COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2014
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6.COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES On May 19, 2010, final judgment was entered in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division for the Company which ordered that the Company recover $5,000,000 plus prejudgment and post-judgment 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 June 2010, BD filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit appealing the final judgment entered on May 19, 2010. In July 2011, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment that BD’s 3mL Integra infringed the Company’s ‘224 patent and ‘077 patent. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment that the 1mL Integra infringes the Company’s ‘244 and ‘733 patents. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit also affirmed the district court’s judgment that the ‘077 patent is not invalid for anticipation or obviousness. The Company had petitioned for a rehearing by all the judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for 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 U.S. Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit was denied with two dissents being issued. The Company filed a petition for certiorari asking the Supreme Court to review the matter. That petition was denied in January of 2013. BD filed a Rule 60(b)(5) motion to Conform Judgment to Federal Circuit Mandate in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas which sought to modify the damages award. On August 7, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued an order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and denying BD’s Rule 60(b)(5) motion. On October 29, 2013, BD filed its Notice of Appeal of the August 7, 2013 order denying BD’s Rule 60(b)(5) motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit. Oral argument for this appeal occurred on May 9, 2014. On July 7, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas decision denying BD’s Rule 60(b)(5) motion to modify the damages award. On August 6, 2014, BD filed a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On September 19, 2014, BD’s combined petition was denied in all respects and the mandate issued on September 24, 2014. BD has until approximately December 18, 2014 to petition the Supreme Court for certiorari. On September 30, 2013, the Company received payment of $7,724,826 (the “Judgment Amount”) from BD pursuant to a stipulation in this case. The stipulation provides that if, as a result of BD’s appeal of the District Court’s denial of BD’s Rule 60(b)(5) motion, it is judicially determined that BD owes an amount less than the Judgment Amount, BD shall be entitled to restitution by the Company of any excess payment, with interest. The Judgment Amount has been reflected as a current liability in the Balance Sheets since the proceeds are not yet realizable. 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 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division 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 was initially set for February 2012. However, in January 2012 the parties agreed to a continuance to allow the petition for certiorari to be considered. As stated above, the petition was denied in January of 2013. A hearing to re-set a trial date in light of BD’s motion for continuance was held May 3, 2013. The trial commenced on September 9, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, and the jury returned its verdict on September 19, 2013, finding that BD illegally engaged in anticompetitive conduct with the intent to acquire or maintain monopoly power in the safety syringe market and engaged in false advertising under the Lanham Act. The jury awarded the Company $113,508,014 in damages for the antitrust claim, which is subject to being trebled pursuant to statute. The Court conducted a hearing for post-trial motions in early 2014. The Court issued an order on September 30, 2014 denying BD’s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, or Alternatively, for New Trial or Remittitur, ruling that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to: find that BD had attempted to monopolize the safety syringe market, find that BD had engaged in false advertising under the Lanham Act, and award the Company $113,508,014 in antitrust damages. Pursuant to federal statute, antitrust damages are subject to being trebled. On November 10, 2014, the Court issued an order dealing with relief under the Lanham Act. The Court found that the remedy of disgorgement of a portion of BD’s profits was appropriate but that the antitrust damages of $340 million was a sufficient disgorgement. The Court also granted injunctive relief to take effect January 15, 2015. In doing so, the Court found that BD’s business practices limited innovation, including false advertisements that suppressed sales of the VanishPoint®. The specific injunctive relief includes: (1) enjoining BD’s use of “World’s Sharpest Needle” or any similar assertion of superior sharpness; (2) requiring notification to all customers who purchased BD syringe products from July 2, 2004 to date that BD wrongfully claimed that its syringe needles were sharper and that its statement that it had “data on file” was false and misleading; (3) requiring notification to employees, customers, distributors, GPOs, and government agencies that the deadspace of the VanishPoint® has been within ISO standards since 2004 and that BD overstated the deadspace of the VanishPoint® to represent that it was higher than some of BD’s syringes when it was actually less, and that BD’s statement that it had “data on file” was false and misleading, and, in addition, posting this notice on its website for a period of three years; (4) enjoining BD from advertising that its syringe products save medication as compared to VanishPoint® products for a period of three years; (5) requiring notification to all employees, customers, distributors, GPOs, and government agencies that BD’s website, cost calculator, printed materials, and oral representations alleging BD’s syringes save medication as compared to the VanishPoint® were based on false and inaccurate measurement of the VanishPoint®, and, in addition, posting this notice on its website for a period of three years; and (6) requiring the implementation of a comprehensive training program for BD employees and distributors that specifically instructs them not to use old marketing materials and not to make false representations regarding VanishPoint® syringes. The Court further awarded attorneys’ fees, but ordered the amount to be recalculated to meet the Court’s guidelines. BD is expected to appeal this ruling upon entry of a final judgment which has not yet occurred. On November 10, 2014, a separate Court Order was issued directing the parties to attend mediation by January 15, 2015. 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 United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division conducted a claims construction hearing on September 25, 2008 and issued its claims construction order on November 14, 2008. The case has been stayed pending resolution of the Company’s first filed case against BD described above. There has been no activity in this case since the stay.

6.COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

On May 19, 2010, final judgment was entered in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division for the Company which ordered that the Company recover $5,000,000 plus prejudgment and post-judgment 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 June 2010, BD filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit appealing the final judgment entered on May 19, 2010. In July 2011, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment that BD’s 3mL Integra infringed the Company’s ‘224 patent and ‘077 patent. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment that the 1mL Integra infringes the Company’s ‘244 and ‘733 patents. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit also affirmed the district court’s judgment that the ‘077 patent is not invalid for anticipation or obviousness. The Company had petitioned for a rehearing by all the judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for 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 U.S. Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit was denied with two dissents being issued. The Company filed a petition for certiorari asking the Supreme Court to review the matter. That petition was denied in January of 2013. BD filed a Rule 60(b)(5) motion to Conform Judgment to Federal Circuit Mandate in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas which sought to modify the damages award. On August 7, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued an order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and denying BD’s Rule 60(b)(5) motion. On October 29, 2013, BD filed its Notice of Appeal of the August 7, 2013 order denying BD’s Rule 60(b)(5) motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit. Oral argument for this appeal occurred on May 9, 2014. On July 7, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas decision denying BD’s Rule 60(b)(5) motion to modify the damages award. On August 6, 2014, BD filed a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On September 19, 2014, BD’s combined petition was denied in all respects and the mandate issued on September 24, 2014. BD has until approximately December 18, 2014 to petition the Supreme Court for certiorari. On September 30, 2013, the Company received payment of $7,724,826 (the “Judgment Amount”) from BD pursuant to a stipulation in this case. The stipulation provides that if, as a result of BD’s appeal of the District Court’s denial of BD’s Rule 60(b)(5) motion, it is judicially determined that BD owes an amount less than the Judgment Amount, BD shall be entitled to restitution by the Company of any excess payment, with interest. The Judgment Amount has been reflected as a current liability in the Balance Sheets since the proceeds are not yet realizable.

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 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division 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 was initially set for February 2012. However, in January 2012 the parties agreed to a continuance to allow the petition for certiorari to be considered. As stated above, the petition was denied in January of 2013. A hearing to re-set a trial date in light of BD’s motion for continuance was held May 3, 2013. The trial commenced on September 9, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, and the jury returned its verdict on September 19, 2013, finding that BD illegally engaged in anticompetitive conduct with the intent to acquire or maintain monopoly power in the safety syringe market and engaged in false advertising under the Lanham Act. The jury awarded the Company $113,508,014 in damages for the antitrust claim, which is subject to being trebled pursuant to statute. The Court conducted a hearing for post-trial motions in early 2014. The Court issued an order on September 30, 2014 denying BD’s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, or Alternatively, for New Trial or Remittitur, ruling that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to: find that BD had attempted to monopolize the safety syringe market, find that BD had engaged in false advertising under the Lanham Act, and award the Company $113,508,014 in antitrust damages. Pursuant to federal statute, antitrust damages are subject to being trebled. On November 10, 2014, the Court issued an order dealing with relief under the Lanham Act. The Court found that the remedy of disgorgement of a portion of BD’s profits was appropriate but that the antitrust damages of $340 million was a sufficient disgorgement. The Court also granted injunctive relief to take effect January 15, 2015. In doing so, the Court found that BD’s business practices limited innovation, including false advertisements that suppressed sales of the VanishPoint®. The specific injunctive relief includes: (1) enjoining BD’s use of “World’s Sharpest Needle” or any similar assertion of superior sharpness; (2) requiring notification to all customers who purchased BD syringe products from July 2, 2004 to date that BD wrongfully claimed that its syringe needles were sharper and that its statement that it had “data on file” was false and misleading; (3) requiring notification to employees, customers, distributors, GPOs, and government agencies that the deadspace of the VanishPoint® has been within ISO standards since 2004 and that BD overstated the deadspace of the VanishPoint® to represent that it was higher than some of BD’s syringes when it was actually less, and that BD’s statement that it had “data on file” was false and misleading, and, in addition, posting this notice on its website for a period of three years; (4) enjoining BD from advertising that its syringe products save medication as compared to VanishPoint® products for a period of three years; (5) requiring notification to all employees, customers, distributors, GPOs, and government agencies that BD’s website, cost calculator, printed materials, and oral representations alleging BD’s syringes save medication as compared to the VanishPoint® were based on false and inaccurate measurement of the VanishPoint®, and, in addition, posting this notice on its website for a period of three years; and (6) requiring the implementation of a comprehensive training program for BD employees and distributors that specifically instructs them not to use old marketing materials and not to make false representations regarding VanishPoint® syringes. The Court further awarded attorneys’ fees, but ordered the amount to be recalculated to meet the Court’s guidelines. BD is expected to appeal this ruling upon entry of a final judgment which has not yet occurred. On November 10, 2014, a separate Court Order was issued directing the parties to attend mediation by January 15, 2015.

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 United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division conducted a claims construction hearing on September 25, 2008 and issued its claims construction order on November 14, 2008. The case has been stayed pending resolution of the Company’s first filed case against BD described above. There has been no activity in this case since the stay.