XML 20 R10.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.3.0.15
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2011
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES 
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

6.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

 

In June 2010, Becton, Dickinson and Company (“BD”) filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals (the “Court”) for the Federal Circuit appealing a final judgment entered on May 19, 2010 for the Company and against BD’s counterclaims in patent litigation.  Such final judgment ordered that the Company recover $5,000,000 plus prejudgment interest, and ordered a permanent injunction for BD’s 1mL and 3mL Integra syringes until the expiration of certain patents.  The permanent injunction was stayed for the longer of the exhaustion of the appeal of the district court’s case or twelve months from May 19, 2010.  In July 2011, a three-judge panel of the Court reversed the district court’s judgment that BD’s 3mL Integra infringed the Company’s ‘224 patent and ‘077 patent.  The Court affirmed the district court’s judgment that the 1mL Integra infringes the Company’s ‘244 and ‘733 patents.  The Court also affirmed the district court’s judgment that the ‘077 patent is not invalid for anticipation or obviousness.  Out of eight principal issues that were contested in the appeal, the Company and an officer prevailed on six and BD prevailed on two.  The Company had petitioned for a rehearing by all the judges of the Federal Circuit as to whether the three-judge panel properly construed the Company’s patent claim language in finding that the 3mL Integra did not infringe.  The Company’s petition for rehearing by all of the judges of the Federal Circuit was denied with two dissents being issued. The Company is currently evaluating further appeal.

 

In May 2010, the Company and an officer’s suit against BD in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division alleging violations of antitrust acts, false advertising, product disparagement, tortious interference, and unfair competition was reopened.  The Company and an officer filed a Second Amended Complaint on July 23, 2010 setting forth additional detail regarding the allegations of BD’s illegal conduct.  BD filed a motion to dismiss and the Court denied that motion in part and granted it in part, granting the Company the right to re-plead certain allegations by May 13, 2011.  The Company and an officer filed a Third Amended Complaint in May 2011, setting forth additional detail regarding the alleged illegal conduct by BD.  Trial is set for February 14, 2012.

 

In September 2007, BD and MDC Investment Holdings, Inc. (“MDC”) sued the Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division, initially alleging that the Company is infringing two U.S. patents of MDC (6,179,812 and 7,090,656) that are licensed to BD. BD and MDC seek injunctive relief and unspecified damages.  The Company counterclaimed for declarations of non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of the asserted patents.  The plaintiffs subsequently dropped allegations with regard to patent no. 7,090,656 and the Company subsequently dropped its counterclaims for unenforceability of the asserted patents.  The Court conducted a claims construction hearing on September 25, 2008 and issued its claims construction order on November 14, 2008.  There is currently no trial date set for this case.  The Company has filed a motion for summary judgment that is now pending.