Commitments and Contingencies

(a) Contingent Earn-Out Payments

In connection with certain of its acquisitions, the Company incurred obligations to make contingent earn-out payments tied to performance criteria, principally revenue growth of the acquired businesses over a specified period.

In the first quarter of fiscal 2013, the Company made its final contingent consideration payment of $16.8 million to the former shareholders of Adiana, Inc., which was net of amounts withheld for qualifying legal costs, and its final contingent consideration payment of $3.4 million to the former shareholders of Sentinelle Medical Inc.

In connection with the Company’s acquisition of Interlace in fiscal 2011, the Company had an obligation to the former Interlace stockholders to make contingent payments over a two-year period. Pursuant to ASC 805, Business Combinations, the Company recorded its estimate of the fair value of the contingent consideration liability based on future revenue projections of the Interlace business. The final measurement period ended during the second quarter of fiscal 2013, resulting in a contingent consideration liability of $93.8 million. Of this amount, $86.9 million was paid to the former Interlace stockholders in the second quarter of fiscal 2013. The remainder was withheld for legal indemnification provisions and is being used to pay qualifying legal expenses. At June 28, 2014, the Company had accrued $3.1 million.

In connection with the Company’s acquisition of TCT International Co., Ltd. (“TCT”) in June 2011, the Company had an obligation to certain of the former TCT shareholders, based on future employment, to make contingent payments over a two year period provided certain revenue milestones were met. These earnouts were recorded as compensation expense ratably over the required service periods. The second and final earn-out period was completed in the third quarter of fiscal 2013, and the Company paid $87.4 million of this earn-out in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2013. The remaining $31.1 million of this earn-out was paid in the first quarter of fiscal 2014.

There was no contingent consideration expense recorded in the first nine months of fiscal 2014. A summary of amounts recorded to the Consolidated Statements of Operations is as follows:



Statement of Operations Line Item – 3 Months Ended June 29, 2013	Interlace		TCT		Total
Contingent consideration – compensation expense	$	—	$	21.6	$	21.6
Contingent consideration – fair value adjustments	0.5		—		0.5
	$	0.5	$	21.6	$	22.1



Statement of Operations Line Item – 9 Months Ended June 29, 2013	Interlace		TCT		Total
Contingent consideration – compensation expense	$	—	$	80.5	$	80.5
Contingent consideration – fair value adjustments	11.3		—		11.3
	$	11.3	$	80.5	$	91.8

(b) Litigation and Related Matters

On June 9, 2010, Smith & Nephew filed suit against Interlace, which the Company acquired on January 6, 2011, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint alleged that the Interlace MyoSure hysteroscopic tissue removal device infringed U.S. patent 7,226,459. On November 22, 2011, Smith & Nephew filed suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint alleged that use of the MyoSure hysteroscopic tissue removal system infringed U.S. patent 8,061,359. Both complaints sought permanent injunctive relief and unspecified damages. On September 4, 2012, following a two week trial, the jury returned a verdict of infringement of both the ‘459 and ‘359 patents and assessed damages of $4.0 million. A bench trial regarding the Company’s assertion of inequitable conduct on the part of Smith & Nephew with regard to the ‘359 patent was held on December 9, 2012 and oral arguments on the issue of inequitable conduct were presented on February 27, 2013. On June 27, 2013, the Court denied the Company’s motions related to inequitable conduct and allowed Smith & Nephew’s request for injunction, but ordered that enforcement of the injunction be stayed until final resolution, including appeal, of the current re-examinations of both patents at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). The Court also rejected the jury’s damage award and ordered the parties to identify a mechanism for resolving the damages issue. On September 12, 2013, a status conference was held, and the Court invited the parties to submit briefs on the relevance of recent activity in the re-examinations at the USPTO. A hearing on this topic was held on October 29, 2013, and the parties are awaiting the Court’s ruling. The Company intends to file post-trial motions seeking to reverse the jury’s verdict. On January 14, 2014, the USPTO issued a final decision that the claims of the ‘459 patent asserted as part of the litigation are not patentable. On February 13, 2014, Smith & Nephew appealed this decision to the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The re-examination of the ‘359 patent is on-going. It is expected that patentability decisions made by the USPTO for both patents will proceed to appeal. At this time, based on available information regarding this litigation, the Company is unable to reasonably assess the ultimate outcome of this case or determine an estimate, or a range of estimates, of potential losses.

On March 6, 2012, Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. (“Enzo”) filed suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleged that certain of the Company’s molecular diagnostics products, including without limitation products based on its proprietary Invader chemistry, such as Cervista HPV HR and Cervista HPV 16/18, infringe Enzo’s U.S. patent 6,992,180. The complaint seeks permanent injunctive relief and unspecified damages. The Company was formally served with the complaint on July 3, 2012, and a trial is tentatively scheduled for the fall of 2015. In January 2012, Enzo filed suit against Gen-Probe in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The Gen-Probe complaint alleged that certain of Gen-Probe’s diagnostics products, including products that incorporate Gen-Probe’s patented hybridization protection assay technology, such as the Aptima Combo 2 and Aptima HPV assays, infringe Enzo’s U.S. patent 6,992,180. On September 30, 2013, Enzo amended its list of accused products to include Prodesse, MilliPROBE, PACE and Procleix assays. The complaint seeks permanent injunctive relief and unspecified damages. Enzo has asserted the ‘180 patent claims against six other companies. The defendant companies are jointly arguing issues related to claim construction, and the trials are tentatively scheduled to begin in the fall of 2015. At this time, based on available information regarding this litigation, the Company is unable to reasonably assess the ultimate outcome of this case or determine an estimate, or a range of estimates, of potential losses.

On October 29, 2013, the Interlace stockholder representatives filed a complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery alleging breach of contract for issues related to the payment of contingent consideration under the Interlace acquisition agreement, and are seeking $14.7 million in additional payments. The Company believes that Interlace has been paid all amounts due under the acquisition agreement and that the claims are without merit. The Company is currently undergoing discovery. At this time, the Company is unable to reasonably assess the ultimate outcome of this case or determine an estimate, or range of estimates, of potential losses.

The Company is a party to various other legal proceedings and claims arising out of the ordinary course of its business. The Company believes that except for those described above there are no other proceedings or claims pending against it of which the ultimate resolution would have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of operations. In all cases, at each reporting period, the Company evaluates whether or not a potential loss amount or a potential range of loss is probable and reasonably estimable under ASC 450, Contingencies. Legal costs are expensed as incurred.