 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. The Court’s order was filed under seal. 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. On September 28, 2012, the Court granted partial judgment to us in the amount of $16.4 million, along with pre-judgment interest. In October 2009, we commenced an action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts entitled AngioDynamics, Inc. v. biolitec AG and Wolfgang Neuberger. The Complaint in this action was amended in March 2010. This action seeks to recover against biolitec, Inc.’s parent entities and CEO for tortiously interfering with biolitec, Inc.’s contractual obligation to defend and indemnify us, and also seeks to pierce the corporate veil of biolitec, Inc. and to invalidate certain alleged fraudulent transfers in order to hold biolitec, Inc.’s parent entities jointly and severally liable for the alleged breach of the SDA. This case is currently in the discovery phase. On September 13, 2012, the Massachusetts Court granted our request for a preliminary injunction prohibiting the downstream merger of biolitec AG with its Austrian subsidiary. We will continue to vigorously enforce our rights under the supply agreement with biolitec. *C.R. Bard, Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc.* On January 11, 2012, C.R. Bard, Inc. filed a suit in the United States District Court of Utah claiming certain of our implantable port products infringe on patents held by them. Bard is seeking unspecified damages and other relief. The Court denied Bard’s motion for pre-trial consolidation with separate actions it filed on the same day against Medical Components, Inc. and Smiths Medical ASD, Inc., but has asked for supplemental briefing on the issue of whether to conduct a common Markman hearing. We filed petitions for reexamination in the US Patent and Trademark Office which seek to invalidate all three patents asserted in the litigation. Our petitions have been granted and 40 of 41 patent claims have been rejected. The case has been stayed pending final resolution of the PTO process. We believe these claims are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously. We have not recorded an expense related to the outcome of this litigation because it is not yet possible to determine if a potential loss is probable nor reasonably estimable. *Cardinal Health v. Navilyst Medical, Inc.* On December 21, 2011, Cardinal Health Canada 204, Inc. (Cardinal Health) filed a demand for arbitration pursuant to the terms of the International Distributorship Agreement entered into as of November 1, 2008 between Navilyst and Cardinal Health. Cardinal Health claims that it is entitled to damages based on Navilyst’s decision to terminate the International Distributorship Agreement. The parties have entered into a written stipulation to stay the proceedings in this matter pending the outcome of a related litigation brought by Cardinal health against three our current employees (all of whom are former employees of Cardinal Health) in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Cardinal Health Canada, Inc. vs. Alexander, Sohi & Campbell, Superior Court of Justice, Ontario, Canada, No. CV-11-440418 (the Ontario Litigation). If this matter proceeds following the stay, we intend to deny the allegations contained in the demand for arbitration and to advance counterclaims against Cardinal Health. Navilyst entered into a joint defense agreement with the defendants in the Ontario Litigation, pursuant to which Navilyst agreed, subject to certain conditions, to indemnify the defendants for all legal fees relating to the Ontario Litigation as well as any damages or cost awards arising out of the Ontario Litigation. While we intend to vigorously defend against these actions, each of these cases is in the preliminary states and, as result, the ultimate outcome of these cases and their potential financial impact are not determinable at this time. *Cirrex Systems LLC v. AngioDynamics, Inc.* On May 21, 2012, Cirrex Systems LLC filed a suit in the United States District Court of Georgia claiming that certain of our endovenous ablation products infringe a patent held by them. Cirrex was seeking unspecified damages and other relief. On October 3, 2012, we filed an answer denying infringement, asserting various affirmative defenses, and asserting counterclaims for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity. On December 7, 2012, Cirrex voluntarily dismissed the suit. *Joseph Pierre v. AngioDynamics, Inc.* In July 2011, a former employee dual-filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, entitled Joseph Pierre v. AngioDynamics, Inc. In this action, the former employee is alleging discrimination due to his status as an African-American, in light of him being reassigned to another project. At the conclusion of its investigation, the Division issued a finding of “no probable cause” on January 6, 2012 and dismissed the complaint. The complainant did not appeal the decision to preserve his New York Human Rights Law claims. On February 22, 2012, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued its determination adopting the decision of the Division and dismissing the charge. The complainant filed a federal claim following the EEOC’s decision in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York on May 21, 2012. This complaint makes the same allegations of discrimination, and alleges causes of action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. 1981. We believe these claims are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously. We have not recorded an expense related to the outcome of this litigation because it is not yet possible to determine if a potential loss is probable nor reasonably estimable. 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

6 Months Ended

Nov. 30, 2012

NOTE L – LITIGATION

AngioDynamics v. biolitec

On January 2, 2008, we commenced an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York entitled AngioDynamics, Inc. v. biolitec, Inc. In this action, we are seeking judgment against biolitec for defense and indemnification in two lawsuits which we previously settled. Our claims arise out of a Supply and Distribution Agreement (“SDA”) entered into with biolitec on April 1, 2002. 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. The Court’s order was filed under seal. 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. On September 28, 2012, the Court granted partial judgment to us in the amount of $16.4 million, along with pre-judgment interest.

