COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES In May 2010, the Company and an officer’s suit against Becton, Dickinson and Company (“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 trial commenced on September 9, 2013, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, and the jury found 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, which was trebled pursuant to statute. The Court 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® syringes. 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. Final judgment was entered on January 15, 2015, awarding the Company $340,524,042 in damages and $11,722,823 in attorneys’ fees, as well as granting injunctive relief consistent with the orders as indicated above. The parties stipulated that the amount of litigation costs recoverable by the Company is $295,000. On January 14, 2015, the District Court stayed the portion of the injunctive relief that requires BD to notify end-user customers but also ordered BD to comply with internal correction activities as well as mandatory disclosures as set out above to its employees, customers, distributors and Group Purchasing Organizations. BD filed an appeal of that ruling with the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and that appeal was denied on February 3, 2015. On February 12, 2015, BD filed a motion to amend the judgment directed most specifically to the issue of award of prejudgment interest. On April 23, 2015, the Court entered an Amended Final Judgment that removed prejudgment interest but kept all other monetary and injunctive relief the same as was granted in the original Final Judgment. BD filed its brief in the appeal on July 20, 2015. Oral argument occurred on Monday, February 29, 2016. On December 2, 2016, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the antitrust damages. The finding of false advertising liability was affirmed and the case was remanded to the Eastern District of Texas for a redetermination as to the amount of damages to which the Company is entitled. The Company’s petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied on March 20, 2017. The Eastern District of Texas trial date was May 11, 2017. On August 17, 2017, District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued the Court’s Final Judgment ordering that the Company take nothing in its suit against BD and dismissing the case. On September 13, 2017, the Company filed a Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment and on September 14, 2017, the Company filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On October 27, 2017, the Eastern District denied the Company’s Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment. As a result of the District Court’s denial of the Motion to Amend, an amended Notice of Appeal was filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on November 3, 2017. 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. On June 30, 2015, the Court ordered that further proceedings in this matter be stayed and that this case remain administratively closed until resolution of all appeals in the case detailed in the preceding paragraph. The case remains stayed as a result of the ongoing proceedings regarding the Lanham Act claims in the separate proceeding described above.

6. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

In May 2010, the Company and an officer’s suit against Becton, Dickinson and Company (“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 trial commenced on September 9, 2013, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, and the jury found 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, which was trebled pursuant to statute. The Court 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® syringes. 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. Final judgment was entered on January 15, 2015, awarding the Company $340,524,042 in damages and $11,722,823 in attorneys’ fees, as well as granting injunctive relief consistent with the orders as indicated above. The parties stipulated that the amount of litigation costs recoverable by the Company is $295,000. On January 14, 2015, the District Court stayed the portion of the injunctive relief that requires BD to notify end-user customers but also ordered BD to comply with internal correction activities as well as mandatory disclosures as set out above to its employees, customers, distributors and Group Purchasing Organizations. BD filed an appeal of that ruling with the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and that appeal was denied on February 3, 2015. On February 12, 2015, BD filed a motion to amend the judgment directed most specifically to the issue of award of prejudgment interest. On April 23, 2015, the Court entered an Amended Final Judgment that removed prejudgment interest but kept all other monetary and injunctive relief the same as was granted in the original Final Judgment. BD filed its brief in the appeal on July 20, 2015. Oral argument occurred on Monday, February 29, 2016. On December 2, 2016, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the antitrust damages. The finding of false advertising liability was affirmed and the case was remanded to the Eastern District of Texas for a redetermination as to the amount of damages to which the Company is entitled. The Company’s petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied on March 20, 2017. The Eastern District of Texas trial date was May 11, 2017. On August 17, 2017, District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued the Court’s Final Judgment ordering that the Company take nothing in its suit against BD and dismissing the case. On September 13, 2017, the Company filed a Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment and on September 14, 2017, the Company filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On October 27, 2017, the Eastern District denied the Company’s Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment. As a result of the District Court’s denial of the Motion to Amend, an amended Notice of Appeal was filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on November 3, 2017.

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. On June 30, 2015, the Court ordered that further proceedings in this matter be stayed and that this case remain administratively closed until resolution of all appeals in the case detailed in the preceding paragraph. The case remains stayed as a result of the ongoing proceedings regarding the Lanham Act claims in the separate proceeding described above.