Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies We are subject to various legal proceedings, claims and governmental inspections, audits or investigations pertaining to issues such as contract disputes, product liability, tax matters, patents and trademarks, advertising, governmental regulations, employment and other matters, including the matters described below. Under the terms of the distribution agreement we entered into with Kimberly-Clark Corporation (“Kimberly-Clark”) prior to the spin-off, legal proceedings, claims and other liabilities that are primarily related to our business are our responsibility and we are obligated to indemnify and hold Kimberly-Clark harmless for such matters (“Indemnification Obligation”). For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2020, we incurred $2.4 million and $5.8 million, respectively, of expenses related to these matters compared to $8.0 million and $21.4 million in the three and nine months ended September 30, 2019. Surgical Gown Litigation and Related Matters Bahamas Surgery Center We have an Indemnification Obligation for the matter styled Bahamas Surgery Center, LLC v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation and Halyard Health, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-08390-DMG-SH (C.D. Cal.) (“Bahamas”), filed on October 29, 2014. In that case, the plaintiff brought a putative class action asserting claims for common law fraud (affirmative misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment) and violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) in connection with our marketing and sale of MicroCool surgical gowns. On April 7, 2017, a jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, finding that Kimberly-Clark was liable for $3.9 million in compensatory damages (not including prejudgment interest) and $350.0 million in punitive damages, and that Avanos was liable for $0.3 million in compensatory damages (not including prejudgment interest) and $100.0 million in punitive damages. Subsequently, the court also ruled on the plaintiff’s UCL claim and request for injunctive relief. The court found in favor of the plaintiff on the UCL claim but denied the plaintiff’s request for restitution. The court also denied the plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief. On May 25, 2017, we filed post-trial motions seeking, among other things, to have the award of punitive damages reduced. On April 11, 2018, the court issued an Amended Judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against us and Kimberly-Clark that substantially reduced the punitive damages awards. Under the Amended Judgment, the judgment against us was $0.4 million in compensatory damages and pre-judgment interest and $1.3 million in punitive damages. The judgment against Kimberly-Clark was $3.9 million in compensatory damages, $2.7 million in pre-judgment interest, and $19.4 million in punitive damages. On April 12, 2018, we filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On July 23, 2020, the appellate court vacated the judgment against us and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss Avanos because Bahamas lacked standing to sue us. The appellate court also ruled that the district court abused its discretion by failing to decertify the class as defined and, therefore, vacated the judgment against Kimberly-Clark and remanded it to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with its ruling. On August 6, 2020, Bahamas petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a rehearing en banc, and on September 9, 2020, the appellate court denied their petition. On October 19, 2020, the trial court ordered that the entire case against Avanos is dismissed, the judgment against Kimberly-Clark is vacated, and the class claims are decertified. We intend to continue our vigorous defense of the Bahamas matter. Kimberly-Clark Corporation We have notified Kimberly-Clark that we have reserved our rights to challenge any purported obligation to indemnify Kimberly-Clark for punitive damages awarded against them. In connection with our reservation of rights, on May 1, 2017, we filed a complaint in the matter styled Halyard Health, Inc. v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Case No. BC659662 (County of Los Angeles, Superior Court of California). In that case, we sought a declaratory judgment that we have no obligation, under the Distribution Agreement or otherwise, to indemnify, pay, reimburse, assume, or otherwise cover punitive damages assessed against Kimberly-Clark in the Bahamas matter, or any Expenses or Losses (as defined in the Distribution Agreement) associated with an award of punitive damages. On May 2, 2017, Kimberly-Clark filed a complaint in the matter styled Kimberly-Clark Corporation v. Halyard Health, Inc., Case No. 2017-0332-AGB (Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware). In that case, Kimberly-Clark seeks a declaratory judgment that (1) we must indemnify them for all damages, including punitive damages, assessed against them in the Bahamas matter, (2) we have anticipatorily and materially breached the Distribution Agreement by our failure to indemnify them, and (3) we are estopped from asserting, or have otherwise waived, any claim that we are not required to indemnify them for all damages, including punitive damages, that may be awarded in the Bahamas matter. On May 26, 2017, we moved to dismiss or stay Kimberly-Clark’s Delaware complaint, and on June 16, 2017, Kimberly-Clark moved for summary judgment. On September 12, 2017, the Delaware court granted our motion to stay Kimberly-Clark’s complaint and therefore did not take any action on Kimberly-Clark’s motion for summary judgment. On May 30, 2018, Kimberly-Clark moved to quash service of summons we served on Kimberly-Clark in California for lack of personal jurisdiction. On December 12, 2018, the court granted Kimberly-Clark’s motion. On December 18, 2018, we filed a notice of appeal to the California Court of Appeal. On December 6, 2019, the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s ruling, finding that it did not have personal jurisdiction over Kimberly-Clark. On September 4, 2020, Kimberly-Clark filed a Second Amended Complaint, which makes substantially similar allegations as their previous complaint and seeks a declaratory judgment on substantially similar grounds for the Bahamas matter and other actions they allege to be covered by the Distribution Agreement. Also on September 4, 2020, Kimberly-Clark filed a motion for summary judgment. On October 9, 2020, we filed a motion to dismiss their Second Amended Complaint and a motion for summary judgment. We intend to continue our vigorous defense of the matter. Government Investigation In June 2015, we were served with a subpoena from the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of the Inspector General (“VA OIG”) seeking information related to the design, manufacture, testing, sale and promotion of MicroCool and other Company surgical gowns, and, in July 2015, we also became aware that the subpoena and an earlier VA OIG subpoena served on Kimberly-Clark requesting information about gown sales to the federal government are related to a United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) investigation. In May 2016, April 2017 and September 2018, we received additional subpoenas from the DOJ seeking further information related to Company gowns. The Company is cooperating with the DOJ investigation. Shahinian On October 12, 2016, after the DOJ and various States declined to intervene, a qui tam matter was unsealed and a complaint was subsequently served on us in a matter styled U.S. ex rel. Shahinian, et al. v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, No. 2:14-cv-08313-JAK-JPR (C.D. Cal.) (“Shahinian”), filed on October 27, 2014. The case alleges, among other things, violations of the federal and various state False Claims Acts in connection with the marketing and sale of certain surgical gowns. On March 8, 2017, Kimberly-Clark moved to dismiss the Shahinian complaint, and on July 14, 2017, the California court granted Kimberly-Clark’s motion. The plaintiff then filed a second amended complaint, and on August 11, 2017, Kimberly-Clark moved to dismiss that one as well. The plaintiff then filed a third amended complaint. On January 18, 2018, Kimberly-Clark moved to dismiss that one too. On September 30, 2018, the court granted Kimberly-Clark’s motion with prejudice. On November 13, 2018, Shahinian filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On June 4, 2020, the appellate court vacated the district’s court order dismissing the case and remanded the case to the district court. We may have an Indemnification Obligation for the Shahinian matter under the Distribution Agreement with Kimberly-Clark and have notified Kimberly-Clark that we reserve our rights to challenge the obligation to indemnify Kimberly-Clark for any damages or penalties which are not indemnifiable under applicable law or public policy. We intend to continue our vigorous defense of the matter. Jackson We were served with a complaint in a matter styled Jackson v. Halyard Health, Inc., Robert E. Abernathy, Steven E. Voskuil, et al., No. 1:16-cv-05093-LTS (S.D.N.Y.), filed on June 28, 2016. In that case, the plaintiff brings a putative class action against the Company, our former Chief Executive Officer, our former Chief Financial Officer and other defendants, asserting claims for violations of the Securities Exchange Act, Sections 10(b) and 20(a). The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made misrepresentations and failed to disclose certain information about the safety and effectiveness of our MicroCool gowns and thereby artificially inflated the Company’s stock prices during the respective class periods. The alleged class period for purchasers of Kimberly-Clark securities who subsequently received Avanos securities is February 25, 2013 to October 21, 2014, and the alleged class period for purchasers of Avanos securities is October 21, 2014 to April 29, 2016. On February 16, 2017, we moved to dismiss the case. On March 30, 2018, the court granted our motion to dismiss and entered judgment in our favor. On April 27, 2018, the plaintiff filed a Motion for Relief from the Judgment and for Leave to Amend. On April 1, 2019, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion. On May 1, 2019, Jackson appealed the dismissal of the action to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. On May 27, 2020, the appellate court affirmed the district court’s order dismissing the case. We intend to continue our vigorous defense of this matter. Richardson, Chiu and Pick We were also served with a complaint in a matter styled Margaret C. Richardson Trustee of the Survivors Trust Dated 6/12/84 for the Benefit of the H&M Richardson Revocable Trust v. Robert E. Abernathy, Steven E. Voskuil, et al., No. 1:16-cv-06296 (S.D.N.Y.) (“Richardson”), filed on August 9, 2016. In that case, the plaintiff sues derivatively on behalf of Avanos Medical, Inc., and alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duty, were unjustly enriched, and violated Section 14(A) of the Securities and Exchange Act in connection with our marketing and sale of MicroCool gowns. We were also served with a complaint in a matter styled Kai Chiu v. Robert E. Abernathy, Steven E. Voskuil, et al., No. 2:16-cv-08768 (C.D. Cal.), filed on November 23, 2016. In that case, the plaintiff sues derivatively on behalf of Avanos Medical, Inc., and makes allegations and brings causes of action similar to those in Richardson, but the plaintiff also adds causes of action for abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets. We were also served with a complaint in a matter styled Lukas Pick v. Robert E. Abernathy, Steven E. Voskuil, et al., No. e:18-cv-00295 (D. Del.) filed on February 21, 2018. In that case, the plaintiff sues derivatively on behalf of Avanos Medical, Inc. and makes allegations and brings causes of action similar to those in Richardson and Chiu. On June 30, 2020 and July 14, 2020, the court in each of Pick and Richardson, respectively, ordered the dismissal of those cases pursuant to stipulations of voluntary dismissal with prejudice. On August 24, 2020, the court in Chiu ordered the dismissal of that case pursuant to a revised stipulation for voluntary dismissal without prejudice. Patent Litigation We operate in an industry characterized by extensive patent litigation and competitors may claim that our products infringe upon their intellectual property. Resolution of patent litigation or other intellectual property claims is typically time consuming and costly and can result in significant damage awards and injunctions that could prevent the manufacture and sale of the affected products or require us to make significant royalty payments in order to continue selling the affected products. At any given time we may be involved as either a plaintiff or a defendant in a number of patent infringement actions, the outcomes of which may not be known for prolonged periods of time. On November 4, 2019, we filed the matter styled Avanos Medical Sales LLC v Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., et al. (No. 2:19-cv-02754-JMP-TMP (W.D. Tenn.), alleging that Medtronic’s manufacture, marketing, sale, and importation of the Accurian system infringes certain claims of U.S. Patent 8,822,755. Medtronic’s motion to dismiss was denied. On June 1, 2020, Medtronic petitioned the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for an inter partes review (“IPR”) of the patent at issue in the litigation. On October 23, 2020, the USPTO instituted an IPR. The IPR will not affect Avanos’s ability to manufacture, market or sell the products covered by the underlying patent. We will continue to vigorously prosecute and defend the litigation and IPR. General While we maintain general and professional liability, product liability and other insurance, our insurance policies may not cover all of these matters and may not fully cover liabilities arising out of these matters. In addition, we may be obligated to indemnify our directors and officers against these matters. We record provisions in the consolidated financial statements for pending litigation when we determine that an unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. For any matters that are reasonably possible to result in loss and for which no possible loss or range of loss is disclosed in this report, management has determined that it is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss because, in each case, at least the following facts applied: (a) early stage of the proceedings; (b) indeterminate (or unspecified) damages; and (c) significant factual issues yet to be resolved, or such amounts have been determined to be immaterial. At present, although the results of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, we believe that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not materially impact our liquidity, access to capital markets or ability to conduct our daily operations. As of September 30, 2020, we have an accrued liability for the matters described herein, and reasonably possible losses have been disclosed. The accrued liability is included in “Accrued Expenses” in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet. Our estimate of these liabilities is based on facts and circumstances existing at this time, along with other variables. Factors that may affect our estimate include, but are not limited to: (i) changes in the number of lawsuits filed against us, including the potential for similar, duplicate or “copycat” lawsuits filed in multiple jurisdictions, including lawsuits that bring causes or action or allege violations of law with regard to additional products; (ii) changes in the legal costs of defending such claims; (iii) changes in the nature of the lawsuits filed against us; (iv) changes in the applicable law governing any legal claims against us; (v) a determination that our assumptions used in estimating the liability are no longer reasonable; and (vi) the uncertainties associated with the judicial process, including adverse judgments rendered by courts or juries. Thus, the actual amount of these liabilities for existing and future claims could be materially different than the accrued amount. Additionally, the above matters, regardless of the outcome, could disrupt our business and result in substantial costs and diversion of management attention. Environmental Compliance We are subject to federal, state and local environmental protection laws and regulations with respect to our business operations and are operating in compliance with, or taking action aimed at ensuring compliance with, these laws and regulations. None of our compliance obligations with environmental protection laws and regulations, individually or in the aggregate, is expected to have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

We are subject to various legal proceedings, claims and governmental inspections, audits or investigations pertaining to issues such as contract disputes, product liability, tax matters, patents and trademarks, advertising, governmental regulations, employment and other matters, including the matters described below. Under the terms of the distribution agreement we entered into with Kimberly-Clark Corporation (“Kimberly-Clark”) prior to the spin-off, legal proceedings, claims and other liabilities that are primarily related to our business are our responsibility and we are obligated to indemnify and hold Kimberly-Clark harmless for such matters (“Indemnification Obligation”). For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2020, we incurred $2.4 million and $5.8 million, respectively, of expenses related to these matters compared to $8.0 million and $21.4 million in the three and nine months ended September 30, 2019.

We have an Indemnification Obligation for the matter styled Bahamas Surgery Center, LLC v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation and Halyard Health, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-08390-DMG-SH (C.D. Cal.) (“Bahamas”), filed on October 29, 2014. In that case, the plaintiff brought a putative class action asserting claims for common law fraud (affirmative misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment) and violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) in connection with our marketing and sale of MicroCool surgical gowns.

On April 7, 2017, a jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, finding that Kimberly-Clark was liable for $3.9 million in compensatory damages (not including prejudgment interest) and $350.0 million in punitive damages, and that Avanos was liable for $0.3 million in compensatory damages (not including prejudgment interest) and $100.0 million in punitive damages. Subsequently, the court also ruled on the plaintiff’s UCL claim and request for injunctive relief. The court found in favor of the plaintiff on the UCL claim but denied the plaintiff’s request for restitution. The court also denied the plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief.

On May 25, 2017, we filed post-trial motions seeking, among other things, to have the award of punitive damages reduced. On April 11, 2018, the court issued an Amended Judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against us and Kimberly-Clark that substantially reduced the punitive damages awards. Under the Amended Judgment, the judgment against us was $0.4 million in compensatory damages and pre-judgment interest and $1.3 million in punitive damages. The judgment against Kimberly-Clark was $3.9 million in compensatory damages, $2.7 million in pre-judgment interest, and $19.4 million in punitive damages.

On April 12, 2018, we filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On July 23, 2020, the appellate court vacated the judgment against us and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss Avanos because Bahamas lacked standing to sue us. The appellate court also ruled that the district court abused its discretion by failing to decertify the class as defined and, therefore, vacated the judgment against Kimberly-Clark and remanded it to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with its ruling. On August 6, 2020, Bahamas petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a rehearing en banc, and on September 9, 2020, the appellate court denied their petition. On October 19, 2020, the trial court ordered that the entire case against Avanos is dismissed, the judgment against Kimberly-Clark is vacated, and the class claims are decertified. We intend to continue our vigorous defense of the Bahamas matter.

We have notified Kimberly-Clark that we have reserved our rights to challenge any purported obligation to indemnify Kimberly-Clark for punitive damages awarded against them. In connection with our reservation of rights, on May 1, 2017, we filed a complaint in the matter styled Halyard Health, Inc. v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Case No. BC659662 (County of Los

Angeles, Superior Court of California). In that case, we sought a declaratory judgment that we have no obligation, under the Distribution Agreement or otherwise, to indemnify, pay, reimburse, assume, or otherwise cover punitive damages assessed against Kimberly-Clark in the Bahamas matter, or any Expenses or Losses (as defined in the Distribution Agreement) associated with an award of punitive damages. On May 2, 2017, Kimberly-Clark filed a complaint in the matter styled Kimberly-Clark Corporation v. Halyard Health, Inc., Case No. 2017-0332-AGB (Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware). In that case, Kimberly-Clark seeks a declaratory judgment that (1) we must indemnify them for all damages, including punitive damages, assessed against them in the Bahamas matter, (2) we have anticipatorily and materially breached the Distribution Agreement by our failure to indemnify them, and (3) we are estopped from asserting, or have otherwise waived, any claim that we are not required to indemnify them for all damages, including punitive damages, that may be awarded in the Bahamas matter.

