COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

OPERATING LEASES

The Company leases space for operations in United States, Mexico, Japan, South Korea, and certain other foreign countries. The Company also leases automobiles for certain sales and field service employees. These leases have varying terms up to fifteen years.

Future minimum lease commitments under the Company’s operating leases as of December 31, 2016, are as follows (in millions):



Fiscal Year	Amount
2017	$	7.1
2018	5.7
2019	3.5
2020	2.8
2021	2.6
2022 and thereafter	15.0
Total	$	36.7

Other commitments include an estimated amount of approximately $345.8 million relating to the Company's open purchase orders and contractual obligations that occur in the ordinary course of business, including commitments with suppliers, for which we have not received the goods or services.

CONTINGENCIES

The Company is involved in a variety of claims, lawsuits, investigations and proceedings relating to securities laws, product liability, intellectual property, insurance, contract disputes, employee related, and other matters. Certain of these lawsuits and claims are described in further detail below. It is not possible to predict what the outcome of these matters will be and the Company cannot guarantee that any resolution will be reached on commercially reasonable terms, if at all. With the exception of the charges recorded related to the Company’s estimate of the probable loss associated with the tolled product liability claims described below, the Company has determined that an estimate of either probable losses or range of loss related to material pending or threatened litigation matters cannot be determined as of December 31, 2016. Nevertheless, it is possible that future legal costs (including settlements, judgments, legal fees and other related defense costs) could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position, or future results of operations.

The Company is also a party to various other legal actions that arise in the ordinary course of business and does not believe that any of these other legal actions will have a material adverse impact on the Company's business, financial position, or future results of operations.

In accordance with U.S. GAAP, the Company records a liability when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. These provisions are reviewed at least quarterly and adjusted to reflect the impact of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to each case.

Purported Shareholder Class Action Lawsuits filed April 26, 2013 and May 24, 2013

On April 26, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit entitled Abrams v. Intuitive Surgical, et al., No. 5-13-cv-1920, was filed against a number of the Company's current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. A substantially identical complaint, entitled Adel v. Intuitive Surgical, et al., No. 5:13-cv-02365, was filed in the same court against the same defendants on May 24, 2013. The Adel case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on August 20, 2013.

On October 15, 2013, plaintiffs in the Abrams matter filed an amended complaint. The case has since been re-titled In re Intuitive Surgical Securities Litigation, No. 5:13-cv-1920. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between February 6, 2012, and July 18, 2013. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by allegedly making false and misleading statements and omitting certain material facts in certain public statements and in the Company's filings with the SEC. On November 18, 2013, the court appointed the Employees’ Retirement System of the State of Hawaii as lead plaintiff and appointed lead counsel. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on December 16, 2013, which was granted in part and denied in part on August 21, 2014. The plaintiffs elected not to further amend their complaint at that time. On October 22, 2014, the court granted the Company’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the court’s August 21, 2014, order. The Company filed its motion for reconsideration on November 5, 2014. Following opposition and reply briefing, the court denied the motion on December 15, 2014, allowing the case to move forward on the claims that remain. The plaintiffs moved for class certification on September 1, 2015, the Company filed its opposition on October 15, 2015, and the plaintiffs filed their reply on November 16, 2015. On January 21, 2016, the court held a hearing on the motion. While that motion remained pending, on October 11, 2016, the Company sent plaintiffs’ lead counsel Labaton Sucharow LLP a letter enclosing a draft motion for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, primarily based on statements to the court that lacked a proper factual basis. In response, on November 1, 2016, plaintiffs’ local counsel withdrew from the case entirely and withdrew their signatures from the disputed pleadings. On November 2, 2016, Labaton Sucharow filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint that did not include the disputed statements. On November 16, 2016, the Company filed an opposition to plaintiffs’ motion, along with an independent motion to strike the amended complaint and the pleadings from which plaintiffs’ local counsel withdrew their signatures. Following additional briefing, the motion for leave to amend and motion to strike were fully submitted to the Court on November 23, 2016, and December 7, 2016, respectively. At a conference on December 15, 2016, the court informed the parties that it would issue written rulings by January 30, 2017, addressing the motion to amend and motion to strike. At the Company’s request, the court vacated the case schedule in the interim, with instructions for the parties to devise a new schedule within 15 days of its rulings. On December 22, 2016, the court entered an order granting plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. In a footnote, the court indicated that it will grant plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended complaint. On January 25, 2017, the court entered an order granting plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint and denying the Company’s motion to strike. On January 5, 2017, the Company filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal from the court’s December 22, 2016 order granting class certification in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals has not yet ruled on the Company’s Petition. Based on currently available information, the Company does not believe the resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position, or future results of operations.

