Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The medical device market in which we primarily participate is largely technology driven. As a result, intellectual property rights, particularly patents and trade secrets, play a significant role in product development and differentiation. Over the years, there has been litigation initiated against us by others, including our competitors, claiming that our current or former product offerings infringe patents owned or licensed by them. Intellectual property litigation is inherently complex and unpredictable. 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. 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. During recent years, we successfully negotiated closure of several long-standing legal matters and have received favorable legal rulings in several other matters; however, there continues to be outstanding intellectual property litigation. 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 maintain an insurance policy providing limited coverage against securities claims, and we are substantially self-insured with respect to product liability claims and fully self-insured with respect to intellectual property infringement 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 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 $607 million as of December 31, 2013 and $491 million as of December 31, 2012, and includes certain estimated costs of settlement, damages and defense. The increase in our legal accrual was primarily due to litigation-related charges recorded during the year. During 2013, 2012 and 2011, we recorded litigation-related charges in the amount of $221 million, $192 million, and $48 million, respectively. 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 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 September 22, 2009, Cordis Corporation, Cordis LLC and Wyeth Corporation filed a complaint for patent infringement against Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. and us alleging that the PROMUS® coronary stent system, supplied to us by Abbott, infringes a patent (the Llanos patent) owned by Cordis and Wyeth. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey seeking monetary and injunctive relief. In August 2010, Cordis filed an amended complaint to add an additional patent and in September 2010, we filed counterclaims of invalidity and non-infringement. On October 26, 2011, the District Court granted Cordis' motion to add the Promus Element stent system to the case. On February 6, 2012, the District Court granted our motion to stay the action until the conclusion of the reexaminations against the Llanos patents that are pending in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. 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. In October 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware entered judgment in favor of us on the pleadings. Dr. Jang filed an appeal on August 28, 2012. On September 5, 2013, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the ruling and remanded the case to the District Court. On September 27, 2010, Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc., Boston Scientific Ltd., Endovascular Technologies, Inc. and we filed suit against Taewoong Medical, Co., Ltd., Standard Sci-Tech, Inc., EndoChoice, Inc. and Sewoon Medical Co., Ltd for infringement of three patents on stents for use in the GI system (the Pulnev and Hankh patents) and against Cook Medical Inc. (and related entities) for infringement of the same three patents and an additional patent (the Thompson patent). The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. In December 2010, we amended our complaint to add infringement of six additional Pulnev patents. In January 2011, the defendants filed a counterclaim of invalidity and unenforceability. In December 2011, we amended the complaint to add Chek-Med Systems d/b/a GI Supply as a defendant. On May 17, 2010, Dr. Luigi Tellini filed suit against us and certain of our subsidiaries, Guidant Italia S.r.l. and Boston Scientific S.p.A., in the Civil Tribunal in Milan, Italy alleging certain of our Cardiac Rhythm Management products infringe an Italian patent (the Tellini patent) owned by Dr. Tellini and seeking monetary damages. In January 2011, Dr. Tellini refiled amended claims after his initial claims were dismissed without prejudice to refile. On May 16, 2013, Vascular Solutions, Inc. filed suit against us, alleging that its Guidezilla™ guide extension catheter infringes three U.S. patents owned by Vascular Solutions. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota seeking monetary and injunctive relief. On May 28, 2013 Vascular Solutions filed an amended complaint adding an allegation of copyright infringement. On June 10, 2013, Vascular Solutions filed a motion requesting a preliminary injunction. On July 11, 2013 we answered the amended complaint and filed a counterclaim against Vascular Solutions, alleging that its Guideliner™ guide extension catheter infringes a U.S. patent owned by us. On December 12, 2013, the District Court granted the motion for a preliminary injunction and on December 26, 2013, we filed an appeal. On August 2, 2013, Medtronic Ardian Luxembourg S.a.r.l. filed a complaint against Boston Scientific Corporation and Boston Scientific Medizintechnik, GmbH in the Düsseldorf District Court in Germany alleging that the sale of our Vessix renal denervation product infringes a German patent owned by Medtronic Ardian. A hearing is scheduled for August 12, 2014. On September 23, 2013, Kardiametrics, LLC filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that the sale of our FilterWire EZ Embolic Protection System, Sterling balloon catheters, Carotid NexStent and Carotid Wallstent products infringe two patents (the Azizi patents) owned by Kardiametrics. On January 24, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the case or in the alternative to stay the case pending an arbitration. On February 18, 2014, Atlas IP, LLC filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging that the sale of our LATITUDE® Patient Management System and implantable devices that communicate with the LATITUDE® device infringe a patent (the Fischer patent) owned by Atlas. 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. Further, we are aware of approximately 30 Guidant product liability lawsuits pending in international jurisdictions associated with defibrillators or pacemakers, including devices involved in the 2005 and 2006 product communications. Six of these suits are pending in Canada and were filed as class actions, four of which are stayed pending the outcome of two lead class actions. On April 10, 2008, the Justice of Ontario Court certified a class of persons in whom defibrillators were implanted in Canada and a class of family members with derivative claims. On May 8, 2009, the Justice of Ontario Court certified a class of persons in whom pacemakers were implanted in Canada and a class of family members with derivative claims. In each case, these matters generally seek monetary damages from us. The parties in the defibrillator class action have reached an agreement in principle to settle the matter for approximately $3 million. The presiding judge has set an approval hearing for this settlement for March 24, 2014. As of February 25, 2014, there were over 18,000 product liability cases or claims related to transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse pending against us. The cases are pending in various federal and state courts in the United States and include eight putative class actions. There were also over ten cases in Canada, inclusive of three putative class actions. Generally, the plaintiffs allege personal injury associated with use of our transvaginal surgical mesh products. The plaintiffs assert design and manufacturing claims, failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims. Over 1,700 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 (MDL) 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, the Attorney General for the State of California informed us that their office and certain other state attorneys general offices intended to initiate a civil investigation into our sale of transvaginal surgical mesh products. During the fourth quarter of 2013, we received written discovery requests from certain state attorneys general offices. We are responding to those requests. We have established a product liability accrual for known and estimated future cases and claims asserted against us as well as costs of defense thereof associated with our transvaginal surgical mesh products. While we believe that our accrual associated with this matter is adequate, changes to this accrual may be required in the future as additional information becomes available. We intend to vigorously contest the cases and claims asserted against us; however, the final resolution is uncertain and could have a material impact on our results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. Governmental Investigations and Qui Tam Matters 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, and on February 6, 2013, the District Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice on standing and jurisdictional grounds. The plaintiff filed an appeal, which is pending. On March 12, 2010, we received a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) from the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) requesting documents and information relating to reimbursement advice offered by us relating to certain CRM devices. We are cooperating with the request. 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 promotion of off-label uses. On September 10, 2012, the relators filed an amended complaint revising and restating certain of the claims in the original complaint. Our motion to dismiss, filed subsequently, was denied on May 31, 2013, and on June 28, 2013, we answered the amended complaint and brought certain counterclaims arising from relators’ unauthorized removal of documents from the business during their employments, which the relators moved to dismiss on July 22, 2013. 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 October 5, 2007, Dr. Tassilo Bonzel filed a complaint against Pfizer, Inc. and our Schneider subsidiaries and us in the District Court in Kassel, Germany alleging that a 1995 license agreement related to a catheter patent is invalid under German law and seeking monetary damages. In June 2009, the District Court dismissed all but one of Dr. Bonzel's claims and in October 2009, he added new claims. We opposed the addition of the new claims. The District Court ordered Dr. Bonzel to select the claims he would pursue and in January 2011, he made that selection. A hearing is scheduled for March 28, 2014. On September 28, 2011, we served a complaint against Mirowski Family Ventures LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana 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. On May 13, 2013, Mirowski Family Ventures served us with a complaint alleging breach of contract in Montgomery County Circuit Court, Maryland, and they amended this complaint on August 1, 2013. On July 29, 2013, the Indiana case was dismissed. On September 10, 2013, we removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. A motion to remand the case back to the Montgomery County Circuit Court, Maryland is pending. Refer to Note J - Income Taxes for information regarding our tax litigation. Matters Concluded Since December 31, 2012 On February 1, 2008, Wyeth Corporation and Cordis Corporation filed an amended complaint for patent infringement against Abbott Laboratories, adding us and Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. as additional defendants to the complaint. The suit alleged that the PROMUS® coronary stent system, supplied to us by Abbott, infringes three U.S. patents (the Morris patents) owned by Wyeth and licensed to Cordis. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey seeking monetary and injunctive relief. Wyeth and Cordis subsequently withdrew their infringement claim as to one of the patents, and the District Court found the remaining two patents invalid. Wyeth and Cordis filed an appeal and on June 26, 2013, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment in favor of Boston Scientific. On October 13, 2013, Wyeth’s motion for rehearing or rehearing en banc was denied. The deadline for further appeals lapsed on January 13, 2014. On December 4, 2009, we, along with Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc., filed a complaint for patent infringement against Cordis Corporation alleging that its Cypher Mini™ stent product infringes a U.S. patent (the Jang patent) owned by us. In April 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware granted summary judgment that Cordis willfully infringed the Jang patent. After a trial on damages in May 2011, the jury found in favor of Boston Scientific for lost profits of approximately $18.5 million and royalties of approximately $1 million. On March 13, 2012, the District Court granted our motion for enhanced damages, resulting in a total damages award of approximately $41 million. On February 12, 2013, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment in favor of Boston Scientific. On November 17, 2009, Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. filed suit against OrbusNeich Medical, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries in the Hague District Court in the Netherlands alleging that OrbusNeich's sale of the Genous stent infringes a patent owned by us (the Keith patent) and seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. On March 13, 2012, the Hague Court of Appeals denied our request for preliminary relief. On April 2, 2013, the Hague Court of Appeals found the Keith patent invalid. 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 2012, the District Court issued its opinion ordering that all claims against us be dismissed, some of which were dismissed with prejudice and some of which were dismissed without prejudice to the relator's right to amend those claims. On September 14, 2012, the relator filed and served an amended complaint restating the claims that the District Court dismissed without prejudice. On January 17, 2013, the District Court granted our motion to dismiss with prejudice all of the relator's remaining claims against us, and on May 13, 2013, the deadline for further appeals lapsed. On October 17, 2008, we received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General, requesting information related to the alleged use of a skin adhesive in certain of our CRM products. In early 2010, we learned that this subpoena was related to a qui tam action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. The Department of Justice intervened in the case in 2010. In October 2013 we entered into a settlement agreement with the parties pursuant to which we agreed to pay $30 million to the DOJ and $1 million in legal fees to Mr. Allen’s counsel, and we filed a joint motion with the parties to dismiss the case. The judge dismissed the case on October 31, 2013. On January 15, 2010, Cordis Corporation filed a complaint against us and Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. alleging that the PROMUS® coronary stent system, supplied to us by Abbott Laboratories, infringes three patents (the Fischell patents) owned by Cordis. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and sought monetary and injunctive relief. We filed counterclaims of invalidity and non-infringement. The District Court found that the PROMUS stent system does not infringe the Fischell patents and that our sales of this product were authorized. On May 13, 2013, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment in favor of Boston Scientific. The deadline for further appeals lapsed on August 12, 2013. On October 21, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts unsealed a qui tam complaint that related to the subject matter of a U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts investigation, which investigation has been discontinued and is described below, 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. On July 12, 2012, the relator appealed the judgment of dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. On May 31, 2013, the Court of Appeals rejected the relator's appeal and affirmed the dismissal of the amended complaint. The deadline for further appeals lapsed on August 29, 2013. On March 16, 2009, OrbusNeich Medical, Inc. filed suit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging that our VeriFLEX™ (Liberté®) bare-metal coronary stent system infringes two U.S. patents (the Addonizio and Pazienza patents) owned by it. The complaint also alleged breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets and sought monetary and injunctive relief. In September 2009, OrbusNeich filed an amended complaint against us alleging additional state law claims. In March 2010, the District Court dismissed OrbusNeich's unjust enrichment and fraud claims, but denied our motion to dismiss the remaining state law claims. OrbusNeich amended its complaint in April 2010 to add another patent (another Addonizio patent). In January 2011, OrbusNeich amended its complaint to drop its misappropriation of trade secret, statutory and unfair competition claims and in July 2011, it further amended its complaint to include allegations that our ION™ coronary stent system infringes two additional patents. On February 24, 2012, the District Court granted our motion to stay the patent claims, and on June 4, 2012, the District Court stayed the breach of contract claim, in each case, pending re-examination of the patents in suit. In addition, in February 2013, Orbus International B.V. filed suits against us and two Dutch subsidiaries in the Hague District Court in the Netherlands and Orbus Medical GmbH filed suit against us and one of our subsidiaries in the Dusseldorf District Court in Germany. In March 2013, Orbus Medical Inc. and Orbus International B.V. filed suit against us and two of our Irish subsidiaries in the Irish Commercial Court in Dublin, Ireland. Each of these matters alleges that our sale of stent systems using the Element design infringe European patents owned by Orbus Medical Inc. and licensed to other Orbus entities. In one Dutch matter, Orbus sought cross-border, preliminary injunctive relief, which the court denied on July 9, 2013. In the other Dutch matter, Orbus sought damages and injunctive relief. In one German matter, Orbus sought preliminary injunctive relief, which the Dusseldorf District Court granted on April 30, 2013. On that same date, we appealed the injunction to the Court of Appeals of Dusseldorf. In the other German matter, Orbus sought damages and injunctive relief. In the Irish matter, Orbus sought damages and injunctive relief. In March 2013, two of our subsidiaries filed suit against Orbus Medical Inc. in the English High Court seeking a declaration that the sale of the stent systems with the Element design does not infringe two Orbus patents and seeking to have the two patents found invalid. On June 5, 2013, Orbus cancelled one of the two UK patents. On September 15, 2013, the parties entered into a settlement agreement that resolves all stent-related cases brought by the parties in Germany, the Netherlands, Ireland, the United Kingdom and the United States. The agreement includes a one-time payment from us to OrbusNeich, with no future financial obligations. 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. On October 21, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts unsealed a qui tam complaint that related 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. The District Court case has been concluded and is described above. On October 30, 2013, the U.S. Attorney’s office informed us that the government was discontinuing its investigation.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The medical device market in which we primarily participate is largely technology driven. As a result, intellectual property rights, particularly patents and trade secrets, play a significant role in product development and differentiation. Over the years, there has been litigation initiated against us by others, including our competitors, claiming that our current or former product offerings infringe patents owned or licensed by them. Intellectual property litigation is inherently complex and unpredictable. 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. 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.

