XML 30 R19.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.3.1.900

Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Nov. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal Proceedings The Company is involved in various legal proceedings, including commercial, intellectual property, product liability, regulatory and environmental matters of a nature considered normal for its business. The Company accrues for amounts related to these matters if it is probable that a liability has been incurred, and an amount can be reasonably estimated. The Company discloses such matters when there is at least a reasonable possibility that a material loss may have been incurred. However, the Company cannot predict the outcome of any litigation or the potential for future 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 sought 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 granted key portions of our motion for summary judgment in our legal case against biolitec. 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. 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 as to liability. On March 18, 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. On March 11, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the judgment. The defendants petitioned to the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court denied the petition on November 30, 2015. The defendants have also filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit regarding civil contempt sanctions imposed by the Massachusetts District Court as a result of defendants’ completion of the downstream merger in violation of the Court’s injunction. This latest appeal is scheduled for oral argument in the First Circuit on January 4, 2016. On November 13, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued summonses to four Biolitec entities - Biolitec U.S., Inc., Biolitec Holding U.S., Inc., Biolitec Medical Devices, Inc., and CeramOptec Industries, Inc. - pursuant to Massachusetts trustee process. We sought to use this process to attach the assets of these entities in order to satisfy our judgment. The trustee process was automatically stayed when the four Biolitec entities filed Chapter 7 petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. However, on November 3, 2015, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court granted our request to modify the automatic stay to allow us to seek a default against the four Biolitec entities pursuant to trustee process. On August 29, 2013, we became co-plaintiffs in an adversary proceeding in the United 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. On January 22, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court entered a permanent injunction on our behalf for an additional two years. 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 three U.S. patents held by Bard (the "Utah Action"). 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 had asked for supplemental briefing on the issue of whether to conduct a common Markman hearing. Meanwhile, we filed petitions for reexamination in the US Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") which seek to invalidate all three patents asserted in the litigation. Our petitions have been granted and 40 of 41 patent claims have been and remain rejected. The Patent Office has issued a Final Rejection of all the claims subject to reexamination and Bard has filed appeals. The parties have completed briefing on the appeals and oral argument was held on June 18, 2015. The parties are awaiting decision by the Board of Appeals and Interferences. The case has been stayed pending final resolution of the PTO process. The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to defend them vigorously. The Company has 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. On March 10, 2015, C.R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware claiming certain of the Company’s implantable port products infringe three Bard patents (the “Delaware Action). Bard is seeking unspecified damages and other relief; and the patents asserted in the Delaware Action are different than those asserted in the Utah Action. On June 1,2015, the Company filed two motions in response to Bard’s Complaint - - one seeks transfer to the District of Utah where the Utah Action is currently pending, and the other seeks dismissal of the entire complaint on grounds that none of the claims in the asserted patents is directed to patent eligible subject matter under Section 101 of the Patent Statute and in light of recent authority from the U. S. Supreme Court. Briefing is complete on both motions and the parties are awaiting decision by the Delaware Court. The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to defend them vigorously. The Company has 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. Governmental Investigations LC Beads In June 2014 we received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) requesting documents in relation to a criminal and civil investigation the DOJ is conducting regarding BTG International, Inc.’s LC Bead® product beginning in 2003. RITA Medical Systems and AngioDynamics, Inc., after its acquisition of RITA, was the exclusive distributor of LC Beads in the United States from 2006 through December 31, 2011. We are cooperating fully with this investigation and at this time are unable to predict its scope, duration or outcome. EVLT In April 2015 we received a subpoena from the DOJ requesting documents in relation to a criminal and civil investigation the DOJ is conducting regarding purported promotion of certain of AngioDynamics’ VenaCure EVLT products for un-cleared indications. We are cooperating fully with this investigation and at this time are unable to predict its scope, duration or outcome.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for legal proceedings, legal contingencies, litigation, regulatory and environmental matters and other contingencies. + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration