English High Court denies appeal against Lufthansa’s patent win
In a victory for Lufthansa, the English High Court has upheld a ruling that its patent was infringed and ordered Japanese electronics company Panasonic, and Safran Seats to pay costs of more than $2.5 million (£1.9 million) to the German airline.
The decision handed down on Friday 21, August, follows a judgment issued on July 22, in which Justice Paul Morgan found Lufthansa’s patent to be valid and infringed by a Panasonic division, US aerospace corporation Astronics, and British aeroplane seat manufacturer Safran Seats.
The dispute arose over an aeroplane plug socket patent, EP 0,881,145 B, owned by Lufthansa, which covers an apparatus for supplying high-voltage in an aeroplane cabin, allowing passengers to plug a device into a socket at their seat.
Previous aeroplane sockets were only capable of providing low voltage, and required the use of an adapter to plug devices in. In July, Panasonic had argued the patent was invalid because it was obvious owing to an 1986 US patent, referred to in the judgment as “Neuenschwander”, as well as an 1989 patent known as “Sellati”. The court, however, disagreed.
Following the ruling, Panasonic applied for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, which was denied by Justice Morgan last Friday. Lufthansa argued that its total costs were in excess of £1.9 million, including costs “of approximately £50,000 in relation to the adjourned issues”.
Panasonic and Safran Seats had argued that they should not be liable for the costs of the adjourned issues because they had not been decided by the court. Justice Morgan disagreed, stating that: “I consider that it is appropriate for the claimant to recover the costs of the adjourned issues. Those issues were put forward as alternative ways in which the claimant sought to establish that each defendant had infringed the patent.”
He added that because “overall, the claimant succeeded and the defendants failed on infringement”, it was a just result that Lufthansa, “should recover all of its costs in relation to infringement and that those costs should include not only the costs incurred in relation to the arguments which succeeded but also in relation to arguments which did not need to be decided and in relation to the adjourned issues”.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories sent like this straight to your inbox.√
