Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The medical device market in which we primarily participate is largely technology driven. Physician customers, particularly in interventional cardiology, have historically moved quickly to adopt new products and new technologies. As a result, intellectual property rights, particularly patents and trade secrets, play a significant role in product development and differentiation. However, intellectual property litigation is inherently complex and unpredictable. Furthermore, appellate courts can overturn lower court patent decisions. In addition, competing parties frequently file multiple suits to leverage patent portfolios across product lines, technologies and geographies and to balance risk and exposure between the parties. In some cases, several competitors are parties in the same proceeding, or in a series of related proceedings, or litigate multiple features of a single class of devices. These forces frequently drive settlement not only for individual cases, but also for a series of pending and potentially related and unrelated cases. In addition, although monetary and injunctive relief is typically sought, remedies and restitution are generally not determined until the conclusion of the trial court proceedings and can be modified on appeal. Accordingly, the outcomes of individual cases are difficult to time, predict or quantify and are often dependent upon the outcomes of other cases in other geographies. Several third parties, including certain of our competitors, have asserted that certain of our current and former product offerings infringe patents owned or licensed by them. We have similarly asserted that other products sold by our competitors infringe patents owned or licensed by us. Adverse outcomes in one or more of the proceedings against us could limit our ability to sell certain products in certain jurisdictions, or reduce our operating margin on the sale of these products and could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and/or liquidity. During recent years, we successfully negotiated closure of several long-standing legal matters and recently received favorable legal rulings in several other matters; however, there continues to be outstanding intellectual property litigation particularly in the coronary stent market. In particular, although we have resolved multiple litigation matters with Johnson & Johnson, we continue to be involved in patent litigation with them, particularly relating to drug-eluting stent systems. Adverse outcomes in one or more of these matters could have a material adverse effect on our ability to sell certain products and on our operating margins, financial position, results of operations and/or liquidity. In the normal course of business, product liability, securities and commercial claims are asserted against us. Similar claims may be asserted against us in the future related to events not known to management at the present time. We are substantially self-insured with respect to product liability and intellectual property infringement claims, and maintain an insurance policy providing limited coverage against securities claims. The absence of significant third-party insurance coverage increases our potential exposure to unanticipated claims or adverse decisions. Product liability claims, securities and commercial litigation, and other legal proceedings in the future, regardless of their outcome, could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and/or liquidity. In addition, like other companies in the medical device industry, we are subject to extensive regulation by national, state and local government agencies in the United States and other countries in which we operate. From time to time we are the subject of qui tam actions and governmental investigations often involving regulatory, marketing and other business practices. These qui tam actions and governmental investigations could result in the commencement of civil and criminal proceedings, substantial fines, penalties and administrative remedies, divert the attention of our management and have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and/or liquidity. We record losses for claims in excess of the limits of purchased insurance in earnings at the time and to the extent they are probable and estimable. In accordance with ASC Topic 450, Contingencies, we accrue anticipated costs of settlement, damages, losses for general product liability claims and, under certain conditions, costs of defense, based on historical experience or to the extent specific losses are probable and estimable. Otherwise, we expense these costs as incurred. If the estimate of a probable loss is a range and no amount within the range is more likely, we accrue the minimum amount of the range. Our accrual for legal matters that are probable and estimable was $411 million as of September 30, 2012 and $299 million as of December 31, 2011, and includes estimated costs of settlement, damages and defense. The increase in our legal accruals was primarily due to litigation-related charges recorded during the year. During the third quarter of 2012, we recorded a litigation-related charge of $50 million; in addition, during the second quarter of 2012, we recorded net litigation-related charges of $69 million, consisting of a charge of $85 million, partially offset by credits of $16 million. We continue to assess certain litigation and claims to determine the amounts, if any, that management believes will be paid as a result of such claims and litigation and, therefore, additional losses may be accrued and paid in the future, which could materially adversely impact our operating results, cash flows and/or our ability to comply with our debt covenants. In management's opinion, we are not currently involved in any legal proceedings other than those disclosed in our 2011 Annual Report filed on Form 10-K, our Quarterly Reports filed on Form 10-Q for the quarters ended March 31, 2012 and June 30, 2012, and specifically identified below, which, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, operations and/or cash flows. Unless included in our legal accrual or otherwise indicated below, a range of loss associated with any individual material legal proceeding cannot be estimated. Patent Litigation On May 19, 2005, G. David Jang, M.D. filed suit against us alleging breach of contract relating to certain patent rights covering stent technology. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California seeking monetary damages and rescission of contract. After a Markman ruling relating to the Jang patent rights, Dr. Jang stipulated to the dismissal of certain claims alleged in the complaint with a right to appeal and the parties subsequently agreed to settle the other claims. In May 2007, Dr. Jang filed an appeal with respect to the remaining patent claims and in July 2008, the Court of Appeals vacated the District Court's consent judgment and remanded the case back to the District Court for further clarification. In August 2011, the District Court entered a stipulated judgment that we did not infringe the Jang patent. Dr. Jang filed an appeal on September 21, 2011 and on August 22, 2012, the Court of Appeals vacated the District Court's judgment and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. On May 25, 2010, Dr. Jang filed suit against Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. and us alleging breach of contract relating to certain patent rights covering stent technology. