Commitments and Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal Proceedings The Company is involved in various legal proceedings, including commercial, intellectual property, product liability, and regulatory matters of a nature considered normal for its business. The Company accrues for amounts related to these matters if it is probable that a liability has been incurred, and an amount can be reasonably estimated. The Company discloses such matters when there is at least a reasonable possibility that a material loss may have been incurred. However, the Company cannot predict the outcome of any litigation or the potential for future litigation. C.R. Bard, Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc. On January 11, 2012, C.R. Bard, Inc. (“Bard”) filed a suit in the United States District Court of Utah claiming certain of the Company's implantable port products infringe on three U.S. patents held by Bard (the "Utah Action"). Bard’s Complaint sought unspecified damages and other relief. The Company filed petitions for reexamination in the US Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") seeking to invalidate all three asserted patents. The Company's petitions were granted and 40 of Bard's 41 patent claims were rejected and, following further proceedings, the Patent Office issued a Final Rejection of all 40 claims subject to reexamination. Thereafter, Bard filed appeals to the USPTO Board of Appeals and Interferences for all three reexaminations, which were decided as follows: In one (issued on March 11, 2016 for US Patent No. 7,785,302), the rejections of six of the ten claims under reexamination were affirmed, but were reversed on four of the ten claims. In the second (issued on March 24, 2016 for U.S. Patent No. 7,959,615), the rejections of eight of the ten claims under reexamination were affirmed but the rejections of the other two of the ten claims were reversed. In the third (issued on March 29 for U.S. Patent No. 7,947.022) the rejections of all twenty claims under reexamination were affirmed. Thereafter, Bard sought Rehearing in all three appeals and the Company sought Rehearing in the ‘302 and ‘615 appeals. The PTO denied all three Rehearing Requests, but modified its characterization of one prior art reference for the ‘302 and ‘022 decisions. Bard filed Appeals to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in all three reexams and the Company filed Cross-Appeals for the ‘302 and the ‘615 reexams and completed briefing. MedComp also filed an Amicus Brief in support of the Company on November 22, 2017. An oral hearing was held on September 5, 2018 and the court rendered its decision on September 28, 2018. Affirming that claims 1-5 and 10 of the ‘615 patent were invalid and that claims 6-7 of the 615 patent and 1-4 of the 302 patent were valid in light of the asserted prior art references. The Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s claim construction ruling and remanded for consideration of obviousness for the remaining claims under the new claim construction ruling and further findings with respect to whether one of the asserted references qualified as a printed publication. On January 28, 2019, The USPTO reversed the rejections of the ‘302 claims 1-10, ‘022 claims 1-20 and ‘617 8-9. Meanwhile, the Utah Action remains stayed. On July 12, 2017, Bard assigned the asserted patents to Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. (“BPV”) which was added as Co-Appellant before the Federal Circuit and as a co-Plaintiff in the Utah action. The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to defend them vigorously. The Company has not recorded an expense related to the outcome of this litigation because it is not yet possible to determine if a potential loss is probable nor reasonably estimable. On March 10, 2015, C.R. Bard, Inc. ("Bard") and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. (“BPV”) filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Delaware Action") claiming certain of the Company's implantable port products infringe on three other U.S. patents held by Bard, which are different from those asserted in the Utah action. Bard's complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief. On June 1, 2015, the Company filed two motions in response to Bard’s Complaint - one sought transfer to the District of Utah where the Utah Action is currently pending, and the other sought dismissal of the entire complaint on grounds that none of the claims in the asserted patents is directed to patent eligible subject matter under Section 101 of the Patent Statute and in light of recent authority from the U. S. Supreme Court. On January 12, 2016, the Court issued a decision denying both motions. A Markman hearing was held on March 10, 2017 and the Court issued its Claim Construction Order on May 19, 2017. On May 19, 2017, Bard served its Final Infringement Contentions and on June 2, 2017, the Company served its Final Invalidity Contentions. On October 20, 2017, the scheduling order for the case was amended to, among other things, set a trial date commencing July 23, 2018. The parties completed Expert Discovery in January 2018 and completed briefing on their respective case dispositive motions on April 27, 2018. On June 26, 2018, the Court denied all case dispositive motions, ruling that issues of material fact remained in dispute. On July 9, 2018, the Court continued the trial until March 2019. On January 9, 2019 the court held a further claim construction hearing to resolve two outstanding claim construction issues prior to trial. A Report and Recommendation was issued on February 11, 2019 and entered by the Court on February 28, 2019. Jury selection was held on Friday March 1, 2019 and trial began on March 4, 2019. On day four of the jury trial, at the close of C.R. Bard’s case (Plaintiff), Judge Bataillon granted judgment as a matter of law under rule 50(a) in favor of AngioDynamics, dismissing Bard’s suit. We await a final order from the Court regarding the Rule 50(a) rulings. We maintain our belief that these claims are without merit. The Company has not recorded an expense related to the outcome of this litigation because it is not yet possible to determine if a potential loss is probable nor reasonably estimable. AngioDynamics, Inc. v. C.R. Bard, Inc. On May 30, 2017, the Company commenced an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York entitled AngioDynamics, Inc. v. C.R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Access Systems, Inc. (“Bard”). In this action, the Company alleges that Bard has illegally tied the sales of its tip location systems to the sales of its PICCs. The Company alleges that this practice violates the federal antitrust laws and has had, and continues to have, an anti-competitive effect in the market for PICCs. The Company seeks both monetary damages and injunctive relief. Bard moved to dismiss on September 8, 2017. On August 6, 2018 the court denied Bard’s motion in its entirety. Governmental Investigations In June 2014, the Company received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) requesting documents in relation to a criminal and civil investigation the DOJ is conducting regarding BTG International, Inc.’s LC Bead® product beginning in 2003. RITA Medical Systems and AngioDynamics, Inc., after its acquisition of RITA, was the exclusive distributor of LC Beads in the United States from 2006 through December 31, 2011. The Company fully cooperated with this investigation. In April 2015, the Company received a subpoena from the DOJ requesting documents in relation to a criminal and civil investigation the DOJ is conducting regarding purported promotion of certain of the Company's VenaCure EVLT products for un-cleared indications. The Company fully cooperated with this investigation. As of May 31, 2017, the Company accrued $12.5 million for these matters and in August 2017 the Company agreed in principle with the government to resolve these matters for approximately $12.5 million plus interest. In July 2018, the Company executed the final settlements and paid approximately $12.7 million |