COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | NOTE 12 - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES On August 30, 2012, Abbott Laboratories, Inc. ("Abbott") was named as a defendant in a complaint filed by ENZO Life Sciences, Inc. ("ENZO") in U.S. District Court in Delaware for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent 7,064,197 as a result of Abbott's distribution of Luminex's xTAG Respiratory Viral Panel. Luminex and Abbott entered into an agreement requiring Luminex to defend and indemnify Abbott for any alleged patent infringement resulting from its distribution of Luminex's xTAG Respiratory Viral Panel. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief. Abbott filed an answer to the complaint on October 15, 2012. On November 30, 2012, Luminex intervened in the lawsuit. On January 2, 2013, ENZO filed additional claims against Luminex, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent 7,064,197 resulting from Luminex's sale of its xTAG, FlexScript LDA, SelecTAG, and xMAP Salmonella Serotyping Assay products and alleging infringement of U.S. Patent 8,097,405 resulting from Luminex's sale of MultiCode products. Luminex filed an answer to ENZO's additional claims on January 28, 2013. On October 2, 2013, ENZO filed additional claims against Luminex, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent 6,992,180 resulting from Luminex’s sale of MultiCode products. Luminex filed an answer to ENZO’s additional claims on October 21, 2013. Effective July 2, 2015, Luminex agreed to pay ENZO $7.1 million to settle the litigation. This settlement resulted in the entry of orders dismissing (i) with prejudice all claims, counterclaims and causes of action asserted by ENZO against Luminex, (ii) without prejudice all claims, counterclaims and causes of action asserted by Luminex against ENZO, (iii) with prejudice all claims, counterclaims and causes of action solely under U.S. Patent 7,064,197 asserted in the litigation by ENZO against Abbott and (iv) without prejudice all claims, counterclaims and causes of action relating solely to U.S. Patent 7,064,197 asserted by Abbott against ENZO; and resulted in the grant to the Company and its affiliates of a fully paid, non-exclusive, worldwide license under the patents asserted in the complaint. In addition, the Company and ENZO released each other from certain claims related to the above-referenced patents, including the claims and counterclaims asserted in the complaint. ENZO further released Abbott from certain claims, including those asserted in the complaint, related solely to U.S. Patent 7,064,197. The settlement was entered into solely by way of compromise and does not constitute an admission or concession by Luminex of any liability or wrongdoing. Because Luminex (i) has never paid any royalties to ENZO in the past, (ii) will not be required to pay any future or ongoing royalties to ENZO as a result of the settlement, (iii) has never recorded any revenue or expense related to ENZO in operating revenue or in operating expenses in the past, outside of legal fees, and (iv) believes that it does not infringe on any valid and enforceable claim with respect to the asserted patents, Luminex determined that this settlement of litigation expense was outside of operations. Luminex accordingly recorded the settlement as a separate, non-operating line item in the second quarter of 2015. Luminex made the $7.1 million payment to ENZO in July 2015. On November 1, 2013, Irori Technologies, Inc. ("Irori") filed a complaint against Luminex in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of California alleging infringement of its U.S. Patents 6,372,428, 6,416,714, and 6,352,854 resulting from Luminex’s sale of its xMAP and xTAG based products. Luminex filed a motion to dismiss on January 9, 2014. Irori filed its response to our motion to dismiss on February 7, 2014. The court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice on February 25, 2014. On March 18, 2014, Irori filed an amended complaint, again alleging infringement of U.S. Patents 6,372,428, 6,416,714, and 6,352,854 resulting from Luminex’s sale of its xMAP and xTAG based products. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief. Luminex filed an answer to Irori’s amended complaint on April 2, 2014. On June 10, 2014, Luminex filed with the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board a total of five petitions for inter partes review ("IPR") seeking to invalidate the claims of the three patents involved in the litigation. On June 17, 2014, Luminex filed a motion to stay proceedings in the district court pending the USPTO’s resolution of the IPR of Irori’s patents. Irori filed its opposition to the motion to stay on July 7, 2014, and Luminex filed a reply on July 14, 2014. On July 16, 2014, the court granted Luminex’s motion to stay the case until the earlier of i) a determination by the United States Patent and Trademark Office that reexamination proceedings will not take place or ii) the conclusion of reexamination proceedings and appeals. On December 11, 2014, the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted review on all five IPR petitions that Luminex filed. On March 5, 2015 Luminex and Irori reached a settlement. The settlement amount was not material. On March 19, 2015 the district court dismissed Irori's lawsuit with prejudice. On March 26, 2015, the IPR petitions were terminated. When and if it appears probable in management's judgment, and based upon consultation with outside counsel, that we will incur monetary damages or other costs in connection with any claims or proceedings, and such costs can be reasonably estimated, we record the estimated liability in the financial statements. If only a range of estimated losses can be estimated, we record an amount within the range that, in management's judgment, reflects the most likely outcome; if none of the estimates within that range is a better estimate than any other amount, we record the liability at the low end of the range of estimates. Any such accrual would be charged to expense in the appropriate period. We disclose significant contingencies when the loss is not probable and/or the amount of the loss is not estimable, when we believe there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss has been incurred. We recognize costs associated with legal proceedings in the period in which the services were provided. |