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and was ultimately transferred to U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. In October 2011, the District Court entered judgment in favor of us on the pleadings. On July 31, 2012, the District Court denied Dr. Jang's October 2011 motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative, permission to amend his complaint. Dr. Jang filed an appeal on August 28, 2012. Product Liability Litigation Fewer than ten individual lawsuits remain pending in various state and federal jurisdictions against Guidant alleging personal injuries associated with defibrillators or pacemakers involved in certain 2005 and 2006 product communications. In November 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (MDL) established MDL-1708 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. In 2007, we reached an agreement to settle up to 8,550 patient claims, including almost all of the claims that had been consolidated in MDL-1708 as well as other filed and unfiled claims throughout the United States, including those associated with the 2005 and 2006 product communications for a total of up to $240 million. At the conclusion of the MDL-1708 settlement in 2010, 8,180 claims had been approved for participation and we made settlement payments of approximately $234 million in total with no further payments due under the settlement agreement. The remaining cases under MDL-1708 were remanded to their trial courts of origin. On July 30, 2012, the District Court issued an order closing MDL-1708. As of November 6, 2012, there were over 2,500 product liability cases or claims asserted against us in various federal and state courts across the country alleging personal injury associated with use of our transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. Generally, the plaintiffs allege design and manufacturing claims, failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims. Many of the cases have been specially assigned to one judge in state court in Massachusetts. On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation established MDL-2326 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia and transferred the federal court transvaginal surgical mesh cases to MDL-2326 for coordinated pretrial proceedings. In addition, in October 2012 we were contacted by the Attorney General for the State of California informing us that their office and certain other state attorneys general offices intend to initiate a civil investigation into our sale of transvaginal surgical mesh products. Governmental Investigations and Qui Tam Matters In December 2007, we were informed by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Texas that it was conducting an investigation of allegations related to improper promotion of biliary stents for off-label uses. The allegations were set forth in a qui tam complaint, which named us and certain of our competitors. Following the federal government's decision not to intervene in the case, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas unsealed the complaint. In March 2011, the District Court issued an order granting our motion to dismiss and, in March 2012, issued its opinion ordering that all claims against us be dismissed. The federal and state law False Claims Act claims that allege fraudulent inducement and the state law False Claims Act claims that allege off-label promotion were dismissed with prejudice against all defendants. The federal and state anti-kickback statute claims were also dismissed against all defendants but without prejudice. The federal False Claims Act off-label promotion claims were dismissed without prejudice but only against certain defendants, including us. On April 6, 2012, the relator filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissals of the fraudulent inducement-based, state and federal law False Claims Act claims against all defendants, and on August 24, 2012, the District Court denied the motion for reconsideration. On September 14, 2012, the relator filed and served an amended complaint restating the claims that the District Court dismissed without prejudice, and on October 22, 2012, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On June 27, 2008, the Republic of Iraq filed a complaint against our wholly-owned subsidiary, BSSA France, and 92 other defendants in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that the defendants acted improperly in connection with the sale of products under the United Nations Oil for Food Program. The complaint also alleges Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) violations, conspiracy to commit fraud and the making of false statements and improper payments, and it seeks monetary and punitive damages. A hearing on the pending motion to dismiss was held on October 26, 2012. On March 22, 2010, we received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts seeking documents relating to the former Market Development Sales Organization that operated within our CRM business. We are cooperating with the request. On October 21, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts unsealed a qui tam complaint that relates to the subject matter of the U.S. Attorney's investigation, after the federal government declined to intervene in the matter. Subsequently, on January 30, 2012, the relator filed an amended complaint. On July 5, 2012, the District Court issued an opinion and order dismissing the amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and, on July 12, 2012, the relator appealed the order of dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. On August 3, 2012, we were served with a qui tam complaint that had previously been filed under seal against Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 2, 2011. On August 8, 2012, we learned that the federal government had previously declined to intervene in this matter. The relators' complaint, now unsealed, alleges that Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corp. violated the federal and various states' false claims acts through submission of fraudulent bills for implanted devices, under-reporting of certain adverse events, and off-label promotions. On September 10, 2012, the relators filed an amended complaint revising and restating certain of the claims in the original complaint, and on October 24, 2012, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Other Proceedings On September 25, 2006, Johnson & Johnson filed a lawsuit against us, Guidant