SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 8-K
CURRENT REPORT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): April 7, 1998
Honeywell Inc.
-----------------------------------------------------
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Delaware 1-971 41-0415010
---------------- ---------------- --------------------
(State or other (Commission (IRS Employer
jurisdiction of File Number) Identification No.)
incorporation)
Honeywell Plaza
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55408
---------------------------------------
(Address of principal executive offices)
Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (612) 951-1000
Not Applicable
------------------------------------------------------------
(Former name or former address, if changed since last report)
<PAGE>
Item 5. Other Events.
------------
On April 7, 1998, a three judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit (the `Federal Circuit') issued its second decision in the
Litton Systems, Inc. v. Honeywell Inc. patent/tort case which had been remanded
by the U.S. Supreme Court to the Federal Circuit panel for reconsideration in
light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the WARNER-JENKINSON V. HILTON-
DAVIS case. In its decision, the Federal Circuit panel:
1. Affirmed the trial court's grant of Judgement As a Matter of Law (`JMOL')
that Honeywell's hollow cathode and RF ion beam processes do not literally
infringe the asserted claims of Litton's `849 reissue patent (`Litton's
patent');
2. Vacated the trial court's grant of JMOL that Honeywell's RF ion beam
process does not infringe the asserted claims of Litton's patent under the
doctrine of equivalents, vacated the jury's verdict on that issue, and
remanded that issue to the U.S. District Court, Central District of
California (the `trial court') for further proceedings;
3. Vacated the jury's verdict that Honeywell's hollow cathode process
infringes the asserted claims of Litton's patent under the doctrine of
equivalents and remanded that issue to the trial court for further
proceedings;
4. Reversed the trial court's grant of JMOL with respect to the torts of
intentional interference with contractual relations and intentional
interference with prospective economic advantage, vacated the jury's
verdict on that issue, and remanded the issue to the trial court for
further proceedings;
5. Affirmed the trial court's grant of a new trial to Honeywell on damages, if
necessary;
6. Affirmed the trial court's order granting intervening rights to Honeywell;
7. Reversed the trial court's grant of JMOL and reinstated the jury's verdict
that the asserted claims of Litton's patent are not invalid for
obviousness; and
8. Reversed the trial court's determination that Litton had obtained its `849
reissue patent through inequitable conduct.
Litton has indicated that it will seek further appellate review of this decision
and an expedited scheduling of the pending antitrust damages only retrial before
Judge Pfaelzer. Honeywell intends to vigorously oppose any such actions by
Litton.
On April 8, 1998, the Registrant issued a News Release regarding the foregoing,
a copy of which is filed herewith as Exhibit 99(i). Further information
regarding these matters is set forth in Part II, Item 1 of the Registrant's
Annual Report on Form 10K for the year ended December 31, 1997, as filed with
the Commission on March 18, 1998.
<PAGE>
Item 7. Financial Statements and Exhibits.
---------------------------------
(c) Exhibits:
99(i) Honeywell Inc. News Release dated April 8, 1998.
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.
HONEYWELL INC.
By: /s/ Edward D. Grayson
--------------------------
Edward D. Grayson
Vice President and
General Counsel
Date: April 20, 1998
<PAGE>
INDEX TO EXHIBITS
Exhibit No.
- ----------
99(i) Honeywell Inc. News Release dated April 8, 1998.
Exhibit 99(i)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Melissa Young
612-951-0773
[email protected]
HONEYWELL PLEASED WITH FEDERAL APPEALS COURT RULING
LITTON PATENT CASE REMANDED TO DISTRICT COURT
MINNEAPOLIS, APRIL 8, 1998 - Honeywell Inc. said it is very pleased with
yesterday's decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to return
the LITTON SYSTEMS INC. V. HONEYWELL INC. patent and business interference case
back to the district court for further proceedings. The case relates to mirror
technology for ring laser gyroscopes used in navigation systems for commercial
aircraft.
`The Federal Circuit vacated jury findings on patent infringement and state
torts and also made certain infringement rulings favorable to Honeywell. We
believe the case is now much better positioned for us to show Litton's improper
attempts to recover in court what it gave up in the Patent Office nine years
ago,' said Edward D. Grayson, Honeywell vice president and general counsel.
`This ruling does not conclude the matter, and Litton may even seek further
appellate review before the case returns to the trial court. We are optimistic
that when the case is finally concluded there will be a favorable result for
Honeywell.'
Honeywell is a global controls company focused on creating value through
technology that enhances comfort, improves productivity, saves energy, protects
the environment and increases safety. The company services customers worldwide
in the homes and building, industrial, and aviation and space markets.
Honeywell employs 57,500 people in 95 countries, and had 1997 sales of $8
billion.
