COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 3 Months Ended |
Mar. 31, 2014 |
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | ' |
Commitments and Contingencies | ' |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES |
We are involved in a number of proceedings, legal actions, and claims. Such matters are subject to many uncertainties, and the outcomes of these matters are not within our control and may not be known for prolonged periods of time. In some actions, the claimants seek damages, as well as other relief, including injunctions prohibiting us from engaging in certain activities, which, if granted, could require significant expenditures and/or result in lost revenues. We record a liability in the consolidated financial statements for these actions when a loss is known or considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. If the reasonable estimate of a known or probable loss is a range, and no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other, the minimum amount of the range is accrued. If a loss is possible but not known or probable, and can be reasonably estimated, the estimated loss or range of loss is disclosed. In most cases, significant judgment is required to estimate the amount and timing of a loss to be recorded. While it is not possible to predict the outcome for most of the matters discussed, we believe it is possible that costs associated with them could have a material adverse impact on our consolidated earnings, financial position or cash flows. |
N-Spine, Synthes and DePuy Synthes Litigation |
In April 2010, N-Spine, Inc. and Synthes USA Sales, LLC filed suit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware for patent infringement. N-Spine, the patent owner, and Synthes USA, a licensee of the subject patent, allege that we infringe one or more claims of the patent by making, using, offering for sale or selling our TRANSITION® stabilization system product. N-Spine and Synthes USA seek injunctive relief and an unspecified amount in damages. We intend to defend our rights vigorously. This matter was stayed on July 14, 2011 pending the resolution of an inter partes reexamination on the asserted patent granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) in February 2011. In December 2011, the examiner withdrew the original grounds of rejection of the asserted patent and we have appealed the examiner’s decision. In January 2014, the USPTO ruled on the appeal finding certain claims rejected in view of the prior art and affirming certain other claims. The probable outcome of this litigation cannot be determined, nor can we estimate a range of potential loss. Therefore, in accordance with authoritative guidance on the evaluation of loss contingencies, we have not recorded an accrual related to this litigation. |
In a related matter, on January 8, 2014, Depuy Synthes Products, LLC (“Depuy Synthes”) filed suit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware for patent infringement. Depuy Synthes alleges that we infringe one or more claims of the asserted patent by making, using, offering for sale or selling our TRANSITION® stabilization system product. Depuy Synthes seeks injunctive relief and an unspecified amount in damages. We intend to defend our rights vigorously. This matter is in its very early stages, and the probable outcome of this litigation cannot be determined, nor can we estimate a range of potential loss. Therefore, in accordance with authoritative guidance on the evaluation of loss contingencies, we have not recorded an accrual related to this litigation. |
Synthes USA, LLC, Synthes USA Products, LLC and Synthes USA Sales, LLC Litigation |
In July 2011, Synthes USA, LLC, Synthes USA Products, LLC and Synthes USA Sales, LLC filed suit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware for patent infringement. Synthes USA LLC, the patent owner, Synthes USA Products, LLC, a licensee to manufacture products of the subject patents, and Synthes USA Sales LLC, a licensee to sell products of the subject patents, allege that we infringed one or more claims of three patents by making, using, offering for sale or selling our COALITION®, INDEPENDENCE® and INTERCONTINENTAL® products. As a result of the acquisition of Synthes, Inc. by Johnson & Johnson, a motion was filed to change the plaintiff in this matter to DePuy Synthes in February 2013. On June 14, 2013, the jury in this case returned a verdict, finding that prior versions of the three products we previously sold did infringe on DePuy Synthes’ patents and awarding monetary damages in the amount of $16.0 million. The jury also upheld the validity of DePuy Synthes’ patents. There was no finding of willful infringement by Globus. This verdict does not impact our ability to conduct our business or have any material impact on our future revenues. |
We believe the facts and the law do not support the jury’s findings of infringement and patent validity and are seeking to overturn the verdict through the appeals process. |
As of December 31, 2013, we accrued $19.5 million in damages and other litigation-related costs related to this case, of which $1.3 million was included in provision for litigation, net (cost of goods sold, due to a write off of certain inventory which will not be sold due to the verdict) and $18.2 million was included in provision for litigation, net (operating expense). During the three months ended March 31, 2014, we accrued an additional $0.5 million in interest included in provision for litigation, net related to this litigation. |
L5 Litigation |