Purported Derivative Actions filed on February 3, 2014, February 21, 2014, March 21, 2014, June 3, 2014, and March 5, 2015

On February 3, 2014, an alleged stockholder, Robert Berg, caused a purported stockholder’s derivative lawsuit entitled Berg v. Guthart et al., No. 4:14-CV-00515, to be filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit names the Company as a nominal defendant and names a number of the Company’s current and former officers and directors as defendants. The plaintiff seeks to recover, on the Company’s behalf, unspecified damages purportedly sustained by the Company in connection with allegedly misleading statements and/or omissions made in connection with the Company’s financial reporting for the period between 2012 and early 2014. The plaintiff also seeks a series of changes to the Company’s corporate governance policies and an award of attorneys’ fees. On April 3, 2014, the case was related to In re Intuitive Surgical Securities Litigation. On July 30, 2014, the court granted Berg’s motion to be appointed lead plaintiff, denied the City of Birmingham’s motion seeking such appointment (see below for additional description), and re-titled the matter In re Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, No. 4:14-CV-00515. On August 13, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint, making allegations substantially similar to the allegations in the original complaint. On September 12, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. The plaintiffs filed an opposition on October 9, 2014, and the Company filed its reply on October 30, 2014. The court denied the Company's motion to dismiss on November 16, 2015. On January 26, 2016, the Company moved to stay this lawsuit in favor of Public School Teachers’ Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago v. Guthart et al. (see below for additional description). Plaintiff opposed the motion to stay on February 16, 2016, the Company filed its reply on March 1, 2016, and a hearing was set for June 16, 2016. While the motion was pending, however, the Company and the plaintiff agreed in principle that the plaintiff would file a motion to intervene in the Public School Teachers’ Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago action and withdraw his opposition to the motion to stay. On March 17, 2016, the parties jointly requested that the court not rule on the motion to stay while the agreement was being implemented. Following additional negotiations, the plaintiff filed an unopposed motion to intervene on April 29, 2016. After additional briefing, on May 23, 2016, the court in the Public School Teacher's Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago action granted the motion. Accordingly, on May 31, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation requesting that the court stay In re Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation. The court granted the stay on June 2, 2016. Additional discussions between the parties ensued, and on September 15, 2016, they executed a confidential Memorandum of Understanding that contains the essential terms of a settlement to which the parties have agreed in principle. That settlement, which is still being finalized, will provide for a dismissal with prejudice and release of all claims brought in both the In re Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation action and the Public School Teachers’ Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago action, as well as City of Plantation Police Officers’ Employees’ Retirement System v. Guthart et al. (see below for additional description). The settlement will be subject to court approval as described below. In the interim, the In re Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation action remains stayed. It is probable that the final settlement agreement will include terms that will require the Company to reimburse the plaintiffs' lawyers' legal fees. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the probable amount of those legal fees. Based on currently available information, the Company does not believe the resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position or future results of operations.

On February 21, 2014, a second alleged stockholder caused a substantially similar purported stockholder’s derivative lawsuit entitled Public School Teachers’ Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago v. Guthart et al., No. CIV 526930, to be filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, against the same parties and seeking the same relief. On March 26, 2014, the case was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, where it was related to In re Intuitive Surgical Securities Litigation and Berg v. Guthart on April 30, 2014. The district court remanded the case back to San Mateo County Superior Court on June 30, 2014. On August 28, 2014, the Company filed a motion seeking to stay the case in favor of the federal action and asking that the plaintiff be required to post a bond on the grounds that the action was duplicative and was not in the Company’s best interests. On November 13, 2014, the superior court entered an order denying in part the Company’s motion to stay and denying the Company's request for plaintiff's bond. On November 18, 2014, the Company petitioned the First Appellate District of the California, Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate directing the superior court to stay the case in its entirety. At the same time, the Company requested an immediate stay of proceedings pending resolution of the petition. On November 19, 2014, the court of appeal granted the Company’s request for an immediate stay of the proceedings and set a briefing schedule for the petition. The plaintiff filed its opposition to the petition on December 8, 2014, and the Company filed its reply on December 22, 2014. The petition was denied on January 8, 2015. On January 20, 2015, the Company filed a demurer (moved to dismiss the complaint). The plaintiff filed its opposition to the demurrer on February 10, 2015, and the Company filed its reply on February 20, 2015. A hearing was held on February 27, 2015, and the court overruled the demurrer on March 27, 2015. The court's order was entered on April 2, 2015. On June 19, 2015, the Company moved for summary judgment, and a hearing on the Company's motion was set for September 4, 2015. On July 6, 2015, the court amended the case schedule, and the Company withdrew its motion for summary judgment. The court later further amended the case schedule, and trial was eventually reset for September 16, 2016. On May 23, 2016, the court granted an unopposed motion to intervene filed by the plaintiffs in In re Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation and City of Birmingham Relief and Retirement System v. Guthart et al. (see above and below for additional description). The Company filed a new motion for summary judgment on June 1, 2016, and the plaintiff filed a motion for summary adjudication regarding certain affirmative defenses on June 2, 2016. Following opposition and reply briefing, the court heard argument on the motions for summary judgment and summary adjudication on August 24, 2016. While the motions were pending, on September 15, 2016, the parties executed the confidential Memorandum of Understanding described above, which contains the essential terms of a settlement to which the parties have agreed in principle. That settlement, which is still being finalized, will provide for a dismissal with prejudice and release of all claims brought in the Public School Teachers’ Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago action, as well as the In re Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation action and the City of Plantation Police Officers’ Employees’ Retirement System action (see above and below, respectively, for additional description). The settlement will be subject to court approval. The parties notified the court of the Memorandum of Understanding on September 15, 2016, and on September 16, 2016, the court entered an order vacating the trial date, ruling that the motions for summary judgment and summary adjudication (along with other pre-trial motions) are moot, and scheduling an approval hearing regarding the settlement for January 17, 2017. At the hearing on that date, the parties informed the court that they are still finalizing the settlement and thus are not yet in a position to seek court approval. In response; the court scheduled a status conference for February 17, 2017; the date for the approval hearing has yet to be determined. Based on currently available information, the Company does not believe the resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position, or future results of operations.

On March 21, 2014, a third alleged stockholder caused a substantially similar purported stockholder’s derivative lawsuit entitled City of Birmingham Relief and Retirement System v. Guthart et al., No. 5-14-CV-01307, to be filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the same parties and seeking the same relief. On April 8, 2014, the lawsuit was related to In re Intuitive Surgical Securities Litigation and Berg v. Guthart. On July 30, 2014, the court consolidated the case with Berg v. Guthart and, as noted above, granted Berg’s motion to be appointed lead plaintiff and denied the City of Birmingham’s motion seeking such appointment. Accordingly, the City of Birmingham Relief and Retirement System action will be resolved by the pending settlement of the In re Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation action (see above for additional description). Based on currently available information, the Company does not believe the resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position, or future results of operations.

On June 3, 2014, a fourth alleged stockholder caused a substantially similar purported stockholder’s derivative lawsuit entitled City of Plantation Police Officers’ Employees’ Retirement System v. Guthart et al., C.A. No. 9726-CB, to be filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The Company filed a motion to stay proceedings in favor of the earlier-filed stockholder derivative lawsuits pending in federal and state courts in California. In light of the Company’s motion, the plaintiff agreed to a stay of all proceedings in the case in favor of the earlier-filed actions. While the case was stayed, the parties agreed that the plaintiff would file a motion to intervene in the Public School Teachers’ Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago action (see above for additional description). The plaintiff filed an unopposed motion to intervene on April 29, 2016. After additional briefing, on May 23, 2016, the court in the Public School Teachers’ Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago action granted the plaintiff’s motion. However, on June 21, 2016, in response to discovery requests, the plaintiff admitted that it did not continuously hold the Company’s stock during all relevant times. Accordingly, on July 21, 2016, the plaintiff filed a request for dismissal as an additional plaintiff in the Public School Teachers’ Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago action, which the court in that action granted with prejudice on July 22, 2016. On September 15, 2016, the parties executed the confidential Memorandum of Understanding described above, which contains the essential terms of a settlement to which the parties have agreed in principle. That settlement, which is still being finalized, will provide for a dismissal with prejudice and release of all claims brought in the City of Plantation Police Officers’ Employees’ Retirement System action, as well as both the In re Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation action and the Public School Teachers’ Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago action (see above for additional description). The settlement will be subject to court approval as described above. In the interim, the City of Plantation Police Officers’ Employees’ Retirement System action remains stayed. Based on currently available information, the Company does not believe the resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position, or future results of operations.

On March 5, 2015, a fifth alleged stockholder caused a substantially similar purported stockholder’s derivative lawsuit entitled Back v. Guthart et al., No. 3:15-CV-01037, to be filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On April 7, 2015, the lawsuit was related to In re Intuitive Surgical Securities Litigation and Berg v. Guthart. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on July 10, 2015. On August 13, 2015, the parties stipulated to a complete stay of the matter and the court entered an order reflecting the stay on August 17, 2015. The Company believes the settlement of the cases described above will make this action moot and will move for dismissal on that basis. Based on currently available information, the Company does not believe the resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position, or future results of operations.

Product Liability Litigation

The Company is currently named as a defendant in approximately 52 individual product liability lawsuits filed in various state and federal courts by plaintiffs who allege that they or a family member underwent surgical procedures that utilized the da Vinci Surgical System and sustained a variety of personal injuries and, in some cases, death as a result of such surgery. The Company has also received a large number of product liability claims from plaintiffs' attorneys, many of which are subject to certain tolling agreements further discussed below. The Company has also been named as a defendant in a multi-plaintiff lawsuit filed in Missouri state court. In total, plaintiffs in that case seek damages on behalf of 55 patients who had da Vinci Surgeries in 22 different states.

The cases raise a variety of allegations including, to varying degrees, that plaintiffs’ injuries resulted from purported defects in the da Vinci Surgical System and/or failure on the Company's part to provide adequate training resources to the healthcare professionals who performed plaintiffs’ surgeries. The cases further allege that the Company failed to adequately disclose and/or misrepresented the potential risks and/or benefits of the da Vinci Surgical System. Plaintiffs also assert a variety of causes of action, including for example, strict liability based on purported design defects, negligence, fraud, breach of express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and loss of consortium. Plaintiffs seek recovery for alleged personal injuries and, in many cases, punitive damages. The Company has reached confidential settlements in many of the filed cases.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys have also engaged in well-funded national advertising efforts seeking patients dissatisfied with da Vinci Surgery. The Company has received a significant number of such claims from plaintiffs’ attorneys that it believes are a result of these advertising efforts. A substantial number of claims relate to alleged complications from surgeries performed with certain versions of Monopolar Curved Scissor (“MCS”) instruments which included an MCS tip cover accessory that was the subject of a market withdrawal in 2012 and MCS instruments that were the subject of a recall in 2013. In an effort to avoid the expense and distraction of defending multiple lawsuits, the Company entered into tolling agreements to pause the applicable statutes of limitations for many of these claims and engaged in confidential mediation efforts.

After an extended confidential mediation process with legal counsel for many of the claimants covered by the tolling agreements, the Company determined during 2014 that, while it denies any and all liability, in light of the costs and risks of litigation, settlement of certain claims was appropriate. During the year ended December 31, 2016, and 2015, the Company recorded pre-tax charges of $8.3 million and $13.8 million, respectively, to reflect the estimated cost of settling a number of the product liability claims covered by the tolling agreements.

The Company’s estimate of the anticipated cost of resolving these claims is based on negotiations with attorneys for claimants who have participated in the mediation process. Nonetheless, it is possible that more claims will be made by additional individuals and that the claimants whose claims were not resolved through the mediation program, as well as those claimants who have not participated in mediations, will choose to pursue greater amounts in a court of law. Consequently, the final outcome of these claims is dependent on many variables that are difficult to predict and the ultimate cost associated with these product liability claims may be materially different than the amount of the current estimate and accruals and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position, and future results of operations. Although there is a reasonable possibility that a loss in excess of the amount recognized exists, the Company is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amount recognized at this time. As of December 31, 2016, and 2015, a total of $20.5 million and $24.4 million, respectively, were included in other accrued liabilities in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets related to the tolled product liability claims.

