|9 Months Ended|
Sep. 26, 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 before the District 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. 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 reflected an incremental reserve of $3.5 million in its December 31, 2019 financial statements related to this matter ($1.7 million of which was recorded in the three and nine month periods ended September 28, 2019). Payment of the first instance judgment was made during the nine months ended September 26, 2020 of approximately $4.7 million, inclusive of interest. 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.
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.
With letter of April 28, 2020, Lufthansa notified AES of its intention to enforce the first instance decision with respect to the claims for accounting, information and confirmation of the earlier accounting by an affidavit. Lufthansa asked AES to provide the accounting on indirect sales (as defined above) as well as on the sales of individual parts, and also asked AES to provide the affidavit that the accounting provided in September 2015 was accurate. In July 2020, Lufthansa filed a request with the Regional State Court of Mannheim that AES be ordered to comply with the enforcement or to otherwise make payment of up to approximately $50,000. By decision on September 7, 2020, the District Court of Mannheim granted Lufthansa's request in part and ordered AES to make a coercive payment of approximately $25,000, which can be avoided if AES provides the requested accounting and information. AES has appealed the payment decision and is expecting a decision by the second instance Higher Regional State Court of Karlsruhe in November 2020. AES is in the process of preparing the requested accounting information.
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. 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. Interest will accrue at a rate of 5% above the European Central Bank rate until final payment to Lufthansa.
Based upon the determination of the damages in the direct sales claim discussed above, in the September 26, 2020 consolidated financial statements, we have reflected a total accrual (inclusive of interest through September 26, 2020) of $16.5 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. Additional interest accrued for the three and nine months ended September 26, 2020 was approximately $0.1 million and $0.4 million, respectively, and is recorded within Selling, General and Administrative Expense in the Company’s Consolidated Statement of Operations. 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 within the next twelve months. Therefore the liability related to this matter, totaling $16.5 million, is classified within Other Liabilities (non-current) in the Consolidated Balance Sheet at September 26, 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, the first instance court decided to bifurcate the issues of validity and infringement. The issue of alleged invalidity was heard on October 8, 2020. The court expects to rule on this matter on December 4, 2020. Such ruling will not involve any financial exposure to AES, as it will not deal with alleged infringement and the court will not order any damages. If the first instance court confirms the validity of the patent, the proceedings will continue with the issue of alleged infringement. No judgment on this issue is expected before late 2021.
In the UK matter, a trial took place in June 2020 to address the issues of infringement and validity of the patent. Judgment on those issues was rendered 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. Although the court has found the patent valid and some claims infringed, Lufthansa has yet to set out its case for monetary relief, 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, AES has applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal the first instance UK findings. That application is pending. If the Court of Appeal rejects the application for permission to appeal made on the papers, AES may request an oral hearing. If permission to appeal is granted, any appeal on these substantive issues would likely be heard within 18 months of the trial. For this reason, while exposure in the UK matter is reasonably possible and such exposure could be material to the consolidated financial statements, it is not yet estimable, and thus, no liability has been recorded with respect to this matter at September 26, 2020.
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 is 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 has been recorded in the Consolidated Condensed Statement of Operations in the nine-month period ended September 26, 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 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 of the matters as of September 26, 2020, except for the legal fee reimbursement in the UK case discussed above, which was paid during the three- and nine- month period ended September 26, 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