
Note 10.	Commitments and Contingencies

Operating Leases

The company leases certain logistics, office, and manufacturing facilities. Income from continuing operations includes expense from operating leases of $182 million, $181 million and $181 million in 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. The following is a summary of annual future minimum lease and rental commitments under noncancelable operating leases as of December 31, 2016:



(In millions)

2017	$	163.7
2018	132.6
2019	103.0
2020	79.5
2021	60.2
2022 and Thereafter	176.5

	$	715.5

Purchase Obligations

The company has entered into unconditional purchase obligations, in the ordinary course of business, that include agreements to purchase goods, services or fixed assets and to pay royalties that are enforceable and legally binding and that specify all significant terms including: fixed or minimum quantities to be purchased; fixed, minimum or variable price provisions; and the approximate timing of the transaction. Purchase obligations exclude agreements that are cancelable at any time without penalty. The aggregate amount of the company’s unconditional purchase obligations totaled $378 million at December 31, 2016 and the majority of these obligations are expected to be settled during 2017.

Letters of Credit, Guarantees and Other Commitments

Outstanding letters of credit and bank guarantees totaled $179 million at December 31, 2016. Substantially all of these letters of credit and guarantees expire before 2022.

Outstanding surety bonds and other guarantees totaled $24 million at December 31, 2016. The expiration of these bonds and guarantees ranges through 2018.

The letters of credit, bank guarantees and surety bonds principally secure performance obligations, and allow the holder to draw funds up to the face amount of the letter of credit, bank guarantee or surety bond if the applicable business unit does not perform as contractually required.

The company is a guarantor of pension plan obligations of a divested business. The purchaser of the divested business has agreed to pay for the pension benefits, however the company was required to guarantee payment of these pension benefits should the purchaser fail to do so. The amount of the guarantee at December 31, 2016 was $40 million.

In connection with the sale of businesses of the company, the buyers have assumed certain contractual obligations of such businesses and have agreed to indemnify the company with respect to those assumed liabilities. In the event a third-party to a transferred contract does not recognize the transfer of obligations or a buyer defaults on its obligations under the transferred contract, the company could be liable to the third-party for such obligations. However, in such event, the company would be entitled to seek indemnification from the buyer.

In 2016, the company entered into an off-balance sheet build-to-suit financing arrangement with a financial institution to fund construction of an operating facility in the U.S. Upon completion of construction in 2017, a five-year lease will commence with options to purchase the facility or renew the lease for up to three 5-year terms. The company has agreed with the lessor to comply with certain financial covenants consistent with its other debt arrangements (Note 9), and has guaranteed the facility's residual value at the end of the lease. The company has also guaranteed the residual value of two other leased operating facilities with initial lease terms ending in 2019 and 2020. The aggregate maximum guarantee under these three lease arrangements is $155 million.

Indemnifications

In conjunction with certain transactions, primarily divestitures, the company has agreed to indemnify the other parties with respect to certain liabilities related to the businesses that were sold or leased properties that were abandoned (e.g., retention of certain environmental, tax, employee and product liabilities). The scope and duration of such indemnity obligations vary from transaction to transaction. Where appropriate, an obligation for such indemnifications is recorded as a liability. Generally, a maximum obligation cannot be reasonably estimated. Other than obligations recorded as liabilities at the time of divestiture, historically the company has not made significant payments for these indemnifications.

In connection with the company’s efforts to reduce the number of facilities that it occupies, the company has vacated some of its leased facilities or sublet them to third parties. When the company sublets a facility to a third-party, it remains the primary obligor under the master lease agreement with the owner of the facility. As a result, if a third-party vacates the sublet facility, the company would be obligated to make lease or other payments under the master lease agreement. The company believes that the financial risk of default by sublessors is individually and in the aggregate not material to the company’s financial position or results of operations.

In connection with the sale of products in the ordinary course of business, the company often makes representations affirming, among other things, that its products do not infringe on the intellectual property rights of others and agrees to indemnify customers against third-party claims for such infringement. The company has not been required to make material payments under such provisions.

Environmental Matters

The company is currently involved in various stages of investigation and remediation related to environmental matters. The company cannot predict all potential costs related to environmental remediation matters and the possible impact on future operations given the uncertainties regarding the extent of the required cleanup, the complexity and interpretation of applicable laws and regulations, the varying costs of alternative cleanup methods and the extent of the company’s responsibility. Expenses for environmental remediation matters related to the costs of installing, operating and maintaining groundwater-treatment systems and other remedial activities related to historical environmental contamination at the company’s domestic and international facilities were not material in any period presented. The company records accruals for environmental remediation liabilities, based on current interpretations of environmental laws and regulations, when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of such liability can be reasonably estimated. The company calculates estimates based upon several factors, including reports prepared by environmental specialists and management’s knowledge of and experience with these environmental matters. The company includes in these estimates potential costs for investigation, remediation and operation and maintenance of cleanup sites. At December 31, 2016, the company’s total environmental liability was approximately $49 million. While management believes the accruals for environmental remediation are adequate based on current estimates of remediation costs, the company may be subject to additional remedial or compliance costs due to future events such as changes in existing laws and regulations, changes in agency direction or enforcement policies, developments in remediation technologies or changes in the conduct of the company’s operations, which could have a material adverse effect on the company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Litigation and Related Contingencies

There are various lawsuits and claims pending against the company including matters involving product liability, intellectual property, employment and commercial issues. The company determines the probability and range of possible loss based on the current status of each of these matters. A liability is recorded in the financial statements if it is believed to be probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The company establishes a liability that is an estimate of amounts expected to be paid in the future for events that have already occurred. The company accrues the most likely amount or at least the minimum of the range of probable loss when a range of probable loss can be estimated. The accrued liabilities are based on management’s judgment as to the probability of losses for asserted and unasserted claims and, where applicable, actuarially determined estimates. Accrual estimates are adjusted as additional information becomes known or payments are made. The amount of ultimate loss may differ from these estimates. Due to the inherent uncertainties associated with pending litigation or claims, the company cannot predict the outcome, nor, with respect to certain pending litigation or claims where no liability has been accrued, make a meaningful estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome. The company has no material accruals for pending litigation or claims for which accrual amounts are not disclosed below, nor are material losses deemed probable for such matters. It is reasonably possible, however, that an unfavorable outcome that exceeds the company’s current accrual estimate, if any, for one or more of the matters described below could have a material adverse effect on the company’s results of operations, financial position and cash flows.

Product Liability, Workers Compensation and Other Personal Injury Matters

The range of probable loss for product liability, workers compensation and other personal injury matters of the company’s continuing operations at December 31, 2016, was approximately $251 million to $397 million on an undiscounted basis. The portion of these liabilities assumed in the 2006 merger with Fisher was recorded at its fair (present) value at the date of merger. The company’s accrual for all such matters in total, including the discounted liabilities, was $230 million at December 31, 2016 (or $256 million undiscounted). The accrual includes estimated defense costs and is gross of estimated amounts due from insurers of $97 million at December 31, 2016 (or $114 million undiscounted) that are included in other assets in the accompanying balance sheet. The portion of these insurance assets assumed in the merger with Fisher was also recorded at its fair value at the date of merger. In addition to the above accrual, as of December 31, 2016, the company had a product liability accrual of $10 million (undiscounted) relating to divested businesses.

The assets and liabilities assumed at the Fisher merger date were ascribed a fair value based on the present value of expected future cash flows, using a discount rate equivalent to the risk free rate of interest for monetary assets with comparable maturities (weighted average discount rate of 4.67%). The discount on the liabilities of approximately $26 million and the discount on the assets of approximately $17 million (net discount $9 million) are being accreted to interest expense over the expected settlement period.

Although the company believes that the amounts accrued and estimated recoveries are probable and appropriate based on available information, including actuarial studies of loss estimates, the process of estimating losses and insurance recoveries involves a considerable degree of judgment by management and the ultimate amounts could vary materially. Insurance contracts do not relieve the company of its primary obligation with respect to any losses incurred. The collectability of amounts due from its insurers is subject to the solvency and willingness of the insurer to pay, as well as the legal sufficiency of the insurance claims. Management monitors the payment history as well as the financial condition and ratings of its insurers on an ongoing basis.

Intellectual Property Matters

On July 13 and 15, 2015, 454 Life Sciences (a member of the Roche Group) filed complaints against Ion Torrent Systems, Inc., Life Technologies Corp., and Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and in Germany. Plaintiff alleges infringement of patents relating to methods of analyzing nucleic acid sequences using emulsion amplification, which plaintiff alleges are impermissibly used in Ion Torrent sequencing workflows. Plaintiff seeks damages for alleged willful infringement, attorneys’ fees and costs, and injunctive relief.

On June 6, 2004, Enzo Biochem, Enzo Life Sciences and Yale University filed a complaint against Life Technologies in United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The plaintiffs allege patent infringement by Applera’s labeled DNA terminator products used in DNA sequencing and fragment analysis. The plaintiff sought damages for alleged willful infringement, attorneys’ fees, costs, prejudgment interest, and injunctive relief. In November 2012, the jury awarded damages of $49 million. Prejudgment interest of $12 million was also granted. The $61 million judgment and interest was accrued by Life Technologies and the liability was assumed by the company as of the date of the acquisition. In March 2015 the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the judgment and returned the case to the District Court for further proceedings. In February 2016, the District Court granted the company’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement and entered judgment in its favor. Enzo appealed that decision to the Federal Circuit in March 2016. The company has maintained the $61 million accrual, pending appeals.

On May 26, 2010, Promega Corp. & Max-Planck-Gesellschaft Zur Forderung Der Wissenschaften EV filed a complaint against Life Technologies in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. The plaintiffs allege patent infringement by sales and uses of Applied Biosystems’ short tandem repeat DNA identification products outside the scope of a 2006 license agreement. The plaintiff sought damages for alleged willful infringement, attorneys’ fees, costs, prejudgment interest, and injunctive relief. Although a jury initially found willful infringement and assessed damages at $52 million, the District Court subsequently overturned the verdict on the grounds that the plaintiff had failed to prove infringement. The District Court entered judgment in favor of Life Technologies; and plaintiffs and Life Technologies filed cross-appeals with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The $52 million award was accrued by Life Technologies and the liability was assumed by the company as of the date of the acquisition. On December 15, 2014, the Court of Appeals issued a decision invalidating four of the plaintiffs’ patents, but finding infringement by Life Technologies of the remaining fifth patent. The Court of Appeals also ordered a new trial on damages in the District Court. Life Technologies' petition to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Court of Appeals’ judgment was granted on June 27, 2016, and the case was stayed in the District Court pending the outcome of the Supreme Court’s review. On February 22, 2017, the Supreme Court issued a decision reversing the Court of Appeals’ judgment and remanding the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings in view of the Supreme Court’s legal interpretation of the patent law statute in question. The company has maintained the $52 million accrual, pending conclusion of this matter.

On December 27, 2011, Illumina Inc. filed a complaint against Life Technologies in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California alleging infringement of a patent relating to methods for making bead arrays by Ion Torrent’s semiconductor sequencing systems. Plaintiff seeks damages for alleged willful infringement, attorneys’ fees, costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and injunctive relief.

On June 3, 2013, Unisone Strategic IP filed a complaint against Life Technologies in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California alleging patent infringement by Life Technologies’ supply chain management system software, which operates with product “supply centers” installed at customer sites. Plaintiff seeks damages for alleged willful infringement, attorneys’ fees, costs, and injunctive relief.

Commercial Matters

On May 5, 2015, and February 12, 2016, the Academy of Allergy & Asthma in Primary Care and United Biologics, LLC d/b/a United Allergy Services, a provider of on-site services to physicians in the delivery of testing and treatment of allergies, filed a complaint against Phadia U.S. Inc. (a subsidiary of the company) and Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., respectively, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The plaintiffs allege various claims of anticompetitive activities in violation of antitrust laws, tortious interference with contracts and existing and prospective business relations, and civil conspiracy. On March 28, 2016, the company filed a counterclaim against United Biologics, LLC alleging tortious interference with business relations and seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs seek damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and injunctive relief. The company expects this matter will be scheduled for trial in 2017.