Litigation and Related Matters	12 Months Ended
Sep. 29, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation and Related Matters	Litigation and Related Matters On June 9, 2010, Smith & Nephew, Inc. ("Smith & Nephew") filed suit against Interlace Medical, Inc. ("Interlace"), which the Company acquired on January 6, 2011, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging that the Interlace MyoSure hysteroscopic tissue removal device infringed U.S. Patent 7,226,459 (the '459 patent). On November 22, 2011, Smith & Nephew filed suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging that use of the MyoSure tissue removal system infringed U.S. Patent 8,061,359 (the '359 patent). Both complaints sought preliminary and 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 $4.0 million in damages. On June 27, 2013, the Court denied the Company’s motions related to inequitable conduct and allowed Smith & Nephew’s request for an 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. The USPTO issued final decisions that the claims of the '459 and the '359 patents asserted as part of the litigation are not patentable, which decisions Smith & Nephew appealed to the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB"). In 2016, the PTAB (i) affirmed the USPTO decision with respect to the '459 patent, holding that the claims at issue are invalid, and (ii) reversed the USPTO decision with respect to the '359 patent, holding that the claims at issue are not invalid. On January 30, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Court of Appeals”) issued a decision in the '459 patent appeal that affirmed as invalid the claims at issue and remanded the matter to the PTAB for further proceedings. On March 14, 2018, the Court of Appeals issued a decision in the ‘359 patent appeal that affirmed the PTAB ruling, holding that the claims at issue are not invalid. In a status report filed on June 18, 2018, Smith & Nephew notified the Court that it would not seek injunctive relief. On July 11, 2018, during a status conference, the Court invited the parties to file a supplemental briefing to address the impact of the ‘359 patent reexamination on liability issues and whether there is a need for a new trial on damages. On October 26, 2018, the parties entered into a Settlement and License Agreement to resolve the litigation. Under the agreement, in consideration of licenses, releases, non-asserts and other immunities granted by Smith & Nephew, the Company agreed to pay Smith & Nephew $34.8 million related to sales of the MyoSure tissue removal system through September 30, 2018, plus an ongoing royalty of 1% for such sales through September 26, 2020. The Company accrued the $34.8 million payment as a charge within general and administrative expenses in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2018, and the payment was made in the first quarter of fiscal 2019. On November 6, 2015, the Company filed a suit against Minerva Surgical, Inc. (“Minerva”) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that Minerva’s endometrial ablation device infringes U.S. Patents 6,872,183 (the '183 patent), 8,998,898 (the '898 patent) and 9,095,348 (the '348 patent). On January 25, 2016, the Company amended the complaint to include claims against Minerva for unfair competition, deceptive trade practices and tortious interference with business relationships. On February 5, 2016, the Company filed a second amended complaint to additionally allege that Minerva’s endometrial ablation device infringes U.S. Patent 9,247,989 (the '989 patent). On March 4, 2016, Minerva filed an answer and counterclaims against the Company, seeking declaratory judgment on the Company’s claims and asserting claims against the Company for unfair competition, deceptive trade practices, interference with contractual relationships, breach of contract and trade libel. On June 2, 2016, the Court denied the Company’s motion for a preliminary injunction on its patent claims and denied Minerva’s request for preliminary injunction related to the Company’s alleged false and deceptive statements regarding the Minerva product. On June 28, 2018, the Court granted the Company's summary judgment motions on infringement and no invalidity with respect to the ‘183 and ‘348 patents. The Court also granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment on assignor estoppel, which bars Minerva’s invalidity defenses or any reliance on collateral findings regarding invalidity from inter partes review proceedings. The Court also denied all of Minerva’s defenses, including its motions for summary judgment on invalidity, non-infringement, no willfulness, and no unfair competition. On July 27, 2018, after a two-week trial, a jury returned a verdict that: (1) awarded the Company $4.8 million in damages for Minerva’s infringement of the ‘183 and ‘348 patents; (2) found that Minerva’s infringement was not willful; and (3) found for the Company regarding Minerva’s counterclaims. Damages will continue to accrue until Minerva ceases its infringing conduct. Further, the Company will seek a permanent injunction prohibiting Minerva from selling infringing devices. On March 4, 2016, Minerva filed two petitions at the USPTO for inter partes review of the '348 patent. On September 12, 2016, the PTAB declined both petitions to review patentability of the ‘348 patent. On April 11, 2016, Minerva filed a petition for inter partes review of the '183 patent. On October 6, 2016, the PTAB granted the petition and instituted