Legal Opinion
Honeywell International Inc. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp.
District Court, D. Delaware
Decided September 27, 2001No. CIV.A.99-309 GMSPublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
SLEET, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
On May 17, 1999, Honeywell International, Inc. (“Honeywell”) brought this action against Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation (Sundstrand) alleging that Sundstrand’s manufacture and sale of the APS 3200 infringes its 4,380,893 and 4,428,194 patents (the “ ’893 patent” and “ ’194 patent,” respectively). The patents-in-suit relate to technology for an airplane auxiliary power unit (“APU”). An APU is a small gas turbine engine, usually placed in the tail section of an airplane, that generates electricity for use while the aircraft is on the…
2Cases cited64 opinions
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Herbert Markman and Positek, Inc. v. Westview Instruments, Inc. And Althon Enterprises, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995
- Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Cybor Corporation v. Fas Technologies, Inc., and Fastar Ltd., Defendants-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
- Allied Chemical Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1980
59 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Honeywell International, Inc. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2008
- Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Medical, Inc.District Court, S.D. Indiana · 2006
- Honeywell International Inc. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2004
- Tristrata Technology, Inc. v. ICN Pharmaceuticals, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 2004
- Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Wing Shing Products (BVI) Ltd. (In Re AI Realty Marketing of New York, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · 2003
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.