8-K

                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549
                                        
                                        
                                    FORM 8-K
                                        
                                 CURRENT REPORT
                                        
                                        
                     PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF THE
                         SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
                                        
Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported):  April 7, 1998

                                 Honeywell Inc.
              -----------------------------------------------------
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

    Delaware                   1-971                  41-0415010
 ----------------         ----------------        --------------------
 (State or other          (Commission             (IRS Employer
  jurisdiction of          File Number)            Identification No.)
  incorporation)

                                 Honeywell Plaza
                          Minneapolis, Minnesota 55408
                     ---------------------------------------
                    (Address of principal executive offices)

Registrant's telephone number, including area code:    (612) 951-1000

                                 Not Applicable
          ------------------------------------------------------------
          (Former name or former address, if changed since last report)


Item 5.   Other Events.
          ------------

On April 7, 1998, a three judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit (the `Federal Circuit') issued its second decision in the
Litton Systems, Inc. v. Honeywell Inc. patent/tort case which had been remanded
by the U.S. Supreme Court to the Federal Circuit panel for reconsideration in
light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the WARNER-JENKINSON V. HILTON-
DAVIS case.  In its decision, the Federal Circuit panel:

1.   Affirmed the trial court's grant of Judgement As a Matter of Law (`JMOL')
     that Honeywell's hollow cathode and RF ion beam processes do not literally
     infringe the asserted claims of Litton's `849 reissue patent (`Litton's
     patent');

2.   Vacated the trial court's grant of JMOL that Honeywell's RF ion beam
     process does not infringe the asserted claims of Litton's patent under the
     doctrine of equivalents, vacated the jury's verdict on that issue, and
     remanded that issue to the U.S. District Court, Central District of
     California (the `trial court') for further proceedings;

3.   Vacated the jury's verdict that Honeywell's hollow cathode process
     infringes the asserted claims of Litton's patent under the doctrine of
     equivalents and remanded that issue to the trial court for further
     proceedings;

4.   Reversed the trial court's grant of JMOL with respect to the torts of
     intentional interference with contractual relations and intentional
     interference with prospective economic advantage, vacated the jury's
     verdict on that issue, and remanded the issue to the trial court for
     further proceedings;

5.   Affirmed the trial court's grant of a new trial to Honeywell on damages, if
     necessary;

6.   Affirmed the trial court's order granting intervening rights to Honeywell;

7.   Reversed the trial court's grant of JMOL and reinstated the jury's verdict
     that the asserted claims of Litton's patent are not invalid for
     obviousness; and

8.   Reversed the trial court's determination that Litton had obtained its `849
     reissue patent through inequitable conduct.

Litton has indicated that it will seek further appellate review of this decision
and an expedited scheduling of the pending antitrust damages only retrial before
Judge Pfaelzer.  Honeywell intends to vigorously oppose any such actions by
Litton.

On April 8, 1998, the Registrant issued a News Release regarding the foregoing,
a copy of which is filed herewith as Exhibit 99(i).  Further information
regarding these matters is set forth in Part II, Item 1 of the Registrant's
Annual Report on Form 10K for the year ended December 31, 1997, as filed with
the Commission on March 18, 1998.


Item 7.   Financial Statements and Exhibits.
          ---------------------------------

(c)  Exhibits:

     99(i) Honeywell Inc. News Release dated April 8, 1998.


                                   SIGNATURES

     Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

                                        HONEYWELL INC.

                                        By: /s/ Edward D. Grayson
                                            --------------------------
                                              Edward D. Grayson
                                              Vice President and
                                              General Counsel

Date: April 20, 1998


                                INDEX TO EXHIBITS


Exhibit No.
- ----------
  99(i)        Honeywell Inc. News Release dated April 8, 1998.

EX-99

                                  Exhibit 99(i)




FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                          CONTACT:  Melissa Young
                                                          612-951-0773
                                      melissa.young@corp.honeywell.com


               HONEYWELL PLEASED WITH FEDERAL APPEALS COURT RULING
                  LITTON PATENT CASE REMANDED TO DISTRICT COURT

     MINNEAPOLIS, APRIL 8, 1998 - Honeywell Inc. said it is very pleased with

yesterday's decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to return

the LITTON SYSTEMS INC. V. HONEYWELL INC. patent and business interference case

back to the district court for further proceedings.  The case relates to mirror

technology for ring laser gyroscopes used in navigation systems for commercial

aircraft.

     `The Federal Circuit vacated jury findings on patent infringement and state

torts and also made certain infringement rulings favorable to Honeywell.  We

believe the case is now much better positioned for us to show Litton's improper

attempts to recover in court what it gave up in the Patent Office nine years

ago,' said Edward D. Grayson, Honeywell vice president and general counsel.

`This ruling does not conclude the matter, and Litton may even seek further

appellate review before the case returns to the trial court.  We are optimistic

that when the case is finally concluded there will be a favorable result for

Honeywell.'


     Honeywell is a global controls company focused on creating value through
technology that enhances comfort, improves productivity, saves energy, protects
the environment and increases safety.  The company services customers worldwide
in the homes and building, industrial, and aviation and space markets.
Honeywell employs 57,500 people in 95 countries, and had 1997 sales of $8
billion.