Patent Case Watch

Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

In re Honeywell International Inc., No. 16-1839 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 6, 2017)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 16-1839
Decided
April 6, 2017
Judge
Per curiam (Rule 36)
Document
Rule 36 Judgment
Length
2 pages
Download Opinion (PDF)

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit IN RE: HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.,

Appellant 2016-1839

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 95/002,037.

JUDGMENT

ROBERT WILLIAM MOLITORS, Miles & Stockbridge PC, Tysons Corner, VA, argued for appellant. Also represented by KURT CHARLES ROMMEL, MICHAEL ANTHONY MESSINA.

MEREDITH HOPE SCHOENFELD, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria Virginia, argued for Intervenor Michelle K. Lee. Also represented by NATHAN K. KELLY, SCOTT WEIDENFELLER, JOSEPH MATAL, THOMAS W. KRAUSE, MOLLY R. SILFEN.

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

2PER CURIAM (TARANTO, SCHALL, and STOLL, Circuit

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT April 6, 2017 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

In re Honeywell International Inc., No. 16-1839 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 6, 2017).

Record ID
CAFC-16-1839-20170406
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-16-1839-20170406

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.

Source: Federal Circuit opinions and orders · retrieved August 15, 2026 · Report an error