466 F.2d 714 (10th Cir. 1972), 72-1058, Wilkin v. Sunbeam Corp.
|Citation:||466 F.2d 714, 175 U.S.P.Q. 139|
|Party Name:||Kathleen K.WILKIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUNBEAM CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.|
|Case Date:||August 30, 1972|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit|
Rehearing Denied Oct. 2, 1972.
John H. Widdowson, Wichita, Kan. (Robert C. Allan and Everett C.Fettis, Wichita, Kan., on the brief), for plaintiff- appellant.
Malcolm Miller, Wichita, Kan. (Robert C. Foulston, Wichita, Kan., George R. Clark and Walther E. Wyss, Chicago, Ill., Foulston, Siefkin, Power & Eberhardt, Wichita, Kan., and Mason, Kolehmainen, Rathburn & Wyss, Chicago, Ill., of counsel, on the brief), for defendant- appellee.
Before BREITENSTEIN, HILL and DOYLE, Circuit Judges.
BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judge.
This case is here for the third time. Plaintiff-appellant Wilkin seeks review of the trial court's denial of relief under Rule 60(b), F.R.Civ.P.
Plaintiff sued defendant-appellee Sunbeam Corp. alleging that Sunbeam obtained from her secret information concerning a novel device, given in cofidence, and used by Sunbeam to its benfit. After trial, judgment was entered for Sunbeam on the jury's verdict. On appeal we affirmed, Wilkin v. Sunbeam Corp., 10 Cir., 377 F.2d 344, and certiorari was denied, 389 U.S. 973, 88 S.Ct. 472, 19 L.Ed.2d 464. Later, plaintiff filed a motion in this court for Rule 60 (b) relief. We held that the issues raised were for trial court determination. Wilkin v. Sunbeam Corp., 10 Cir., 405 F.2d 165.
Plaintiff conceived a device for cooking or toasting sandwiches, pies, and other preparations containing fillers. Plaintiff's husband demonstrated the device to Sunbeam which said that it had no interest. Later, Sunbeam made and marketed a device which accomplished many of the results of plaintiff's device. After the filing of the complaint but before trial, the Patent Office rejected plaintiff's application for a patent on the device.
At the trial, it was shown that Sunbeam employed an investigator to determine the status of plaintiff's patent application
and the commercial use of her device. This phase of the case was submitted for jury consideration. In our first opinion, we held that the issues of novelty, confidential disclosure, and use by Sunbeam were properly presented for jury determination and that its verdict adverse to plaintiff would not be disturbed. 377...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP