Lufthansa Technik AG v Astronics Advanced Electronics Systems & Ors [2022] EWCA Civ 20 (14 January 2022)

Lufthansa Technik AG v Astronics Advanced Electronics Systems & Ors [2022] EWCA Civ 20 (14 January 2022)

The correct construction of 'inserted in the socket' in claim 1 requires full insertion of the plug, and 'remotely' requires the supply device to be kept away from the socket to avoid danger to passengers. On these constructions, the claims are novel and inventive over the cited prior art, and the patent is not insufficient for uncertainty. The appeal is dismissed on all grounds.

Citation
[2022] EWCA Civ 20
Parties
Respondent: Lufthansa Technik AG; Appellant: Astronics Advanced Electronics Systems; Appellant: Safran Seats GB Limited; Appellant: Panasonic Avionics Corporation
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Patent Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Patent Claim Construction, Novelty, Obviousness, Insufficiency, Infringement
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Claim Construction Novelty Obviousness Insufficiency Infringement

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lufthansa Technik AG

Respondent

Astronics Advanced Electronics Systems

Appellant

Safran Seats GB Limited

Appellant

Panasonic Avionics Corporation

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Patent Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction of 'inserted in the socket' and 'remotely' in claim 1 of the patent
  2. 2 Whether claims 1 and 2 are invalid for lack of novelty or obviousness over prior art (Neuenschwander, Sellati)
  3. 3 Whether the patent is insufficient for uncertainty regarding 'remotely'

Ratio Decidendi

The correct construction of 'inserted in the socket' in claim 1 requires full insertion of the plug, and 'remotely' requires the supply device to be kept away from the socket to avoid danger to passengers. On these constructions, the claims are novel and inventive over the cited prior art, and the patent is not insufficient for uncertainty. The appeal is dismissed on all grounds.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed on all grounds
  • Permission to appeal on novelty of claim 1 over Neuenschwander refused