Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	NOTE H – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES We are involved in various legal proceedings, including intellectual property, product liability, securities and commercial claims and disputes, employment matters, environmental matters, governmental inquiries, investigations and proceedings, and other legal matters that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of our business, including those described below. In recent years, we have successfully negotiated closure of several long-standing legal matters and have received favorable rulings in several other matters, however, there continues to be outstanding litigation and disputes. Adverse outcomes in one or more of these matters could have a material adverse effect on our ability to sell certain products and on our operating margins, financial position, results of operations and/or liquidity. Intellectual property rights, particularly patents and trade secrets, play a significant role in product development and differentiation. From time to time, we face litigation initiated against us by others, including our competitors, claiming that our current or former product offerings infringe patents owned or licensed by them. Intellectual property litigation is inherently complex and unpredictable. In addition, competing parties frequently file multiple suits to leverage patent portfolios across product lines, technologies and geographies and to balance risk and exposure between the parties. In some cases, several competitors are parties in the same proceeding, or in a series of related proceedings, or litigate multiple features of a single class of devices. These dynamics frequently drive settlement not only for individual cases, but also for a series of pending and potentially related and unrelated cases. Although monetary and injunctive relief is typically sought, remedies and restitution are generally not determined until the conclusion of the trial court proceedings and can be modified on appeal. Accordingly, the outcomes of individual cases are difficult to time, predict or quantify and are often dependent upon the outcomes of other cases in other geographies. Product liability, securities, environmental and commercial claims have been asserted against us and similar or other claims may be asserted against us in the future related to events not known to management at the present time. We maintain an insurance policy providing limited coverage against securities claims and we are substantially self-insured with respect to product liability and environmental claims and fully self-insured with respect to intellectual property infringement claims. The absence of significant third-party insurance coverage increases our potential exposure to unanticipated claims or adverse decisions. Product liability claims, securities, environmental and commercial litigation and other legal proceedings in the future, regardless of their outcome, could have a material adverse effect on our ability to sell certain products and on our operating margins, financial position, results of operations and/or liquidity. In addition, like other companies in the medical device industry, we are subject to extensive regulation by national, state and local governmental agencies in the U.S. and other countries in which we operate. From time to time, we receive inquiries and have ongoing discussions with governmental agencies with respect to our operations, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Department of Justice (DOJ) and other U.S. and foreign regulators. These include ongoing and any future investigations with respect to alleged Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) violations, U.S.-based subpoenas and DOJ Civil Investigative Demands (CID), and qui tam actions or other governmental investigations often involving regulatory, marketing and other business practices. From time to time, we also self-disclose potential concerns to regulators. It is our standard practice to cooperate with governmental agencies when responding to such inquiries and investigating such matters. These governmental investigations and inquiries could result in the commencement of civil and criminal proceedings, substantial fines, penalties and administrative remedies and have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and/or liquidity. For additional information, refer to Note I – Commitments and Contingencies to our audited financial statements contained in Item 8 of our most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K. In accordance with FASB ASC Topic 450, Contingencies, we accrue anticipated costs of settlement, damages, losses for claims and, under certain conditions, costs of defense, based on historical experience or to the extent specific losses are probable and estimable. Otherwise, we expense these costs as incurred. If the estimate of a probable loss is a range and no amount within the range is more likely, we accrue the minimum amount of the range. Our accrual for legal matters that are probable and estimable was $282 million as of June 30, 2026 and $242 million as of December 31, 2025 and includes certain estimated costs of settlement, damages and defense primarily related to product liability cases or claims and matters assumed from acquired companies. We record certain legal charges, credits and costs of defense, which we consider to be unusual or infrequent and significant as Litigation-related net charges (credits) within our accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements. We recorded litigation-related net charges of $76 million during the second quarter and first six months of 2026 and did not record any litigation-related net charges (credits) during the second quarter and first six months of 2025. All other legal charges, credits and costs are recorded within Selling, general and administrative expenses within our accompanying unaudited consolidated statements of operations. We continue to assess certain litigation and claims to determine the amounts, if any, that management believes will be paid as a result of such claims and litigation and, therefore, additional losses may be accrued and paid in the future, which could materially adversely impact our operating results, cash flows and/or our ability to comply with our financial covenant required by our credit arrangements. In management's opinion, we are not currently involved in any legal proceedings, other than those disclosed in our most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K and those specifically identified below, which, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, operations and/or cash flows. Unless included in our legal accrual or otherwise indicated below, a range of loss associated with any individual material legal proceeding cannot be reasonably estimated. Patent Litigation On November 20, 2017, The Board of Regents, University of Texas System and TissueGen. Inc. (collectively, UT), served a lawsuit against us in the Western District of