DOCSLIB.ORG

02-1909C • HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., and HONEYWELL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES INC., V. the UNITED STATES

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
02-1909C • HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., and HONEYWELL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES INC., V. the UNITED STATES In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 02-1909C Filed: April 14, 2008 TO BE PUBLISHED (CORRECTED) *************************************** * Anticipation, 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), (b); HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., * Best Mode; and HONEYWELL INTELLECTUAL * Definiteness, 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2; PROPERTIES INC., * Disclosure, 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1; * Enablement; Plaintiffs, * “First Sale” Doctrine; * Implied License; v. * Inequitable Conduct; * Jurisdiction; THE UNITED STATES, * Obviousness; * Ordinary Skill In The Art; Defendant, * Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a),(b), * 112, 282; LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP., * Patent Infringement Defenses; * Prior Art; Defendant-Intervenor, and, * Prosecution Laches; * Secondary Considerations; L-3 COMMUNICATIONS CORP., * Teaching Away; * Validity, 35 U.S.C. § 282. Defendant-Intervenor. * *************************************** Lawrence J. Gotts, Mark Koehn, and Elizabeth Miller Roesel, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP, Washington, D.C., Counsel for Plaintiffs. Christopher L. Crumbley and Trevor M. Jefferson, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch, Washington, D.C., Counsel for Defendant. Thomas J. Madden, Paul A. Debolt, and Justin E. Pierce, Venable, LLP, Washington, D.C., Counsel for Defendant-Intervenor, Lockheed Martin Corp. John Harbin, King & Spalding, Washington, D.C., Counsel for Defendant-Intervenor, L-3 Communications Corp. MEMORANDUM OPINION1 REGARDING PATENT INFRINGEMENT DEFENSES. The Government and Defendant-Intervenors have asserted ten patent infringement defenses including: validity; anticipation; obviousness; the written description requirement; enablement; best mode; definiteness; the “first sale” doctrine; inequitable conduct; and prosecution laches. The court has determined herein that claim 2 of the ‘914 patent was obvious and failed to meet the written description requirement of Section 112 ¶ 1 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 112. In addition, Honeywell is barred from recovering damages from the Government under the “First Sale” Doctrine. To facilitate a review of this Memorandum Opinion regarding the patent infringement defenses asserted in this case, the court has provided the following outline: I. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY. II. DISCUSSION. A. Jurisdiction And Standing. B. The Court’s Determination Regarding Scope And Content Of Prior Art. 1. The Parties’ Agreement Regarding Certain Prior Art Relevant In This Case. 2. The UCHIDA And STOLOV References Are Prior Art. 3. The REETZ THESIS Reference Is Not Prior Art. C. Defenses Asserted By The Government And Defendant-Intervenors. 1. Validity. 2. Anticipation. a. Claim Construction. 1 On April 3, 2008, a pre-publication draft of the Memorandum Opinion was provided under seal to the parties. The parties were instructed to propose any redactions on or before April 14, 2008. On April 14, 2008, this Memorandum Opinion was published.. 