COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2018
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES In May 2010, the Company and an officer's suit against Becton, Dickinson and Company (“BD”) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division alleging violations of antitrust acts, false advertising, product disparagement, tortious interference, and unfair competition was reopened. The trial commenced on September 9, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, and the jury found that BD illegally engaged in anticompetitive conduct with the intent to acquire or maintain monopoly power in the safety syringe market and engaged in false advertising under the Lanham Act. The jury awarded the Company $113,508,014 in damages, which was trebled pursuant to statute. The Court granted injunctive relief to take effect January 15, 2015 including, among other things, a requirement to notify certain customers and others regarding misleading disclosures. In connection with BD’s subsequent appeal, on December 2, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overturned the antitrust damages. The finding of false advertising liability was affirmed and the case was remanded to the Eastern District of Texas for a redetermination as to the amount of damages to which the Company is entitled. On August 17, 2017, District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued the Court’s Final Judgment ordering that the Company take nothing in its suit against BD and dismissing the case. The Company filed a notice of Appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on November 3, 2017. Briefing for the appeal was completed by the parties on May 2, 2018 and oral argument occurred on October 3, 2018. In September 2007, BD and MDC Investment Holdings, Inc. (“MDC”) sued the Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division, initially alleging that the Company is infringing two U.S. patents of MDC (6,179,812 and 7,090,656) that are licensed to BD. BD and MDC seek injunctive relief and unspecified damages. The Company counterclaimed for declarations of non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of the asserted patents. The plaintiffs subsequently dropped allegations with regard to patent no. 7,090,656 and the Company subsequently dropped its counterclaims for unenforceability of the asserted patents. On June 30, 2015, the Court ordered that further proceedings in this matter be stayed and that this case remain administratively closed until resolution of all appeals in the case detailed in the preceding paragraph. The case remains stayed as a result of the ongoing proceedings regarding the Lanham Act claims in the separate proceeding described above.

6. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

In May 2010, the Company and an officer's suit against Becton, Dickinson and Company (“BD”) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division alleging violations of antitrust acts, false advertising, product disparagement, tortious interference, and unfair competition was reopened. The trial commenced on September 9, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, and the jury found that BD illegally engaged in anticompetitive conduct with the intent to acquire or maintain monopoly power in the safety syringe market and engaged in false advertising under the Lanham Act. The jury awarded the Company $113,508,014 in damages, which was trebled pursuant to statute. The Court granted injunctive relief to take effect January 15, 2015 including, among other things, a requirement to notify certain customers and others regarding misleading disclosures. In connection with BD’s subsequent appeal, on December 2, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overturned the antitrust damages. The finding of false advertising liability was affirmed and the case was remanded to the Eastern District of Texas for a redetermination as to the amount of damages to which the Company is entitled. On August 17, 2017, District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued the Court’s Final Judgment ordering that the Company take nothing in its suit against BD and dismissing the case. The Company filed a notice of Appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on November 3, 2017. Briefing for the appeal was completed by the parties on May 2, 2018 and oral argument occurred on October 3, 2018.

In September 2007, BD and MDC Investment Holdings, Inc. (“MDC”) sued the Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division, initially alleging that the Company is infringing two U.S. patents of MDC (6,179,812 and 7,090,656) that are licensed to BD. BD and MDC seek injunctive relief and unspecified damages. The Company counterclaimed for declarations of non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of the asserted patents. The plaintiffs subsequently dropped allegations with regard to patent no. 7,090,656 and the Company subsequently dropped its counterclaims for unenforceability of the asserted patents. On June 30, 2015, the Court ordered that further proceedings in this matter be stayed and that this case remain administratively closed until resolution of all appeals in the case detailed in the preceding paragraph. The case remains stayed as a result of the ongoing proceedings regarding the Lanham Act claims in the separate proceeding described above.