Texas. The complaint against the Company alleges patent infringement of two U.S. patents owned by UT, relating to “Drug Releasing Biodegradable Fiber Implant” and “Drug Releasing Biodegradable Fiber for Delivery of Therapeutics,” and affects the manufacture, use and sale of our Synergy™ Stent System. UT primarily seeks a reasonable royalty. On March 12, 2018, the District Court for the Western District of Texas dismissed the action and transferred it to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. On September 5, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the District Court for the Western District of Texas. In April 2020, the United States Supreme Court denied the UT’s Petition for Certiorari. UT proceeded with its case against the Company in Delaware. In January 2023, a jury trial was held on the issue of whether the one UT patent still asserted in the case was valid and whether it was infringed by the Company. On January 31, 2023, a jury concluded that UT’s patent was valid and willfully infringed by the Company, and awarded UT $42 million in damages. Following the trial, UT filed a motion seeking prejudgment interest and enhanced damages. The Company filed a motion seeking judgment as a matter of law in its favor or alternatively a new trial. On June 5, 2024, the Court granted the Company’s motion for judgment as a matter of law of no willful infringement, but otherwise denied the Company’s motions. The Court also denied UT’s motion for enhanced damages, awarded approximately $7 million in pre-judgment interest, and awarded post-judgment interest. On July 3, 2024, UT and the Company each filed a notice of appeal. On July 27, 2026, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, granting judgment as a matter of law in the Company’s favor and finding UT’s patent invalid and not infringed. Product Liability Litigation Multiple product liability cases or claims related to transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse have been asserted against us, predominantly in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Scotland, Ireland, and Australia. Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages based on allegations of personal injury associated with the use of our transvaginal surgical mesh products, including design and manufacturing claims, failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims. We have entered into individual and master settlement agreements or are in the final stages of entering agreements with certain plaintiffs' counsel, to resolve the majority of these cases and claims. All settlement agreements were entered into solely by way of compromise and without any admission or concession by us of any liability or wrongdoing. We have established a product liability accrual for remaining claims asserted against us associated with our transvaginal surgical mesh products and the costs of defense thereof. We continue to engage in discussions with plaintiffs’ counsel regarding potential resolution of pending cases and claims, which we continue to vigorously contest. The final resolution of the cases and claims is uncertain and could have a material impact on our results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. Trials involving our transvaginal surgical mesh products have resulted in both favorable and unfavorable judgments for us. We do not believe that the judgment in any one trial is representative of potential outcomes of all cases or claims related to our transvaginal surgical mesh products. On February 20, 2026, counsel representing individuals claiming they have been injured by their spinal cord stimulation (SCS) devices filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML), seeking the transfer of various actions for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings (In re: Abbott and Boston Scientific Spinal Cord Stimulator Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3181). On June 5, 2026, the JPML issued an order consolidating all pending and future federal SCS cases into one Multi-District Litigation in the Central District of California (In Re. Boston Scientific Corporation Spinal Cord Stimulator Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 2:26-ml-03181-JLS-E). The cases filed against the Company allege various injuries and damages arising from the Company’s SCS products. Other Proceedings On March 5, 2026, purported Company shareholder John Rudolph Troike, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative securities class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company and certain current officers stemming from the drop in the Company’s stock price on February 4, 2026 following the release of the Company’s fourth quarter and full year 2025 results. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly false and misleading statements concerning the Company’s financial guidance and anticipated growth in the U.S. electrophysiology business unit. The complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages, unspecified equitable relief, and costs and expenses. On May 20, 2026, the Court appointed the Indiana Public Retirement System as lead plaintiff. On July 20, 2026, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding additional named plaintiffs Miami Fire Fighters’ and Police Officers’ Retirement Trust and Detroit General Retirement System, and additionally alleging violation of Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a current officer. On March 16, 2026, purported Company shareholder Greg Valen (the “Valen Derivative Complaint”), and on April 23, 2026, purported Company shareholder Elliot Feder (the “Feder Derivative Complaint”), and on July 9, 2026, purported Company shareholder Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust (the “Gusinsky Derivative Complaint”), and on July 10, 2026, purported Company shareholders Joseph Crognale and Feghali Foods, Inc. PSP (the “Crognale Derivative Complaint”), each filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company and certain current and former officers and directors, each containing substantially the same set of factual allegations as those asserted in the related securities class action case above, with the Gusinsky and Crognale Derivative Complaints also including allegations concerning the safety of batteries in the Company’s Accolade products. Each complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages, unspecified equitable relief, and costs and expenses. The Valen and Feder matters have been consolidated and stayed until the final resolution of the anticipated motion to dismiss in the related securities class action case. On March 23, 2026, the Company received a letter dated March 18, 2026, from a purported Company shareholder, Roberta Poznick, demanding that the Company’s Board of Directors take action against certain current and former officers and directors and other unidentified individuals and entities relating to substantially the same set of factual allegations as those asserted in the related securities class action case above.