In October 2009, we commenced an action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts entitled AngioDynamics, Inc. v. biolitec AG and Wolfgang Neuberger. The Complaint in this action was amended in March 2010. This action seeks to recover against biolitec, Inc.’s parent entities and CEO for tortiously interfering with biolitec, Inc.’s contractual obligation to defend and indemnify us, and also seeks to pierce the corporate veil of biolitec, Inc. and to invalidate certain alleged fraudulent transfers in order to hold biolitec, Inc.’s parent entities jointly and severally liable for the alleged breach of the SDA. This case is currently in the discovery phase. On September 13, 2012, the Massachusetts Court granted our request for a preliminary injunction prohibiting the downstream merger of biolitec AG with its Austrian subsidiary.

We will continue to vigorously enforce our rights under the supply agreement with biolitec.

C.R. Bard, Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc.

On January 11, 2012, C.R. Bard, Inc. filed a suit in the United States District Court of Utah claiming certain of our implantable port products infringe on patents held by them. Bard is seeking unspecified damages and other relief. The Court denied Bard’s motion for pre-trial consolidation with separate actions it filed on the same day against Medical Components, Inc. and Smiths Medical ASD, Inc., but has asked for supplemental briefing on the issue of whether to conduct a common Markman hearing. We filed petitions for reexamination in the US Patent and Trademark Office which seek to invalidate all three patents asserted in the litigation. Our petitions have been granted and 40 of 41 patent claims have been rejected. The case has been stayed pending final resolution of the PTO process. We believe these claims are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously. We have not recorded an expense related to the outcome of this litigation because it is not yet possible to determine if a potential loss is probable nor reasonably estimable.

Cardinal Health v. Navilyst Medical, Inc.

On December 21, 2011, Cardinal Health Canada 204, Inc. (Cardinal Health) filed a demand for arbitration pursuant to the terms of the International Distributorship Agreement entered into as of November 1, 2008 between Navilyst and Cardinal Health. Cardinal Health claims that it is entitled to damages based on Navilyst’s decision to terminate the International Distributorship Agreement. The parties have entered into a written stipulation to stay the proceedings in this matter pending the outcome of a related litigation brought by Cardinal health against three our current employees (all of whom are former employees of Cardinal Health) in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Cardinal Health Canada, Inc. vs. Alexander, Sohi & Campbell, Superior Court of Justice, Ontario, Canada, No. CV-11-440418 (the Ontario Litigation). If this matter proceeds following the stay, we intend to deny the allegations contained in the demand for arbitration and to advance counterclaims against Cardinal Health. Navilyst entered into a joint defense agreement with the defendants in the Ontario Litigation, pursuant to which Navilyst agreed, subject to certain conditions, to indemnify the defendants for all legal fees relating to the Ontario Litigation as well as any damages or cost awards arising out of the Ontario Litigation. While we intend to vigorously defend against these actions, each of these cases is in the preliminary states and, as result, the ultimate outcome of these cases and their potential financial impact are not determinable at this time.

Cirrex Systems LLC v. AngioDynamics, Inc.

On May 21, 2012, Cirrex Systems LLC filed a suit in the United States District Court of Georgia claiming that certain of our endovenous ablation products infringe a patent held by them. Cirrex was seeking unspecified damages and other relief. On October 3, 2012, we filed an answer denying infringement, asserting various affirmative defenses, and asserting counterclaims for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity. On December 7, 2012, Cirrex voluntarily dismissed the suit.

Joseph Pierre v. AngioDynamics, Inc.

In July 2011, a former employee dual-filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, entitled Joseph Pierre v. AngioDynamics, Inc. In this action, the former employee is alleging discrimination due to his status as an African-American, in light of him being reassigned to another project. At the conclusion of its investigation, the Division issued a finding of “no probable cause” on January 6, 2012 and dismissed the complaint. The complainant did not appeal the decision to preserve his New York Human Rights Law claims. On February 22, 2012, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued its determination adopting the decision of the Division and dismissing the charge. The complainant filed a federal claim following the EEOC’s decision in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York on May 21, 2012. This complaint makes the same allegations of discrimination, and alleges causes of action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. 1981. We believe these claims are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously. We have not recorded an expense related to the outcome of this litigation because it is not yet possible to determine if a potential loss is probable nor reasonably estimable.

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.