During recent years, we successfully negotiated closure of several long-standing legal matters and have received favorable legal rulings in several other matters; however, there continues to be outstanding intellectual property litigation. 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 maintain an insurance policy providing limited coverage against securities claims, and we are substantially self-insured with respect to product liability claims and fully self-insured with respect to intellectual property infringement 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 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 $607 million as of December 31, 2013 and $491 million as of December 31, 2012, and includes certain estimated costs of settlement, damages and defense. The increase in our legal accrual was primarily due to litigation-related charges recorded during the year. During 2013, 2012 and 2011, we recorded litigation-related charges in the amount of $221 million, $192 million, and $48 million, respectively. 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 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 September 22, 2009, Cordis Corporation, Cordis LLC and Wyeth Corporation filed a complaint for patent infringement against Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. and us alleging that the PROMUS® coronary stent system, supplied to us by Abbott, infringes a patent (the Llanos patent) owned by Cordis and Wyeth. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey seeking monetary and injunctive relief. In August 2010, Cordis filed an amended complaint to add an additional patent and in September 2010, we filed counterclaims of invalidity and non-infringement. On October 26, 2011, the District Court granted Cordis' motion to add the Promus Element stent system to the case. On February 6, 2012, the District Court granted our motion to stay the action until the conclusion of the reexaminations against the Llanos patents that are pending in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