and Abbott Laboratories in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that Guidant breached certain provisions of the amended merger agreement between Johnson & Johnson and Guidant (Merger Agreement) as well as the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. The complaint further alleges that Abbott and we tortiously interfered with the Merger Agreement by inducing Guidant's breach. The complaint seeks certain factual findings, damages in an amount no less than $5.5 billion and attorneys' fees and costs. In August 2007, the judge dismissed the tortious interference claims against us and Abbott and the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing claim against Guidant. On June 20, 2011, Guidant filed a motion for summary judgment, and the hearing on this motion was held on July 25, 2012. On September 28, 2011, we served a complaint against Mirowski Family Ventures LLC for a declaratory judgment that we have paid all royalties owed and did not breach any contractual or fiduciary obligations arising out of a license agreement. Mirowski answered and filed counterclaims requesting damages. A trial is scheduled to begin in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on January 7, 2013. Refer to Note I - Income Taxes for information regarding our tax litigation. Matters Concluded Since December 31, 2011 On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts issued a subpoena to us under the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) pursuant to which the U.S. Department of Justice requested the production of certain documents and information related to our biliary stent business. We cooperated with the subpoena request and related investigation. On February 9, 2012, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts advised us that it was discontinuing its investigation. On August 19, 2010, the Iron Workers District Council Southern Ohio and Vicinity Pension Trust filed a putative shareholder derivative class action lawsuit against us and our Board of Directors in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The allegations and remedies sought in the complaint were largely the same as those in the original complaint filed by the City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System on April 9, 2010 and discussed below. In October 2011, the District Court granted our motion to dismiss this action without prejudice to refile an amended complaint and the plaintiffs filed a motion to stay the proceedings to allow them to make discovery demands before filing an amended complaint. On June 14, 2012, the District Court dismissed this case with prejudice. Guidant or its affiliates were defendants in five separate actions brought by private third-party providers of health benefits or health insurance (TPPs). In these cases, plaintiffs alleged various theories of recovery, including derivative tort claims, subrogation, violation of consumer protection statutes and unjust enrichment, for the cost of healthcare benefits they allegedly paid in connection with the devices that were the subject of Guidant's product communications. One of the TPP actions was remanded by the Multi-District Litigation judge to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and has since been resolved and dismissed with prejudice. Two other TPP actions brought by Blue Cross & Blue Shield plans and United Healthcare and its affiliates were settled and dismissed with prejudice in June 2010. In 2011, we reached an agreement in principle to settle the other two TPP matters for approximately $3 million in the aggregate and in July 2012, we finalized the settlement. On October 24, 2008, we received a letter from the DOJ informing us of an investigation related to alleged off-label promotion of surgical cardiac ablation system devices to treat atrial fibrillation. In 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas partially unsealed a qui tam complaint which was the basis for the DOJ investigation. In August 2009, the federal government declined to intervene in this matter at that time. After the District Court dismissed the first amended complaint, the relator filed a second amended complaint in April 2011 in which the relator dropped all of the False Claims Act allegations, but continued to claim that the relator was discharged from Guidant in retaliation for complaining about the alleged false claims. On July 26, 2012, the relator filed a stipulation to voluntarily dismiss the second amended complaint, and on August 7, 2012, the District Court dismissed the second amended complaint. On April 9, 2010, the City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System, individually and on behalf of purchasers of our securities during the period from April 20, 2009 to March 12, 2010, filed a purported securities class action suit against us and certain of our current and former officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The suit alleged certain violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, claiming that our stock price was artificially inflated because we failed to disclose certain matters with respect to our CRM business, and sought unspecified monetary damages. In July 2010, the District Court appointed KBC Asset Management NV and Steelworkers Pension Trust as co-lead plaintiffs for the case. In September 2010, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint narrowing the alleged class period from October 20, 2009 to February 10, 2010. In September 2011, the District Court granted our motion to dismiss the action, and on July 12, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued its decision affirming the dismissal. On May 27, 2011, Body Science LLC filed suit against us in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that our Latitude® Patient Management System and Latitude® Blood Pressure Monitor infringed two U.S. patents (the Besson patents) owned by them. In July 2011, Body Science amended its complaint to add several cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator and implantable cardioverter defibrillator devices that are compatible with the Latitude® Patient Management System. On August 6, 2012, the United States Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation transferred the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On September 26, 2012, the parties settled this matter for an amount not significant to Boston Scientific.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The medical device market in which we primarily participate is largely technology driven. Physician customers, particularly in interventional cardiology, have historically moved quickly to adopt new products and new technologies. As a result, intellectual property rights, particularly patents and trade secrets, play a significant role in product development and differentiation. However, intellectual property litigation is inherently complex and unpredictable. Furthermore, appellate courts can overturn lower court patent decisions.

In addition, competing parties frequently file multiple suits to leverage patent portfolios across product lines, technologies and geographies and to balance risk and exposure between the parties. In some cases, several competitors are parties in the same proceeding, or in a series of related proceedings, or litigate multiple features of a single class of devices. These forces frequently drive settlement not only for individual cases, but also for a series of pending and potentially related and unrelated cases. In addition, although monetary and injunctive relief is typically sought, remedies and restitution are generally not determined until the conclusion of the trial court proceedings and can be modified on appeal. Accordingly, the outcomes of individual cases are difficult to time, predict or quantify and are often dependent upon the outcomes of other cases in other geographies. Several third parties, including certain of our competitors, have asserted that certain of our current and former product offerings infringe patents owned or licensed by them. We have similarly asserted that other products sold by our competitors infringe patents owned or licensed by us. Adverse outcomes in one or more of the proceedings against us could limit our ability to sell certain products in certain jurisdictions, or reduce our operating margin on the sale of these products and could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and/or liquidity.

During recent years, we successfully negotiated closure of several long-standing legal matters and recently received favorable legal rulings in several other matters; however, there continues to be outstanding intellectual property litigation particularly in the coronary stent market. In particular, although we have resolved multiple litigation matters with Johnson & Johnson, we continue to be involved in patent litigation with them, particularly relating to drug-eluting stent systems. Adverse outcomes in one or more of these matters could have a material adverse effect on our ability to sell certain products and on our operating margins, financial position, results of operations and/or liquidity.

