XML 40 R27.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.0.1

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2021
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”). 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 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. 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 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 into Germany 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. Interest will accrue at a rate of 5% above the European Central Bank rate until final payment to Lufthansa. Approximately $0.6 million was recorded within Selling, General and Administrative Expenses in the Company’s Consolidated Statements of Operations in both 2020 and 2021 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 the damages and related interest will be paid before December 31, 2022. Therefore, the liability related to this matter, totaling $17.3 million and $16.7 million, is classified within Other Liabilities (non-current) in the Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively. 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. 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. Lufthansa has appealed this judgment. The appeal hearing is scheduled for December 8, 2022. 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, 2021 or 2020. 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, and accordingly, the period for which AES or its customers would be liable for damages in connection with direct sales into the UK extends until the expiration of the patent in May 2018. AES appealed the ruling, and the appeal hearing took place on November 2, 2021. On January 14, 2022, the Court dismissed the appeal on all grounds. Lufthansa has yet to plead its case for monetary compensation, which would be determined at a separate trial, expected to be held in the latter half of 2023. The case for damages will require extensive data gathering and analysis which has not yet been completed. This analysis will include evaluating whether any units sold into the UK were subsequently shipped into Germany, where they would be subject to the indirect sales claim discussed above. If this is the case, damages may be assessed in either the UK, or in the indirect sales matter in Germany, but not in both matters. Under English law, Lufthansa has the option of pursuing a claim in relation to the defendants’ profits from their infringing activities or pursuing a claim in relation to Lufthansa's own lost profits. That election has not yet been made by Lufthansa and there is currently no date set for it to make this election. However, as we have concluded a loss is probable and reasonably estimable based upon the information currently available to AES, we have estimated damages of approximately $6.2 million, plus accrued interest of approximately $1.1 million, for AES and its indemnified customers. Interest will accrue until final payment to Lufthansa. Approximately $7.3 million is reflected for this matter as a liability in the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2021, and has been recorded within Selling, General & Administrative Expenses in the accompanying Consolidated Statement of Operations for the year then ended. This amount is subject to change as additional data is received and evaluated, and as additional information regarding the damages methodology is claimed by Lufthansa in advance of the damages trial. We currently believe it is unlikely that the UK damages claim will be completed and the damages and related interest will be paid before December 31, 2022. Therefore, the liability related to this matter, totaling $7.3 million, is classified within Other Liabilities (non-current) in the Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31, 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 was 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. 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. We have recorded an estimated liability of approximately $1.0 million in our Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 2021. The associated expense is recorded within Selling, General & Administrative Expenses in the Consolidated Statement of Operations for the year then ended. It is likely that such amount will be payable within the next twelve months, and as such, the liability has been classified as a current liability in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets within Other Accrued Expenses at December 31, 2021. 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. 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 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. ATS requested and, on August 26, 2021, the District Court granted, a stay of litigation during the IPR proceeding. The parties are currently engaged in IPR briefing before the PTAB and oral argument before the PTAB is scheduled for April 21, 2022. A decision on the IPR is expected in July 2022. 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, 2021 or 2020 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.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration