LEGAL PROCEEDINGS |
12 Months Ended |
|---|---|
Dec. 31, 2024 | |
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | |
| LEGAL PROCEEDINGS | 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”).
AES modified the outlet units at the end of 2014 and the overwhelming majority of the modified outlet units sold from 2015 do not infringe the patent of Lufthansa.
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 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 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. In 2020, AES made payment of $4.7 million, inclusive of interest, in satisfaction of the first instance judgment. On July 12, 2023, the Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe in Germany reduced the Company’s liability for direct damages on appeal from approximately $3.2 million plus interest to approximately $2.8 million plus interest. Additionally, in its judgment, the Court reduced the interest rate on damages from 5% (as held by the Regional Court of Mannheim) to 4%. Accordingly, the Company reclaimed overpaid damages and interest from LHT in the amount of approximately $1.2 million. This was recorded as an offset to Selling, General and Administrative expenses in the third quarter of 2023, upon receipt of the refund.
Both Lufthansa and AES have filed requests with the German Federal Supreme Court to be granted leave to file appeals against this decision.
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. 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. 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. On July 12, 2023, the Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe essentially upheld the first instance ruling.
According to the Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe ruling, AES is 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. However, because the outlet units were modified at the end of 2014, the period for which AES is liable for damages in connection with indirect sales into Germany substantially finished at the end of 2014.
Both Lufthansa and AES have filed requests with the German Federal Supreme Court to be granted leave to file appeals against this decision.
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 based on 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, 2024, was approximately $11.6 million plus accrued interest. Accrued interest on the indirect damages reserve was estimated using the same interest rate as the direct damages. Approximately $0.7 million, $0.7 million, and $0.6 million was recorded within Selling, General and Administrative Expenses in the Company’s Consolidated Statements of Operations for each of 2024, 2023 and 2022, respectively, for additional interest accrued during such periods.
In connection with the indirect sales claims, we currently believe it is unlikely that the appeals process will be completed and any damages and related interest will be paid before December 31, 2025. Therefore, the liability related to this matter (inclusive of accrued interest), totaling $17.1 million, is classified within other liabilities (non-current) in the Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31, 2024 and 2023. This amount may be adjusted depending on the decision of the Court on the direct sales damages appeal referred to previously.
In December 2017, Lufthansa filed patent infringement cases in the United Kingdom (“UK”) and in France. The Lufthansa patent expired in May 2018. In those cases, Lufthansa accuses AES and certain of its customers 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 normal course of its supply arrangements, AES has indemnified its customers from liability arising from such matters, and as such will bear responsibility for any monetary damages arising from such claims.
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. Lufthansa has appealed this judgment. The appeal hearing took place on December 8, 2022, and on February 24, 2023, the Court upheld the first instance judgment in favor of AES. Lufthansa lodged an appeal before the French Supreme Court; the French Supreme Court will review the Court of Appeal of Paris’ reasoning around the nullification of one of the claims of the patent. AES filed briefs with the French Supreme Court on January 22, 2024 and on September 11, 2024 in response to Lufthansa’s appeal. The written phase of the procedure was closed in January 2025 and a decision from this Court is currently expected in March 2025. As loss exposure is not probable and estimable at this time, the Company has not recorded any liability with respect to the French matter as of December 31, 2024 or December 31, 2023.
In the UK matter, the Court held the UK patent valid and 3 out of 4 asserted claims infringed in June 2020. In contrast to the decisions in Germany, the UK Court found that the modified components infringed a valid claim of the patent, and accordingly, the period for which AES or its customers would be liable in connection with direct sales into the UK extends until the expiration of the patent in May 2018. While AES appealed the ruling, the Court dismissed the appeal on all grounds. Lufthansa sought an account of the profits that AES and certain of its customers had made from UK sales. The trial of that issue took place in October 2024. Both the Company and Lufthansa submitted to the UK High Court of Justice calculations of the estimated profits derived from the reports of the parties’ respective financial experts.
The account of profits trial judgment was published on February 21, 2025. The February 2025 judgment quantified the amount payable in aggregate in respect of the profits derived from infringing Lufthansa’s UK patent by the defendants as $11.9 million. Any additional amounts required to be paid by the Company related to certain other factors peripheral to the damages award, including potential reimbursement of legal fees related to the damages proceedings, will be determined at follow-up hearings
expected to occur in the first half of 2025. The Company is unable to estimate a range of exposure, if any, related to such peripheral issues, and as such, has not recorded any additional liabilities at this time
It is expected that one or more of the parties may seek permission to appeal the February 21, 2025 judgment; permission to appeal is not assured under English law. The Company expects that payment of the ordered liability will be required in the second quarter of 2025, and that an appeal, if any, would likely be heard in early 2026.
Accordingly, the Company recorded additional expense of $4.8 million in the quarter ended December 31, 2024, within Selling, General and Administrative Expenses in the Company’s Consolidated Statements of Operations. The $11.9 million liability related to this matter is classified within Accrued Expenses and Other Current Liabilities in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2024. The liability related to this matter was $7.4 million as of December 31, 2023, classified within Other Liabilities (non-current) in the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheet at such date.
Separate from payment of profits from the February 2025 judgment discussed above, as a result of the first instance judgement in their favor, Lufthansa was entitled to reimbursement from AES of a proportion of its legal expenditures in the UK case. An interim reimbursement was paid to Lufthansa in August 2020. As a result of the appeal decision, Lufthansa will be entitled to reimbursement from AES of a larger proportion of its first instance legal expenditures, as well as a portion of its legal expenditures associated with the appeal. A liability for reimbursement of Lufthansa’s legal expenses associated with the UK matter for the June 2022 trial and the appeal of that decision was approximately $1.0 million and $0.7 million on December 31, 2024 and December 31, 2023, respectively, which is expected to be paid within the next twelve months and, as such, is classified in Accrued Expenses and Other Current Liabilities in the accompanying Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2024 and December 31, 2023. In the normal course, a defendant in the Company’s position would be ordered to make a partial reimbursement of Lufthansa’s legal costs. Whether that is the case and the amount depends on a number of variables including the size of the order for payment of profits. Additional amounts may be payable by the Company associated with Lufthansa’s legal fees incurred related to the account of profits proceedings, but the Company is unable to estimate a range of exposure and as such has not recorded any additional liabilities at this time.
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 damages in the UK matter are calculated on a different basis than our estimate or using information not currently available.
There were no other significant developments in any of these matters during the year ended December 31, 2024.
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 remained. The case proceeded to discovery. In addition, on December 21, 2020, ATS filed a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) with the US Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), seeking to invalidate the subject patent, and on July 21, 2021, the PTAB instituted IPR. The PTAB issued its decision on July 20, 2022, in which it invalidated all of Teradyne’s patent claims. Teradyne did not appeal the decision. On June 5, 2023, the parties attended a court-ordered mediation but did not reach a settlement. After the mediation, Teradyne agreed to drop its remaining state law claims in exchange for ATS dropping one of its defenses, leaving only its copyright claim. On December 7, 2023, the District Court granted ATS’s motion for summary judgment on its affirmative defense of fair use. The Court subsequently entered final judgment in favor of ATS on December 14, 2023. Teradyne appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On January 30, 2025, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment. Teradyne may pursue an appeal by petitioning the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. It is unknown at this time whether Teradyne will pursue either option, or, if it does, whether the United States Supreme Court will grant a writ of certiorari. No amounts have been accrued for this matter in the December 31, 2024 or 2023 financial statements, as loss exposure was neither probable nor estimable at such times.
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. Accrued legal fees were $6.5 million and $7.9 million as of December 31, 2024 and 2023, respectively.
|