Approved Judgment Lufthansa v Astronics & Ors HP 2017 000085
HP 2019 000019
Neutral Citation Number: [2024] EWHC 1918 (Pat)
HP-2017-000085 and HP-2019-000019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (ChD)
PATENTS COURT 25 July 2024
Before:
MR JUSTICE LEECH
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BETWEEN:
LUFTHANSA TECHNIK AG
(a company incorporated under the laws of Japan)
Claimant
- and –
(1) ASTRONICS ADVANCED ELECTRONIC
SYSTEMS
(a company incorporated in the state of
Washington USA)
(2) SAFRAN SEATS GB ZODIAC SEATS UK
LIMITED)
Defendants
AND BETWEEN:
LUFTHANSA TECHNIK AG
(a company incorporated under the laws of Japan)
Claimant
- and –
PANASONIC AVIONICS CORPORATION
(a company incorporated in the state of
Delaware USA)
Defendants
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MR TIMOTHY HOWE KC and MR MILES COPELAND appeared on behalf of the
Defendants in both claims (instructed by Hogan Lovells International LLP in Claim No. HP
2017 000085 and Pinsent Masons LLP in Claim No. HP 2017 000019)
MR HUGO CUDDIGAN KC and MS MIRUNA BERCARIU (instructed by Jones Day)
appeared on behalf of the Claimant in both claims.
Hearing dates: 11 and 15 July 2024
Approved Judgment Lufthansa v Astronics & Ors HP 2017 000085
HP 2019 000019
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
APPROVED JUDGMENT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approved Judgment Lufthansa v Astronics & Ors HP 2017 000085
HP 2019 000019
Mr Justice Leech:
I. The Application
1. By Application Notice dated 24 May 2024 (the “Application”) the Defendants
(“Astronics” and “Safran” in the first action and “Panasonic” in the second action and
together the “Defendants”) applied for permission to re-re-amend the Re-Amended
Points of Defence and to rely upon a Notice of Experiments (the “NOE”) served on 25
April 2024. The facts which they sought to establish were that when measurements were
carried out in accordance with the protocol in Schedule 1 the length of a plug pin which
remained outside the socket of a number of different outlets was as set out in Schedule
2.
2. The Claimant (“Lufthansa”) originally opposed both limbs of the Application. On
Thursday 11 July 2024 and Monday 15 July 2024 I heard the Application and by its
commencement Lufthansa had accepted that permission should be granted for the
Defendants to rely upon the NOE subject to the Court giving directions for the repetition
of the experiments, the service of any reply experiments and the service of any further
expert evidence. By the end of the hearing the Defendants did not oppose the timetable
for directions which Lufthansa asked the Court to make.
3. The Defendants also sought permission for an extension of time until 11 July 2024 for
the exchange of two expert reports one relating to the commercial market for the
Defendants’ products and the other relating to forensic accountancy. By the end of the
hearing the parties had also agreed a short further extension for service of the expert
reports. Subject to one point I address the proposed amendments only in this judgment.
However, Mr Hugo Cuddigan KC and Ms Miruna Bercariu, who appeared for Lufthansa,
submitted that the Court should take into account the significant additional burden which
the experiments would impose on the parties in considering whether to grant permission
to re-re-amend. I must therefore consider the NOE and its consequences in that context.
II. Procedural History
(1) Background
4. The patent in suit EP(UK) 0,881,145 B1 (the “Patent”) claims a number of safety
features of an in-seat power supply (“ISPS”) for supplying power to a socket in an aircraft
