Note 12 – Contingencies

On June 7, 2004, the Company and Enzo Life Sciences, Inc., filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against Applera Corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary Tropix, Inc., which became Life Technologies, Inc. and was acquired by Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc. (NYSE:TMO) on February 3, 2014. The complaint alleged infringement of six patents relating to DNA sequencing systems, labeled nucleotide products, and other technology. Yale University is the owner of four of the patents and the Company is the exclusive licensee. These four patents are commonly referred to as the “Ward” patents. On November 12, 2012, a jury in New Haven found that one of these patents (United States Patent No. 5,449,667) was infringed and not proven invalid. The jury awarded $48.5 million for this infringement. On January 6, 2014, the judge awarded prejudgment interest of approximately $12.5 million and additional post-interest on the full amount was also be awarded starting November 7, 2012 until the total award is satisfied.  The final award to the Company could have been reduced or subject to possible claims from third parties. On March 16, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated that judgment in a decision remanding the matter to the district court for further proceedings.  On February 22, 2016, the Connecticut District Court granted Applera’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement.  The Company appealed that decision to the Court of Appeals in the Federal Circuit. There can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in this litigation. Even if the Company is not successful, management does not believe that there will be a significant adverse monetary impact on the Company.

As of August 1, 2014 the Company was engaged in litigation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Roche Diagnostic GmbH and its related company Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. (“Roche”), as declaratory judgment defendant. This case was commenced in May 2004. Roche seeks a declaratory judgment of non-breach of contract and patent invalidity against the Company. Roche has also asserted tort claims against the Company. The Company has asserted breach of contract and patent infringement causes of action against Roche. There has been extensive discovery in the case. In 2011, Roche moved for summary judgment of non-infringement regarding the Company’s patent claims. In 2012, the motion was granted in part and denied in part. In December 2012, Roche moved for summary judgment on the Company’s non-patent claims. Additional discovery was taken and the Company responded to the motions in May 2013. On December 6, 2013, the Court granted in part and denied in part Roche’s summary judgment motion. On October 22, 2014, the Court ordered that damages discovery concerning the Company’s remaining contract and patent claims and Roche’s claims should be completed by January 30, 2015, and expert discovery should be completed following the Court’s not-yet-issued claim construction ruling concerning the Company’s patent infringement claim against Roche. Roche dropped its tort claims during damages discovery. On April 28, 2015, the Court heard oral argument on claim construction issues. On May 8, 2015, Roche and the Company jointly moved the Court to extend the schedule for damages discovery until May 29, 2015, and the Court granted that motion. The parties are waiting for the Courts’ ruling on claim construction. The Company and Enzo Life Sciences intend to vigorously press their remaining claims and contest the claims against them.

On September 22, 2014, the Company and the U.S. Department of Justice reached a settlement agreement to resolve an investigation focused primarily on an alleged failure to collect diagnosis codes from physicians who ordered tests through Enzo Clinical Labs. During fiscal year 2014, the Company recorded a charge of $2.0 million in the statement of operations under legal settlements, net within the Clinical Labs segment. The settlement amount is being paid with interest over a five-year period. During fiscal year 2016, the Company accrued an additional $1.5 million, due to the Company’s achievement of certain financial milestones. As of January 31, 2017, the total liability for this settlement is $0.8 million, of which $0.4 million is included in other current liabilities and $0.4 million included in other liabilities.

On June 20, 2014, the Company, as plaintiff finalized and executed a settlement agreement with PerkinElmer, Inc., and PerkinElmer Health Sciences, Inc. (formerly known as PerkinElmer Life Sciences, Inc.) (together, “PerkinElmer”), with respect to an action between the Company and PerkinElmer before the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, Case No 03-CV-3817. PerkinElmer paid $7.0 million in escrow pursuant to the agreement because of a former attorney’s charging lien for fees allegedly owed for past services rendered to the Company. On December 3, 2015, the Company entered into a Settlement Agreement with the former attorney pursuant to which the Company and the former attorney resolved their respective claims against each other. During the three months ended January 31, 2016, the Company received a total of approximately $7.0 million from the escrow referred to above in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement which was included in the statement of operations under Legal settlements, net within the Life Science segment in that period.

On October 9, 2015, the Company reached and finalized a settlement with Affymetrix, Inc. in the amount of $6.8 million, net in a patent infringement action brought by the Company. On January 4, 2016, the Company reached and finalized a settlement agreement with Agilent Technologies, Inc. in the amount of $6.1 million, net in a patent infringement action brought by the Company.

Both cases were originally brought by the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The settlements were included in the statement of operations during the applicable fiscal period under Legal settlements, net within the Life Science segment.

On May 16, 2016, the Company reached and finalized a settlement with Life Technologies Corporation in the amount of $24.3 million, net in an infringement action brought by the Company regarding its US Patents No. 6,992,180 and 7,064,197. On July 1, 2016, the Company reached and finalized a settlement with Illumina, Inc., in the amount of $14.5 million, net in an infringement action brought by the Company regarding US Patent No. 7,064,197. These cases were originally brought by the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The settlements are included in the statement of operations under Legal settlements, net within the Life Science segment for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2016.

As of January 31, 2017, there are seven pending cases originally brought by the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging patent infringements against various companies. For the cases involving Gen-Probe/Hologic, Roche, and Becton Dickinson, the court has set a summary judgment argument hearing in April 2017, and trial dates in October, November and December 2017. For the case involving Abbott, the court has set summary judgment briefing deadlines through August 2017 but has not set a trial date. In another case involving Hologic, the court entered a scheduling order with fact and expert discovery deadlines through September 2018, a summary judgment hearing date in February 2019 and a trial date in May 2019. There can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in these litigations. Even if the Company is not successful, management does not believe that there will be a significant adverse monetary impact on the Company.

The Company is party to other claims, legal actions, complaints, and contractual disputes that arise in the ordinary course of business. The Company believes that any liability that may ultimately result from the resolution of these matters will not, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations.