EDO CORP. v. Beech Aircraft Corp., Civ. A. No. 85-2204-S.
| Citation | 755 F. Supp. 985 |
| Decision Date | 28 January 1991 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 85-2204-S. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
| Parties | EDO CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. BEECH AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, Defendant. |
Roger D. Stanton, Stinson, Mag & Fizzell, Overland Park, Kan., Richard D. Greene, Morris, Laing, Evans, Brock & Kennedy, Chartered, Wichita, Kan., John Cibinic, Annandale, Va., Calvin E. Thorpe, Thorpe, North & Western, Sandy, Utah, for plaintiff.
Paul B. Swartz, Jeff Kennedy, Robert Martin, Martin, Pringle, Oliver, Wallace & Swartz, Wichita, Kan., for defendant.
This matter is before the court on a motion of defendant Beech Aircraft Corporation ("Beech") entitled "MOTION TO ENFORCE THE COURT'S JUDGMENT AND TO CONSOLIDATE THIS MATTER WITH A PENDING RELATED LAWSUIT AND TO ASSIGN THE CONSOLIDATED PROCEEDING TO THE HONORABLE DALE SAFFELS." In the above-captioned suit, plaintiff EDO Corporation ("EDO") sought damages for breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets. On October 21, 1988, this court entered judgment against plaintiff EDO, finding that the contract between the parties had not been breached and that Beech had not misappropriated trade secrets of EDO, including the "H" joint technology. 715 F.Supp. 990. On September 12, 1990, the judgment was affirmed by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
In this motion, Beech contends that EDO is seeking to collaterally attack or circumvent this court's previous judgment. The facts underlying this contention can be summarized as follows. While the abovecaptioned case was pending in this court, both Beech and EDO sought to obtain patents on certain technology relating to the "H" joint. After patents were awarded to both EDO and Beech, the Patent Commission declared an interference between the parties' respective patent applications. The Board of Patent Appeals decided the interference in favor of EDO. Beech then filed an action against EDO and the Commissioner of Patents in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking to void the decision of the Board of Patent Appeals in the interference proceeding and/or obtain a assignment of EDO's patent and EDO's patent application. Specifically, Beech asserted the following claims in the District of Columbia action: (1) whether the Patent and Trademark Office acted within its jurisdiction; (2) whether "inventorship" for purposes of patent rights was correctly determined for Beech's and EDO's respective patents and EDO's patent application; (3) whether Beech's patent and EDO's patent interfere; and (4) whether EDO's patent and EDO's patent application should be ordered assigned to Beech based on this court's previous ruling. On October 16, 1990, Beech filed a new action against EDO in this District, with similar claims to those asserted in the case pending in the District of Columbia District Court. That case, No. 90-4185-R, is currently pending before the Honorable Richard D. Rogers of this District. Beech has filed a motion in the District of Columbia district court to have that case transferred to this district or, in the alternative,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beech Aircraft Corp. v. EDO Corp.
...the court order EDO to assign its patent and patent applications to Beech must be denied. [Emphasis ours.] EDO Corp. v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 755 F.Supp. 985, 987 (D.Kan.1991). D. Proceedings The relief that BEECH seeks in the consolidated suit now before us on appeal is the same relief tha......
-
Beech Aircraft Corp. v. EDO CORP.
...Beech from seeking assignment of EDO's patent, since this court previously denied the request for assignment in EDO Corp. v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 755 F.Supp. 985 (D.Kan.1991). It further argues that, even if res judicata does not bar this court from considering Beech's claim for assignment......