Lufthansa Technik AG v Astronics Advanced Electronic Systems & Ors
[2023] EWCA Civ 1306
LUFTHANSA TECHNIK AG v ASTRONICS ADVANCED ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS & Anor.
12 May 2023
[2023] EWHC 1136 (Pat)
High Court
Lufthansa won a patent case but the other companies said they didn't make much money from the infringement. Lufthansa wanted to show they made MORE money. The judge said they could, except for a few specific points that had already been put aside earlier.
Key Facts
- •Lufthansa (Claimant) won a liability trial against Astronics, Panasonic, and Safran (Defendants) for patent infringement.
- •The infringement related to the EmPower In-Seat Power Supply System.
- •Lufthansa elected for an account of profits.
- •Defendants argued that little or no profit was made from the specific infringement acts established at trial.
- •Lufthansa sought to rely on additional infringement routes raised in the liability pleadings (plus one new route) to counter the Defendants' arguments.
- •The case involved a complex system with three main components (power supply, socket, cabling), and each Defendant played a different role.
- •Some infringement issues had been adjourned at previous case management hearings.
- •The main questions were whether Lufthansa could introduce additional infringement arguments at the quantum stage and whether Morgan J's order following trial prevented it from raising certain 'adjourned issues'.
Legal Principles
In a damages or account of profits inquiry, a patentee can claim relief for infringement types not ruled on at trial, for convenience.
Unilin Beheer BV v Berry Floor NV [2007] EWCA Civ 364
It is modern practice to not require the rights-holder to provide evidence of every possible infringement during the liability hearing, only sufficient examples.
AP Racing v Alcon [2016] EWHC 815 (Ch)
When considering allowing new allegations at the quantum stage, the test is whether it is 'just and convenient'.
Fabio Perini v LPC [2012] EWHC 911 (Ch)
Court Orders are construed objectively and in their context, including reasons given for making them.
Pan Petroleum AJE Ltd v Yinka Folawiyo Petroleum Co Ltd & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 1525
Outcomes
Lufthansa can rely on additional infringement routes at the quantum stage, except for those specifically prevented by Morgan J's order.
It is just and convenient, given the circumstances of the case, streamlining the liability trial due to the pandemic, and that Lufthansa won on all infringement issues at trial.
Lufthansa is prevented from advancing the 'adjourned issues' due to Morgan J's order.
Morgan J's order, read in context with his reasons, implies that these issues no longer need to be determined.
Lufthansa cannot raise the new allegation of joint liability between Astronics and Panasonic because its reasoning relies on an adjourned issue.
The new allegation, although not previously raised, is based on an 'adjourned issue' which cannot be addressed due to Morgan J's order.