2.2.0.7 false Contingencies 0210 - Disclosure - Contingencies true false false false 1 USD false false USD Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 0 USDEPS Divide http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 Shares Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 $ 2 Contingencies [Abstract] 0 gpro_ContingenciesAbstract gpro false na duration Contingencies. false false false false false true false false false false false false 1 false false false false 0 0 false false false xbrli:stringItemType string Contingencies. false 3 Contingencies 1 us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock us-gaap true na duration No definition available. false false false false false false false false false false false verboselabel false 1 false false false false 0 0   <div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif"> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><b>Note 10 — Contingencies</b> </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt"><b><i>Contingent Consideration</i></b> </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In connection with the Company’s acquisition of Prodesse, the Company may be obligated to make certain payments to former Prodesse securityholders of up to $25.0 million. The aggregate fair value of these payments was $11.9 million as of June 30, 2010, and is reflected in the Company’s consolidated balance sheets under the captions “Other accrued expenses” and “Other long-term liabilities.” On July 26, 2010, the Company received FDA clearance of its ProFAST™+ assay, thereby satisfying one of the acquisition-related milestones and triggering a $10 million payment to former Prodesse securityholders, the fair value of which was accrued as of June 30, 2010. The Company believes future milestone payments, if any, will occur between the fourth quarter of 2010 and the second quarter of 2012. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><b><i>Litigation</i></b> </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     The Company is a party to the following litigation and may also be involved in other litigation in the ordinary course of business. The Company intends to vigorously defend its interests in these matters. The Company expects that the resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition or results of operations. However, due to the uncertainties inherent in litigation, no assurance can be given as to the outcome of these proceedings. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt">      <i>Digene Corporation</i> </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In December 2006, Digene Corporation (“Digene”) filed a demand for binding arbitration against F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. and Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. (collectively, “Roche”), with the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (“ICDR”) of the American Arbitration Association in New York. In July 2007, the ICDR arbitrators granted the Company’s petition to join the arbitration. Digene’s arbitration demand challenged the validity of the February 2005 supply and purchase agreement between the Company and Roche. Under the supply and purchase agreement, Roche manufactures and supplies the Company with human papillomavirus (“HPV”) oligonucleotide products. Digene’s demand asserted, among other things, that Roche materially breached a cross-license agreement between Roche and Digene by granting the Company an improper sublicense and sought a determination that the supply and purchase agreement is null and void. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In April 2009, following the arbitration hearing, a three-member arbitration panel from the ICDR issued an interim award rejecting all claims asserted by Digene (now Qiagen Gaithersburg, Inc.). </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In August 2009, the arbitrators issued their final arbitration award, which confirmed the interim award and also granted the Company’s motion to recover attorneys’ fees and costs from Digene in the amount of approximately $2.9 million. The Company filed a petition to confirm the arbitration award in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and Digene filed a petition to vacate or modify the award. A hearing on the petitions was held in December 2009 and a ruling has not yet been issued. The Company will record the $2.9 million as an offset to general and administrative expense upon cash receipt. </div>   </div>  <div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif"> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt">     <i>Becton, Dickinson and Company</i> </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In October 2009, the Company filed a complaint for patent infringement against Becton, Dickinson and Company (“BD”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint alleges that BD’s Viper<font style="font-variant: small-caps"><sup style="font-size: 85%; vertical-align: text-top">tm</sup></font> XTR<sup style="font-size: 85%; vertical-align: text-top">TM</sup> testing system infringes five of the Company’s U.S. patents covering automated processes for preparing, amplifying and detecting nucleic acid targets. The complaint also alleges that BD’s ProbeTec<sup style="font-size: 85%; vertical-align: text-top">TM</sup> Female Endocervical and Male Urethral Specimen Collection Kits for Amplified Chlamydia trachomatis/Neisseria gonorrhoeae (CT/GC) DNA assays used with the Viper XTR testing system infringe two of the Company’s U.S. patents covering penetrable caps for specimen collection tubes. Finally, the complaint alleges that BD has infringed the Company’s U.S. patent on methods and kits for destroying the ability of a nucleic acid to be amplified. The complaint seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In March 2010, the Company filed a second complaint for patent infringement against BD in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint alleges that BD’s BD MAX System<sup style="font-size: 85%; vertical-align: text-top">TM</sup> (formerly known as the HandyLab Jaguar system) infringes four of the Company’s U.S. patents covering automated processes for preparing, amplifying and detecting nucleic acid targets. The complaint seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. In June 2010, these two actions were consolidated into a single legal proceeding. There can be no assurances as to the final outcome of the litigation. </div> </div>  <!-- Begin Block Tagged Note false false false us-types:textBlockItemType textblock Includes disclosure of commitments and contingencies. This element may be used as a single block of text to encapsulate the entire disclosure including data and tables. Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name FASB Interpretation (FIN) -Number 14 -Paragraph 3 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 5 -Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12 false 1 2 false UnKnown UnKnown UnKnown false true