|3 Months Ended|
Mar. 28, 2020
|Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]|
|Legal Proceedings||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 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 rendered its decision 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. 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 direct sales of the infringing product in 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 issued its ruling and upheld the lower court’s decision. The Company submitted a petition to grant AES leave for appeal to the German Federal Supreme Court. On April 18, 2018, the German Federal Supreme Court granted Astronics’ petition in part, namely with respect to the part concerning the amount of damages. On January 8, 2019, the German Federal Supreme Court held the hearing on the appeal. 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 court’s decision that AES infringed the patent, specifically related to direct sales of the product into Germany (associated with the original December 2010 action discussed above). In this action, which was served to AES on April 11, 2018, Lufthansa claimed payment of approximately $6.2 million plus interest. An oral hearing was held on September 13, 2019. 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. Inclusive of interest, this equates to approximately $4.5 million through December 31, 2019. Interest will continue to accrue at a statutory rate until final payment to Lufthansa. In February 2020, and again in April 2020, we received notice that Lufthansa’s intention is to provide a security and to enforce payment on the first instance judgment. If Lufthansa provides a security deposit or a bank guarantee in a sufficient amount, as they have stated is their intention, the Company will be required to remit the payment. Based on this information, we believe payment for damages and interest on the direct sales claim will be required in 2020. 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 as far as the payments exceed the amount awarded by the appellate court, but there can be no assurances that we will be successful on such appeal. 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 has reflected an incremental reserve of $3.5 million in its December 31, 2019 financial statements related to this matter, for a total reserve of $4.5 million. Interest accrues at a rate of 5% above the European Central Bank rate until final payment to Lufthansa. Inclusive of accrued interest, the reserve for the direct claim is $4.7 million at March 28, 2020.
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.
An oral hearing in this matter was held on September 13, 2019, as part of the oral hearing for the direct sales damages claim discussed above. A first instance decision in this matter was handed down on December 6, 2019. According to this judgment, Lufthansa's claims were granted in part. The court granted Lufthansa's claims for a finding that indirect sales (as defined above) by AES to international customers constitute a patent infringement 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 request for a finding that AES is also liable for damages for the sale of modified products as inadmissible. This is relevant, as it provides that once AES modified the system to remove the infringing feature, any subsequent outlets are deemed not to be infringing outlets for purposes of calculating damages. AES and Lufthansa both appealed this decision and the appeal is currently pending before the Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe. In its appeal, Lufthansa extended its action by requesting an additional finding that AES shall be held liable for all damages that Lufthansa incurred due to an alleged incorrect accounting of its past sales. No amount was quantified in Lufthansa's additional motion. The appeal is not likely to be settled in 2020.
If the decision 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. Since only sales of systems comprising patent-infringing outlet units trigger damages claims, 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 probably 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 currently, we estimate that the resulting damages would be approximately $11.6 million plus approximately $4.5 million of accrued interest at the end of 2019, for a total of approximately $16.1 million at December 31, 2019. Similar to the direct sales claim, interest will accrue at a rate of 5% above the European Central Bank rate until final payment to Lufthansa. Inclusive of accrued interest, the reserve for the indirect claim is approximately $16.2 million at March 28, 2020.
Based upon the determination of the damages in the direct sales claim discussed above, in the March 28, 2020 consolidated financial statements, we have reflected a total accrual (inclusive of interest through December 31, 2019) of $4.7 million related to the direct sales claim, and $16.2 million related to the indirect sales claim as management’s best estimate of the total exposure related to these matters that is probable and that can be reasonably estimated at this time. Interest accrued for the three months ended March 28, 2020 was approximately $0.3 million and is recorded within Selling, General and Administrative Expense in the Company’s Consolidated Statement of Operations. We estimate that payment for the damages and related interest of the direct sales claim will be paid before December 31, 2020, therefore the liability related to this matter, totaling $4.7 million, is classified within Other Accrued Expenses (current) in the Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 2019. 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, 2020. Therefore the liability related to this matter, totaling $16.2 million, is classified within Other Liabilities (non-current) in the Consolidated Balance Sheet at March 28, 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 UK matter, LHT has also brought proceeding against two of AES’s customers in relation to acts done by them with AES supplied parts and a combined trial has been scheduled for June 2020 to address the issues of infringement and validity. The France and UK claims are separate and apart from the claims in Germany and validity and infringement of the Lufthansa patent will first need to be determined by the courts in these countries, whose laws differ from those in Germany. Also the principles of calculating damages in German patent infringement proceedings differ substantially from the calculation methods in the UK and France. Therefore the Company has assessed this separate from the German claims. However, it is reasonably possible that additional damages and interest could be incurred if the courts in France and the UK were to rule in favor of Lufthansa, but at this time we cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss. As loss exposure is neither probable nor estimable at this time, the Company has not recorded any liability with respect to these matters as of March 28, 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 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 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.
No definition available.
The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.
Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef