Lufthansa Technik AG vs Astronics Advanced Electronic Systems, Safran Seats GB Limited, and Panasonic Avionics Corporation

This case involved Lufthansa Technik AG's application to amend an earlier court order concerning patent infringement claims against Astronics Advanced Electronic Systems, Safran Seats GB Limited, and Panasonic Avionics Corporation.

TLDR:

• Lufthansa sought to amend a 2020 court order.
• The application was based on CPR 40.12 (slip rule) and CPR 3.1(7).
• The High Court dismissed Lufthansa's application.

The claimant, Lufthansa Technik AG, filed an application on 28th June 2023, which was amended on 4th October 2023. The respondents were Astronics Advanced Electronic Systems, Safran Seats GB Limited, and Panasonic Avionics Corporation. The application sought to change the terms of an order made in August 2020, which was consequential to a judgment given on 21st August 2020.

The underlying litigation involved Lufthansa's claim for a financial remedy for patent infringement against the respondents. The trial took place in June 2020, and the judgment was handed down on 22nd July 2020. The judgment primarily dealt with the validity of the patent and found liability for infringement on the part of each defendant.

Following the judgment, there were communications between the court and the parties' lawyers to deal with consequential matters. Witness statements and written submissions were provided, and a draft order was prepared. The draft order contained agreed recitals and one disputed recital, which stated that the 'Adjourned Issues' had fallen away in light of the court's judgment.

The High Court, in its 2020 judgment, recited that the Adjourned Issues no longer needed to be determined. Lufthansa later sought to amend this order, arguing that the court had made a mistake in its formulation. The application was based on CPR 40.12 (slip rule) and CPR 3.1(7).

The court examined the evidence and submissions from both parties. It found that Lufthansa's position in 2020 was that the Adjourned Issues no longer needed to be decided, which influenced the court's decision on costs. The court concluded that there was no mistake in the order and that it reflected the court's intention at the time.

The court also considered whether the order was final or interim. It assumed in Lufthansa's favor that it was an interim order but found no basis to vary or revoke the order under CPR 3.1(7). The court noted that Lufthansa's application did not meet the criteria for a material change of circumstances or a manifest mistake.

Ultimately, the High Court dismissed Lufthansa's application to amend the 2020 order. The court emphasized that the order accurately reflected its intention and that there was no basis for correction under the slip rule or CPR 3.1(7).

Legal representatives: Mr. Christopher Hall (instructed by Jones Day) for Lufthansa, Mr. John Taylor KC, Mr. Miles Copeland, and Ms. Tiffany Tang (instructed by Hogan Lovells International Llp LLP) for Astronics and Panasonic, and Pinsent Masons LLP for Safran.

Judicial Panel: Sir Paul Morgan (Sitting as a Judge of the Chancery Division)

Case Citation Reference: [2023] EWHC 2547 (Pat)