LUFTHANSA TECHNIK AG v ASTRONICS ADVANCED ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS & Anor.
[2023] EWHC 1136 (Pat)
Lufthansa Technik AG v Astronics Advanced Electronic Systems & Ors
9 November 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 1306
Court of Appeal
Lufthansa lost a case about its patent. A judge said they gave up on some parts of the case, so they couldn't bring them back. Lufthansa tried to appeal too late and lost that too.
Key Facts
- •Lufthansa (claimant/appellant) appealed two orders relating to its patent infringement case against Astronics, Safran, and Panasonic (defendants/respondents).
- •The dispute centered on "Adjourned Issues" – claims of joint tortfeasance and continuing offers for sale, adjourned to the quantum stage by prior orders.
- •Morgan J's order (2020) addressed costs and the status of the Adjourned Issues, implying their dismissal based on the court's finding of infringement.
- •Recorder Campbell (2023) interpreted Morgan J's order as precluding Lufthansa from pursuing the Adjourned Issues in the account of profits stage.
- •Lufthansa appealed Recorder Campbell's decision, also seeking relief from sanction for filing the appeal significantly out of time.
Legal Principles
In patent infringement cases, liability and quantum are typically tried separately. A patentee can, in principle, raise additional infringement claims during the quantum stage.
Lufthansa Technik AG v Panasonic Avionics Corp [2023] EWCA 1273; Unilin Beheer BV v Berry Floor NV [2007] EWCA Civ 364
Court orders are interpreted based on their natural and ordinary meaning, considering context, historical context, and the order's object. The court's reasons for making the order are admissible in its construction.
Pan Petroleum AJE Ltd v Yinka Folawiyo Petroleum Co Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 1525; JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov (No. 10) [2015] UKSC 64; Sans Souci Ltd v VRL Services Ltd [2012] UKPC 6
Applications for relief from sanctions are assessed using the three-stage Denton test: seriousness of breach, reason for breach, and all circumstances of the case.
Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906; R (Hysaj) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 1633
Outcomes
Lufthansa's appeal against Recorder Campbell's order was dismissed.
The Court of Appeal upheld Recorder Campbell's interpretation of Morgan J's order as precluding Lufthansa from pursuing the Adjourned Issues. They found that Morgan J's order, read with his reasons, indicated Lufthansa had abandoned these issues.
Lufthansa's application for relief from sanction was refused.
The significant delay in appealing was deemed serious, and no compelling reason for the delay was provided. The court noted Lufthansa's failure to challenge Morgan J's finding of abandonment at the time.