COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Leases

We are committed under non-cancelable operating leases for facilities and equipment. During fiscal 2014, 2013 and 2012, aggregate rental costs under all operating leases were approximately $2.0 million, $2.5 million and $3.1 million, respectively. Future annual payments under non-cancelable operating leases in the aggregate, of which one includes an escalation clause, with initial remaining terms of more than one year at May 31, 2014, are summarized as follows (in thousands):



2015	$	1,991
2016	1,644
2017	1,186
2018	1,093
2019	1,093
	$	7,007

Litigation Matters

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 November 8, 2012, the Court granted partial judgment to us in the amount of $23.2 million. Biolitec appealed this judgment. On August 23, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed biolitec's appeal.

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. On April 1, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction. On January 14, 2014, the District Court entered judgment in our favor against Biolitec AG, Biomed Technology Holdings, Ltd., and Wolfgang Neuberger, jointly and severally, in the amount of $74.9 million. The defendants have appealed this judgment, and the appeal has not yet been briefed.

On August 29, 2013, we become co-plaintiffs in an adversary proceeding in the Unites States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey entitled Cyganowski, Trustee, et al. v. Biolitec U.S., Inc., et al. In this action, we assert claims of conversion, unjust enrichment, tortious interference, and unfair competition against various biolitec entities for alleged violation of Bankruptcy Court settlement and sale orders under which we acquired certain assets of Biolitec, Inc. On September 3, 2013, we, along with our co-plaintiff, obtained a temporary restraining order against the defendants in this action. The restraining order is still in place, and the Bankruptcy court is seriously considering our request for permanent injunctive relief.

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 reexamination proceedings are on-going. 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.

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.

Future Purchase Obligations

We have entered into commitments for future minimum inventory purchases related to several core products. Total future purchase obligations through fiscal 2018 amount to $12.5 million . There are no such obligations thereafter.