Lufthansa Technik AG v Astronics Advanced Electronic Systems & Anor [2023] EWHC 2547 (Pat) (10 October 2023)

Lufthansa Technik AG v Astronics Advanced Electronic Systems & Anor [2023] EWHC 2547 (Pat) (10 October 2023)

There was no accidental slip, omission, or manifest mistake in the order or judgment of August 2020. The order faithfully reflected the court's intention at the time, which was that the Adjourned Issues no longer needed to be determined and were not to be pursued at the quantum hearing. The application to correct or vary the order does not fall within the scope of CPR 40.12 or CPR 3.1(7).

Citation
[2023] EWHC 2547 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: Lufthansa Technik AG; Defendant: Astronics Advanced Electronic Systems; Defendant: Safran Seats GB Limited; Defendant: Panasonic Avionics Corporation
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Patents Application to Vary/correct Order / Post Judgment Application (application to Vary/correct Order Under CPR 40.12 and 3.1(7))
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Patents, Infringement, Costs, Slip Rule (cpr 40.12), Variation/revocation of Orders (cpr 3.1(7)), Finality of Judgments
Intellectual Property Law Civil Procedure Patents Infringement Costs Slip Rule (cpr 40.12) Variation/revocation of Orders (cpr 3.1(7)) Finality of Judgments

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lufthansa Technik AG

Claimant

Astronics Advanced Electronic Systems

Defendant

Safran Seats GB Limited

Defendant

Panasonic Avionics Corporation

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patents Application to Vary/correct Order / Post Judgment Application (application to Vary/correct Order Under CPR 40.12 and 3.1(7))

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should correct or vary its previous order under CPR 40.12 (slip rule) or CPR 3.1(7) to allow the claimant to pursue previously adjourned issues at the quantum stage.
  2. 2 Whether the original order and judgment intended to preclude the claimant from raising the Adjourned Issues at the quantum hearing.
  3. 3 Whether there was a manifest mistake or accidental slip in the formulation of the order.

Ratio Decidendi

There was no accidental slip, omission, or manifest mistake in the order or judgment of August 2020. The order faithfully reflected the court's intention at the time, which was that the Adjourned Issues no longer needed to be determined and were not to be pursued at the quantum hearing. The application to correct or vary the order does not fall within the scope of CPR 40.12 or CPR 3.1(7).

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application to correct or vary the order of August 2020 under CPR 40.12 or CPR 3.1(7) is dismissed.