K-Tec v. Vita-Mix
765 F. Supp. 2d 1304
D. Utah2011Background
- K-TEC sued Vita-Mix for patent infringement of a high-performance blending jar.
- A ten-day jury trial found K-TEC patents valid and Vita-Mix willfully infringed.
- Jury awarded K-TEC lost profits of $8,942,123 and a $2,066,185 royalty.
- Vita-Mix moved for judgment as a matter of law or new trial on non-infringement, invalidity, and willfulness grounds.
- K-TEC moved for enhanced damages, attorney fees, and to amend the judgment to include costs and interest; K-TEC sought a permanent injunction.
- The court denied Vita-Mix’s JMOL/new-trial requests and granted in part K-TEC’s injunction and enhanced damages requests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Non-infringement of MP container | K-TEC evidence supports MP container infringement | MP container non-infringing or not proven by sale evidence | No JMOL; jury verdict supported by trial record |
| Anticipation of the claims | Ash and Miller do not disclose truncated wall; secondary evidence supports non-anticipation | Ash/Miller anticipate the fifth truncated wall | Not anticipated; record supports jury finding of non-anticipation |
| Obviousness of the claims | Secondary considerations and cavitation reduction show non-obviousness | Prior art disclosures render claims obvious | Not obvious; advisory jury verdict supported by evidence and secondary considerations |
| Willfulness and enhanced damages | Willful infringement proven; enhanced damages warranted | Willfulness not proven; no enhanced damages | Willfulness established; enhanced damages awarded at $11 million |
Key Cases Cited
- Manzanares v. Higdon, 575 F.3d 1135 (10th Cir. 2009) (JMOL standard and weight of evidence)
- Snyder v. City of Moab, 354 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2003) (weight of the evidence standard for new trials)
- United International Holdings, Inc. v. Wharf Holdings Ltd., 210 F.3d 1207 (10th Cir. 2000) (standard for reviewing verdicts on appeal)
- Read Corp. v. Portec, Inc., 970 F.2d 816 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (factors for enhanced damages including egregious conduct)
- Transclean Corp. v. Bridgewood Servs., 290 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (nine Read factors for determining enhanced damages)
- i4i Ltd. P’Ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (irrebuttable presumption of validity and non-obviousness considerations)
- SRI Int’l v. Advanced Tech. Labs., Inc., 127 F.3d 1462 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (interpretation of enhancement and deterrence rationale)