2 b. Comparison Of The Construed Claims Against The Prior Art. i. “A display system” ii. “for use in association with a light amplifying passive night vision aid” iii. “and a local color display” iv. “including a local source of light having blue, red, and green color bands” v. “a first filter for filtering the blue color band of the local source of light” vi. “a second filter for filtering the green color band of the local source of light” vii. “a third filter for filtering the red color band of the local source of light and passing a narrowband of the red color band” viii. “a fourth filter which filters light at the night vision aid, said fourth filter cooperating with said plurality of filters to substantially block at least said narrowband of the red color band from being admitted to the night vision aid” 3. Obviousness. a. Governing Precedent. b. The Scope And Content Of The Prior Art. c. The Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Art. d. The Differences Between The Prior Art And Claims At Issue. i. Comparison Of The Elements Of Claim 2 Of The ‘914 Parent With Prior Art. 3 (a) Claim 2 Preamble: “A Display System For Use In Association With A Light Amplifying Passive Night Vision Aid And A Local Color Display Including A Local Source Of Light Having Blue, Red, And Green Color Bands.” (1) Uncontested Prior Art. (2)TASK & GRIFFIN III And KNIGHT & RITTER. (3)GERMAN PATENT. (b) Claims 2(a), 2(a)(1), 2(a)(2): “A Plurality Of Filters At The Local Color Display including (1) A First Filter For Filtering The Blue Color Band Of The Local Source Of Light; (2) A Second Filter For Filtering The Green Color Band Of The Local Source Of Light.” (1)UCHIDA, STOLOV, and VERNEY. (2)TASK ARTICLES. (c) Claim 2(a)(3): “A Third Filter For Filtering The Red Color Band Of The Local Source Of Light And Passing A Narrowband Of The Red Color Band.” (1)TASK & GRIFFIN I And KNIGHT & RITTER. (2) BOEHM. (3)GERMAN PATENT. (4) SCOUGHTON. (5) VERNEY. (d) Claim 2(b): “A Fourth Filter Which Filters Light At The Night Vision Aid, Said Fourth Filter Cooperating With Said Plurality Of Filters To Substantially Block At Least Said Narrowband Of The Red Color Band From Being Admitted To The Night Vision Aid.” (1) BOEHM. 4 (2) TASK & GRIFFIN III. (3) GERMAN PATENT. (4) VERNEY. ii. Considerations Of The ‘914 Patent As A Whole. (a) Prior Art Combinations. (1) The Parties’ Arguments. (2) The Court’s Resolution. (b) Obvious to Combine The Prior Art. (1) The Parties’ Arguments. (2) The Courts Resolution. iii. Teaching Away. e. Secondary Considerations. i. Governing Precedent. ii. “Long Felt Need.” iii. “Failure Of Others.” iv. “Commercial Success.” 4. Defenses Set Forth In The First Paragraph Section 112 Of The Patent Act. a. The Written Description Requirement. b. Enablement. c. Best Mode. 5. Definiteness Defense Set Forth In The Second Paragraph Of Section 112 Of The Patent Act. 5 6. The “First Sale” Doctrine. 7. Inequitable Conduct. 8. Prosecution Laches. III. CONCLUSION. * * * , 3 I. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY. 2 The United States military uses night vision goggles (“NVG”) to assist pilots in operating rotary and fixed wing aircraft, because NVGs create a brighter night view of terrain outside the cockpit. See Honeywell III, 70 Fed. Cl. at 437-38. In addition, NVGs can amplify interior cockpit lights. Id. Dual amplification, however, can distort pilot vision by interrupting NVG functionality. Id. Aviation Night Vision Imaging System (“ANVIS”) goggles solved part of the distortion problem, because they were not sensitive to light with a visible wavelength below 580 nanometers (“nm”). Id. at 440. ANVIS also used “automatic gain control” to prevent intense light from overwhelming the sensors in the goggles. Id. In addition, automatic gain control reduced the intensity of all lights and the ability of pilots to see light outside, as well as inside, the cockpit. Id. Light with a wavelength above 580 nm, however, continued to limit the visible colors that could be used in the cockpit. Id. at 437-40. In the mid-1980’s, Mr. Richard Cohen, an employee of Allied Signal 2 Incorporated herein are four prior Memoranda Opinions of the court that provide an extensive discussion about the technology at issue in this patent case and the background of the patent at issue: Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 65 Fed. Cl. 809 (2005) (“Honeywell I”) (jurisdiction); Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 66 Fed. Cl. 400 (2005) (“Honeywell II”) (granting Lockheed Martin Corp. intervenor status and Markman proceedings to construe certain claims requested by the parties); Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 70 Fed. Cl. 424 (2006) (“Honeywell III”) (determining literal infringement, or alternatively, under the Doctrine of Equivalents as to claim 2 of the ‘914 Patent); and Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 71 Fed. Cl. 759 (2006) (“Honeywell IV”) (granting L-3 Communications Corp.’s Motion to Intervene). In addition, Honeywell’s claims under the Invention Secrecy Act as subject to a separate Memorandum Opinion also issued on this date. See Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. United States, __ Fed. Cl. __ (2008) (“Honeywell V”) (Invention Secrecy Act). 3 The procedural history of this case between December 18, 2002 and the June 14, 2005 Memorandum Opinion and Order is set forth in Honeywell II, 66 Fed. Cl. at 413-18. The procedural history of this case between June 14, 2005 and the April 28, 2006 Memorandum Opinion and Order is set forth in Honeywell III, 70 Fed. Cl. at 433-37. 6 Technologies, Inc. (“Allied Signal”)4, attempted to solve the problem of using red light and full-color displays in cockpits, together with NVGs. Id. On October 10, 1985, Allied Signal filed United States Patent Application Serial No. 06/786,269 (“the ‘269 Application”). Id. at 413-14, 444. On October 22, 2002, United States Patent No. 6,467,914 (“the ‘914 patent”) was issued to Honeywell. Id. On December 18, 2002, Honeywell International Inc. and Honeywell Intellectual Properties Inc. (collectively hereafter “Honeywell”) filed a Complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims alleging that the United States (“the Government”) violated: (1) the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951, 35 U.S.C. §§ 181-88, as a result of the Government’s issuance of Secrecy Orders regarding U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 06/786,268 (“the ‘268 Application”); (2) the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as a result of the Government’s taking of Honeywell’s ‘914 patent and related ‘269 Application; (3) 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a), as a result of the unlicensed, or otherwise unlawful, use of the U.S. Patent No. 6,142,637 (“the ‘637 patent”) and the ‘914 patent by or on behalf of the Government; and (4) the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution for the taking of the ‘637 and ‘914 patents for public use without just compensation. See Compl. ¶¶ 1, 53-75. (“Compl.”). On May 31, 2005, Honeywell filed an Amended Complaint (“Amend.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Waivers by Petitioner
    WAIVERS BY PETITIONER Waivers By Petitioner Petitioner Waiver Number Contact Numumber Waiver Status Status Date W (A) 1975-001 G 5/14/1975 W (A) 1975-001 G 5/14/1975 W (C) 1999-008 DE-SC02-99CH 10989 Gi 6/28/2000 W (C) 2001-001 DE-AC05-00OR22725 G1 5/23/2001 W (C) 2002-002 GI 10/15/2002 3M COMPANY W (A) 2000-012 DE-AC05-960R22464 GI 10/9/2001 W (A) 2004-038 DE-FC36-01AL67621 Gl 12/1/2004 3M INNOVATIVE PROPE W (A) 2003-002 DE-FC02-02CH 11111 GI 4/13/2004 A. B. CHANCE COMPAN W (1) 1978-029 C-170 WD 10/20/1980 ABB AIR PREHEATER, I W (A) 1993-024 G1 2/10/1994 ABB COMBUSTION ENG W (A) 1995-045 DE-FC36-95G01006 CL 12/22/1999 ABB POWER GENERATI W (A) 1995-035 GI 8/8/1996 ABB POWER T&D COMP W (A) 1998-016 G1 5/17/1999 ABB-CE COMPANY W (A) 1991-024 DE-AC04-76DP00789 GI 8/9/1993 ABENGOA BIOENERGY W (A) 2005-003 DE-FC36-03GO13142 P 1/14/2005 ACCELERATED DEPLO W (C) 1998-003 Gl 4/22/1998 ACUREX CORP. W (A) 1980-114 DE-FC02-80CS30264 G 1/22/1981 W (A) 1980-115 DE-FC02-80CS30265 G 1/22/1981 Wednesday, February 02, 2005 Page 1 of 155 Petitioner Waiver Number Contact Numumber Waiver Status Status Date W (A) 1980-116 DE-FC02-80CS30599 G 1/22/1981 ADA TECHNOLOGIES W (A) 2004-001 DE-FC26-04NT41988 GI 10/4/2004 ADELPHI UNIVERSITY W (A) 1978-072 CL 12/1/1978 W (1) 1978-052 EX-76-S-01-2437 G 10/9/1980 ADLER, HOWARD I.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Introduction
