Litigation and Related Matters

12 Months Ended

Sep. 26, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Litigation and Related Matters

Litigation and Related Matters

    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. Patent 6,872,183 (the '183 patent), U.S. Patent 8,998,898 and U.S. Patent 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; (2) found that Minerva’s infringement was not willful; and (3) found for the Company regarding Minerva’s counterclaims. On May 2, 2019, the Court issued rulings that denied the parties' post-trial motions, including the Company's motion for a permanent injunction seeking to prohibit Minerva from selling infringing devices. Both parties appealed the Court's rulings regarding the post-trial motions. 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"). On April 19, 2019, the Court of Appeals affirmed the PTAB's final written decision regarding the '183 patent. On July 16, 2019, the Court of Appeals denied the Company’s petition for rehearing in the appeal regarding the '183 patent. On April 22, 2020, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of the Company of no invalidity and infringement, and summary judgment that assignor estoppel bars Minerva from challenging the validity of the ‘348 patent. The Court of Appeals also denied the Company’s motion for a permanent injunction and ongoing royalties for infringement of the ‘183 patent. The Court of Appeals denied Minerva’s arguments for no damages or, alternatively, a new trial. On May 22, 2020 both parties petitioned for en banc review of the Court of Appeals decision. On July 22, 2020, the Court of Appeals denied both parties' petitions for en banc review. On August 28, 2020, the district court entered final judgment against Minerva but stayed execution pending resolution of Minerva’s petition for Supreme Court review, which was filed on September 30, 2020. On November 5, 2020, the Company opposed Minerva’s petition and filed a counter petition for Supreme Court review.

    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. On March 26, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a claims construction ruling regarding the disputed terms in the patent, which the District Court Judge adopted in all respects on October 21, 2019. On March 9, 2020, Minerva elected to withdraw its claim for lost profits damages. The original trial date of July 20, 2020 was vacated due to circumstances surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic. On October 21, 2020, the Court entered an amended case schedule and set a new trial date of August 9, 2021. The parties submitted a joint status report on September 25, 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 July 8, 2020, the Company filed suit against Minerva in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that Minerva’s redesigned endometrial ablation device infringes U.S. Patent 9,095,348 (the '348 patent). A trial is set to begin on August 23, 2021.

    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 Diagnostic Solutions Inc. ("Grifols USA"), infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 8,697,352 and 9,074,262. On January 3, 2018, the MDNC Court granted the parties’ consent motion to transfer the case to Delaware. On June 11, 2019, the Court issued a claim construction ruling regarding the disputed terms in the patents. Motions for summary judgment were filed by the parties on September 30, 2019, and a hearing on these motions was held on December 18, 2019. A six-day trial concluded on February 25, 2020, with the jury finding that all claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,697,352 are invalid (U.S. Patent No. 9,074,262 was dropped from the case by bioMérieux prior to trial). On March 18, 2020, the parties agreed to a settlement under which bioMérieux agreed to dismiss all claims with prejudice and to waive the filing of post-trial motions and pursuing an appeal in exchange for a de minimis payment from the Company and Grifols USA.

As described in Note 15, the Company has agreed to indemnify CD&R for certain legal matters related to the Medical Aesthetics business that existed at the date of disposition. The Company currently has $8.5 million accrued as of September 26, 2020, but this amount could become greater if some or all of the cases which it is indemnifying have an adverse result.

    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.