Commitments And Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Mar. 29, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments And Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies

The Company is subject to various unresolved legal actions that arise in the normal course of its business. These actions typically relate to product liability (including asbestos-related liability), patent and trademark matters, and disputes with customers, suppliers, distributors and dealers, competitors and employees.

On May 12, 2010, Exmark Manufacturing Company, Inc. filed suit against Briggs & Stratton Power Products Group, LLC (“BSPPG”), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company that was subsequently merged with and into the Company on January 1, 2017 (Case No. 8:10CV187, U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska), alleging that certain Ferris® and Snapper Pro® mower decks infringed an Exmark mower deck patent. Exmark sought damages relating to sales since May 2004, attorneys’ fees, and enhanced damages. As a result of a reexamination proceeding in 2012, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) initially rejected the asserted Exmark claims as invalid.  However, in 2014, that decision was reversed by the USPTO on appeal by Exmark. Following discovery, each of BSPPG and Exmark filed several motions for summary judgment in the Nebraska district court, which were decided on July 28, 2015. The court concluded that older mower deck designs infringed Exmark’s patent, leaving for trial the issues of whether current designs infringed, the amount of damages, and whether any infringement was willful.

The trial began on September 8, 2015, and on September 18, 2015, the jury returned its verdict, finding that BSPPG’s current mower deck designs do not infringe the Exmark patent. As to the older designs, the jury awarded Exmark $24.3 million in damages and found that the infringement was willful, allowing the judge to enhance the jury’s damages award post-trial by up to three times. Also on September 18, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its decision in an unrelated case, SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag SCA Personal Care, Inc. v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC, et al. (Case No. 2013-1564) (“SCA”), confirming the availability of laches as a defense to patent infringement claims. Laches is an equitable doctrine that may bar a patent owner from obtaining damages prior to commencing suit, in circumstances in which the owner knows or should have known its patent was being infringed for more than six years. Although the court in the Exmark case ruled before trial that BSPPG could not rely on the defense of laches, as a result of the subsequent SCA decision, the court held a bench trial on that defense on October 21 and 22, 2015. On May 2, 2016, the United States Supreme Court agreed to review the SCA decision.

The parties submitted post-trial motions and briefing related to: damages; willfulness; laches; attorney fees; enhanced damages; and prejudgment/post-judgment interest and costs.  All post-trial motions and briefing were completed on December 18, 2015. On May 11, 2016, the court ruled on those post-trial motions and entered judgment against BSPPG and in favor of Exmark in the amount of $24.3 million in compensatory damages, an additional $24.3 million in enhanced damages, and $1.5 million in pre-judgment interest along with post-judgment interest and costs to be determined. The Company strongly disagreed with the jury verdict, certain rulings made before and during trial, and the May 11, 2016 post-trial rulings. BSPPG appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on several bases, including the issues of obviousness and invalidity of Exmark’s patent, the damages calculation, willfulness and laches.

Following briefing of the appeal and prior to oral argument, the United States Supreme Court overturned the SCA decision, ruling that laches is not available in a patent infringement case for damages. That ruling eliminated laches as one basis for BSPPG’s appeal of the Exmark case. The appellate court held a hearing on the remainder of BSPPG’s appeal on April 5, 2017 and issued its decision on January 12, 2018. The appellate court found that the district court erred in granting summary judgment concerning the patent’s validity and remanded that issue to the district court for reconsideration. The appellate court also vacated the jury’s damages award and the district court’s award of enhanced damages, remanding the case to the district court for a new trial on damages and reconsideration on willfulness. The appellate court affirmed the district court rulings in all other respects. In subsequent rulings, the district court reaffirmed the validity of Exmark’s patent and its original ruling on willfulness. A new trial on the issue of damages commenced on December 10, 2018, resulting in a damages assessment by the jury of $14.4 million.

On December 20, 2018, the district court entered judgment against the Company and in favor of Exmark in the amount of $14.4 million in compensatory damages, an additional $14.4 million in enhanced damages, as well as pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest and costs to be determined. On April 15, 2019, the district court entered an order denying the Company’s post-trial motions related to modification of the jury’s damages award, as

well as seeking a new trial in light of certain evidentiary rulings. The district court awarded $6.0 million in pre-judgment interest, as well as post-judgment interest after December 19, 2018 and costs to be determined.

The Company strongly disagrees with the verdict and certain rulings made before, during and after the new trial and intends to vigorously pursue its rights on appeal. The Company filed its notice of appeal on May 14, 2019, and has appealed errors made by the district court in construing certain claims of Exmark’s patent, granting summary judgment motions filed by Exmark, and altering the prejudgment interest rate following the second trial. Oral argument on the appeal was held on May 5, 2020 and the parties await the decision of the Court of Appeals.

In assessing whether the Company should accrue a liability in its financial statements as a result of this lawsuit, the Company considered various factors, including the legal and factual circumstances of the case, the trial records and post-trial rulings of the district court, the decision of the appellate court, the current status of the proceedings, applicable law and the views of legal counsel. As a result of this review, the Company has concluded that a loss from this case is not probable and reasonably estimable at this time and, therefore, a liability has not been recorded with respect to this case as of March 29, 2020.

Although it is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome of this and other unresolved legal actions or the range of possible loss, the Company believes the unresolved legal actions will not have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, financial position or cash flows.