    1. INTRODUCTION Honeywell Intemational Inc. (fonnerly AlliedSignal, Inc.; referred to herein as Honeywell), is conducting aremedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) for Onondaga Lake, which is located near S)'Tacuse, New York (site definition is discussed in Section 1.2 of this RI). The RIfFS is being conducted under the direction of the State ofN ew York and pursuant to the terms of a Consent Decree (Index #89-CV -815) entered into with the State of New York dated January 9, 1992, and associated stipulations (Consent Decree). Onondaga Lake was placed on the USEP A National Priorities List (NFL) (CERCLIS ill number NYD986913580) on December 16, 1994. This NPL listing means that the lake is among the nation's highest priorities for remedial evaluation and responseunder the federal Superfillld law for ~iteswhere there has been a release ofhazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. Honeywell submitted a draft RI report in May 1998. Upon review and comment by the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEP A), the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), and the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH), the NYSDEC and the New York State Department of Law (NYSDOL) disapproved this draft document and provided comments to Ho~eywell in August 1999. After completing additional sampling in 1999 and 2000, Honeywell submitted a revised RI report in April 2001 (Exponent, 2001 c). This revised report was similarly disapproved by NYSDEC and NYSDOL in July 2001. Thereafter, pursuant to the Consent Decree, NYSDEC/T AMS Consultants, Inc. (TAMS) prepared this reMite of Honeywell' s revised RI report, with the assistance ofNYSDOH and USEP A.
    [Show full text]
  • The Tex Users Group Newsletter Editor Barbarabeeton
    Computers can make it easier, quicker, and cheaper to print formal publications; individuals can do what was once practical only for organizations. As the computer increases the freedom of writers, so does it increase the responsibility of readers. John Shore The Sachertorte Algorithm and other antidotes to computer anxiety, Penguin Books, 1986, pp. 18, 20 THE TEX USERS GROUP NEWSLETTER EDITOR BARBARABEETON VOLUME7, NUMBER2 a JUNE,1986 PROVIDENCE RHODEISLAND U.S.A. 90 TUGboat, Volume 7 (1986), No. 2 TUGboat TUGboat Editorial Committee The communications of the TEX Users Group are Barbara Beeton, Editor published irregularly at Providence, Rhode Island, Maureen Eppstein, Associate Editor for and are distributed as a benefit of membership both Applications to individual and institutional members. Georgia K.M. Tobin, Associate Editor of Font Submissions to TUGboat are for the most part Forum reproduced with minimal editing, and any questions Patrick Ion, Associate Editor for Macros and regarding content or accuracy should be directed Problems to the authors, with an information copy to the David Fuchs, Associate Editor for Output Devices Editor. Helmut Jiirgensen, Associate Editor for Software Alan Hoenig and Mitch Pfeffer, Associate Editors Submitting Items for Publication for Typesetting on Personal Computers The deadline for submitting items for Vol. 7, No. 3, See page 91 far addresses. is August 25, 1986; the issue will be mailed in late October. Manuscripts should be submitted to a member of the TUGboat Editorial Committee. -Articles of general interest, those not covered by any of the editorial departments listed, and all items submitted on magnetic tape or as carnera-ready copy should be addressed to the Editor, Barbara Beeton.
