(1) Lufthansa Technik AG (a company incorporated in Germany) (Appellant/Claimant) v Astronics Advanced Electronic Systems & anr (Respondents/Defendants) (2) Astronics Advanced Electronic Systems & ors (Appellants) v Lufthansa Technik AG (Respondent) (3) Astronics Advanced Electronics Systems & anr (Appellants) v Lufthansa Technik AG (Respondent) (4) Lufthansa (Appellant) v Safran (Respondent)
Tuesday 7 – Friday 10 July 2026
(1) By Appellant’s Notice filed on 6 June 2025, the Appellant, Lufthansa Technik AG, seeks to appeal the decision of the High Court, delivered on 21 February and the dependent decision delivered on 30 April 2025.
Lufthansa previously succeeded in patent infringement claims against Astronics, Panasonic, and Safran. The dispute forms part of wider, long‑running litigation starting in Germany in 2010. UK proceedings began in 2017 (Astronics and Safran) and 2019 (Panasonic).
The court held Lufthansa was entitled to interest because once profits were earned, the defendants were treated as holding them for Lufthansa.
The Appellant argues that the legal framework for calculating profits wrongly reduced the number of profits they should have been awarded. Thus, the Appellant appeals the methodology that reduced the recoverable profit.
(2) By Appellant’s Notice filed on 6 June 2025, the Appellant, Astronics Advanced Systems Limited (Defendants below), seeks to appeal the decision of the High Court, delivered on 21 February and the dependent decision delivered on 30 April 2025.
Lufthansa succeeded in patent infringement claims against Astronics, Panasonic and Safran and chose an account of profits. The dispute forms part of wider, long‑running litigation starting in Germany in 2010. UK proceedings began in 2017 (Astronics and Safran) and 2019 (Panasonic).
The court held Lufthansa was entitled to interest because once profits were earned, the defendants were treated as holding them for Lufthansa. Astronics argues that the judge wrongly refused to make the profits award provisional, improperly downplaying the risk of double recovery and overlooking key factors such as Lufthansa’s potential windfall and the unresolved foreign proceedings. They also say the judge had no lawful basis to award interest, and challenge the interest rate selected.
(3) By Appellant’s Notice filed on 5 June 2025, the Appellants (Defendants below) Astronics Advanced Systems Limited and others, seek to appeal the decision of the High Court, delivered on 20 March 2025.
This matter concerns Lufthansa’s European patent relating to in‑seat power supply systems for aircraft. Astronics supplied components for such systems, Safran integrated them into seats, and Panasonic incorporated them into its in‑flight entertainment systems. The patent had already been upheld as valid and infringed in earlier proceedings
The court found that all defendants infringed: Astronics indirectly, Safran directly, and Panasonic under common design.
(4) By Appellant’s Notice filed on 10 June 2025 and issued on 12 June 2025 the Appellant appeals the decision of the High Court delivered on 30 April 2025 following trial.
This matter concerns an account of profits for patent infringement. The court held that it does have equitable jurisdiction to award interest on an account of profits. The court refused to make a provisional award or include a recital in the order to allow future adjustments.
View Hearing:
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4