Legal Proceedings |
12 Months Ended |
|---|---|
Dec. 31, 2020 | |
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | |
| Legal Proceedings |
Lufthansa
On December 29, 2010, Lufthansa Technik AG (“Lufthansa”) filed a Statement of Claim in the Regional State Court of Mannheim, Germany. Lufthansa’s claim asserted that a subsidiary of the Company, AES, sold, marketed, and brought into use in Germany a power supply system that infringes upon a German patent held by Lufthansa. Lufthansa sought an order requiring AES to stop selling and marketing the allegedly infringing power supply system, a recall of allegedly infringing products sold to commercial customers in Germany since November 26, 2003, and compensation for damages related to direct sales of the allegedly infringing power supply system in Germany (referred to as “direct sales”). The claim did not specify an estimate of damages and a related damages claim is being pursued by Lufthansa in separate court proceedings in an action filed in July 2017, as further discussed below.
In February 2015, the Regional State Court of Mannheim, Germany held that the patent was infringed. The judgment did not require AES to recall products that are already installed in aircraft or had been sold to other end users. The decision did not quantify damages but required AES to provide certain financial information regarding its direct sales of the infringing product into Germany to enable Lufthansa to make an estimate of requested damages.
The Company appealed to the Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe. On November 15, 2016, the Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe upheld the lower court’s decision. The Company sought permission to appeal to the German Federal Supreme Court. By judgment of March 26, 2019, the German Federal Supreme Court dismissed AES's appeal. With this decision, the above-mentioned proceedings are complete.
In July 2017, Lufthansa filed an action in the Regional State Court of Mannheim for payment of damages caused by the AES’s direct sales of the product into Germany. A first instance decision in this matter was handed down on December 6, 2019. According to this ruling, Lufthansa was awarded damages in the amount of approximately $3.2 million plus interest. Prior to 2019, the Company had accrued $1.0 million related to this matter. As a result of the judgment on direct sales into Germany, the Company recognized an incremental reserve of $3.5 million in its December 31, 2019 financial statements related to this matter. In 2020, AES made payment of $4.7 million, inclusive of interest, in satisfaction of the first instance judgment. AES has appealed this decision and the appeal is currently pending before the Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe. If the first instance judgment is later reversed on appeal, the Company could reclaim any amounts that were previously paid to Lufthansa that are in excess of the amount awarded by the appellate court, but there can be no assurances that we will be successful on such appeal.
On December 29, 2017, Lufthansa filed another infringement action against AES in the Regional State Court of Mannheim claiming that sales by AES to its international customers have infringed Lufthansa's patent if AES's customers later shipped the products to Germany (referred to as “indirect sales”). This action, therefore, addresses sales other than those covered by the action filed on December 29, 2010, discussed above. In this action, served on April 11, 2018, Lufthansa sought an order obliging AES to provide information and accounting and a finding that AES owes damages for the attacked indirect sales. Moreover, Lufthansa sought accounting and a finding that the sale of individual components of the EmPower system – either directly to Germany or to international customers if these customers later shipped these products to Germany – constitutes an indirect patent infringement of Lufthansa's patent in Germany. In addition, Lufthansa sought an order obliging AES to confirm by an affidavit that the accounting provided in September 2015 was accurate and a finding that AES is also liable for damages for the sale of modified products if the modification of the products was not communicated to all subsequent buyers of the products. No amount of claimed damages has been specified by Lufthansa.
A first instance decision in this matter was issued on December 6, 2019. The Court found that indirect sales (as defined above) by AES to international customers infringe the patent under the conditions specified in the judgment and that the sale of components of the EmPower system to Germany constitutes an indirect patent infringement. Moreover, the Court granted Lufthansa's request for an affidavit confirming that the accounting provided in September 2015 was accurate. The Court rejected Lufthansa's claim that AES is also liable for damages for the sale of modified products. This means that AES is not liable for damages based on the sale of modified outlet units that removed the infringing feature. AES and Lufthansa both appealed this decision and the appeal is currently pending before the Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe. In its appeal, Lufthansa requested an additional finding that AES shall be held liable for all damages (in an unspecified amount) caused by AES’s alleged incorrect accounting of its past sales.
On April 28, 2020, Lufthansa asked AES to provide the accounting on indirect sales (as defined above) and the sale of individual parts and an affidavit confirming the accuracy of the September 2015 accounting of direct sales. AES completed and delivered the final accounting on January 29, 2021.
If the December 6, 2019 decision of the Regional State Court of Mannheim is confirmed on appeal, AES would be responsible for payment of damages for indirect sales of patent-infringing EmPower in-seat power supply systems in the period from December 29, 2007 to May 22, 2018. AES modified the outlet units at the end of 2014 and substantially all of the modified outlet units sold from 2015 do not infringe the patent of Lufthansa. As a result, the period for which AES is liable for damages in connection with indirect sales substantially finished at the end of 2014.
