K-Tec, Inc. v. Vita-Mix Corp.
696 F.3d 1364
| Fed. Cir. | 2012Background
- Vita-Mix appeals a district court judgment finding infringement of the ’117 and ’842 patents and related rulings (invalidity, willfulness, and damages).
- The asserted claims cover a blending jar with four side walls and a fifth truncated wall to alter flow and reduce cavitation.
- K-TEC markets commercial blenders and owns the ’117 and ’842 patents; Vita-Mix released MP and XP containers in the early 2000s.
- The district court construed the fifth truncated wall as a wall that truncates the typical corner formed between side walls; it also found XP infringed under that construction.
- The court upheld non-analogous-art findings (Hobbs and Grimes), denied several indefiniteness/invalidity theories, and awarded K-TEC damages for XP sales including willful infringement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Infringement of the XP container under the district court construction | Vita-Mix contends XP has only three walls and thus cannot infringe. | K-TEC shows XP has four side walls and a curved fifth wall that truncates a corner, satisfying the claim. | Summary judgment of literal infringement affirmed. |
| Analogous art for obviousness by Grimes and Hobbs | Hobbs/Grimes are reasonably pertinent and should be considered. | They are not in the same field and not reasonably pertinent to the problem. | Grimes and Hobbs are not analogous art; no material fact issue. |
| Ash and Miller as anticipatory references and related cross-examination | Ash/Miller anticipate or render invalidging; Miller cross-examination and office-action history were misapplied. | Ash does not disclose the fifth truncated wall; Miller issues were properly limited. | Court denied JMOL on anticipation/obviousness; record supports non-invalidity. |
| Willful infringement | Vita-Mix acted reasonably to design around, so no willfulness. | Vita-Mix copied the MP container and proceeded with known risk of infringement. | No error in denying JMOL on willfulness; substantial evidence supports willful infringement. |
| Damages timing under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) | Notice of infringement for MP with later XP is sufficient to cover related products. | Damage period begins at initial notice; XP notice should not expand the period. | Damages supported; notice extended to related products. |
Key Cases Cited
- Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Labs., Inc., 429 F.3d 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (non-technical disputes require concrete factual proof to survive summary judgment)
- Centricut, LLC v. Esab Group, Inc., 390 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (complex technology can still be understood without expert testimony in some contexts)
- Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co., 576 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (evidence presented to jury may be limited by relevance and risk of confusion)
- Union Carbide Corp. v. Am. Can Co., 724 F.2d 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (claim interpretation and prosecution-history considerations)