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. In October 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware entered judgment in favor of us on the pleadings. Dr. Jang filed an appeal on August 28, 2012. On September 5, 2013, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the ruling and remanded the case to the District Court.

On September 27, 2010, Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc., Boston Scientific Ltd., Endovascular Technologies, Inc. and we filed suit against Taewoong Medical, Co., Ltd., Standard Sci-Tech, Inc., EndoChoice, Inc. and Sewoon Medical Co., Ltd for infringement of three patents on stents for use in the GI system (the Pulnev and Hankh patents) and against Cook Medical Inc. (and related entities) for infringement of the same three patents and an additional patent (the Thompson patent). The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. In December 2010, we amended our complaint to add infringement of six additional Pulnev patents. In January 2011, the defendants filed a counterclaim of invalidity and unenforceability. In December 2011, we amended the complaint to add Chek-Med Systems d/b/a GI Supply as a defendant.

On May 17, 2010, Dr. Luigi Tellini filed suit against us and certain of our subsidiaries, Guidant Italia S.r.l. and Boston Scientific S.p.A., in the Civil Tribunal in Milan, Italy alleging certain of our Cardiac Rhythm Management products infringe an Italian patent (the Tellini patent) owned by Dr. Tellini and seeking monetary damages. In January 2011, Dr. Tellini refiled amended claims after his initial claims were dismissed without prejudice to refile.

On May 16, 2013, Vascular Solutions, Inc. filed suit against us, alleging that its Guidezilla™ guide extension catheter infringes three U.S. patents owned by Vascular Solutions. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota seeking monetary and injunctive relief. On May 28, 2013 Vascular Solutions filed an amended complaint adding an allegation of copyright infringement. On June 10, 2013, Vascular Solutions filed a motion requesting a preliminary injunction. On July 11, 2013 we answered the amended complaint and filed a counterclaim against Vascular Solutions, alleging that its Guideliner™ guide extension catheter infringes a U.S. patent owned by us. On December 12, 2013, the District Court granted the motion for a preliminary injunction and on December 26, 2013, we filed an appeal.

On August 2, 2013, Medtronic Ardian Luxembourg S.a.r.l. filed a complaint against Boston Scientific Corporation and Boston Scientific Medizintechnik, GmbH in the Düsseldorf District Court in Germany alleging that the sale of our Vessix renal denervation product infringes a German patent owned by Medtronic Ardian. A hearing is scheduled for August 12, 2014.

On September 23, 2013, Kardiametrics, LLC filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that the sale of our FilterWire EZ Embolic Protection System, Sterling balloon catheters, Carotid NexStent and Carotid Wallstent products infringe two patents (the Azizi patents) owned by Kardiametrics. On January 24, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the case or in the alternative to stay the case pending an arbitration.

On February 18, 2014, Atlas IP, LLC filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging that the sale of our LATITUDE® Patient Management System and implantable devices that communicate with the LATITUDE® device infringe a patent (the Fischer patent) owned by Atlas.

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. Further, we are aware of approximately 30 Guidant product liability lawsuits pending in international jurisdictions associated with defibrillators or pacemakers, including devices involved in the 2005 and 2006 product communications. Six of these suits are pending in Canada and were filed as class actions, four of which are stayed pending the outcome of two lead class actions. On April 10, 2008, the Justice of Ontario Court certified a class of persons in whom defibrillators were implanted in Canada and a class of family members with derivative claims. On May 8, 2009, the Justice of Ontario Court certified a class of persons in whom pacemakers were implanted in Canada and a class of family members with derivative claims. In each case, these matters generally seek monetary damages from us. The parties in the defibrillator class action have reached an agreement in principle to settle the matter for approximately $3 million. The presiding judge has set an approval hearing for this settlement for March 24, 2014.

As of February 25, 2014, there were over 18,000 product liability cases or claims related to transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse pending against us. The cases are pending in various federal and state courts in the United States and include eight putative class actions. There were also over ten cases in Canada, inclusive of three putative class actions. Generally, the plaintiffs allege personal injury associated with use of our transvaginal surgical mesh products. The plaintiffs assert design and manufacturing claims, failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims. Over 1,700 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 (MDL) 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, the Attorney General for the State of California informed us that their office and certain other state attorneys general offices intended to initiate a civil investigation into our sale of transvaginal surgical mesh products. During the fourth quarter of 2013, we received written discovery requests from certain state attorneys general offices. We are responding to those requests. We have established a product liability accrual for known and estimated future cases and claims asserted against us as well as costs of defense thereof associated with our transvaginal surgical mesh products. While we believe that our accrual associated with this matter is adequate, changes to this accrual may be required in the future as additional information becomes available. We intend to vigorously contest the cases and claims asserted against us; however, the final resolution is uncertain and could have a material impact on our results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.

Governmental Investigations and Qui Tam Matters

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, and on February 6, 2013, the District Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice on standing and jurisdictional grounds. The plaintiff filed an appeal, which is pending.

On March 12, 2010, we received a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) from the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) requesting documents and information relating to reimbursement advice offered by us relating to certain CRM devices. We are cooperating with the request.

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 promotion of off-label uses. On September 10, 2012, the relators filed an amended complaint revising and restating certain of the claims in the original complaint. Our motion to dismiss, filed subsequently, was denied on May 31, 2013, and on June 28, 2013, we answered the amended complaint and brought certain counterclaims arising from relators’ unauthorized removal of documents from the business during their employments, which the relators moved to dismiss on July 22, 2013.

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 October 5, 2007, Dr. Tassilo Bonzel filed a complaint against Pfizer, Inc. and our Schneider subsidiaries and us in the District Court in Kassel, Germany alleging that a 1995 license agreement related to a catheter patent is invalid under German law and seeking monetary damages. In June 2009, the District Court dismissed all but one of Dr. Bonzel's claims and in October 2009, he added new claims. We opposed the addition of the new claims. The District Court ordered Dr. Bonzel to select the claims he would pursue and in January 2011, he made that selection. A hearing is scheduled for March 28, 2014.

On September 28, 2011, we served a complaint against Mirowski Family Ventures LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana 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. On May 13, 2013, Mirowski Family Ventures served us with a complaint alleging breach of contract in Montgomery County Circuit Court, Maryland, and they amended this complaint on August 1, 2013. On July 29, 2013, the Indiana case was dismissed. On September 10, 2013, we removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. A motion to remand the case back to the Montgomery County Circuit Court, Maryland is pending.

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

Matters Concluded Since December 31, 2012

On February 1, 2008, Wyeth Corporation and Cordis Corporation filed an amended complaint for patent infringement against Abbott Laboratories, adding us and Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. as additional defendants to the complaint. The suit alleged that the PROMUS® coronary stent system, supplied to us by Abbott, infringes three U.S. patents (the Morris patents) owned by Wyeth and licensed to Cordis. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey seeking monetary and injunctive relief. Wyeth and Cordis subsequently withdrew their infringement claim as to one of the patents, and the District Court found the remaining two patents invalid. Wyeth and Cordis filed an appeal and on June 26, 2013, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment in favor of Boston Scientific. On October 13, 2013, Wyeth’s motion for rehearing or rehearing en banc was denied. The deadline for further appeals lapsed on January 13, 2014.

On December 4, 2009, we, along with Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc., filed a complaint for patent infringement against Cordis Corporation alleging that its Cypher Mini™ stent product infringes a U.S. patent (the Jang patent) owned by us. In April 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware granted summary judgment that Cordis willfully infringed the Jang patent. After a trial on damages in May 2011, the jury found in favor of Boston Scientific for lost profits of approximately $18.5 million and royalties of approximately $1 million. On March 13, 2012, the District Court granted our motion for enhanced damages, resulting in a total damages award of approximately $41 million. On February 12, 2013, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment in favor of Boston Scientific.

On November 17, 2009, Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. filed suit against OrbusNeich Medical, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries in the Hague District Court in the Netherlands alleging that OrbusNeich's sale of the Genous stent infringes a patent owned by us (the Keith patent) and seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. On March 13, 2012, the Hague Court of Appeals denied our request for preliminary relief. On April 2, 2013, the Hague Court of Appeals found the Keith patent invalid.

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 2012, the District Court issued its opinion ordering that all claims against us be dismissed, some of which were dismissed with prejudice and some of which were dismissed without prejudice to the relator's right to amend those claims. On September 14, 2012, the relator filed and served an amended complaint restating the claims that the District Court dismissed without prejudice. On January 17, 2013, the District Court granted our motion to dismiss with prejudice all of the relator's remaining claims against us, and on May 13, 2013, the deadline for further appeals lapsed.

