By Jason Rantanen
K-Tec, Inc. v. Vita-Mix Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2012) Download 11-1244-1484-1512
Panel: Newman, Lourie (author), Prost
K-TEC and Vita-Mix are manufacturers of high-end blenders. In the early 2000's, K-Tec developed a blender geometry that reduced the problem of cavitation (the formation of an air-pocket around the spinning blade). Figure 11 of K-Tec's patent illustrates the concept:
Vita-Mix used K-TEC's five-sided commercial embodiment to design its own upgraded blending jar. After Vita-Mix released its product, two of K-TEC's patents issue. Upon being notified of the patents, Vita-Mix redesigned its product in an attempt to design-around the patent claims (which reference "four side walls" and "a fifth truncated wall disposed between two of the four side walls.") The redesigned Vita-Mix product looked like this:
During the patent infringement suit, the district court granted summary judgment of infringement and summary judgment that two prior art references asserted by Vita-Mix were not analogous art. The remaining issues were tried to a jury, which found in favor of K-TEC on the remaining issues of validity, willfulness, and damages.
Analogous Art: Following KSR v. Teleflex, there was some question as to the strength of the analogous arts doctrine in light of the Court's repudiation of rigid tests in analyzing nonobviousness. Last year, however, in In re Klein, the Federal Circuit applied a robust analogous art doctrine to limit the scope of prior art that may be considered by the examiner during patent prosecution. K-TEC v. Vita-Mix indicates that the analogous art test continues to remain alive and well in the infringement context, affirming a grant of summary judgment that the references did not constitute analogous art.
Vita-Mix argued that the district court should have permitted the jury to consider two non-blender designs that depict five-sided containers. Design Patent 227,535 ("Grimes") provides an example:
Under Federal Circuit precedent, a prior art reference may not be considered in the obviousness analysis unless it is analogous art. There are two ways to meet this requirement: (1) the reference can be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention; or (2) it can be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. Here, Vita-Mix did not contend that the container design patents were from the same field of endeavor, and thus the CAFC focused its analysis on the second condition.
In affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment that the two design patents were not analogous art, the CAFC concluded that despite the inventor testifying that he "wanted the resulting jar to fit within K-TEC's existing quiet box, there is no dispute that creating a smaller jar was not the problem he set out to solve because K-TEC's existing jars already fit within the quiet box." Slip Op. at 16. (It's unclear from the opinion why needing a smaller jar would caused Grimes to have "commended itself" to an inventor's intention in considering his problem.) A greater problem was that Vita-Mix's expert report "did not 'explain any rational underpinning for [the inventor] to have consulted non-blending containers or food mixers in order to solve the problems he encountered in designing a new blending container.'" Slip Op. at 16, quoting the district court's opinion.
Comment: Why, especially in light of KSR v. Teleflex, should the analogous arts analysis have anything to do with what an inventor thought? Here's how the CAFC is currently articulating the "reasonably pertinent" prong: "A reference is reasonably pertinent if it, as a result of its subject matter, 'logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem.'" Slip Op. at 15, quoting Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Shouldn't the analysis be based on what a person having ordinary skill in the art would have thought, not an inventor (and especially not "the" inventor)?
Willful Infringement Treated as a Question for the Jury: For those seeking to prove willful infringement, this is a good case; for those seeking some consistency with previous opinions on the subject, it may be less so. Following the jury trial, the district court denied Vita-Mix's motion seeking to overturn the finding of willful infringement. In affirming, the opinion makes no reference to the CAFC's recent instruction that the "objective prong" of the Seagate recklessness analysis is a separate question of law. Instead, the opinion barely distinguishes the "objective" prong from the "subjective" prong. Evidence for the "objective" prong:
- Vita-Mix's noninfringement theory and most of its invalidity theories were properly disposed of on summary judgment;
- Its remaining theories were "soundly" rejected by the jury;
- In designing the product illustrated above, Vita-Mix started with a direct copy of K-TEC's five-sided jar (note: the "direct copy" was Vita-Mix's own pre-patent version of K-TEC's commercial embodiment); and
- Vita-Mix considered other noninfringing designs, but opted to "produce a container that performed in the same way as the [earlier Vita-Mix product] and employ a design that its customers would not be able to distinguish from [Vita-Mix's earlier product]."
The court continued on to state that "similarly, K-TEC presented substantial evidence that Vita-Mix knew of the objectively high risk of infringing K-TEC's valid patents, but decided to proceed anyway," Slip Op. at 22, indicating that the preceding factors were the factors relevant to that "objectively high risk."
Comment: One area where the K-Tec holding is particularly difficult to square with prior precedent is its reliance on copying as part of the "objective" prong of the Seagate analysis. See DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ("Because we hold that DePuy failed as a matter of law to satisfy Seagate's first prong, we need not address DePuy's arguments concerning “copying” and Medtronic's rebuttal evidence concerning “designing around,” both of which are relevant only to Medtronic's mental state regarding its direct infringement under Seagate's second prong.").