After the accounting, Lufthansa is expected to enforce its claim for damages in separate court proceedings. These proceedings would most likely be tried before the Mannheim Court again, which makes it probable that the Mannheim court will determine the damages for the indirect sales on the basis of the same principles as in the direct sales proceedings (unless the latter ruling of the Mannheim court is reversed on appeal). Based on the information available and the determination of the damages in the direct sales claim discussed above, we estimated that the Company’s total exposure related to these matters that was probable and that could be reasonably estimated at December 31, 2019 was approximately $11.6 million plus approximately $4.5 million of accrued interest, for a total of approximately $16.1 million which is reflected as a liability in the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2019. Interest will accrue at a rate of 5% above the European Central Bank rate until final payment to Lufthansa. Approximately $0.6 million, representing additional interest accrued during 2020, was recorded in the year ended December 31, 2020. These expenses are reflected within Selling, General and Administrative Expenses in the Company’s Consolidated Statements of Operations for the respective periods.
In connection with the indirect sales claims, we currently believe it is unlikely that the appeals process will be completed and the damages and related interest will be paid before December 31, 2021. Therefore, the liability related to this matter, totaling $16.7 million, is classified within Other Liabilities (non-current) in the Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31, 2020.
In December 2017, Lufthansa filed patent infringement cases in the United Kingdom (“UK”) and in France against AES. The Lufthansa patent expired in May 2018. In those cases, Lufthansa accuses AES of having manufactured, used, sold and offered for sale a power supply system, and offered and supplied parts for a power supply system that infringed upon a Lufthansa patent in those respective countries.
In the French matter, there was a hearing on the validity of the patent in October 2020. On December 4, 2020, the Court held the French patent invalid for all asserted claims. There can consequently be no finding of infringement on first instance. LHT has appealed this judgment. A date for the hearing of the appeal has not yet been set.
In the UK matter, a trial took place in June 2020 to address the issues of infringement and validity of the patent. On June 22, 2020, the Court held the UK patent valid and 3 out of 4 asserted claims infringed. In contrast to the decisions in Germany, the UK Court found that the modified components infringed a valid claim of the patent. If AES is not successful in any appeal phase, then the post-modification outlet units will be included in the calculation of monetary relief. Lufthansa has yet to file a case for damages, which would need to be determined at a separate trial and would require extensive data gathering and analysis which has not yet been completed. Additionally, on January 22, 2021, the Court of Appeal granted AES permission to appeal parts of the first instance decision, determining that AES’s appeal has a reasonable prospect of success. The appeal hearing is scheduled to begin on November 2, 2021.
Separate from any such damages Lufthansa may seek in connection with the UK infringement decision discussed above, as a result of the first instance judgement in their favor, Lufthansa will be entitled to reimbursement from AES of a proportion of its legal expenditures in the UK case. An interim reimbursement of approximately $1.3 million was paid to Lufthansa in August 2020. The associated expense was recorded in the Consolidated Statements of Operations in the year ended December 31, 2020 within Selling, General & Administrative Expenses. If the first instance decision is reversed on appeal, AES would be entitled to seek the return of such amounts from Lufthansa, as well as reimbursement of AES’s legal fees.
Each of the German, France and UK claims are separate and distinct. Validity and infringement of the Lufthansa patent in each country is a matter for the courts in each of these countries, whose laws differ from each other. In addition, the principles of calculating damages in each jurisdiction differ substantially. Therefore, the Company has assessed each matter separately and cannot apply the same calculation methodology as in the German direct and indirect matters. However, it is reasonably possible that additional damages and interest could be incurred if the appellate court in France was to rule in favor of Lufthansa, or if any appeal in the UK matter is unsuccessful, but at this time we cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss. As loss exposure is not estimable at this time, the Company has not recorded any liability with respect to either the French or the UK matters as of December 31, 2020.
On November 26, 2014, Lufthansa filed a complaint in the United States District for the Western District of Washington. Lufthansa’s complaint in that action alleges that AES manufacture, uses, sells and offers for sale a power supply system that infringes upon a U.S. patent held by Lufthansa. The patent at issue in the U.S. action is based on technology similar to that involved in the German action. On April 25, 2016, the Court issued its ruling on claim construction, holding that the sole independent claim in the patent is indefinite, rendering all claims in the patent indefinite. Based on this ruling, AES filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the Court’s ruling that the patent is indefinite renders the patent invalid and unenforceable. On July 20, 2016, the U.S. District Court granted the motion for summary judgement and issued an order dismissing all claims against AES with prejudice.
Lufthansa appealed the District Court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On October 19, 2017, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the sole independent claim of the patent is indefinite, rending all claims on the patent indefinite. Lufthansa did not file a petition for en banc rehearing or petition the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. Therefore, there is no longer a risk of exposure from that lawsuit.
Other
On March 23, 2020, Teradyne, Inc. filed a complaint against the Company and its subsidiary, Astronics Test Systems (“ATS”) (together, “the Defendants”) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging patent and copyright infringement, and certain other related claims. The Defendants moved to dismiss certain claims from the case. On November 6, 2020, the Court dismissed the Company from the case, and also dismissed a number of claims, though the patent and copyright infringement claims remain. The case is currently in discovery. In addition, on December 21, 2020, ATS filed a petition with the US Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), seeking to invalidate the subject patent. The parties are waiting
to learn whether the PTAB will institute the proceeding. No amounts have been accrued for this matter in the December 31, 2020 financial statements, as loss exposure is neither probable nor estimable at this time.
Other than these proceedings, we are not party to any significant pending legal proceedings that management believes will result in a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.
|