On May 26, 2017, we moved to dismiss or stay Kimberly-Clark’s Delaware complaint, and on June 16, 2017, Kimberly-Clark moved for summary judgment. On September 12, 2017, the Delaware court granted our motion to stay Kimberly-Clark’s complaint and therefore did not take any action on Kimberly-Clark’s motion for summary judgment. On May 30, 2018, Kimberly-Clark moved to quash service of summons we served on Kimberly-Clark in California for lack of personal jurisdiction. On December 12, 2018, the court granted Kimberly-Clark’s motion. On December 18, 2018, we filed a notice of appeal to the California Court of Appeal. On December 6, 2019, the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s ruling, finding that it did not have personal jurisdiction over Kimberly-Clark.

On September 4, 2020, Kimberly-Clark filed a Second Amended Complaint, which makes substantially similar allegations as their previous complaint and seeks a declaratory judgment on substantially similar grounds for the Bahamas matter and other actions they allege to be covered by the Distribution Agreement. Also on September 4, 2020, Kimberly-Clark filed a motion for summary judgment. On October 9, 2020, we filed a motion to dismiss their Second Amended Complaint and a motion for summary judgment. We intend to continue our vigorous defense of the matter.

In June 2015, we were served with a subpoena from the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of the Inspector General (“VA OIG”) seeking information related to the design, manufacture, testing, sale and promotion of MicroCool and other Company surgical gowns, and, in July 2015, we also became aware that the subpoena and an earlier VA OIG subpoena served on Kimberly-Clark requesting information about gown sales to the federal government are related to a United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) investigation. In May 2016, April 2017 and September 2018, we received additional subpoenas from the DOJ seeking further information related to Company gowns. The Company is cooperating with the DOJ investigation.

On October 12, 2016, after the DOJ and various States declined to intervene, a qui tam matter was unsealed and a complaint was subsequently served on us in a matter styled U.S. ex rel. Shahinian, et al. v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, No. 2:14-cv-08313-JAK-JPR (C.D. Cal.) (“Shahinian”), filed on October 27, 2014. The case alleges, among other things, violations of the federal and various state False Claims Acts in connection with the marketing and sale of certain surgical gowns. On March 8, 2017, Kimberly-Clark moved to dismiss the Shahinian complaint, and on July 14, 2017, the California court granted Kimberly-Clark’s motion. The plaintiff then filed a second amended complaint, and on August 11, 2017, Kimberly-Clark moved to dismiss that one as well. The plaintiff then filed a third amended complaint. On January 18, 2018, Kimberly-Clark moved to dismiss that one too. On September 30, 2018, the court granted Kimberly-Clark’s motion with prejudice. On November 13, 2018, Shahinian filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On June 4, 2020, the appellate court vacated the district’s court order dismissing the case and remanded the case to the district court.

We may have an Indemnification Obligation for the Shahinian matter under the Distribution Agreement with Kimberly-Clark and have notified Kimberly-Clark that we reserve our rights to challenge the obligation to indemnify Kimberly-Clark for any damages or penalties which are not indemnifiable under applicable law or public policy. We intend to continue our vigorous defense of the matter.

We were served with a complaint in a matter styled Jackson v. Halyard Health, Inc., Robert E. Abernathy, Steven E. Voskuil, et al., No. 1:16-cv-05093-LTS (S.D.N.Y.), filed on June 28, 2016. In that case, the plaintiff brings a putative class action against the Company, our former Chief Executive Officer, our former Chief Financial Officer and other defendants, asserting claims for violations of the Securities Exchange Act, Sections 10(b) and 20(a). The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made misrepresentations and failed to disclose certain information about the safety and effectiveness of our MicroCool gowns and thereby artificially inflated the Company’s stock prices during the respective class periods. The alleged class period for purchasers of Kimberly-Clark securities who subsequently received Avanos securities is February 25, 2013 to October 21, 2014, and the alleged class period for purchasers of Avanos securities is October 21, 2014 to April 29, 2016. On February 16, 2017, we moved to dismiss the case. On March 30, 2018, the court granted our motion to dismiss and entered judgment in our

favor. On April 27, 2018, the plaintiff filed a Motion for Relief from the Judgment and for Leave to Amend. On April 1, 2019, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion. On May 1, 2019, Jackson appealed the dismissal of the action to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. On May 27, 2020, the appellate court affirmed the district court’s order dismissing the case. We intend to continue our vigorous defense of this matter.

