466 F.2d 714 (10th Cir. 1972), 72-1058, Wilkin v. Sunbeam Corp.

Docket Nº:72-1058.
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
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 714

466 F.2d 714 (10th Cir. 1972)

175 U.S.P.Q. 139

Kathleen K.WILKIN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

SUNBEAM CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 72-1058.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Aug. 30, 1972

Rehearing Denied Oct. 2, 1972.

Page 715

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

Page 716

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 reading

FREE SIGN UP