In recent years, we have successfully negotiated closure of several long-standing legal matters and have received favorable rulings in several other matters, however, there continues to be outstanding litigation and disputes. Adverse outcomes in one or more of these matters could have a material adverse effect on our ability to sell certain products and on our operating margins, financial position, results of operations and/or liquidity.

Intellectual property rights, particularly patents and trade secrets, play a significant role in product development and differentiation. From time to time, we face litigation initiated against us by others, including our competitors, claiming that our current or former product offerings infringe patents owned or licensed by them. Intellectual property litigation is inherently complex and unpredictable. In addition, competing parties frequently file multiple suits to leverage patent portfolios across product lines, technologies and geographies and to balance risk and exposure between the parties. In some cases, several competitors are parties in the same proceeding, or in a series of related proceedings, or litigate multiple features of a single class of devices. These dynamics frequently drive settlement not only for individual cases, but also for a series of pending and potentially related and unrelated cases. Although monetary and injunctive relief is typically sought, remedies and restitution are generally not determined until the conclusion of the trial court proceedings and can be modified on appeal. Accordingly, the outcomes of individual cases are difficult to time, predict or quantify and are often dependent upon the outcomes of other cases in other geographies.

Product liability, securities, environmental and commercial claims have been asserted against us and similar or other claims may be asserted against us in the future related to events not known to management at the present time. We maintain an insurance policy providing limited coverage against securities claims and we are substantially self-insured with respect to product liability and environmental claims and fully self-insured with respect to intellectual property infringement claims. The absence of significant third-party insurance coverage increases our potential exposure to unanticipated claims or adverse decisions. Product liability claims, securities, environmental and commercial litigation and other legal proceedings in the future, regardless of their outcome, could have a material adverse effect on our ability to sell certain products and on our operating margins, financial position, results of operations and/or liquidity.

In addition, like other companies in the medical device industry, we are subject to extensive regulation by national, state and local governmental agencies in the U.S. and other countries in which we operate. From time to time, we receive inquiries and have ongoing discussions with governmental agencies with respect to our operations, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Department of Justice (DOJ) and other U.S. and foreign regulators. These include ongoing and any future investigations with respect to alleged Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) violations, U.S.-based subpoenas and DOJ Civil Investigative Demands (CID), and qui tam actions or other governmental investigations often involving regulatory, marketing and other business practices. From time to time, we also self-disclose potential concerns to regulators. It is our standard practice to cooperate with governmental agencies when responding to such inquiries and investigating such matters. These governmental investigations and inquiries could result in the commencement of civil and criminal proceedings, substantial fines, penalties and administrative remedies and have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and/or liquidity. For additional information, refer to Note I – Commitments and Contingencies to our audited financial statements contained in Item 8 of our most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K.

In accordance with FASB ASC Topic 450, Contingencies, we accrue anticipated costs of settlement, damages, losses for claims and, under certain conditions, costs of defense, based on historical experience or to the extent specific losses are probable and estimable. Otherwise, we expense these costs as incurred. If the estimate of a probable loss is a range and no amount within the range is more likely, we accrue the minimum amount of the range.

Our accrual for legal matters that are probable and estimable was $282 million as of June 30, 2026 and $242 million as of December 31, 2025 and includes certain estimated costs of settlement, damages and defense primarily related to product liability cases or claims and matters assumed from acquired companies. We record certain legal charges, credits and costs of defense, which we consider to be unusual or infrequent and significant as Litigation-related net charges (credits) within our accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements. We recorded litigation-related net charges of $76 million during the second quarter and first six months of 2026 and did not record any litigation-related net charges (credits) during the second quarter and first six months of 2025. All other legal charges, credits and costs are recorded within Selling, general and administrative expenses within our accompanying unaudited consolidated statements of operations.

In management's opinion, we are not currently involved in any legal proceedings, other than those disclosed in our most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K and those specifically identified below, which, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, operations and/or cash flows. Unless included in our legal accrual or otherwise indicated below, a range of loss associated with any individual material legal proceeding cannot be reasonably estimated.