In February 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in a product liability action that had originally been filed in Washington State Superior Court for Kitsap County against the healthcare providers and hospital involved in a decedent’s surgery on such decedent's behalf (Josette Taylor, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Fred E. Taylor, deceased; and on behalf of the Estate of Fred E. Taylor v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 09-2-03136-5). In Taylor, plaintiff asserted wrongful death and product liability claims against the Company, generally alleging that the decedent died four years after surgery as a result of injuries purportedly suffered during the surgery, which was conducted with the use of the da Vinci Surgical System. The plaintiff in Taylor asserted that such injuries were caused, in whole or in part, by the Company's purported failure to properly train, warn, and instruct the surgeon. The lawsuit sought unspecified damages for past medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of consortium as well as punitive damages. A trial commenced on April 15, 2013. On May 23, 2013, the jury returned a defense verdict, finding that the Company was not negligent. Judgment was entered in the Company's favor on June 7, 2013. Subsequent to the verdict, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. That appeal was denied on July 7, 2015. On July 27, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration with the Court of Appeal; the Court of Appeal denied the motion for reconsideration on August 10, 2015. On September 9, 2015, plaintiff filed a Petition for Review with the Washington State Supreme Court. On February 10, 2016, the Washington Supreme Court issued an order granting the plaintiff’s Petition for Review. Oral argument on the appeal before the Washington Supreme Court was heard on June 7, 2016. The court will issue an opinion at a future time.

Insurance Litigation

In October 2013, the Company was named as a defendant in an insurance action entitled Illinois Union Insurance Co. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-04863-JST, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiff Illinois Union Insurance Co. (“Illinois Union”) seeks to rescind the Life Sciences Products-Completed Operations Liability Policy issued by plaintiff to the Company, which provides coverage for product liability claims first made against the Company during the policy period March 1, 2013, to March 1, 2014. In December 2013, the Company was named as a defendant in another insurance action entitled Navigators Specialty Insurance Co. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 5:13-cv-05801-JST, also filed in the Northern District of California. Plaintiff Navigators Specialty Insurance Co. (“Navigators”) alleges that the Follow Form Excess Liability Insurance Policy issued by plaintiff to the Company for product liability claims first made against the Company during the policy period March 1, 2013 to March 1, 2014, should be rescinded. These cases have been consolidated under docket number 3:13-cv-04863. Both plaintiffs generally allege that the Company did not disclose the existence of tolling agreements or the number of claimants incorporated within those agreements, and allege that those agreements were material to plaintiffs’ underwriting processes. On October 20, 2015, the Company filed a complaint alleging breach of contract and bad faith against Illinois Union and Navigators in an action entitled Intuitive Surgical Inc. v. Illinois Union Insurance Co., et al., No. 3:15-cv-04834-JST, based on the defendants failure to indemnify the Company for losses incurred in the defense and settlement of certain product liability claims brought against the Company during the insurance policy period March 1, 2013 to March 1, 2014. The Company’s breach of contract and bad faith action against the insurers has been consolidated with the insurers’ rescission actions for all purposes except for trial. Both Illinois Union and Navigators moved to dismiss the Company's complaint in that action. The court denied both Illinois Union and Navigators’ motions to dismiss the breach of contract claims against the insurers, denied the motion to dismiss the bad faith claim against Illinois Union, and granted the motion to dismiss the bad faith claim against Navigators.

On March 15, 2016, Illinois Union and Navigators filed motions for summary judgment. On May 26, 2016, the Company and Navigators filed a notice with the court that they had reached a confidential settlement of the litigation between the two parties. On May 27, 2016, the Court denied Illinois Union’s motion for summary judgment. Illinois Union sought leave to move for reconsideration of the Court’s order denying Illinois Union’s motion for summary judgment, which the court denied. On July 27, 2016, Illinois Union filed a motion to stay the case and for permission to file an interlocutory appeal with respect to the denial of summary judgment with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Court denied the motion to stay on October 11, 2016. On September 15, 2016, the Court dismissed both the Company’s breach of contract claim against Navigators and Navigators’ rescission case against the Company with prejudice. Based on currently available information, the Company does not believe the Navigators settlement or resolution of the Illinois Union matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position, or future results of operations.