We were also served with a complaint in a matter styled Margaret C. Richardson Trustee of the Survivors Trust Dated 6/12/84 for the Benefit of the H&M Richardson Revocable Trust v. Robert E. Abernathy, Steven E. Voskuil, et al., No. 1:16-cv-06296 (S.D.N.Y.) (“Richardson”), filed on August 9, 2016. In that case, the plaintiff sues derivatively on behalf of Avanos Medical, Inc., and alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duty, were unjustly enriched, and violated Section 14(A) of the Securities and Exchange Act in connection with our marketing and sale of MicroCool gowns. We were also served with a complaint in a matter styled Kai Chiu v. Robert E. Abernathy, Steven E. Voskuil, et al., No. 2:16-cv-08768 (C.D. Cal.), filed on November 23, 2016. In that case, the plaintiff sues derivatively on behalf of Avanos Medical, Inc., and makes allegations and brings causes of action similar to those in Richardson, but the plaintiff also adds causes of action for abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets. We were also served with a complaint in a matter styled Lukas Pick v. Robert E. Abernathy, Steven E. Voskuil, et al., No. e:18-cv-00295 (D. Del.) filed on February 21, 2018. In that case, the plaintiff sues derivatively on behalf of Avanos Medical, Inc. and makes allegations and brings causes of action similar to those in Richardson and Chiu. On June 30, 2020 and July 14, 2020, the court in each of Pick and Richardson, respectively, ordered the dismissal of those cases pursuant to stipulations of voluntary dismissal with prejudice. On August 24, 2020, the court in Chiu ordered the dismissal of that case pursuant to a revised stipulation for voluntary dismissal without prejudice.

We operate in an industry characterized by extensive patent litigation and competitors may claim that our products infringe upon their intellectual property. Resolution of patent litigation or other intellectual property claims is typically time consuming and costly and can result in significant damage awards and injunctions that could prevent the manufacture and sale of the affected products or require us to make significant royalty payments in order to continue selling the affected products.

On November 4, 2019, we filed the matter styled Avanos Medical Sales LLC v Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., et al. (No. 2:19-cv-02754-JMP-TMP (W.D. Tenn.), alleging that Medtronic’s manufacture, marketing, sale, and importation of the Accurian system infringes certain claims of U.S. Patent 8,822,755. Medtronic’s motion to dismiss was denied. On June 1, 2020, Medtronic petitioned the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for an inter partes review (“IPR”) of the patent at issue in the litigation. On October 23, 2020, the USPTO instituted an IPR. The IPR will not affect Avanos’s ability to manufacture, market or sell the products covered by the underlying patent. We will continue to vigorously prosecute and defend the litigation and IPR.

We record provisions in the consolidated financial statements for pending litigation when we determine that an unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. For any matters that are reasonably possible to result in loss and for which no possible loss or range of loss is disclosed in this report, management has determined that it is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss because, in each case, at least the following facts applied: (a) early stage of the proceedings; (b) indeterminate (or unspecified) damages; and (c) significant factual issues yet to be resolved, or such amounts have been determined to be immaterial. At present, although the results of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, we believe that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not materially impact our liquidity, access to capital markets or ability to conduct our daily operations.

As of September 30, 2020, we have an accrued liability for the matters described herein, and reasonably possible losses have been disclosed. The accrued liability is included in “Accrued Expenses” in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet. Our estimate of these liabilities is based on facts and circumstances existing at this time, along with other variables. Factors that may affect our estimate include, but are not limited to: (i) changes in the number of lawsuits filed against us, including the potential for similar, duplicate or “copycat” lawsuits filed in multiple jurisdictions, including lawsuits that bring causes or action or allege violations of law with regard to additional products; (ii) changes in the legal costs of defending such claims; (iii) changes in the nature of the lawsuits filed against us; (iv) changes in the applicable law governing any legal claims against us; (v) a determination that our assumptions used in estimating the liability are no longer reasonable; and (vi) the uncertainties associated with the judicial process, including adverse judgments rendered by courts or juries. Thus, the actual

We are subject to federal, state and local environmental protection laws and regulations with respect to our business operations and are operating in compliance with, or taking action aimed at ensuring compliance with, these laws and regulations. None of our compliance obligations with environmental protection laws and regulations, individually or in the aggregate, is expected to have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.