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 patents asserted by Bard in the litigation. 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, but that claims 6-7 of the 615 patent and 1-4 of the 302 patent were valid over the prior art references considered in the Reexamination proceedings. The Federal Circuit also reversed the PTAB’s claim construction ruling and remanded for consideration of obviousness for the remaining claims under the new claim construction ruling and for further findings with respect to whether one of the asserted references qualified as a printed publication. On January 28, 2019, on remand, the USPTO reversed the rejections of the ‘302 claims 1-10, ‘022 claims 1-20 and ‘615 claims 6-9. The USPTO has since issued Inter Partes Reexamination Certificates for the ‘302 Patent (confirming validity of claims 1-10) on June 10, 2019, and for the ‘022 patent (confirming validity of claims 1-20) on July 2, 2019, and for the ‘615 patent on August 26, 2019. The Company has since filed a Motion to Unstay the Utah Case; that motion is fully briefed and awaiting decision by the Utah Court. Meanwhile, 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, Bard and 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. On April 5, 2019, Bard filed a precautionary Notice of Appeal to the Federal Circuit. On April 26, 2019, the District Court issued a Memorandum and Order confirming the grant of judgment in the Company’s favor of patent ineligibility, non-infringement, patent invalidity and no willful infringement. Meanwhile, on May 10, 2019, the Company filed a Motion for Attorney fees and non-taxable expenses under 35 USC Sec. 285. On May 21, 2019, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order which, inter alia, stayed proceedings on the Company’s fee Motion and the Company’s equitable claims pending appeal; and entered Final Judgment on May 21, 2019 as well. Bard filed a second Notice of Appeal on May 23, 2019. Both appeals have since been consolidated and Bard’s opening brief was served on September 27, 2019 and the Company's answering brief is currently due on November 6, 2019. We maintain our belief that Bard’s 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. The parties are currently engaged in discovery, which is set to close in February 2020. Merz North America Settlement On May 16, 2019, Merz North America, Inc. (“Merz”) commenced an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entitled Merz North America, Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc. In this action, Merz alleged breach of contract against AngioDynamics based on a March 1, 2016 Distribution Agreement. On June 28, 2019, AngioDynamics reached a settlement with Merz. AngioDynamics made a lump-sum payment of $2.5 million to Merz in return for dismissal of the case with prejudice during the first quarter. Merz filed a stipulation of dismissal with the Court on July 23, 2019. |