XML 36 R20.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.6.0.2
Commitments and Contingencies
12 Months Ended
Oct. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies

Lease Commitments
 
Total minimum annual rental obligations under noncancelable operating leases (substantially all real property or equipment) in force at October 31, 2016, were payable as follows:
(In millions)
 
2017
$
27.4

2018
23.7

2019
21.5

2020
19.2

2021
16.4

2022 and thereafter
124.8


$
233.0



Aggregate rental expense for both cancelable and noncancelable contracts amounted to $29.9 million, $27.5 million and $25.6 million in 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
Legal Proceedings

On or about November 11, 2014, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care (JJVC) filed an action in the district court of Dusseldorf, Germany, against CooperVision GmbH and CooperVision, Inc. (collectively “CooperVision” or “we”) for patent infringement. In the action, JJVC alleged that certain CooperVision products infringe JJVC’s European Patent No. EP 1 754 728 B1, and was seeking damages and to enjoin these products from selling in Germany. We were challenging the validity of the patent before the European Patent Office.

In July 2015, CooperVision made a one-time lump sum payment to JJVC of $17.0 million to settle our existing patent disputes. As a result of the settlement, we withdrew our opposition to the JJVC patent filed before the European Patent Office, and JJVC withdrew its complaint of infringement pending before the district court of Dusseldorf, Germany. The settlement included worldwide, non-exclusive, perpetual and royalty-free cross-licenses between the parties to certain patents including the JJVC patent referenced above. The settlement also included reciprocal covenants not to sue on those patents which were not licensed with respect to each party’s current, core commercialized product offerings, including all silicone hydrogel lenses. Neither party admitted any liability as part of the settlement.

Since March 2015, over 50 putative class action complaints were filed by contact lens consumers alleging that contact lens manufacturers, in conjunction with their respective Unilateral Pricing Policy (UPP), conspired to reach agreements between each other and certain distributors and retailers regarding the prices at which certain contact lenses could be sold to consumers. The plaintiffs are seeking damages against CooperVision, Inc., other contact lens manufacturers, distributors and retailers, in various courts around the United States. In June 2015, all of the class action cases were consolidated and transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. CooperVision and the other defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the complaints in December 2015. In June 2016, the motion to dismiss with respect to claims brought under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act was granted, but the motion to dismiss with respect to claims brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and other state laws was denied. The actions currently are in discovery. CooperVision denies the allegations and intends to defend the actions vigorously. At this time, we do not believe a loss or adverse effect on our financial condition is probable nor is any range of potential loss reasonably estimable.
The Company is involved in various lawsuits, claims and other legal matters from time to time that arise in the ordinary course of conducting business, including matters involving our products, intellectual property, supplier relationships, distributors, competitor relationships, employees and other matters. The Company does not believe that an estimate of possible loss or a range of loss can be made at this time.