SEC Filings

10-Q
MEDTRONIC PLC filed this Form 10-Q on 12/04/2017
Entire Document
 
Medtronic plc
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited)


billion, respectively. The ultimate cost to the Company with respect to accrued litigation could be materially different than the amount of the current estimates and accruals and could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s consolidated earnings, financial position, and/or cash flows. The Company includes accrued litigation in other accrued expenses and other liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets. While it is not possible to predict the outcome for most of the legal matters discussed below, the Company believes it is possible that the costs associated with these matters could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s consolidated earnings, financial position, and/or cash flows.
Product Liability Matters
Sprint Fidelis
In 2007, a putative class action was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Canada seeking damages for personal injuries allegedly related to the Company's Sprint Fidelis family of defibrillation leads. On October 20, 2009, the court certified a class proceeding but denied class certification on plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages. Pretrial proceedings are underway. The Company has not recognized an expense related to damages in connection with this matter because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP. Additionally, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter.
INFUSE Litigation
The Company estimated law firms representing approximately 6,000 claimants asserted or intended to assert personal injury claims against Medtronic in the U.S. state and federal courts involving the INFUSE bone graft product. As of June 1, 2017, the Company had reached agreements to settle substantially all of these claims, resolving this litigation. The Company's accrued expenses for this matter are included within accrued litigation as discussed above.
Pelvic Mesh Litigation
The Company, through the acquisition of Covidien, is currently involved in litigation in various state and federal courts against manufacturers of pelvic mesh products alleging personal injuries resulting from the implantation of those products. Two subsidiaries of Covidien supplied pelvic mesh products to one of the manufacturers, C.R. Bard (Bard), named in the litigation. The litigation includes a federal multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia and cases in various state courts and jurisdictions outside the U.S. Generally, complaints allege design and manufacturing claims, failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims. In fiscal year 2016, Bard paid the Company $121 million towards the settlement of 11,000 of these claims. In May 2017, the agreement with Bard was amended to extend the terms to apply to up to an additional 5,000 claims. That agreement does not resolve the dispute between the Company and Bard with respect to claims that do not settle, if any. As part of the agreement, the Company and Bard agreed to dismiss without prejudice their pending litigation with respect to Bard’s obligation to defend and indemnify the Company. The Company estimates law firms representing approximately 15,800 claimants have asserted or may assert claims involving products manufactured by Covidien’s subsidiaries. As of December 1, 2017, the Company had reached agreements to settle approximately 13,400 of these claims. The Company's accrued expenses for this matter are included within accrued litigation as discussed above.
Patent Litigation
Ethicon
On December 14, 2011, Ethicon filed an action against Covidien in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, alleging patent infringement and seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. On January 22, 2014, the district court entered summary judgment in Covidien's favor, and the majority of this ruling was affirmed by the Federal Circuit on August 7, 2015. Following appeal, the case was remanded back to the District Court with respect to one patent. On January 21, 2016, Covidien filed a second action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, seeking a declaration of non-infringement with respect to a second set of patents held by Ethicon. The court consolidated this second action with the remaining patent issues from the first action. Following consolidation of the cases, Ethicon dismissed 6 of the asserted patents, leaving a single asserted patent. In addition to claims of non-infringement, the Company asserts an affirmative defense of invalidity. The Company has not recognized an expense related to damages in connection with this matter, because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP. Additionally, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter.

29

X