On November 20, 2017, The Board of Regents, University of Texas System and TissueGen. Inc. (collectively, UT), served a lawsuit against us in the Western District of Texas. The complaint against the Company alleges patent infringement of two U.S. patents owned by UT, relating to “Drug Releasing Biodegradable Fiber Implant” and “Drug Releasing Biodegradable Fiber for Delivery of Therapeutics,” and affects the manufacture, use and sale of our Synergy™ Stent System. UT primarily seeks a reasonable royalty. On March 12, 2018, the District Court for the Western District of Texas dismissed the action and transferred it to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. On September 5, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the District Court for the Western District of Texas. In April 2020, the United States Supreme Court denied the UT’s Petition for Certiorari. UT proceeded with its case against the Company in Delaware. In January 2023, a jury trial was held on the issue of whether the one UT patent still asserted in the case was valid and whether it was infringed by the Company. On January 31, 2023, a jury concluded that UT’s patent was valid and willfully infringed by the Company, and awarded UT $42 million in damages. Following the trial, UT filed a motion seeking prejudgment interest and enhanced damages. The Company filed a motion seeking judgment as a matter of law in its favor or alternatively a new trial. On June 5, 2024, the Court granted the Company’s motion for judgment as a matter of law of no willful infringement, but otherwise denied the Company’s motions. The Court also denied UT’s motion for enhanced damages, awarded approximately $7 million in pre-judgment interest, and awarded post-judgment interest. On July 3, 2024, UT and the Company each filed a notice of appeal. On July 27, 2026, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, granting judgment as a matter of law in the Company’s favor and finding UT’s patent invalid and not infringed.

Multiple product liability cases or claims related to transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse have been asserted against us, predominantly in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Scotland, Ireland, and Australia. Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages based on allegations of personal injury associated with the use of our transvaginal surgical mesh products, including design and manufacturing claims, failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims. We have entered into individual and master settlement agreements or are in the final stages of entering agreements with certain plaintiffs' counsel, to resolve the majority of these cases and claims. All settlement agreements were entered into solely by way of compromise and without any admission or concession by us of any liability or wrongdoing.

On February 20, 2026, counsel representing individuals claiming they have been injured by their spinal cord stimulation (SCS) devices filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML), seeking the transfer of various actions for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings (In re: Abbott and Boston Scientific Spinal Cord Stimulator Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3181). On June 5, 2026, the JPML issued an order consolidating all pending and future federal SCS cases into one Multi-District Litigation in the Central District of California (In Re. Boston Scientific Corporation Spinal Cord Stimulator Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 2:26-ml-03181-JLS-E). The cases filed against the Company allege various injuries and damages arising from the Company’s SCS products.

On March 5, 2026, purported Company shareholder John Rudolph Troike, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative securities class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company and certain current officers stemming from the drop in the Company’s stock price on February 4, 2026 following the release of the Company’s fourth quarter and full year 2025 results. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly false and misleading statements concerning the Company’s financial guidance and anticipated growth in the U.S. electrophysiology business unit. The complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages, unspecified equitable relief, and costs and expenses. On May 20, 2026, the Court appointed the Indiana Public Retirement System as lead plaintiff. On July 20, 2026, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding additional named plaintiffs Miami Fire Fighters’ and Police Officers’ Retirement Trust and Detroit General Retirement System, and additionally alleging violation of Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a current officer.

On March 16, 2026, purported Company shareholder Greg Valen (the “Valen Derivative Complaint”), and on April 23, 2026, purported Company shareholder Elliot Feder (the “Feder Derivative Complaint”), and on July 9, 2026, purported Company shareholder Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust (the “Gusinsky Derivative Complaint”), and on July 10, 2026, purported Company shareholders Joseph Crognale and Feghali Foods, Inc. PSP (the “Crognale Derivative Complaint”), each filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company and certain current and former officers and directors, each containing substantially the same set of factual allegations as those asserted in the related securities class action case above, with the Gusinsky and Crognale Derivative Complaints also including allegations concerning the safety of batteries in the Company’s Accolade products. Each complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages, unspecified equitable relief, and costs and expenses. The Valen and Feder matters have been consolidated and stayed until the final resolution of the anticipated motion to dismiss in the related securities class action case.

On March 23, 2026, the Company received a letter dated March 18, 2026, from a purported Company shareholder, Roberta Poznick, demanding that the Company’s Board of Directors take action against certain current and former officers and directors and other unidentified individuals and entities relating to substantially the same set of factual allegations as those asserted in the related securities class action case above.