COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The medical device market in which we primarily participate is largely technology driven. As a result, intellectual property rights, particularly patents and trade secrets, play a significant role in product development and differentiation. Over the years, there has been litigation initiated against us by others, including our competitors, claiming that our current or former product offerings infringe patents owned or licensed by them. Intellectual property litigation is inherently complex and unpredictable. In addition, competing parties frequently file multiple suits to leverage patent portfolios across product lines, technologies and geographies and to balance risk and exposure between the parties. In some cases, several competitors are parties in the same proceeding, or in a series of related proceedings, or litigate multiple features of a single class of devices. These forces frequently drive settlement not only for individual cases, but also for a series of pending and potentially related and unrelated cases. Although monetary and injunctive relief is typically sought, remedies and restitution are generally not determined until the conclusion of the trial court proceedings and can be modified on appeal. Accordingly, the outcomes of individual cases are difficult to time, predict or quantify and are often dependent upon the outcomes of other cases in other geographies. During recent years, we successfully negotiated closure of several long-standing legal matters and have received favorable rulings in several other matters; however, there continues to be outstanding intellectual property litigation. Adverse outcomes in one or more of these matters could have a material adverse effect on our ability to sell certain products and on our operating margins, financial position, results of operations and/or liquidity. In the normal course of business, product liability, securities and commercial claims are asserted against us. Similar claims may be asserted against us in the future related to events not known to management at the present time. We maintain an insurance policy providing limited coverage against securities claims, and we are substantially self-insured with respect to product liability claims and fully self-insured with respect to intellectual property infringement claims. The absence of significant third-party insurance coverage increases our potential exposure to unanticipated claims or adverse decisions. Product liability claims, securities and commercial litigation, and other legal proceedings in the future, regardless of their outcome, could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and/or liquidity. In addition, like other companies in the medical device industry, we are subject to extensive regulation by national, state and local government agencies in the United States and other countries in which we operate. From time to time we are the subject of qui tam actions and governmental investigations often involving regulatory, marketing and other business practices. These qui tam actions and governmental investigations could result in the commencement of civil and criminal proceedings, substantial fines, penalties and administrative remedies and have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and/or liquidity. In accordance with ASC Topic 450, Contingencies , we accrue anticipated costs of settlement, damages, losses for product liability claims and, under certain conditions, costs of defense, based on historical experience or to the extent specific losses are probable and estimable. Otherwise, we expense these costs as incurred. If the estimate of a probable loss is a range and no amount within the range is more likely, we accrue the minimum amount of the range. Our accrual for legal matters that are probable and estimable was $1.895 billion as of March 31, 2016 and $1.936 billion as of December 31, 2015 , and includes certain estimated costs of settlement, damages and defense. We recorded $10 million of litigation-related charges during the first three months of 2016 and $193 million of litigation-related charges during the first three months of 2015 . We continue to assess certain litigation and claims to determine the amounts, if any, that management believes will be paid as a result of such claims and litigation and, therefore, additional losses may be accrued and paid in the future, which could materially adversely impact our operating results, cash flows and/or our ability to comply with our debt covenants. In management's opinion, we are not currently involved in any legal proceedings other than those disclosed in our most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K and those specifically identified below, which, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, operations and/or cash flows. Unless included in our legal accrual or otherwise indicated below, a range of loss associated with any individual material legal proceeding cannot be estimated. Patent Litigation On September 22, 2014, The Board of Trustees for the University of Alabama filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama alleging that the sale of our cardiac resynchronization therapy devices infringe a patent owned by the University of Alabama. On August 21, 2015, the court ordered a stay pending our requests for inter partes review of all claims related to the patent before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Our requests were rejected on September 24, 2015 and October 19, 2015. On March 7, 2016, the