Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2011

Contingencies

Contingencies

Note 13. Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

        Medacist Solutions Group, LLC.    On July 8, 2009, Medacist Solutions Group LLC filed a complaint against Omnicell in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York, entitled Medacist Solutions Group LLC v. Omnicell, Inc., case number 09 CV 6128, alleging infringement of Medacist's U.S. Patent Number 6,842,736. The complaint also, among other claims, alleges that Omnicell breached the terms of a nondisclosure agreement it had entered into with Medacist, and that Omnicell misappropriated Medacist's trade secrets and confidential information in violation of the NDA. Medacist sought unspecified monetary damages and an injunction against the Company's infringement of the specified patent and/or misuse of any of Medacist's trade secrets pursuant to the NDA or in violation of California code.

        On October 20, 2010, Omnicell filed a declaratory judgment complaint against Medacist Solutions Group, LLC in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California, entitled Omnicell, Inc. and Pandora Data Systems, Inc. v. Medacist Solutions Group, LLC, Case Number 10-cv-4746 (the "California Action"). Pandora Data Systems, Inc. had entered into a Settlement and License Agreement with Medacist in October 2008 (the "Settlement Agreement") pursuant to which, among other things, Medacist granted to Pandora a non-exclusive license to Medacist's U.S. Patent Number 6,842,736. We sought an order declaring that Omnicell, as now-owner of Pandora Data Systems, Inc., was entitled to certain rights and benefits under the license. On November 12, 2010, Medacist filed a motion to dismiss the California Action, or in the alternative, to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Also on November 12, 2010, Medacist filed a motion in the U.S. District Court in the District of Connecticut to reopen a litigation entitled Medacist Solutions Group, LLC v. Pandora Data Systems, Inc., Case Number 3:07-CV-00692(JCH) (the "Connecticut Litigation"), which had been dismissed and administratively closed since October 29, 2008. Medacist sought, among other things, relief from the Stipulation of Dismissal entered on October 29, 2008 dismissing the Connecticut Litigation for the limited purpose of interpreting and enforcing the Settlement Agreement, the entry of a temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting breaches of the Settlement Agreement, a finding that Pandora breached the Settlement Agreement and an award of monetary damages resulting from Pandora's alleged breaches. On February 10, 2011, the Court granted Medacist's motion and dismissed the California Action without prejudice. On February 14, 2011, Omnicell and Pandora filed a notice of appeal regarding dismissal of the California Action with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

        On May 19, 2011, we entered into a final settlement agreement with Medacist, pursuant to which we agreed to pay Medacist $1.0 million in exchange for a fully-paid, perpetual license to Medacist's patented technology and the parties agreed to dismiss all pending lawsuits and fully release each other from all claims. In addition, we agreed that a license transfer fee payment of $0.5 million would be made to Medacist in the event certain change-in-control conditions are met. The $1.0 million loss for this settlement was accrued during the three months ended March 31, 2011 and recorded within selling, general and administrative expenses, and was paid during the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Guarantees

        As permitted under Delaware law and our certificate of incorporation and bylaws, we have agreed to indemnify our directors and officers against certain losses that they may suffer by reason of the fact that such persons are, were or become our directors or officers. The term of the indemnification period is for the director's or officer's lifetime and there is no limit on the potential amount of future payments that we could be required to make under these indemnification agreements. We have purchased directors' and officers' liability insurance policy that may enable us to recover a portion of any future payments that we may be required to make under these indemnification agreements. Assuming the applicability of coverage and the willingness of the insurer to assume coverage and subject to certain retention, loss limits and other policy provisions, we believe it is unlikely that we will be required to pay any material amounts pursuant to these indemnification obligations. However, no assurances can be given that the insurers will not attempt to dispute the validity, applicability or amount of coverage without expensive and time-consuming litigation against the insurers.

        Additionally, we undertake indemnification obligations in our ordinary course of business in connection with, among other things, the licensing of our products and the provision of our support services. In the ordinary course of our business, we have in the past and may in the future agree to indemnify another party, generally our business affiliates or customers, against certain losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party in connection with various types of claims, which may include, without limitation, claims of intellectual property infringement, certain tax liabilities, our gross negligence or intentional acts in the performance of support services and violations of laws. The term of these indemnification obligations is generally perpetual. In general, we attempt to limit the maximum potential amount of future payments that we may be required to make under these indemnification obligations to the amounts paid to us by a customer, but in some cases the obligation may not be so limited. In addition, we have in the past and may in the future warrant to our customers that our products will conform to functional specifications for a limited period of time following the date of installation (generally not exceeding 30 days) or that our software media is free from material defects. From time to time, we may also warrant that our professional services will be performed in a good and workmanlike manner or in a professional manner consistent with industry standards. We generally seek to disclaim most warranties, including any implied or statutory warranties such as warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title, quality and non-infringement, as well as any liability with respect to incidental, consequential, special, exemplary, punitive or similar damages. In some states, such disclaimers may not be enforceable. If necessary, we would provide for the estimated cost of product and service warranties based on specific warranty claims and claim history. We have not been subject to any significant claims for such losses and have not incurred any material costs in defending or settling claims related to these indemnification obligations. Accordingly, we believe it is unlikely that we will be required to pay any material amounts pursuant to these indemnification obligations or potential warranty claims and, therefore, no liabilities have been recorded for such indemnification obligations as of December 31, 2011 or December 31, 2010.