Commitments, Contingencies and Legal Matters

Purchase Commitments

The following table summarizes the Company’s purchase commitments at March 31, 2016 (in thousands):



Years Ending December 31,	Purchase Commitments
2016 (remaining nine months)	$	41,517
2017	—
2018	—
2019	—
2020	—
Thereafter	—
Total minimum payments	$	41,517

Purchase commitments include non-cancellable purchase orders or contracts for the purchase of raw materials used in the manufacturing of the Company’s reagents and orders for purchase of systems and system modules.

Legal Matters

In May 2005, the Company entered into a license agreement with F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. and Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. (“Roche”) that provided the Company with rights under a broad range of Roche patents, including patents relating to the PCR process, reverse transcription-based methods, nucleic acid quantification methods, real-time PCR detection process and composition, and patents relating to methods for detection of viral and cancer targets. A number of the licensed patents expired in the United States prior to the end of August of 2010 and in Europe prior to the end of August of 2011. In August 2010, the Company terminated the Company’s license to United States Patent No. 5,804,375 (the “375 Patent”) and ceased paying United States-related royalties. The Company terminated the entire license agreement in the fourth quarter of 2011. In August 2011, Roche initiated an arbitration proceeding against the Company in the International Chamber of Commerce pursuant to the terms of the terminated agreement. The Company filed an answer challenging arbitral jurisdiction over the issues submitted by Roche and denying that the Company violated any provision of the agreement. A three-member panel was convened to address these issues in confidential proceedings. On July 30, 2013, the panel determined that it had jurisdiction to decide the claims, a determination that the Company appealed to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. On October 2, 2013, the arbitration panel determined that it would proceed with the arbitration while this appeal was pending. On February 27, 2014 the Swiss Federal Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of the arbitration panel to hear the case. On April 22, 2016, the arbitration panel transmitted a partial award holding that the Company was liable for damages for the manufacture and sale of certain accused products starting after the Company terminated the license until September 2015, with the final amount to be determined by audit. The partial award also denied Roche’s requests for an injunction, and allocated certain legal fees and costs between the parties.

Based on its ongoing evaluation of the facts and circumstances of the case, including the partial award, the Company believes that it is probable that this arbitration proceeding could result in a material loss. Accordingly, the Company recorded an estimated charge of $20 million as its best estimate of the potential loss as of December 31, 2014, which amount was included in accrued and other liabilities in the Company’s consolidated balance sheets. Taking into account the partial award, this continues to be the Company's best estimate for this potential loss as of March 31, 2016. Depending on the final ruling of the arbitrators, it is possible that the Company could also be responsible for certain fees, costs and/or interest, if any; however, the Company is unable at this time to determine the likelihood of whether these potential outcomes will occur or estimate their respective potential amounts.

On August 21, 2012 the Company filed a lawsuit against Roche in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (“the Court”), for a declaratory judgment of (a) invalidity, expiration, and non-infringement of the 375 Patent; and (b) invalidity, unenforceability, expiration and non-infringement of United States Patent No. 6,127,155 (the “155 Patent”). On January 17, 2013, the Court issued an order granting a motion by Roche to stay the suit with respect to the 375 Patent pending resolution of the above noted arbitration proceeding. In the same order, the Court dismissed the Company’s suit with respect to the 155 Patent for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, without considering or ruling on the merits of the Company’s case. The Court left open the possibility that the Company could re-file its case against the 155 Patent in the future. The Company believes that the possibility that these legal proceedings will result in a material adverse effect on the Company’s business is remote.

On July 16, 2014 Roche filed a lawsuit in the Court, alleging that the Company’s Xpert MTB-RIF product infringes United States Patent No. 5,643,723 (the “723 Patent”), which expired on July 1, 2014. On September 15, 2014, the Company filed its answer and counterclaims denying Roche’s allegations of infringement and asking the Court to find the 723 Patent invalid, unenforceable, and not infringed. On November 10, 2014, the Company filed a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) of the 723 Patent in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) and filed a motion with the Court to stay this lawsuit pending the outcome of the IPR. On January 7, 2015, the Court issued an order staying the lawsuit pending the outcome of the IPR. On March 16, 2015, the Company filed a second petition for IPR of an additional claim of the 723 Patent. On June 11, 2015, the USPTO issued a decision declining to institute the first requested IPR. On July 13, 2015, the Company filed a request for reconsideration of the first petition for IPR with respect to certain challenged claims. On September 16, 2015, the USPTO denied the request for reconsideration. On September 17, 2015, the USPTO decided to institute the Company's second petition for IPR. The Company believes that the possibility that these legal proceedings will result in a material loss is remote.

The Company may be subject to various additional claims, complaints and legal actions that arise from time to time in the normal course of business. Other than as described above, the Company does not believe it is party to any currently pending legal proceedings that will result in a material adverse effect on its business. There can be no assurance that existing or future legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business or otherwise will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.