    [Show full text]
  • Honeywell International Inc. (Exact Name of Registrant As Specified in Its Charter)
    UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549 Form 10-K S ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 OR £ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the transition period from to Commission file number 1-8974 Honeywell International Inc. (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) Delaware 22-2640650 (State or other jurisdiction of (I.R.S. Employer incorporation or organization) Identification No.) 101 Columbia Road Morris Township, New Jersey 07962 (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code) Registrant’s telephone number, including area code (973) 455-2000 Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Name of Each Exchange Title of Each Class on Which Registered Common Stock, par value $1 per share* New York Stock Exchange Chicago Stock Exchange 1 9 /2% Debentures due June 1, 2016 New York Stock Exchange * The common stock is also listed on the London Stock Exchange. Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes S No £ Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act. Yes £ No S Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
    [Show full text]
  • Civil Service: Honeywell Aerospace
    Civil Service Leveraging its fixed-wing and military products, Honeywell Aerospace is expanding its offerings for civil rotorcraft By Robert W. Moorman espite the softening of civil The Honeywell HTS900 engine provides a high performance capability for the Bell 407HP, helicopter sales, Honeywell particularly at high altitude and hot ambient temperatures. (All photos courtesy of Honeywell DAerospace continues its long- Aerospace) term strategy to penetrate this sector Honeywell and Honeywell new helicopters supporting the oil and with numerous products ranging from BendixKing avionics, sensors and safety gas business particularly are down and sophisticated avionics and sensors products are on Leonardo Helicopters’ will remain flat for the next few years. to engines, safety and satellite-based AgustaWestland AW139, the Sikorsky The projected drop in deliveries will be connectivity technology. S-92 and S-76 variants, the Bell 429, and concentrated in the light-twin, medium- At a recent presentation, Honeywell on smaller, single-engine helicopters. twin and heavy-twin product classes. President and CEO Tim Mahoney said In addition to forward-fit products, In its 18th Annual Turbine Powered now was the time for the company to Honeywell has numerous supplemental Civil Helicopter Purchase Outlook, invest in the vertical-flight industry, so type certificates (STCs) for several Honeywell forecasts 4,300 to 4,800 as to be prepared when the oil and gas civil helicopters, including the Airbus civilian-use helicopters will be business recovers. Helicopters AS350, EC135 and Bell 407. delivered from 2016 to Among the key points in his Honeywell’s commitment to 2020, roughly 400 presentation, Mahoney noted that the the civil rotorcraft sector is laced helicopters lower company’s sales in avionics is up 6% with cautious optimism, than the 2015 five- vs.
    [Show full text]
  • Honeywell International Inc
    Section 1: 10-K (10-K) UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549 Form 10-K ☒ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019 OR ☐ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the transition period from to Commission file number 1-8974 Honeywell International Inc. (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) Delaware 22-2640650 (State or other jurisdiction of (I.R.S. Employer incorporation or organization) Identification No.) 300 South Tryon Street Charlotte, NC 28202 (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code) Registrant’s telephone number, including area code (704) 627-6200 Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Trading Title of Each Class Symbols Name of each exchange on which registered Common Stock, par value $1 per share* HON New York Stock Exchange 0.650% Senior Notes due 2020 HON 20 New York Stock Exchange 1.300% Senior Notes due 2023 HON 23A New York Stock Exchange 2.250% Senior Notes due 2028 HON 28A New York Stock Exchange * The common stock is also listed on the London Stock Exchange. Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ☒ No ☐ Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act.
