Legal Opinion
Honeywell International Inc. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided April 14, 2008No. 02-1909CPublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION1 REGARDING PATENT INFRINGEMENT DEFENSES.
SUSAN G. BRADEN, Judge.
The Government and Defendant-Interve-nors have asserted ten patent infringement defenses including: validity; anticipation; obviousness; the written description requirement; enablement; best mode; definiteness; the “first sale” doctrine; inequitable conduct; and prosecution laches.
The court has determined herein that claim 2 of the '914 patent was obvious and failed to meet the written description requirement of Section 112 ¶ 1 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 112. In addition, Honeywell is barred from recovering…
2Cases cited88 opinions
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2007
- United States v. AbelSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- United States v. AdamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
83 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Honeywell International, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2010
- Honeywell International Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2008
- Honeywell International, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2010
- Honeywell International Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2012
- Honeywell International, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2010
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.