Honeywell International Inc. v. Nokia Corporation

Federal Circuit

Honeywell International Inc. v. Nokia Corporation

615 F. App'x 688

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

DecidedSeptember 11, 2015

Docket2012-1373, 2012-1374

StatusUnpublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 615 F. App'x 688 (Honeywell International Inc. v. Nokia Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Honeywell International Inc. v. Nokia Corporation, 615 F. App'x 688 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PROST, Chief Judge.

Honeywell International Inc. and Honeywell Intellectual Properties Inc. (“Honeywell”) filed suit against numerous defendants in October 2004 for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,280,871 (“'371 patent”). On summary judgment, Judge Farnan, of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware ruled from the bench that the '371 patent was invalid for violation of the on-sale bar. Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Nikon Corp., 672 F.Supp.2d 638, 640 (D.Del.2009). This court affirmed Judge Farnan’s decision per curiam in February 2011. Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. Nokia Corp., 400 Fed.Appx. 557 (Fed.Cir.2010). After this court affirmed Judge Faman’s decision, the defendants filed Fees Motions under 35 U.S.C. § 285. On March 30, 2012, Judge Stark denied defendants’ Fees Motions. Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Nokia Corp., 2014 WL 2568041 (D.Del. May 30, 2014) (public version). The defendants each timely filed a Notice of Appeal.

During the pendency of this appeal, in a pair of decisions, the Supreme Court set aside our prior precedent under § 285. See Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1744, 188 L.Ed.2d 829 (2014); Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1749, 188 L.Ed.2d 816 (2014). “In those cases, the Court (i) rejected our precedent under § 285 that required both a showing of subjective bad faith and objective baselessness to find a case exceptional, (ii) lowered the burden of proof for proving a case exceptional, and (iii) changed the standard of review on appeal.” Checkpoint Sys. v. All-Tag Sec. S.A, 572 Fed.Appx. 988, 989 (Fed.Cir.2014).

As the district court applied our prior precedent under § 285, we vacate the district court’s decision on this issue and remand for further consideration of whether the ease should be deemed exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, in light of the Supreme Court’s guidance from Highmark and Octane Fitness.

VACATED AND REMANDED

Costs

Each party shall bear its own costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PROST, Chief Judge.

Honeywell International Inc. and Honeywell Intellectual Properties Inc. (“Honeywell”) filed suit against numerous defendants in October 2004 for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,280,871 (“'371 patent”). On summary judgment, Judge Farnan, of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware ruled from the bench that the '371 patent was invalid for violation of the on-sale bar. Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Nikon Corp., 672 F.Supp.2d 638, 640 (D.Del.2009). This court affirmed Judge Farnan’s decision per curiam in February 2011. Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. Nokia Corp., 400 Fed.Appx. 557 (Fed.Cir.2010). After this court affirmed Judge Faman’s decision, the defendants filed Fees Motions under 35 U.S.C. § 285. On March 30, 2012, Judge Stark denied defendants’ Fees Motions. Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Nokia Corp., 2014 WL 2568041 (D.Del. May 30, 2014) (public version). The defendants each timely filed a Notice of Appeal.

During the pendency of this appeal, in a pair of decisions, the Supreme Court set aside our prior precedent under § 285. See Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1744, 188 L.Ed.2d 829 (2014); Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1749, 188 L.Ed.2d 816 (2014). “In those cases, the Court (i) rejected our precedent under § 285 that required both a showing of subjective bad faith and objective baselessness to find a case exceptional, (ii) lowered the burden of proof for proving a case exceptional, and (iii) changed the standard of review on appeal.” Checkpoint Sys. v. All-Tag Sec. S.A, 572 Fed.Appx. 988, 989 (Fed.Cir.2014).

As the district court applied our prior precedent under § 285, we vacate the district court’s decision on this issue and remand for further consideration of whether the ease should be deemed exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, in light of the Supreme Court’s guidance from Highmark and Octane Fitness.

VACATED AND REMANDED

Costs

Each party shall bear its own costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

615 F. App'x 688, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/honeywell-international-inc-v-nokia-corporation-cafc-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack