Note 11 – Contingencies

There are seven cases that are either stayed or on appeal, which were originally brought by the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (“the Court”), alleging patent infringement against various companies. On June 28, 2017, the Court issued an opinion in the Gen-Probe case, granting Gen-Probe’s motion for summary judgment that the asserted claims of the ’180 patent are invalid for nonenablement. The Court entered final judgment of invalidity of the asserted claims of the ‘180 patent on July 19, 2017 in the Gen-Probe and Hologic cases. The Court entered partial final judgment of invalidity of the asserted claims of the ‘180 patent and stayed the remainder of the cases in the Becton Dickinson and Roche cases on July 31, 2017 and August 2, 2017, respectively. The Company filed notices of appeal in each of the Gen-Probe, Hologic, Becton Dickinson, and Roche cases, which were docketed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”). In the Abbott case, the parties agreed that the Court’s summary judgment ruling in the Gen-Probe case invalidated all of the ’180 patent claims asserted against the Abbott Defendants. On August 15, 2017, the Court granted Abbott’s motion for summary judgment that the asserted claims of the ’405 patent are invalid for nonenablement. On September 1, 2017, the Court entered final judgment of invalidity of the asserted claims of the ‘180 and ‘405 patents for nonenablement in the Abbott case. Enzo subsequently filed a notice of appeal in the Abbott case on September 14, 2017. The Federal Circuit docketed the appeal on September 15, 2017. The Federal Circuit consolidated the appeals from the Abbott, Becton Dickinson, Gen-Probe, Hologic, and Roche litigations (“Consolidated Appeals”). We disagree with the Court’s invalidity decisions regarding the ‘180 and ‘405 patents in the pending cases as set forth in our briefing in the Consolidated Appeals pending in the Federal Circuit. In the Consolidated Appeals, we have asked the Federal Circuit to reverse the Court’s grants of final and summary judgment of invalidity of the asserted claims of the ‘180 and ‘405 patents and to remand the cases against Abbott, Becton Dickinson, Gen-Probe, Hologic, and Roche to the Court. Although the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in the Consolidated Appeals on January 7, 2019, it has not yet issued a ruling in the appeal.  In the other two cases involving Hologic, one of the cases is stayed (Hologic II), while the other case (Hologic III) that involves U.S. Patent No. 6,221,581 (“the ‘581 patent”) is on appeal to the Federal Circuit. In Hologic III, the Court issued a claim construction order on October 15, 2018. On October 31, 2018, Enzo and Hologic entered a stipulation that the asserted claims of the ‘581 Patent are not infringed under the Court’s claim construction for certain of the claim terms. The Court entered final judgment of non-infringement on November 5, 2018. Enzo filed a notice of appeal on November 28, 2018. The Federal Circuit docketed the appeal and issued a schedule on December 3, 2018. Enzo’s opening brief is due on April 2, 2019. Regarding Hologic’s petition requesting institution of an inter partes review proceeding of the ‘581 patent filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“the Board”) denied institution of Hologic’s petition on April 18, 2018. On May 18, 2018, Hologic filed with the Board, a request for rehearing of the order denying institution of inter partes review of the ‘581 patent. The Board denied Hologic’s request for rehearing on November 28, 2018.

Enzo Biochem, Inc. (the "Company"), along with its subsidiary Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. entered into a Settlement Agreement as of February 5, 2019 (the "Agreement") with Roche Diagnostics GmbH and Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. (together, "Roche") with respect to an action between the Company and Roche before the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, Case No 04-CV-4046. Roche has agreed to pay $21 million in settlement pursuant to the Agreement. This settlement does not affect Enzo's civil action for patent infringement against Roche in the U.S. District Court for the State of Delaware, Enzo Life Sciences Inc. v. Roche Molecular Systems Inc., et al., civil action no. 12-cv-00106, which remains pending on appeal. See Note 12 – Subsequent Event.

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