    [Show full text]
  • The History of Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems LLC
    A Legacy Of Achievement … A Future With Promise The History Of Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems LLC Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems LLC, a member of the Knorr-Bremse group, develops and supplies leading-edge active safety technologies, air brake charging, and control systems and components under the Bendix ® brand name for medium and heavy duty trucks, tractors, trailers, buses, and other commercial vehicles throughout North America. An industry pioneer, employing more than 2,000 people, we are driven to deliver solutions for improved vehicle performance, safety, and overall operating costs. Our two primary market segments are Original Equipment Manufacturing (OEM) and Aftermarket (AM). Our OEM operation produces original equipment for major worldwide truck and engine manufacturers such as PACCAR, Detroit Diesel, Volvo, Mack, Daimler Trucks North America and Navistar International. The Aftermarket operations remanufacture a wide range of air brake components as well as stocking new replacement parts, both of which are distributed to independent distributors, OEM parts distribution centers and dealers, and government and foreign customers. In addition to our multi-building operations in Huntington, Indiana, manufacturing and distribution centers are strategically located across North America in Bowling Green, Kentucky; Acuña, Mexico; Sparks, Nevada; Mexico City, Mexico; along with Vancouver and Montreal, Canada. A Legacy Of Achievement Today’s Bendix ® automotive businesses began producing air brakes in a small corner of the Westinghouse Union Switch and Signal Company in Pennsylvania in the early 1920s. By 1930, Bendix Aviation Company and Westinghouse Air Brake joined forces to form Bendix- Westinghouse Automotive Air Brake Company, located in Wilmerding, Pennsylvania to produce air brakes for heavy vehicles.
    [Show full text]
  • Apps & Handhelds
    BendixKing - 1911 to Today The history of the Bendix name runs parallel to the development of King Radio until the mid-1980s, when the Allied Corporation purchased Bendix Aviation and King Radio and combined the two to create the now-renowned BendixKing brand of avionics. In late 1985, the Allied Corporation merged with the Signal Companies to become Allied-Signal. The name was further modified to AlliedSignal in 1993 to reinforce a one-company image and signify the full integration of its business. In 1999, AlliedSignal merged with Honeywell and adopted the Honeywell name to take advantage of the company's universal recognition throughout the industries it serves, as well as in households around the world. Shortly after the merger was completed, Honeywell announced that due to pilot recognition and loyalty, it would retain the BendixKing brand for its general aviation avionics. Today, we are known as BendixKing by Honeywell. In 2011, BendixKing established new business operations in Albuquerque, NM. The tradition of leadership and innovation continues with BendixKing. Along with our new business operations we have renewed our brand — and our promise — to design, build and support the best-performing, most innovative and cost-effective avionics products available for general aviation. Apps & Handhelds Apps and handheld devices. Portable applications from BendixKing. Audio & Accessories The BendixKing family also includes audio consoles and accessories to complete your panel. Displays BendixKing display technologies are the leading edge in aerospace. BendixKing displays are the benchmark standard in general aviation. Flight Controls & Indicators A pioneer in the flight control and indicator industry. GPS Nav Comm & Transponders The BendixKing family of avionics offers a complete line of GPS, navigation, communication and identification products.
    [Show full text]
  • Gao-14-588, National Nuclear Security Administration
    United States Government Accountability Office Report to the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives July 2014 NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Agency Expanded Use of Some Federal Oversight Reforms, but Is Still Determining Future Plans GAO-14-588 July 2014 NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Agency Expanded Use of Some Federal Oversight Highlights of GAO-14-588, a report to the Reforms, but Is Still Determining Future Plans Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found NNSA, a separately organized agency Key reforms at the National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) Kansas within DOE, has had long-standing City Plant (KCP)—a site in Missouri that manufactures electronic and other problems managing its contracts and nonnuclear components of nuclear weapons—included (1) streamlining operating projects, which GAO has identified as requirements by replacing Department of Energy (DOE) requirements with being at high risk for fraud, waste, industry standards, where appropriate; (2) refocusing federal oversight to rely on abuse, and mismanagement. Both contractor performance data for lower-risk activities; and (3) establishing clear DOE and, specifically, NNSA, contractor goals and incentives. A 2008 review of the reforms reported nearly undertook initiatives in 2002 and 2003 $14 million in cost reductions were achieved at the site by implementing these to improve contractor performance reforms. through revised federal oversight and greater contractor accountability. In NNSA and KCP federal and contractor staff identified key factors that facilitated 2006, concerned that efforts were implementation of reforms at KCP, including the following: moving too slowly, the NNSA Administrator tasked its KCP Field • High-level support from NNSA and field office leadership.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT of NEW YORK UNITED STATES of AMERICA, Plaintiff, V. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC
    Case 5:17-cv-01364-FJS-DEP Document 1 Filed 12/20/17 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No.: 5:17-cv-1364 (FJS/DEP) ) HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. ) ) and ) ) ONONDAGA COUNTY, NEW YORK, ) ) Defendants. ) ) COMPLAINT Plaintiff, the United States of America, by authority of the Attorney General of the United States and through the undersigned counsel, acting at the request of the Secretary of the United States Department of Interior (“DOI”), files this complaint and alleges as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is a civil action brought pursuant to Section 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a), for damages for injury to, destruction of, or loss of natural resources, including the reasonable costs of assessing such injury, destruction, or loss, resulting from the releases of hazardous substances at or from defendants’ facilities at the Onondaga Lake Superfund Site (“Site”) in Syracuse, Onondaga County, New York. Case 5:17-cv-01364-FJS-DEP Document 1 Filed 12/20/17 Page 2 of 11 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and over the parties under 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1345, and Sections 107(a) and 113(b) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9607(a) and 9613(b). 3. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and Section 113(b) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Implications of R&D Investment on Dynamic Business
    Portland State University PDXScholar Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses 1989 Strategic Implications of R&D Investment on Dynamic Business Systems George F. Farrimond Jr. Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Farrimond, George F. Jr., "Strategic Implications of R&D Investment on Dynamic Business Systems" (1989). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 1399. https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.1398 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS OF R&D INVESTMENT ON DYNAMIC BUSINESS SYSTEMS by GEORGE F. FARRIMOND, JR. A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in SYSTEMS SCIENCE Portland State University ~1989 TO THE OFFICE OF GRADUATE STUDIES: The members of the Committee approve the dissertation of George F. Farrimond presented July 10, 1989. r W er G. Ellis Richard M. Straw APPROVED: Martin Zwick, School of Systems Science C. William Savery, Int m Vice Provost for Graduate Studies and Research ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In a project of this magnitude, you find that many people lend support, assistance, expertise, and encouragement. I am indebted to all who so willingly gave of their time, talents, and support. I wish to especially thank Lewis N. Goslin, Dissertation Committee Chairperson, for his advice, review, inspiration, and long standing support.
    [Show full text]
  • EEOICPA PROGRAM – National Security Campus
    National Nuclear Security Administration Federal Manufacturing & Technologies EEOICPA PROGRAM – National Security Campus Stacey Eide | January 29, 2015 The Department of Energy’s National Security Campus is operated and managed by Honeywell Federal Manufacturing & Technologies, LLC under contract number DE-NA0000622 History National Nuclear Security Administration Federal Manufacturing & Technologies • The Kansas City Plant has been operated by the same Management & Operations (M & O) contractor since 1949 • The contractor’s company has changed names through mergers or acquisitions (Bendix, Allied, Allied-Signal and now Honeywell FM&T) • Bendix began to make parts for nuclear weapons at KCP in 1949 • Original building that housed KCP was constructed in 1942 to build aircraft engines • KCP moved to a new facility in 2013 • New facility is referred to as the National Security Campus (NSC) National Nuclear Security Administration Federal Manufacturing & Technologies A Rich Site History • 1922 - Kansas City Speedway • 1942 - Building construction and occupant - Pratt & Whitney Aircraft • 1949 - The Atomic Energy Commission and the Bendix Corporation HISTORY National Nuclear Security Administration Federal Manufacturing & Technologies 2011 – The Kansas City Plant Mergers and Honeywell - - - - - - - - 1983 – 1942 - Building construction and occupant - Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Allied 1999 – Honeywell 2012 – NSC 1949 - The Atomic Energy Commission and the Bendix Corporation National Nuclear Security Administration Federal Manufacturing & Technologies
    [Show full text]