a review of the '183 patent. On December 15, 2017, the PTAB issued a final written decision invalidating all claims of the ‘183 patent. On February 9, 2018 the Company appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Court of Appeals”), which appeal is pending. On November 2, 2016, Minerva filed a petition for post-grant review of the '989 patent. On May 10, 2017, the PTAB granted the petition and instituted a review of the ‘989 patent. On May 8, 2018, the PTAB issued a final written decision invalidating all claims of the ‘989 patent. On July 10, 2018 the Company appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals. On April 11, 2017, Minerva filed suit against the Company and Cytyc Surgical Products, LLC (“Cytyc”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that the Company’s and Cytyc’s NovaSure ADVANCED endometrial ablation device infringes Minerva’s U.S. Patent 9,186,208. Minerva is seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction against the Company and Cytyc from selling this NovaSure device as well as enhanced damages and interest, including lost profits, price erosion and/or royalty. On January 5, 2018, the Court denied Minerva's motion for a preliminary injunction. On February 2, 2018, at the parties’ joint request, this action was transferred to the District of Delaware. Trial is scheduled for July 20, 2020. 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 January 30, 2012, and on March 6, 2012, Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. ("Enzo") filed suit against the Company and its subsidiary, Gen-Probe Incorporated ("Gen-Probe"), in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that certain of Gen-Probe’s diagnostics products, including products that incorporate Gen-Probe’s hybridization protection assay technology (HPA), infringe Enzo’s U.S. Patent 6,992,180 (the '180 patent) and that products based on the Company's Invader chemistry platform infringe the '180 patent. On July 16, 2012, Enzo amended its complaint to include additional products that include HPA or TaqMan reagent chemistry. Both complaints sought preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and unspecified damages. On June 28, 2017, in ruling on the Company’s motion for summary judgment, the Court held that the '180 patent was invalid for nonenablement. On August 18, 2017, Enzo filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which appeal remains pending. 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 27, 2015, Enzo filed an additional suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that certain additional Company molecular diagnostic products also infringe the '180 patent. The complaint further alleges that certain of the Company’s molecular diagnostic productsusing target capture technology infringe Enzo’s U.S. Patent 7,064,197 (the '197 patent). On June 11, 2015, this matter was stayed pending the resolution of summary judgment motions in the other related suits involving the '197 patent. On March 30, 2016, the Company petitioned inter partes review of the ‘197 patent at the USPTO. The USPTO instituted the two inter partes reviews on all challenged claims on October 4, 2016. On September 28 and October 2, 2017, the PTAB issued final written decisions in the two inter partes reviews finding that all of the challenged claims of the ‘197 patent are unpatentable. On November 29, 2017, Enzo appealed the PTAB decisions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which appeals remain pending. At this time, based on available information regarding this litigation and the related inter partes reviews, 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 3, 2016, Enzo filed an additional suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that products employing the Company’s proprietary target capture technologies infringe U.S. Patent 6,221,581 (the '581 patent). The Court granted Enzo’s motion to file an amended complaint adding Grifols Diagnostic Solutions Inc. and Grifols, S.A. (“Grifols”) as parties on November 9, 2017. On October 4, 2017, the Company filed for inter partes review of the ‘581 patent with the USPTO based on Enzo’s asserted claims. On April 18, 2018, the USPTO denied the Company’s petition for inter partes review. On May 18, 2018, the Company filed a request for rehearing of the USPTO denial order, which remains pending. On October 15, 2018, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order regarding claim construction of the '581 patent, ruling in favor of the Company and Grifols on nearly all disputed claim terms. On November 5, 2018, the Court entered final judgment in favor of the Company and Grifols following the filing of a Joint Stipulation of Noninfringement. Enzo intends to appeal the Court's claim construction ruling. At this time, based on available information regarding this litigation and the related inter partes reviews, 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 February 3, 2017, bioMérieux, S.A. and bioMérieux, Inc. (collectively “bioMérieux”) filed suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina(“MDNC”), alleging that the Company’s HIV products, including blood screening products previously manufactured by the Company for its former blood screening partner Grifols and Grifols Diagnostic Solutions Inc. (“Grifols USA”), infringe U.S. Patents 8,697,352 and 9,074,262. On April 3, 2017, the Company and Grifols USA filed a motion to dismiss asking the Court to dismiss the complaint in its entirety for bioMérieux’s failure to state a claim. On June 9, 2017, the Company filed a supplemental motion to dismiss for improper venue. On January 3, 2018, the MDNC Court granted the parties’ consent motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. On May 31, 2018, the Company filed a motion to sever and stay their arbitrable license defense. On September 25, 2018, the Court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Company filed petitions for inter partes review of the asserted patents on February 6, 2018. The USPTO denied the Company’s petitions for inter partes review in August and September, 2018. The Company filed requests for rehearing of the denial orders, which requests are pending. 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 range of estimates, of potential losses. On July 27, 2016, plaintiff ARcare, Inc., individually and as putative representative of a purported nationwide class, filed a complaint against Cynosure. The plaintiff alleges that Cynosure violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by: (i) sending fax advertisements that did not comply with statutory and Federal Communications Commission requirements that senders provide recipients with certain information about how to opt out from receiving faxed advertisements in the future; and (ii) sending unsolicited fax advertisements. The complaint sought damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees on behalf of a purported class of all recipients of purported fax advertisements that the plaintiff alleges did not receive an adequate opt-out notice. On September 30, 2016, Cynosure answered the complaint and denied liability. On September 7, 2016, the plaintiff sent a demand letter seeking a class settlement for statutory damages under Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 93A § 9 (“Chapter 93A”). On October 7, 2016, Cynosure responded denying any liability under Chapter 93A, but offering the plaintiff statutory damages of $25 on an individual basis. In March 2017, Cynosure and ARcare entered into a settlement agreement, subject to court approval, which requires Cynosure to pay settlement compensation of $8.5 million notwithstanding the number of claims filed. If approved, Cynosure would receive a full release from the settlement class concerning the conduct alleged in the complaint. As a result of the settlement agreement, Cynosure recorded a charge of $9.2 million, in the period ended December 31, 2016, which continues to be accrued as of September 28, 2018. On March 17, 2017, a purported shareholder of Cynosure, Michael Guido, filed an action against Cynosure in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law seeking the production of certain books and records, including books and records related to the acquisition of Cynosure by the Company. The action follows Cynosure’s rejection of Mr. Guido’s demand for these books and records on the ground that he had not met the requirements of the statute. In addition to books and records, the complaint seeks reasonable attorneys’ fees. On August 24, 2018, following the plaintiff’s counsel decision not to pursue the action, the parties filed a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice to conclude the case. On June 26 and 28, 2017, the Company filed suit against FUJIFILM Corp., FUJIFILM Medical Systems USA, Inc., and FUJIFILM Techno Products Co., Ltd. (collectively “Fujifilm”) in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut and the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”), respectively, alleging that Fujifilm’s Aspire Cristalle mammography system infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 7,831,296; 8,452,379; 7,688,940; and 7,986,765. The Company seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions and an exclusion order against Fujifilm from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing into the United States allegedly infringing product and also seeks enhanced damages and interest. A hearing was held at the ITC before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) from April 9, 2018 to April 13, 2018. On July 26, 2018, the ALJ issued an initial determination finding that Fujifilm infringed all of the patents brought to trial and rejected Fujifilm’s defenses against these patents. The ALJ recommended an exclusion order that prevents the importation of infringing Fujifilm products into the United States, as well as a cease-and-desist order preventing the further sale and marketing of infringing Fujifilm products in the United States. A final determination by the ITC is scheduled to issue by January 25, 2019. On March 2, 2018, FUJIFILM Corporation and FUJIFILM Medical Systems U.S.A., Inc. (collectively “Fujifilm2”) filed suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that certain of the Company’s mammography systems infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 7,453,979; 7,639,779; RE44,367; and 8,684,948. Fujifilm2 further alleges that the Company violated United States antitrust laws and Delaware competition laws regarding the sale of certain of the Company’s mammography systems. Fujifilm2 seeks injunctive relief and unspecified monetary damages including statutory treble damages for certain claims. 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 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 matters described above there are no other proceedings or claims pending against it the ultimate resolution of which could 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.