On October 17, 2008, we received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General, requesting information related to the alleged use of a skin adhesive in certain of our CRM products. In early 2010, we learned that this subpoena was related to a qui tam action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. The Department of Justice intervened in the case in 2010. In October 2013 we entered into a settlement agreement with the parties pursuant to which we agreed to pay $30 million to the DOJ and $1 million in legal fees to Mr. Allen’s counsel, and we filed a joint motion with the parties to dismiss the case. The judge dismissed the case on October 31, 2013.

On January 15, 2010, Cordis Corporation filed a complaint against us and Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. alleging that the PROMUS® coronary stent system, supplied to us by Abbott Laboratories, infringes three patents (the Fischell patents) owned by Cordis. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and sought monetary and injunctive relief. We filed counterclaims of invalidity and non-infringement. The District Court found that the PROMUS stent system does not infringe the Fischell patents and that our sales of this product were authorized. On May 13, 2013, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment in favor of Boston Scientific. The deadline for further appeals lapsed on August 12, 2013.

On October 21, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts unsealed a qui tam complaint that related to the subject matter of a U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts investigation, which investigation has been discontinued and is described below, 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. On July 12, 2012, the relator appealed the judgment of dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. On May 31, 2013, the Court of Appeals rejected the relator's appeal and affirmed the dismissal of the amended complaint. The deadline for further appeals lapsed on August 29, 2013.

On March 16, 2009, OrbusNeich Medical, Inc. filed suit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging that our VeriFLEX™ (Liberté®) bare-metal coronary stent system infringes two U.S. patents (the Addonizio and Pazienza patents) owned by it. The complaint also alleged breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets and sought monetary and injunctive relief. In September 2009, OrbusNeich filed an amended complaint against us alleging additional state law claims. In March 2010, the District Court dismissed OrbusNeich's unjust enrichment and fraud claims, but denied our motion to dismiss the remaining state law claims. OrbusNeich amended its complaint in April 2010 to add another patent (another Addonizio patent). In January 2011, OrbusNeich amended its complaint to drop its misappropriation of trade secret, statutory and unfair competition claims and in July 2011, it further amended its complaint to include allegations that our ION™ coronary stent system infringes two additional patents. On February 24, 2012, the District Court granted our motion to stay the patent claims, and on June 4, 2012, the District Court stayed the breach of contract claim, in each case, pending re-examination of the patents in suit. In addition, in February 2013, Orbus International B.V. filed suits against us and two Dutch subsidiaries in the Hague District Court in the Netherlands and Orbus Medical GmbH filed suit against us and one of our subsidiaries in the Dusseldorf District Court in Germany. In March 2013, Orbus Medical Inc. and Orbus International B.V. filed suit against us and two of our Irish subsidiaries in the Irish Commercial Court in Dublin, Ireland. Each of these matters alleges that our sale of stent systems using the Element design infringe European patents owned by Orbus Medical Inc. and licensed to other Orbus entities. In one Dutch matter, Orbus sought cross-border, preliminary injunctive relief, which the court denied on July 9, 2013. In the other Dutch matter, Orbus sought damages and injunctive relief. In one German matter, Orbus sought preliminary injunctive relief, which the Dusseldorf District Court granted on April 30, 2013. On that same date, we appealed the injunction to the Court of Appeals of Dusseldorf. In the other German matter, Orbus sought damages and injunctive relief. In the Irish matter, Orbus sought damages and injunctive relief. In March 2013, two of our subsidiaries filed suit against Orbus Medical Inc. in the English High Court seeking a declaration that the sale of the stent systems with the Element design does not infringe two Orbus patents and seeking to have the two patents found invalid. On June 5, 2013, Orbus cancelled one of the two UK patents. On September 15, 2013, the parties entered into a settlement agreement that resolves all stent-related cases brought by the parties in Germany, the Netherlands, Ireland, the United Kingdom and the United States. The agreement includes a one-time payment from us to OrbusNeich, with no future financial obligations.

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. On October 21, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts unsealed a qui tam complaint that related 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. The District Court case has been concluded and is described above. On October 30, 2013, the U.S. Attorney’s office informed us that the government was discontinuing its investigation.