In the normal course of business, product liability, securities and commercial claims are asserted against us. Similar claims may be asserted against us in the future related to events not known to management at the present time. We are substantially self-insured with respect to product liability and intellectual property infringement claims, and maintain an insurance policy providing limited coverage against securities claims. The absence of significant third-party insurance coverage increases our potential exposure to unanticipated claims or adverse decisions. Product liability claims, securities and commercial litigation, and other legal proceedings in the future, regardless of their outcome, could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and/or liquidity.

In addition, like other companies in the medical device industry, we are subject to extensive regulation by national, state and local government agencies in the United States and other countries in which we operate. From time to time we are the subject of qui tam actions and governmental investigations often involving regulatory, marketing and other business practices. These qui tam actions and governmental investigations could result in the commencement of civil and criminal proceedings, substantial fines, penalties and administrative remedies, divert the attention of our management and have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and/or liquidity.

We record losses for claims in excess of the limits of purchased insurance in earnings at the time and to the extent they are probable and estimable. In accordance with ASC Topic 450, Contingencies, we accrue anticipated costs of settlement, damages, losses for general product liability claims and, under certain conditions, costs of defense, based on historical experience or to the extent specific losses are probable and estimable. Otherwise, we expense these costs as incurred. If the estimate of a probable loss is a range and no amount within the range is more likely, we accrue the minimum amount of the range.

Our accrual for legal matters that are probable and estimable was $411 million as of September 30, 2012 and $299 million as of December 31, 2011, and includes estimated costs of settlement, damages and defense. The increase in our legal accruals was primarily due to litigation-related charges recorded during the year. During the third quarter of 2012, we recorded a litigation-related charge of $50 million; in addition, during the second quarter of 2012, we recorded net litigation-related charges of $69 million, consisting of a charge of $85 million, partially offset by credits of $16 million. We continue to assess certain litigation and claims to determine the amounts, if any, that management believes will be paid as a result of such claims and litigation and, therefore, additional losses may be accrued and paid in the future, which could materially adversely impact our operating results, cash flows and/or our ability to comply with our debt covenants.

In management's opinion, we are not currently involved in any legal proceedings other than those disclosed in our 2011 Annual Report filed on Form 10-K, our Quarterly Reports filed on Form 10-Q for the quarters ended March 31, 2012 and June 30, 2012, and specifically identified below, which, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, operations and/or cash flows. Unless included in our legal accrual or otherwise indicated below, a range of loss associated with any individual material legal proceeding cannot be estimated.

Patent Litigation

On May 19, 2005, G. David Jang, M.D. filed suit against us alleging breach of contract relating to certain patent rights covering stent technology. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California seeking monetary damages and rescission of contract. After a Markman ruling relating to the Jang patent rights, Dr. Jang stipulated to the dismissal of certain claims alleged in the complaint with a right to appeal and the parties subsequently agreed to settle the other claims. In May 2007, Dr. Jang filed an appeal with respect to the remaining patent claims and in July 2008, the Court of Appeals vacated the District Court's consent judgment and remanded the case back to the District Court for further clarification. In August 2011, the District Court entered a stipulated judgment that we did not infringe the Jang patent. Dr. Jang filed an appeal on September 21, 2011 and on August 22, 2012, the Court of Appeals vacated the District Court's judgment and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings.

On May 25, 2010, Dr. Jang filed suit against Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. and us alleging breach of contract relating to certain patent rights covering stent technology. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and was ultimately transferred to U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. In October 2011, the District Court entered judgment in favor of us on the pleadings. On July 31, 2012, the District Court denied Dr. Jang's October 2011 motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative, permission to amend his complaint. Dr. Jang filed an appeal on August 28, 2012.

Product Liability Litigation

Fewer than ten individual lawsuits remain pending in various state and federal jurisdictions against Guidant alleging personal injuries associated with defibrillators or pacemakers involved in certain 2005 and 2006 product communications. In November 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (MDL) established MDL-1708 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. In 2007, we reached an agreement to settle up to 8,550 patient claims, including almost all of the claims that had been consolidated in MDL-1708 as well as other filed and unfiled claims throughout the United States, including those associated with the 2005 and 2006 product communications for a total of up to $240 million. At the conclusion of the MDL-1708 settlement in 2010, 8,180 claims had been approved for participation and we made settlement payments of approximately $234 million in total with no further payments due under the settlement agreement. The remaining cases under MDL-1708 were remanded to their trial courts of origin. On July 30, 2012, the District Court issued an order closing MDL-1708.

As of November 6, 2012, there were over 2,500 product liability cases or claims asserted against us in various federal and state courts across the country alleging personal injury associated with use of our transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. Generally, the plaintiffs allege design and manufacturing claims, failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims. Many of the cases have been specially assigned to one judge in state court in Massachusetts. On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation established MDL-2326 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia and transferred the federal court transvaginal surgical mesh cases to MDL-2326 for coordinated pretrial proceedings. In addition, in October 2012 we were contacted by the Attorney General for the State of California informing us that their office and certain other state attorneys general offices intend to initiate a civil investigation into our sale of transvaginal surgical mesh products.

Governmental Investigations and Qui Tam Matters

In December 2007, we were informed by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Texas that it was conducting an investigation of allegations related to improper promotion of biliary stents for off-label uses. The allegations were set forth in a qui tam complaint, which named us and certain of our competitors. Following the federal government's decision not to intervene in the case, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas unsealed the complaint. In March 2011, the District Court issued an order granting our motion to dismiss and, in March 2012, issued its opinion ordering that all claims against us be dismissed. The federal and state law False Claims Act claims that allege fraudulent inducement and the state law False Claims Act claims that allege off-label promotion were dismissed with prejudice against all defendants. The federal and state anti-kickback statute claims were also dismissed against all defendants but without prejudice. The federal False Claims Act off-label promotion claims were dismissed without prejudice but only against certain defendants, including us. On April 6, 2012, the relator filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissals of the fraudulent inducement-based, state and federal law False Claims Act claims against all defendants, and on August 24, 2012, the District Court denied the motion for reconsideration. On September 14, 2012, the relator filed and served an amended complaint restating the claims that the District Court dismissed without prejudice, and on October 22, 2012, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

On June 27, 2008, the Republic of Iraq filed a complaint against our wholly-owned subsidiary, BSSA France, and 92 other defendants in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that the defendants acted improperly in connection with the sale of products under the United Nations Oil for Food Program. The complaint also alleges Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) violations, conspiracy to commit fraud and the making of false statements and improper payments, and it seeks monetary and punitive damages. A hearing on the pending motion to dismiss was held on October 26, 2012.

On March 22, 2010, we received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts seeking documents relating to the former Market Development Sales Organization that operated within our CRM business. We are cooperating with the request. On October 21, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts unsealed a qui tam complaint that relates to the subject matter of the U.S. Attorney's investigation, after the federal government declined to intervene in the matter. Subsequently, on January 30, 2012, the relator filed an amended complaint. On July 5, 2012, the District Court issued an opinion and order dismissing the amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and, on July 12, 2012, the relator appealed the order of dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

On August 3, 2012, we were served with a qui tam complaint that had previously been filed under seal against Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 2, 2011. On August 8, 2012, we learned that the federal government had previously declined to intervene in this matter. The relators' complaint, now unsealed, alleges that Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corp. violated the federal and various states' false claims acts through submission of fraudulent bills for implanted devices, under-reporting of certain adverse events, and off-label promotions. On September 10, 2012, the relators filed an amended complaint revising and restating certain of the claims in the original complaint, and on October 24, 2012, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

Other Proceedings

On September 25, 2006, Johnson & Johnson filed a lawsuit against us, Guidant and Abbott Laboratories in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that Guidant breached certain provisions of the amended merger agreement between Johnson & Johnson and Guidant (Merger Agreement) as well as the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. The complaint further alleges that Abbott and we tortiously interfered with the Merger Agreement by inducing Guidant's breach. The complaint seeks certain factual findings, damages in an amount no less than $5.5 billion and attorneys' fees and costs. In August 2007, the judge dismissed the tortious interference claims against us and Abbott and the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing claim against Guidant. On June 20, 2011, Guidant filed a motion for summary judgment, and the hearing on this motion was held on July 25, 2012.