Litigation and Related Matters

On June 9, 2010, Smith & Nephew, Inc. ("Smith & Nephew") filed suit against Interlace Medical, Inc. ("Interlace"), which the Company acquired on January 6, 2011, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging that the Interlace MyoSure hysteroscopic tissue removal device infringed U.S. Patent 7,226,459 (the '459 patent). On November 22, 2011, Smith & Nephew filed suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging that use of the MyoSure tissue removal system infringed U.S. Patent 8,061,359 (the '359 patent). Both complaints sought preliminary and 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 $4.0 million in damages. On June 27, 2013, the Court denied the Company’s motions related to inequitable conduct and allowed Smith & Nephew’s request for an 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. The USPTO issued final decisions that the claims of the '459 and the '359 patents asserted as part of the litigation are not patentable, which decisions Smith & Nephew appealed to the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB"). In 2016, the PTAB (i) affirmed the USPTO decision with respect to the '459 patent, holding that the claims at issue are invalid, and (ii) reversed the USPTO decision with respect to the '359 patent, holding that the claims at issue are not invalid. On January 30, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Court of Appeals”) issued a decision in the '459 patent appeal that affirmed as invalid the claims at issue and remanded the matter to the PTAB for further proceedings. On March 14, 2018, the Court of Appeals issued a decision in the ‘359 patent appeal that affirmed the PTAB ruling, holding that the claims at issue are not invalid. In a status report filed on June 18, 2018, Smith & Nephew notified the Court that it would not seek injunctive relief. On July 11, 2018, during a status conference, the Court invited the parties to file a supplemental briefing to address the impact of the ‘359 patent reexamination on liability issues and whether there is a need for a new trial on damages. On October 26, 2018, the parties entered into a Settlement and License Agreement to resolve the litigation. Under the agreement, in consideration of licenses, releases, non-asserts and other immunities granted by Smith & Nephew, the Company agreed to pay Smith & Nephew $34.8 million related to sales of the MyoSure tissue removal system through September 30, 2018, plus an ongoing royalty of 1% for such sales through September 26, 2020. The Company accrued the $34.8 million payment as a charge within general and administrative expenses in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2018, and the payment was made in the first quarter of fiscal 2019.

On November 6, 2015, the Company filed a suit against Minerva Surgical, Inc. (“Minerva”) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that Minerva’s endometrial ablation device infringes U.S. Patents 6,872,183 (the '183 patent), 8,998,898 (the '898 patent) and 9,095,348 (the '348 patent). On January 25, 2016, the Company amended the complaint to include claims against Minerva for unfair competition, deceptive trade practices and tortious interference with business relationships. On February 5, 2016, the Company filed a second amended complaint to additionally allege that Minerva’s endometrial ablation device infringes U.S. Patent 9,247,989 (the '989 patent). On March 4, 2016, Minerva filed an answer and counterclaims against the Company, seeking declaratory judgment on the Company’s claims and asserting claims against the Company for unfair competition, deceptive trade practices, interference with contractual relationships, breach of contract and trade libel. On June 2, 2016, the Court denied the Company’s motion for a preliminary injunction on its patent claims and denied Minerva’s request for preliminary injunction related to the Company’s alleged false and deceptive statements regarding the Minerva product. On June 28, 2018, the Court granted the Company's summary judgment motions on infringement and no invalidity with respect to the ‘183 and ‘348 patents. The Court also granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment on assignor estoppel, which bars Minerva’s invalidity defenses or any reliance on collateral findings regarding invalidity from inter partes review proceedings. The Court also denied all of Minerva’s defenses, including its motions for summary judgment on invalidity, non-infringement, no willfulness, and no unfair competition. On July 27, 2018, after a two-week trial, a jury returned a verdict that: (1) awarded the Company $4.8 million in damages for Minerva’s infringement of the ‘183 and ‘348 patents; (2) found that Minerva’s infringement was not willful; and (3) found for the Company regarding Minerva’s counterclaims. Damages will continue to accrue until Minerva ceases its infringing conduct. Further, the Company will seek a permanent injunction prohibiting Minerva from selling infringing devices. On March 4, 2016, Minerva filed two petitions at the USPTO for inter partes review of the '348 patent. On September 12, 2016, the PTAB declined both petitions to review patentability of the ‘348 patent. On April 11, 2016, Minerva filed a petition for inter partes review of the '183 patent. On October 6, 2016, the PTAB granted the petition and instituted a review of the '183 patent. On December 15, 2017, the PTAB issued a final written decision invalidating all claims of the ‘183 patent. On February 9, 2018 the Company appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Court of Appeals”), which appeal is pending. On November 2, 2016, Minerva filed a petition for post-grant review of the '989 patent. On May 10, 2017, the PTAB granted the petition and instituted a review of the ‘989 patent. On May 8, 2018, the PTAB issued a final written decision invalidating all claims of the ‘989 patent. On July 10, 2018 the Company appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals.

