Cases

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued March 30, 2022 Decided August 30, 2022 No. 21-5179 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., APPELLANT Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:08-cv-00

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA __________________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 08-0961 (PLF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA __________________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 08-0961 (PLF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 08-0961 (PLF) ) HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL IN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA __________________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 08-0961 (PLF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 08-0961 (PLF) ) HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL IN

*965ORDER RE CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Sharon L. Gleason, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Before the Court are Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment at Docket 220 and Relators’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment at Docket 225. The motions have been fully briefed; 1 oral argument was held on October 17, 2016.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER PAUL L. FRIEDMAN, United States District Judge This matter is before the Court on the United States’ Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint [Dkt. 136]. 1 Upon consideration of the parties’ written submissions, the relevant ease law, and the oral arguments pres

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER RICHARD W. ROBERTS, Chief Judge The government filed a complaint against defendant Honeywell International, Inc., alleging violations of the False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-33, as well as a common law unjust enrichment claim in connection with the sale of Zylon body armor shields. The government mov

MEMORANDUM OPINION JOHN M. FACCIOLA, United States Magistrate Judge. Currently pending and ready for resolution is Defendant Honeywell International Inc.’s Motion for Sanctions and Motion to Compel Against the United States of America [#46]. 1 For the reasons stated below, the m

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ______________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 08-961 (RWR) ) HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., ) ) Defendant. ) _________________

MEMORANDUM ORDER RICHARD W. ROBERTS, District Judge. The government brings claims against defendant Honeywell International, Inc. (“Honeywell”) for alleged violations of the False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-33, as well as for common law unjust enrichment, in connection with the sale of Zylon body armor containing “Z Shield” ballist

798 F.Supp.2d 12 (2011) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., Defendant. Civil Action No. 08-961 (RWR). United States District Court, District of Columbia. July 8, 2011. *15 Albert Thomas Morris, Alicia J. Bentley, Callie R. Owen, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

(2008) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Alpheus Kaplan, Nehemiah Development Company, Defendants. Alpheus Kaplan and Nehemiah Development Company, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Honeywell International, Inc., Amcal, Kirk L. Bryson, Genevieve Fuller, John B. Allen, Sr., Janet Allen, John Munn and Ann Munn, Elgin Bowers and Carolyn Bowers, Associated Engineers and Planners, Inc., Warren Noteware, James M

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 18-249C (Filed: February 25, 2019) ) Keywords: Nuclear Regulatory HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., ) Commission; Illegal Exaction; Civil ) Penalties; Civil Sanctions; Enforcement Plaintiff, )

Slip Op. 25-13 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff, Before: Mark A. Barnett, Chief Judge v. Court No. 17-00256 UNITED STATES, Defendant. OPINION [Court grants Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denies Defe

*661MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON REMAND REGARDING THE INVENTION SECRECY ACT AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT DAMAGES Susan G. Braden, Judge This Memorandum Opinion first addresses the issues to be adjudicated on remand under the Invention Secrecy Act, 35 U.S.C. §§ 181-88 (“the Invention Secrecy Act”), and then turns to patent infringement damages to which Hone

ON PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING ORDER PER CURIAM. Combined petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc were filed by the appellees. A response was invited by the panel and filed by Honeywell International, Inc. That was followed by L-3 Communications Corporation’s Motion for Leave to File a Reply in Support of its Petition for Rehearing. It Is OrdeRed That:

MAYER, Circuit Judge, dissenting-in-part. In my view the trial court correctly decided that claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 6,467,914 (“the '914 patent”) is invalid as obvious, that U.S. Patent Application No. 06/786,269 (“the '269 application”), which eventually issued as the '914 patent, did not fully disclose the invention of claim 2 of the '914 patent, and that Honeywell International Inc. and Honeywell Intellec

ON PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING ORDER PER CURIAM. Combined petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc were filed by the appellees. A response was invited by the panel and filed by Honeywell International, Inc. That was followed by L-3 Communications Corporation’s Motion for Leave to File a Reply in Support of its Petition for Rehearing. It Is OrdeRed That: