Honeywell Internaitional Inc. v. Universal Avionics Systems Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “[T]he same infringing sales of the same infringing products under the ‘080 patents have already been tried in relation to the ‘436 patent.”
• collateral estoppel applied where the damages analyses did “not distinguish nor rely on the distinct and separate inventions of the” two patents-at-issue

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).