On April 11, 2017, Minerva filed suit against the Company and Cytyc Surgical Products, LLC (“Cytyc”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that the Company’s and Cytyc’s NovaSure ADVANCED endometrial ablation device infringes Minerva’s U.S. Patent 9,186,208. Minerva is seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction against the Company and Cytyc from selling this NovaSure device as well as enhanced damages and interest, including lost profits, price erosion and/or royalty. On January 5, 2018, the Court denied Minerva's motion for a preliminary injunction. On February 2, 2018, at the parties’ joint request, this action was transferred to the District of Delaware. Trial is scheduled for July 20, 2020. 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 January 30, 2012, and on March 6, 2012, Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. ("Enzo") filed suit against the Company and its subsidiary, Gen-Probe Incorporated ("Gen-Probe"), in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that certain of Gen-Probe’s diagnostics products, including products that incorporate Gen-Probe’s hybridization protection assay technology (HPA), infringe Enzo’s U.S. Patent 6,992,180 (the '180 patent) and that products based on the Company's Invader chemistry platform infringe the '180 patent. On July 16, 2012, Enzo amended its complaint to include additional products that include HPA or TaqMan reagent chemistry. Both complaints sought preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and unspecified damages. On June 28, 2017, in ruling on the Company’s motion for summary judgment, the Court held that the '180 patent was invalid for nonenablement. On August 18, 2017, Enzo filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which appeal remains pending. 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 27, 2015, Enzo filed an additional suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that certain additional Company molecular diagnostic products also infringe the '180 patent. The complaint further alleges that certain of the Company’s molecular diagnostic productsusing target capture technology infringe Enzo’s U.S. Patent 7,064,197 (the '197 patent). On June 11, 2015, this matter was stayed pending the resolution of summary judgment motions in the other related suits involving the '197 patent. On March 30, 2016, the Company petitioned inter partes review of the ‘197 patent at the USPTO. The USPTO instituted the two inter partes reviews on all challenged claims on October 4, 2016. On September 28 and October 2, 2017, the PTAB issued final written decisions in the two inter partes reviews finding that all of the challenged claims of the ‘197 patent are unpatentable. On November 29, 2017, Enzo appealed the PTAB decisions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which appeals remain pending. At this time, based on available information regarding this litigation and the related inter partes reviews, 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 3, 2016, Enzo filed an additional suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that products employing the Company’s proprietary target capture technologies infringe U.S. Patent 6,221,581 (the '581 patent). The Court granted Enzo’s motion to file an amended complaint adding Grifols Diagnostic Solutions Inc. and Grifols, S.A. (“Grifols”) as parties on November 9, 2017. On October 4, 2017, the Company filed for inter partes review of the ‘581 patent with the USPTO based on Enzo’s asserted claims. On April 18, 2018, the USPTO denied the Company’s petition for inter partes review. On May 18, 2018, the Company filed a request for rehearing of the USPTO denial order, which remains pending. On October 15, 2018, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order regarding claim construction of the '581 patent, ruling in favor of the Company and Grifols on nearly all disputed claim terms. On November 5, 2018, the Court entered final judgment in favor of the Company and Grifols following the filing of a Joint Stipulation of Noninfringement. Enzo intends to appeal the Court's claim construction ruling. At this time, based on available information regarding this litigation and the related inter partes reviews, 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 February 3, 2017, bioMérieux, S.A. and bioMérieux, Inc. (collectively “bioMérieux”) filed suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina(“MDNC”), alleging that the Company’s HIV products, including blood screening products previously manufactured by the Company for its former blood screening partner Grifols and Grifols Diagnostic Solutions Inc. (“Grifols USA”), infringe U.S. Patents 8,697,352 and 9,074,262. On April 3, 2017, the Company and Grifols USA filed a motion to dismiss asking the Court to dismiss the complaint in its entirety for bioMérieux’s failure to state a claim. On June 9, 2017, the Company filed a supplemental motion to dismiss for improper venue. On January 3, 2018, the MDNC Court granted the parties’ consent motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. On May 31, 2018, the Company filed a motion to sever and stay their arbitrable license defense. On September 25, 2018, the Court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Company filed petitions for inter partes review of the asserted patents on February 6, 2018. The USPTO denied the Company’s petitions for inter partes review in August and September, 2018. The Company filed requests for rehearing of the denial orders, which requests are pending. 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 range of estimates, of potential losses.

