Commitments and Contingencies |
12 Months Ended | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dec. 31, 2016 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Commitments and Contingencies |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
The Company leases certain facilities and equipment under various lease contracts with terms that meet the accounting definition of operating leases. These arrangements may include fair value renewal or purchase options. Rental expense for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014 was $3.9 million, $2.9 million and $3.0 million, respectively. The following table represents future minimum lease payment commitments as of December 31, 2016:
From time to time the Company may enter into purchase agreements with suppliers under which there is a commitment to buy a minimum amount of product. Purchase commitments outstanding at December 31, 2016 were $98.5 million. These commitments are not reflected as liabilities in the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets.
Legal Proceedings
On December 29, 2010, Lufthansa Technik AG (“Lufthansa”) filed a Statement of Claim in the Regional State Court of Mannheim, Germany. Lufthansa’s claim asserts that our subsidiary, AES sold, marketed and brought into use in Germany a power supply system that infringes upon a German patent held by Lufthansa. The relief sought by Lufthansa includes requiring AES to stop selling and marketing the allegedly infringing power supply system, a recall of allegedly infringing products sold to commercial customers since November 26, 2003 and compensation for damages. The claim does not specify an estimate of damages and a damages claim will be made by Lufthansa only if it receives a favorable ruling on the determination of infringement.
On February 6, 2015, the Regional State Court of Mannheim, Germany rendered its decision that the patent was infringed. The judgment does not require AES to recall products that are already installed in aircraft or have been sold to other end users. On July 15, 2015, Lufthansa advised AES of their intention to enforce the accounting provisions of the decision, which required AES to provide certain financial information regarding sales of the infringing product to enable Lufthansa to make an estimate of requested damages. Additionally, if Lufthansa provides the required bank guarantee specified in the decision, the Company may be required to offer a recall of products that are in the distribution channels in Germany. No such bank guarantee has been issued to date. As of December 31, 2016 there are no products in the distribution channels in Germany.
The Company appealed to the Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe. On November 15, 2016, the Court issued its ruling and upheld the lower court’s decision. The Company has submitted a petition to grant AES leave for appeal to the Federal Supreme Court. The Company believes it has valid defenses to refute the decision. Should the Federal Supreme Court decide to hear the case, the appeal process is estimated to extend up to two years. We estimate AES’s potential exposure related to this matter to be approximately $1 million to $3 million. As loss exposure is not probable at this time, the Company has not recorded any liability with respect to this litigation as of December 31, 2016.
On November 26, 2014, Lufthansa filed a complaint in the United States District for the Western District of Washington. Lufthansa’s complaint in this action alleges that AES manufactures, 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 judgment and issued an order dismissing all claims against AES with prejudice. Lufthansa has filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Company believes that it has valid defenses to Lufthansa’s claims and will vigorously contest the appeal. As loss exposure is neither probable nor estimable at this time, the Company has not recorded any liability with respect to this litigation as of December 31, 2016.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||