Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-12-01373/USCOURTS-ca13-12-01373-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 

---

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., 

HONEYWELL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES INC.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees

v.

NOKIA CORPORATION, NOKIA, INC., SEIKO 

EPSON CORPORATION, ARGUS, TOSHIBA 

AMERICA, INC., ALL AROUND CO. LTD., BOEHYDIS TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD., PICVUE 

ELECTRONICS LIMITED,

Defendants

v.

FUJIFILM CORPORATION, FUJIFILM NORTH 

AMERICA CORPORATION (FORMERLY KNOWN 

AS FUJIFILM U.S.A., INC.),

Defendants-Appellants

SAMSUNG SDI CO. LTD., SAMSUNG SDI AMERICA 

INC.,

Defendants-Appellants

______________________ 

2012-1373, 2012-1374

______________________ 

Case: 12-1373 Document: 114-2 Page: 1 Filed: 09/11/2015
2 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. v. NOKIA CORPORATION

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

District of Delaware in Nos. 04-CV-1337, 04-CV-1338, 04-

CV-1536, 05-CV-0874, Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark.

______________________ 

Decided: September 11, 2015

______________________ 

MARTIN RICHARD LUECK, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & 

Ciresi, LLP, Minneapolis, MN, argued for plaintiffsappellees. Also represented by MATTHEW L. WOODS, 

STACIE ELIZABETH OBERTS, PETER N. SURDO. 

MATTHEW SIEGAL, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, 

New York, NY, argued for defendants-appellants Fujifilm 

Corporation, Fujifilm North America Corporation. Also 

represented by IAN DIBERNARDO, LAWRENCE ROSENTHAL. 

STEPHEN S. KORNICZKY, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & 

Hampton LLP, San Diego, CA, argued for defendantsappellants Samsung SDI Co. Ltd., Samsung SDI America 

Inc. Also represented by MICHAEL MURPHY, MARTIN 

BADER; EDWARD V. ANDERSON, Palo Alto, CA.

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and WALLACH,

Circuit Judges.

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. 5,280,371 (“’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 onsale bar. Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Nikon Corp., 672 F. Supp. 

2d 638, 640 (D. Del. 2009). This court affirmed Judge 

Case: 12-1373 Document: 114-2 Page: 2 Filed: 09/11/2015
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. v. NOKIA CORPORATION 3

Farnan’s decision per curiam in February 2011. Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. Nokia Corp., 400 F. App’x 557 (Fed. Cir. 

2010). After this court affirmed Judge Farnan’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., 134 S. Ct. 1744 (2014); Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON 

Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749 (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 F. App’x 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 case 

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.

Case: 12-1373 Document: 114-2 Page: 3 Filed: 09/11/2015