Lufthansa Technik AG v Astronics Advanced Electronic Systems & others [2025] EWHC 375 (Pat)
This is the judgment in an account of profits following the liability trial ([2020] EWHC 1968 (Pat)) concerning infringement of Lufthansa’s patent for an aircraft passenger in-seat power supply system. Astronics manufactured such systems, Safran installed them into airline seats, and Panasonic supplied in-flight entertainment systems incorporating power supplies.
Accounts of profits are rare in patent infringement disputes, and the main issue addressed by the Court was the correct legal approach to causation in an account of profits.
The judge first conducted a ‘differential profits’ analysis comparing the profits the Defendants actually made in the real world with those which the Defendants could hypothetically have made in a counterfactual world. The Defendants were permitted to propose hypothetical non-infringing activity in which they could have engaged (a departure from the rule to the contrary in United Horse Shoe (1888) 13 App Cas 40). The judge then followed the differential profits analysis with an apportionment exercise based upon the royalty provisions in a licence agreement between Lufthansa and a third party.
The Judge also considered a wide range of other legal and factual issues, including issues of estoppel and abuse with regards to patent claim construction, secondary liability under s.60(2) Patents Act 1977, and the German law on interpretation of IP licence agreements. Further, the decision covers the analysis and application of various accounting principles.
Hugo Cuddigan KC, Christopher Hall and Miruna Bercariu acted for Lufthansa. Piers Acland KC acted for Astronics, Safran and Panasonic.