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 condensed 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 condensed 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 sought injunctive relief and an unspecified amount in damages. This matter was one of the four patent infringement lawsuits concerning spinal implant technologies between Globus Medical, Inc. and DePuy Synthes settled on January 13, 2016 for $7.9 million . 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. This matter was one of the four patent infringement lawsuits concerning spinal implant technologies between Globus Medical, Inc. and DePuy Synthes settled on January 13, 2016 for $7.9 million . 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. This matter was one of the four patent infringement lawsuits concerning spinal implant technologies between Globus Medical, Inc. and DePuy Synthes settled on January 13, 2016 for $7.9 million . 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. 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. On July 2, 2014, the court awarded Bianco an ongoing royalty of 5% of the net sales of the CALIBER ® , CALIBER ® -L, and RISE ® products, or products that are not colorably different from those products, for a fifteen year period on sales starting on January 18, 2014. The court entered final judgment on the jury verdict on July 17, 2014. On October 19, 2015, the United States Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment without opinion. On March 22, 2016, we filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court and on June 20, 2016 the Writ was denied. We do not expect the judgment to impact our ability to conduct our business or to have any material impact on our future revenues. Bonutti Skeletal Innovations, LLC Litigation On November 19, 2014, Bonutti Skeletal Innovations, LLC (“Bonutti Skeletal”) filed suit against us in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for patent infringement. Bonutti Skeletal, a non-practicing entity, alleges that Globus willfully infringes one or more claims of six patents by making, using, offering for sale or selling the CALIBER ® , CALIBER ® -L, COALITION ® , CONTINENTAL ® , FORGE ® , FORTIFY ® , INDEPENDENCE ® , INTERCONTINENTAL ® , MONUMENT ® , NIKO ® , RISE ® , SIGNATURE ® , SUSTAIN ® , and TRANSCONTINENTAL ® products. Bonutti Skeletal sought an unspecified amount in damages and injunctive relief. This matter was stayed on June 26, 2015 pending the resolution of inter partes reviews on the asserted patents by the USPTO. Globus Medical, Inc. and Bonutti Skeletal settled this matter on June 9, 2016. Flexuspine, Inc. Litigation On March 11, 2015, Flexuspine, Inc. filed suit against us in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for patent infringement. Flexuspine, Inc. alleged that Globus willfully infringed one or more claims of five patents by making, using, offering for sale or selling the CALIBER ® , CALIBER ® -L, and ALTERA ® products. Flexuspine sought an unspecified amount in damages and injunctive relief. On August 19, 2016, the jury returned a verdict in our favor finding no infringement of the asserted patents by the CALIBER ® , CALIBER ® -L, and ALTERA ® products. On November 1, 2016, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Stern Litigation On February 17, 2016, Joseph D. Stern filed suit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware for patent infringement. Stern alleges that Globus willfully infringes one or more claims of three patents by making, using, offering for sale or selling the Xtend ® products. On October 10, 2016, Stern amended the accused products to further include our Providence ® , VIP ® , Unify ® , and Assure ® products. On March 28, 2017, one patent was dismissed with prejudice and our PROVIDENCE ® , VIP ® , UNIFY ® , and ASSURE ® products are no longer being accused of infringement. Stern seeks an unspecified amount in damages and injunctive relief. 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. Silverstein Litigation On September 28, 2015, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against us and certain of our officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiff in the lawsuit purported to represent a class of our stockholders who purchased shares between February 26, 2014 and August 5, 2014. The complaint purported to assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and sought damages in an unspecified amount, attorney’s fees and other relief. This matter was dismissed with prejudice on August 26, 2016. On September 9, 2016, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and on September 13, 2016 plaintiff filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In addition, we are subject to legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. |