On September 28, 2011, we served a complaint against Mirowski Family Ventures LLC for a declaratory judgment that we have paid all royalties owed and did not breach any contractual or fiduciary obligations arising out of a license agreement. Mirowski answered and filed counterclaims requesting damages. A trial is scheduled to begin in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on January 7, 2013.

Refer to Note I - Income Taxes for information regarding our tax litigation.

Matters Concluded Since December 31, 2011

On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts issued a subpoena to us under the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) pursuant to which the U.S. Department of Justice requested the production of certain documents and information related to our biliary stent business. We cooperated with the subpoena request and related investigation. On February 9, 2012, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts advised us that it was discontinuing its investigation.

On August 19, 2010, the Iron Workers District Council Southern Ohio and Vicinity Pension Trust filed a putative shareholder derivative class action lawsuit against us and our Board of Directors in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The allegations and remedies sought in the complaint were largely the same as those in the original complaint filed by the City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System on April 9, 2010 and discussed below. In October 2011, the District Court granted our motion to dismiss this action without prejudice to refile an amended complaint and the plaintiffs filed a motion to stay the proceedings to allow them to make discovery demands before filing an amended complaint. On June 14, 2012, the District Court dismissed this case with prejudice.

Guidant or its affiliates were defendants in five separate actions brought by private third-party providers of health benefits or health insurance (TPPs). In these cases, plaintiffs alleged various theories of recovery, including derivative tort claims, subrogation, violation of consumer protection statutes and unjust enrichment, for the cost of healthcare benefits they allegedly paid in connection with the devices that were the subject of Guidant's product communications. One of the TPP actions was remanded by the Multi-District Litigation judge to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and has since been resolved and dismissed with prejudice. Two other TPP actions brought by Blue Cross & Blue Shield plans and United Healthcare and its affiliates were settled and dismissed with prejudice in June 2010. In 2011, we reached an agreement in principle to settle the other two TPP matters for approximately $3 million in the aggregate and in July 2012, we finalized the settlement.

On October 24, 2008, we received a letter from the DOJ informing us of an investigation related to alleged off-label promotion of surgical cardiac ablation system devices to treat atrial fibrillation. In 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas partially unsealed a qui tam complaint which was the basis for the DOJ investigation. In August 2009, the federal government declined to intervene in this matter at that time. After the District Court dismissed the first amended complaint, the relator filed a second amended complaint in April 2011 in which the relator dropped all of the False Claims Act allegations, but continued to claim that the relator was discharged from Guidant in retaliation for complaining about the alleged false claims. On July 26, 2012, the relator filed a stipulation to voluntarily dismiss the second amended complaint, and on August 7, 2012, the District Court dismissed the second amended complaint.

On April 9, 2010, the City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System, individually and on behalf of purchasers of our securities during the period from April 20, 2009 to March 12, 2010, filed a purported securities class action suit against us and certain of our current and former officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The suit alleged certain violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, claiming that our stock price was artificially inflated because we failed to disclose certain matters with respect to our CRM business, and sought unspecified monetary damages. In July 2010, the District Court appointed KBC Asset Management NV and Steelworkers Pension Trust as co-lead plaintiffs for the case. In September 2010, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint narrowing the alleged class period from October 20, 2009 to February 10, 2010. In September 2011, the District Court granted our motion to dismiss the action, and on July 12, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued its decision affirming the dismissal.

On May 27, 2011, Body Science LLC filed suit against us in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that our Latitude® Patient Management System and Latitude® Blood Pressure Monitor infringed two U.S. patents (the Besson patents) owned by them. In July 2011, Body Science amended its complaint to add several cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator and implantable cardioverter defibrillator devices that are compatible with the Latitude® Patient Management System. On August 6, 2012, the United States Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation transferred the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On September 26, 2012, the parties settled this matter for an amount not significant to Boston Scientific.