In December 2009, we filed suit in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania against our former exclusive independent distributor L5 Surgical, LLC and its principals, seeking an injunction and declaratory judgment concerning certain restrictive covenants made to L5 by its sales representatives. L5 brought counterclaims against us alleging tortious interference, unfair competition and conspiracy. The injunction phase was resolved in September 2010, and this matter is now in the discovery phase of litigation on the underlying damages claims. We intend to defend our rights vigorously. The probable outcome of this litigation cannot be determined, nor can we estimate a range of potential loss. Therefore, in accordance with authoritative guidance on the evaluation of loss contingencies, we have not recorded an accrual related to this litigation. |
NuVasive Infringement Litigation |
In October 2010, NuVasive, Inc. filed suit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware for patent infringement. NuVasive, the patent owner, alleges that we infringe one or more claims of three patents by making, using, offering for sale or selling our MARS 3V™ retractor for use in certain lateral fusion procedures. NuVasive seeks injunctive relief and an unspecified amount in damages. The litigation is currently in the dispositive motions phase. We intend to defend our rights vigorously. Additionally, we sought inter partes reexaminations of the three patents asserted by NuVasive in the USPTO, which were granted in April 2012. In August 2012, the examiner withdrew the original grounds of rejection of the patents asserted by NuVasive, and we are in the process of appealing the examiner’s decision. The probable outcome of this litigation cannot be determined, nor can we estimate a range of potential loss. Therefore, in accordance with authoritative guidance on the evaluation of loss contingencies, we have not recorded an accrual related to this litigation. |
NuVasive Employee Litigation |
We have hired several employees who were formerly employed by NuVasive, Inc. In July 2011, NuVasive filed suit against us in the District Court of Travis County, Texas alleging that our hiring of one named former employee and other unnamed former employees constitutes tortious interference with its contracts with those employees, and with prospective business relationships, as well as aiding and abetting the breach of fiduciary duty. NuVasive is seeking compensatory damages, permanent injunction, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. Trial is currently scheduled for May 2014. We intend to defend our rights vigorously. The probable outcome of this litigation cannot be determined, nor can we estimate a range of potential loss. Therefore, in accordance with authoritative guidance on the evaluation of loss contingencies, we have not recorded an accrual related to this litigation. |
Bianco Litigation |
On March 21, 2012, Sabatino Bianco filed suit against us in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Texas claiming that we misappropriated his trade secret and confidential information and improperly utilized it in developing our CALIBER® product. Bianco alleges that we engaged in misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, unfair competition, fraud and theft and seeks correction of inventorship, injunctive relief and exemplary damages. On April 20, 2012, Bianco filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking to enjoin us from making, using, selling, importing or offering for sale our CALIBER® product. On November 15, 2012, the court denied Bianco’s motion for preliminary injunction. On October 1, 2013, Bianco amended his complaint to claim that his trade secrets and confidential information were also used improperly in developing our RISE® and CALIBER-L® products. |
On January 17, 2014, the jury in this case returned a verdict in favor of Bianco on a claim of misappropriation of trade secret. We accrued the verdict amount of $4.3 million as of December 31, 2013. The jury found against Bianco on the claims of breach of contract and disgorgement of profits. The court granted our motion for judgment as a matter of law and dismissed Bianco’s claims for unfair competition, fraud, and exemplary damages, and Bianco abandoned the claim of misappropriation of confidential information. Bianco’s claims of correction of inventorship, unjust enrichment, and permanent injunctive relief were not submitted to the jury. On March 7, 2014, the court denied Bianco’s claim for correction of inventorship and ruled he is not entitled to be named as a co-inventor on any of the patents at issue, and also denied his claim for unjust enrichment. On March 17, 2014, the court denied Bianco’s claim for permanent injunctive relief. Bianco’s claim for future damages, if any are permitted, will be determined by the court following a hearing currently scheduled in May 2014. Judgment has not yet been entered in this case. |
We do not expect the verdict to impact our ability to conduct our business or to have any material impact on our future revenues. We believe the facts and the law do not support the jury’s findings of misappropriation of trade secret and will seek to overturn the verdict in post-trial motions with the District Court and, if necessary, we will continue to do so through the appeals process. |
Altus Partners, LLC Litigation |
On February 20, 2013, Altus Partners, LLC filed suit against us in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for patent infringement. Altus Partners alleged that we infringed one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,162,989, which were issued on April 24, 2012, by making, using, offering for sale or selling our REVERE®, TRANSITION® and REVOLVE® products. On April 7, 2014, we settled the litigation with Altus Partners and recognized a provision for litigation of $2.0 million. |
In addition, we are subject to legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. |