================================================================================
                             UNITED STATES
                       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


                                January 28, 1999
                                 Date of Report
                        (Date of earliest event reported)



                         Commission file number 0-22418

                                   ITRON, INC.
             (Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

               Washington                         91-1011792
        (State of Incorporation) (I.R.S. Employer Identification Number)


                            2818 North Sullivan Road
                         Spokane, Washington 99216-1897
                                 (509) 924-9900
   (Address and telephone number of Registrant's principal executive offices)



================================================================================



Item 5. Other Information

On October 3, 1996, Itron filed a patent  infringement suit against CellNet Data
Systems  ("CellNet")  in the United  States  District  Court for the District of
Minnesota,  alleging that CellNet  infringes the Company's  United States Patent
No. 5,553,094,  entitled "Radio Communication Network for Remote Data Generating
Stations,"  which was  issued on  September  3,  1996.  The  Company  is seeking
injunctive  relief as well as monetary  damages,  costs and attorneys'  fees.

On January 28, 1999,  the Court issued its decision on motions and cross motions
for summary judgement that had previously been filed by the Company and CellNet.
In its decision, the Court granted the Company's motion on the issue of validity
of its Patent and denied  CellNet's  motions on  invalidity.  The Court  granted
CellNet's  motion on the issue of  non-infringement  and  denied  the  Company's
motion on infringement.  The Company believes the  non-infringement  decision is
incorrect  and that is has  substantial  grounds for an appeal from any judgment
that may be entered, should the Company decide to pursue that option.