UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 8-K

CURRENT REPORT PURSUANT TO
SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported) June 15, 2007

Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K Filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions (see General Instruction A.2. below):

o Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230425)

o Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)

o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))

o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))

Item 8.01       Other Events

On June 15, 2007, Retractable Technologies, Inc. (“plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Becton, Dickinson and Company (“BD”) under the caption Retractable Technologies, Inc. vs. Becton Dickinson and Company (Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-250, United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas). Plaintiff alleges that the BD Integra™ syringes infringe patents licensed exclusively to the plaintiff. This patent claim was not covered by the release contained in the July 2004 settlement agreement between BD and plaintiff to settle the lawsuit previously filed by plaintiff.

In its complaint, plaintiff also alleges that BD engaged in false advertising with respect to certain of BD’s safety-engineered products in violation of the Lanham Act; acted to exclude the plaintiff from various product markets and to maintain BD's market share through, among other things, exclusionary contracts in violation of state and Federal antitrust laws; and engaged in unfair competition. The non-patent claims purport to relate to actions allegedly taken by BD following the date of the July 2004 settlement agreement referenced above.

Plaintiff seeks treble damages, attorney’s fees and injunctive relief. BD believes it has meritorious defenses to these claims and intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit.