<PAGE> 1
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): JULY 3,1996
LITTON INDUSTRIES, INC.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in charter)
Delaware 1-3998 95-1775499
(State or other (Commission (I.R.S. Employer
jurisdiction of File Number) Identification No.)
incorporation)
21240 Burbank Boulevard, Woodland Hills, California 91367
(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip code)
Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (818) 598-5000
Page 1 OF 3
<PAGE> 2
Item 5. Other
As previously reported by the Registrant, Litton Systems, Inc. ("Litton") is
suing Honeywell, Inc. ("Honeywell") for patent infringement relating to the
manufacture of ring laser gyro navigation systems which are used in commercial
aircraft. On August 31, 1993, a United States District Court jury rendered a
verdict in favor of Litton in the amount of $1.2 billion. On January 9, 1995,
United States District Court Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer released a Memorandum of
Decision finding Litton's patent invalid and rejecting the jury verdict. Litton
appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On July
3, 1996, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision reversing Judge Pfaelzer,
finding the patent valid and infringed by Honeywell. The Court of Appeals
reinstated the jury's verdict on liability including the findings of
interference with contract and prospective business advantage but ordered a new
trial on the amount of damages sustained by Litton.
In addition to the previously described litigation, in related litigation, and
as previously reported by the Registrant, Litton is also suing Honeywell on
antitrust grounds. After trial of that case in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, on February 29, 1996, the jury rendered
a verdict in favor of Litton. On July 25, 1996, United States District Court
Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer upheld the jury's verdict that Honeywell attempted to
illegally monopolize and did monopolize the market for inertial reference
systems for large commercial air transport, commuter and business aircraft.
However, Judge Pfaelzer declined to enter the $234 million jury verdict on the
basis that Litton's damage study as presented failed to disaggregate damages
between illegal and legal acts. The Judge ordered a new trial limited to the
issue of the amount of damages sustained by Litton attributable to Honeywell's
unlawful conduct.
Page 2 of 3
<PAGE> 3
SIGNATURE
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.
LITTON INDUSTRIES, INC.
(Registrant)
By /s/ John E. Preston
----------------------
John E. Preston
Senior Vice President
July 26, 1996
Page 3 of 3
