XML 33 R19.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.23.2

Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jul. 29, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Contingencies | Note 12. Contingencies Certain litigation arising in the normal course of business is pending against us. The Company is, from time-to-time, subject to various legal actions and claims incidental to our business, including those arising out of alleged defects, breach of contracts, employment-related matters, environmental matters and intellectual property matters. The Company considers insurance coverage and third-party indemnification when determining required accruals for pending litigation and claims. Although the outcome of potential legal actions and claims cannot be determined, it is the Company's opinion, based on the information available, that it has adequate reserves for these liabilities. Hetronic Germany-GmbH Matters For several years, Hetronic Germany-GmbH and Hydronic-Steuersysteme-GmbH (the “Fuchs companies”) served as our distributors for Germany, Austria and other central and eastern European countries pursuant to their respective intellectual property licenses and distribution and assembly agreements. The Company became aware that the Fuchs companies and their managing director, Albert Fuchs, had materially violated those agreements. As a result, the Company terminated all of its agreements with the Fuchs companies. On June 20, 2014, the Company filed a lawsuit against the Fuchs companies in the Federal District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma alleging material breaches of the distribution and assembly agreements and seeking damages, as well as various forms of injunctive relief. The defendants filed counterclaims alleging breach of contract, interference with business relations and business slander. On April 2, 2015, the Company amended its complaint against the Fuchs companies to add additional unfair competition and Lanham Act claims and to add additional affiliated parties. A trial with respect to the matter began in February 2020. During the trial, the defendants dismissed their one remaining counterclaim with prejudice. On March 2, 2020, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Company. The verdict included approximately $102 million in compensatory damages and $11 million in punitive damages. On April 22, 2020, the District Court entered a permanent injunction barring defendants from selling infringing products and ordering them to return Hetronic’s confidential information. Defendants appealed entry of the permanent injunction. On May 29, 2020, the District Court held defendants in contempt for violating the permanent injunction and entered the final judgment. Defendants appealed entry of the final monetary judgment as well. The appeal of the permanent injunction and the appeal of the final judgment were consolidated into a single appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. On August 24, 2021, the Tenth Circuit issued a decision affirming the lower court’s ruling with the exception that it instructed the District Court to modify the injunction from the entire world to all of the countries in which Hetronic sells its products. On April 20 and 21, 2022, the District Court held a hearing related to modifying the injunction pursuant to the Tenth Circuit’s opinion, and the parties have filed post-hearing briefs. The defendants also filed a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court seeking to further appeal the extraterritorial application of the Lanham Act in this case. The Company opposed that petition. The Supreme Court requested the views of the Solicitor General on the petition for certiorari, and the Solicitor General recommended granting the petition. On November 4, 2022, the Supreme Court granted the petition. The Supreme Court heard arguments in this matter on March 21, 2023. On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court vacated the Tenth Circuit’s August 2021 decision and remanded the matter back to the Tenth Circuit for further proceedings. On September 1, 2023, the Tenth Circuit requested supplemental briefing from the parties regarding the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision on the appeal and the proper course of further proceedings. Like any judgment, particularly a judgment involving defendants outside of the United States, there is no guarantee that the Company will be able to collect all or any portion of the judgment.

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://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//450/tableOfContent Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147480327/954-440-50-1 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 5: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration