Honeywell International Inc. has taken a proactive stance against what it describes as "unwarranted and unfounded" patent litigation by filing a declaratory judgment action in the Western District of North Carolina against...more
In this edition of The Precedent, we outline the recent federal circuit decision in Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. 3G Licensing, S.A. (Fed. Cir. Jan. 2, 2025). The Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (the...more
Swiss company Scandit AG created an application called ShelfView, which enables retailers to verify the prices of various products and ensure that associated promotions are correctly updated. The application utilizes barcode...more
A few weeks from now will be the 45thanniversary of the landmark patent decision, Honeywell, Inc. v. Sperry Rand Corp., et al., 180 U.S.P.Q. 673 (D. Minn. 1973). In that decision, issued on October 19, 1973, Judge Larson of...more
The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals again vacated a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) panel decision for failing to properly evaluate “objective evidence of non-obviousness” and remanded the case for determinations...more
The indefiniteness standard has, until recently, been very high—only an “insolubly ambiguous claim” was considered indefinite (see, e.g., Honeywell Intern., Inc. v. International Trade, 341 F. 3d 1332, 1338–9 (Fed. Cir....more
The Supreme Court of Virginia’s recent opinion in Harman v. Honeywell International, Inc., Case No. 130627 (June 5, 2014) contains a wealth of analysis on a number of evidentiary rules that every trial lawyer will likely...more