On July 27, 2016, plaintiff ARcare, Inc., individually and as putative representative of a purported nationwide class, filed a complaint against Cynosure. The plaintiff alleges that Cynosure violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by: (i) sending fax advertisements that did not comply with statutory and Federal Communications Commission requirements that senders provide recipients with certain information about how to opt out from receiving faxed advertisements in the future; and (ii) sending unsolicited fax advertisements. The complaint sought damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees on behalf of a purported class of all recipients of purported fax advertisements that the plaintiff alleges did not receive an adequate opt-out notice. On September 30, 2016, Cynosure answered the complaint and denied liability. On September 7, 2016, the plaintiff sent a demand letter seeking a class settlement for statutory damages under Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 93A § 9 (“Chapter 93A”). On October 7, 2016, Cynosure responded denying any liability under Chapter 93A, but offering the plaintiff statutory damages of $25 on an individual basis. In March 2017, Cynosure and ARcare entered into a settlement agreement, subject to court approval, which requires Cynosure to pay settlement compensation of $8.5 million notwithstanding the number of claims filed. If approved, Cynosure would receive a full release from the settlement class concerning the conduct alleged in the complaint. As a result of the settlement agreement, Cynosure recorded a charge of $9.2 million, in the period ended December 31, 2016, which continues to be accrued as of September 28, 2018.

On March 17, 2017, a purported shareholder of Cynosure, Michael Guido, filed an action against Cynosure in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law seeking the production of certain books and records, including books and records related to the acquisition of Cynosure by the Company. The action follows Cynosure’s rejection of Mr. Guido’s demand for these books and records on the ground that he had not met the requirements of the statute. In addition to books and records, the complaint seeks reasonable attorneys’ fees. On August 24, 2018, following the plaintiff’s counsel decision not to pursue the action, the parties filed a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice to conclude the case.

On June 26 and 28, 2017, the Company filed suit against FUJIFILM Corp., FUJIFILM Medical Systems USA, Inc., and FUJIFILM Techno Products Co., Ltd. (collectively “Fujifilm”) in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut and the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”), respectively, alleging that Fujifilm’s Aspire Cristalle mammography system infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 7,831,296; 8,452,379; 7,688,940; and 7,986,765. The Company seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions and an exclusion order against Fujifilm from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing into the United States allegedly infringing product and also seeks enhanced damages and interest. A hearing was held at the ITC before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) from April 9, 2018 to April 13, 2018. On July 26, 2018, the ALJ issued an initial determination finding that Fujifilm infringed all of the patents brought to trial and rejected Fujifilm’s defenses against these patents. The ALJ recommended an exclusion order that prevents the importation of infringing Fujifilm products into the United States, as well as a cease-and-desist order preventing the further sale and marketing of infringing Fujifilm products in the United States. A final determination by the ITC is scheduled to issue by January 25, 2019.

On March 2, 2018, FUJIFILM Corporation and FUJIFILM Medical Systems U.S.A., Inc. (collectively “Fujifilm2”) filed suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that certain of the Company’s mammography systems infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 7,453,979; 7,639,779; RE44,367; and 8,684,948. Fujifilm2 further alleges that the Company violated United States antitrust laws and Delaware competition laws regarding the sale of certain of the Company’s mammography systems. Fujifilm2 seeks injunctive relief and unspecified monetary damages including statutory treble damages for certain claims. 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 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 matters described above there are no other proceedings or claims pending against it the ultimate resolution of which could 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.