USPTO granted our reconsideration motion and initiated an inter partes review and, on March 29, 2016, the District Court stayed the case pending a decision in the inter partes review. On October 30, 2015, a subsidiary of Boston Scientific filed suit against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Edwards Lifesciences Services GmbH in Düsseldorf District Court in Germany for patent infringement. We allege that Edwards’ SAPIEN 3 heart valve infringes our patent related to adaptive sealing technology. On February 25, 2016, we extended the action to allege infringement of a second patent related to adaptive sealing technology. On November 9, 2015, Edwards Lifesciences, LLC filed an invalidity claim against one of our subsidiaries, Sadra Medical, Inc., in the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division Patents Court in the United Kingdom, alleging that a European patent owned by Sadra relating to a repositionable heart valve is invalid. On January 15, 2016, we filed our defense and counterclaim for a declaration that our European patent is valid and infringed by Edwards. On February 25, 2016, we amended our counterclaim to allege infringement of a second patent related to adaptive sealing technology. On April 7, 2016, a subsidiary of Boston Scientific filed suit against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, Edwards Lifesciences LLC and Edwards Lifesciences SAS in the Grand Tribunal, Paris France for patent infringement. We allege that Edwards’ SAPIEN 3 heart valve infringes two of our patents related to adaptive sealing technology. On April 19, 2016, a subsidiary of Boston Scientific filed suit against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware for patent infringement. We allege that Edwards’ SAPIEN 3 valve infringes a patent related to adaptive sealing technology. On April 19, 2016, a subsidiary of Boston Scientific filed suit against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation in the United States District Court for the Central District of California for patent infringement. We allege that Edwards’ aortic valve delivery systems infringe eight of our catheter related patents. On April 26, 2016, Edwards Lifesciences PVT, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against us and one of our subsidiaries, Boston Scientific Medizintechnik GmbH, in the District Court of Düsseldorf, Germany alleging a European patent (Spenser) owned by Edwards is infringed by our Lotus™ transcatheter heart valve system. Product Liability Litigation As of May 2, 2016 , over 36,000 product liability cases or claims related to transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse have been asserted against us. The pending cases are in various federal and state courts in the United States and include eight putative class actions. There were also fewer than 20 cases in Canada, inclusive of four putative class actions, and fewer than 15 claims in the United Kingdom. Generally, the plaintiffs allege personal injury associated with use of our transvaginal surgical mesh products. The plaintiffs assert design and manufacturing claims, failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims. Over 3,100 of the cases have been specially assigned to one judge in state court in Massachusetts. On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (MDL) established MDL-2326 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia and transferred the federal court transvaginal surgical mesh cases to MDL-2326 for coordinated pretrial proceedings. During the fourth quarter of 2013, we received written discovery requests from certain state attorneys general offices regarding our transvaginal surgical mesh products. We have responded to those requests. As of May 2, 2016 , we have entered into master settlement agreements with certain plaintiffs' counsel to resolve an aggregate of approximately 11,000 cases and claims of which approximately 6,000 have been settled. Each master settlement agreement was entered into solely by way of compromise and without any admission or concession by us of any liability or wrongdoing and provides that the settlement and the distribution of settlement funds to participating claimants are conditioned upon, among other things, achieving minimum required claimant participation thresholds. If the participation thresholds under a master settlement agreement are not satisfied, we may terminate that agreement. In addition, we continue to engage in discussions with various plaintiffs’ counsel regarding potential resolution of pending cases and claims. On or about January 12, 2016, Teresa L. Stevens filed a claim against us and three other defendants asserting for herself, and on behalf of a putative class of similarly-situated women, that she was harmed by a vaginal mesh implant that she alleges contained a counterfeit or adulterated resin product that we imported from China. The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, before the same Court that is hearing the mesh MDL. The complaint, which alleges Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) violations, fraud, misrepresentation, deceptive trade practices and unjust enrichment, seeks both equitable relief and damages under state and federal law. On January 26, 2016, the Court issued an order staying the case and directing the plaintiff to submit information to allow the FDA to issue a determination with respect to her allegations. In addition, we are in contact with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of West Virginia, and are responding voluntarily