Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2012

Contingencies

Contingencies

5. Contingencies

Litigation

From time to time, the Company is involved in legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of its business. Currently, management believes the Company does not have any probable and estimable loss related to any current legal proceedings and claims that would individually or in the aggregate materially adversely affect its financial condition or operating results. Litigation is inherently unpredictable and is subject to significant uncertainties, some of which are beyond the Company’s control. Should any of these estimates and assumptions change or prove to have been incorrect, the Company could incur significant charges related to legal matters which could have a material impact on its results of operations, financial position and cash flows.

Best Medical Trade Secret Litigation

On September 3, 2009, Best Medical International, Inc. (“Best Medical”) filed a lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, claiming that the Company induced certain individuals to leave the employment of Best Medical and join the Company in order to gain access to Best Medical’s confidential information and trade secrets. Best Medical is seeking monetary damages and other relief. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on May 20, 2011, Best Medical filed its response on June 21, 2011, and the Company filed a response to their response on July 8, 2011. On October 25, 2011, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Company on all counts. On November 21, 2011 Best Medical filed a notice of appeal, and the parties await a ruling by the appellate court. At this time, the Company does not have enough information to estimate what, if any, financial impact this claim will have.

Best Medical Patent Litigation

On August 6, 2010, Best Medical filed an additional lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, claiming that the Company has infringed U.S. Patent No. 5,596,619, a patent that Best Medical alleges protects a method and apparatus for conformal radiation therapy. On December 2, 2010, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss, with leave to amend. On December 16, 2010, Best Medical filed an amended complaint, claiming that the Company also infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,038,283 and 7,266,175, both of which Best Medical alleges cover methods and apparatus for conformal radiation therapy. On March 9, 2011, the Court dismissed with prejudice all counts against the Company, except for two counts of alleged willful infringement of two of the patents. The Court issued a Scheduling Order on May 12, 2011 appointing a special master for claim construction, and setting a claim construction hearing on January 10, 2012. Best Medical moved to voluntarily dismiss one of the two remaining patent claims on June 28, 2011, which the court granted on June 30, 2011, leaving only one patent (U.S. Patent No. 6,038,283) at issue in the case. The Court held a claim construction hearing on May 16, 2012. On January 10, 2013, the Court issued the claim construction order and a mandatory mediation will occur in March 2013. Best Medical is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as unspecified compensatory and treble damages and other relief. At this time, the Company does not have enough information to estimate what, if any, financial impact this claim will have.

Rotary Systems

On April 28, 2011, a former supplier to TomoTherapy, Rotary Systems Incorporated, filed suit in Minnesota state court, Tenth Judicial District, Anoka County, against TomoTherapy alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, as well as several other counts alleging various theories of injury. Rotary Systems alleges TomoTherapy misappropriated Rotary Systems’ trade secrets pertaining to a component previously purchased from Rotary Systems, which component TomoTherapy now purchases from a different supplier. The suit alleges TomoTherapy improperly supplied the alleged trade secrets to its present supplier, Dynamic Sealing Technologies Inc. (also a named defendant in the suit). Rotary Systems has made an unspecified claim for damages of greater than $50,000. TomoTherapy moved to dismiss the case on May 19, 2011, and on August 29, 2011, the court granted the motion to dismiss with respect to all counts other than the count alleging misappropriation of trade secrets. On May 21, 2012, the court granted the Company’s motion for sanctions, in part, and gave Rotary Systems sixty days to identify the alleged trade secrets with specificity or face dismissal of its claim with prejudice. The court held a hearing on September 20, 2012 to review Rotary System’s amended complaint and set a calendar for discovery. At this time, the Company does not have enough information to estimate what, if any, financial impact this claim will have.

Radiation Stabilization Solutions Patent Litigation

On September 15, 2011, Radiation Stabilization Solutions LLC (“RSS”) filed a patent infringement complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. The complaint, alleged the Company’s sale of the TomoHD product induces infringement of or contributorily infringes U.S. Patent No. 6,118,848, or the ‘848 Patent, and sought unspecified monetary damages for the alleged infringement. The complaint also named Varian Medical Systems, Inc., BrainLab AG, BrainLab, Inc., Elekta AB and Elekta, Inc. as defendants, alleging that certain of their products also infringe the ‘848 patent. On October 27, 2011, the Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice because non-resident defendants had been improperly named in the complaint.

On October 28, 2011, RSS filed a new complaint against the Company and a customer of the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. The new complaint repeats the original complaint’s allegations against the Company and seeks unspecified monetary damages for the alleged infringement. The complaint further alleges that the customer directly and indirectly infringes the ‘848 patent, and seeks unspecified monetary damages for the alleged infringement. RSS also filed individual suits against each of Varian and Elekta and several of their respective customers. RSS served the complaint on Accuray and its customer on December 7, 2011. On January 30, 2012 the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, and the Court heard oral argument for the motion on June 29, 2012. On August 21, 2012, the court granted the Company’s motion in part and gave RSS leave to amend the complaint. On September 21, 2012, RSS filed an amended complaint. On November 2, 2012, the Company and RSS entered into a settlement agreement, under which the Company paid $150,000 to resolve all outstanding claims.

Accuray Securities Complaint

On November 1, 2012, a complaint was filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court purportedly on behalf of a class of shareholders seeking to enjoin the shareholder vote to be held at our annual meeting scheduled for November 30, 2012. The complaint named as defendants the Company and the members of the board of directors and alleged that the disclosures in the proxy statement for the annual meeting concerning the advisory vote on executive compensation and the proposal to amend the certificate of incorporation to increase the number of authorized shares are inadequate and constitute a breach of fiduciary duty. In addition to an injunction, the complaint sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The annual meeting was held on November 30, 2012. On December 28, 2012, the plaintiffs requested dismissal of the case from the court without prejudice, which was granted on January 3, 2013.

Sarif Biomedical Patent Litigation

On January 28, 2013 Sarif Biomedical filed a patent infringement complaint in the United States District Court for Delaware. The complaint alleges the Company’s CyberKnife system directly infringes U.S. Patent No. 5,755,725, or the ‘725 Patent, and seeks unspecified monetary damages for the alleged infringement. At this time, we do not have enough information to estimate what, if any, financial impact this claim will have.

Software License Indemnity

Under the terms of the Company’s software license agreements with its customers, the Company agrees that in the event the software sold infringes upon any patent, copyright, trademark, or any other proprietary right of a third party, it will indemnify its customer licensees against any loss, expense, or liability from any damages that may be awarded against its customer. The Company includes this infringement indemnification in all of its software license agreements and selected managed services arrangements. In the event the customer cannot use the software or service due to infringement and the Company cannot obtain the right to use, replace or modify the license or service in a commercially feasible manner so that it no longer infringes, then the Company may terminate the license and provide the customer a refund of the fees paid by the customer for the infringing license or service. The Company has not recorded any liability associated with this indemnification, as it is not aware of any pending or threatened actions that represent probable losses as of December 31, 2012.