Vita-Mix Corp. v. Basic Holding, Inc.

Vita-Mix Corporation (plaintiff) owned a United States patent that issued in 1994 (the patent). The sole claim of the patent (claim 1) recited a method to prevent air pockets forming around moving blades of a consumer food blender. Claim 1 recited method steps including positioning a plunger above the rotating blades while maintaining the plunger free of contact with the pitcher. The patent applicant explained that the plunger blocked the air channel that created the air pockets. In March 2001, Back to Basics, Inc., which later became known as Basic Holding, Inc. (Basics) (defendant), launched its own line of blenders. Each of Basic’s blenders included a “stir stick” resembling the plunger recited in claim 1 of the patent. The lids of Basic’s blenders had openings that could either be covered with a cap or opened to receive the stir stick. The top of the stir stick formed a ball that fit in a socket in the top of each of Basic’s lids; a user could grip the ball to move the portion of the stir stick inside the blender. In October 2006, Vita-Mix sued Basic for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Basic moved for summary judgment of no direct infringement, no contributory infringement, and no inducement to infringe. Vita-Mix cited two occurrences to support its conclusion that Basic directly infringed the patent, but the district court rejected Vita-Mix’s evidence. The court held that Vita-Mix had not shown whether any users positioned the stir stick in a manner that would prevent the formation of air pockets. Therefore, the district court held that Vita-Mix’s direct-infringement count under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) failed, which necessarily also doomed Vita-Mix’s indirect-infringement counts, i.e., contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) and inducement to infringe under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). In July 2008, the district court granted each of Basic’s motions. Vita-Mix appealed.