to their requests in connection with that office’s review of the allegations concerning the use of mesh resin in the complaint. We deny the plaintiff’s allegations and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. We have established a product liability accrual for known and estimated future cases and claims asserted against us as well as with respect to the actions that have resulted in verdicts against us and the costs of defense thereof associated with our transvaginal surgical mesh products. While we believe that our accrual associated with this matter is adequate, changes to this accrual may be required in the future as additional information becomes available. While we continue to engage in discussions with plaintiffs’ counsel regarding potential resolution of pending cases and claims and intend to vigorously contest the cases and claims asserted against us; that do not settle, the final resolution of the cases and claims is uncertain and could have a material impact on our results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. Initial trials involving our transvaginal surgical mesh products have resulted in both favorable and unfavorable judgments for us. We do not believe that the judgment in any one trial is representative of potential outcomes of all cases or claims related to our transvaginal surgical mesh products. Other Proceedings On September 28, 2011, we served a complaint against Mirowski Family Ventures LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana for a declaratory judgment that we have paid all royalties owed and did not breach any contractual or fiduciary obligations arising out of a license agreement. Mirowski answered and filed counterclaims requesting damages. On May 13, 2013, Mirowski Family Ventures served us with a complaint alleging breach of contract in Montgomery County Circuit Court, Maryland, and they amended this complaint on August 1, 2013. On July 29, 2013, the Indiana case was dismissed. On September 10, 2013, we removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. On June 5, 2014, the District Court granted Mirowski’s motion to remand the case to the Montgomery County Circuit Court. On September 24, 2014, following a jury verdict against us, the Montgomery County Circuit Court entered a judgment that we breached our license agreement with Mirowski and awarded damages of $308 million. On October 28, 2014, the Montgomery County Circuit Court denied our post-trial motions seeking to overturn the judgment. On November 19, 2014, we filed an appeal with the Maryland Court of Special Appeals. On January 29, 2016, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals affirmed the decision of the Montgomery County Circuit Court. On February 2, 2016, we filed a motion for reconsideration. On April 24, 2014, Dr. Qingsheng Zhu and Dr. Julio Spinelli, acting jointly on behalf of the stockholder representative committee of Action Medical, Inc. (Action Medical), filed a lawsuit against us and our subsidiary, Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. (CPI), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The stockholder representatives allege that we and CPI breached a contractual duty to pursue development and commercialization of certain patented heart pacing methods and devices and to return certain patents. On March 15, 2016, the Court granted summary judgment in our favor as to all of plaintiffs’ claims for damages. A trial on the single remaining claim, and our counterclaim, for specific performance, is scheduled for July 8, 2016. Refer to Note H - Income Taxes for information regarding our tax litigation. Matters Concluded Since December 31, 2015 On March 12, 2010, we received a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) from the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) requesting documents and information relating to reimbursement advice offered by us relating to certain CRM devices. On February 9, 2016, the DOJ informed us that we are no longer required to retain documents and information relating to the CID. On July 11, 2014, we were served with a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey. The subpoena seeks information relating to BridgePoint Medical, Inc., which we acquired in October 2012, including information relating to its sale of CrossBoss® and Stingray® products, educational and training activities that relate to those sales and our acquisition of BridgePoint Medical. On August 20, 2015, the court unsealed a qui tam lawsuit brought by a former employee named Robin Levy against the company as well as a decision by the U.S. Attorney for New Jersey declining to intervene in the lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges that the company violated the federal and various state false claims acts through seeking to upcode Chronic Total Occlusion (“CTO”) procedures and requiring in-patient treatment and purchases of coronary stents in order for physicians to receive training on the CTO procedure. On January 26, 2016, the Court dismissed the qui tam lawsuit. On March 18, 2015, Denise Fretter and Maria Korsgaard, claiming to represent a class of current and former female field sales employees at Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation (BSNC), filed a lawsuit against BSNC in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs allege gender discrimination in pay, promotions and differential treatment against them and the putative class. On February 6, 2016, the parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement, and the case has been dismissed. |