DCT

2:23-cv-01541

Vita Mix Corp v. Vevor Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:23-cv-01541, C.D. Cal., 03/01/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because the infringing products were sold from Pomona, California, and multiple defendant entities are organized under the laws of California.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ "Vevor Silent Blender" infringes four utility patents and one design patent, and copies the trade dress, related to Plaintiff's "The Quiet One®" commercial blender.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to functional and ornamental designs for high-performance commercial blenders, with specific innovations directed at noise reduction through airflow management and enclosure sealing.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that various Vevor defendants have been sued at least six other times for intellectual property infringement, including one case that concluded with a consent judgment admitting to willful infringement. Plaintiff also alleges it sent cease and desist letters to Defendants in December 2022, which were met with an allegedly dismissive response and were followed by Defendants’ continued sale of the accused products.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2008-03-18 ’011 Patent Priority Date
2008-07-21 ’308 Patent Priority Date
2008-08-15 ’655 Patent Priority Date
2008-11-19 ’084 Patent Priority Date
2009-03-02 ’116 Patent Priority Date
2009-06-30 ’084 Patent Issue Date
2014-04-08 ’116 Patent Issue Date
2014-08-26 ’011 Patent Issue Date
2014-12-30 ’308 Patent Reissue Date
2015-08-18 ’655 Patent Reissue Date
2022-07-20 Plaintiff allegedly learns of accused Vevor Silent Blender
2022-10-14 Plaintiff purchases accused Vevor Silent Blender for analysis
2022-12-06 Plaintiff sends cease and desist letters to Defendants
2023-03-01 Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 8,690,116 - “Base for a Blender”, issued April 8, 2014

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the problem of noise generated by a blender's motor being amplified and carried out of the base by the necessary cooling airflow ('116 Patent, col. 1:46-50). Prior attempts to baffle this noise were described as complex and ineffective ('116 Patent, col. 1:50-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a simple and integral noise-reduction system formed on the bottom surface of the blender base. A support flange creates an enclosed cavity underneath the base, and a "baffle projection" is strategically placed within this cavity. Heated air exiting the motor through an outlet port is forced to travel around this baffle before it can leave through an exhaust vent, causing the airflow (and the noise it carries) to change direction, which reduces the audible sound emitted from the unit ('116 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:40-55; FIG. 3).
  • Technical Importance: This design offers a method of sound suppression that is integrated directly into the structure of the base, aiming to be simpler and more effective to manufacture than prior, more complex baffle systems ('116 Patent, col. 6:56-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 151).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A base for a blender with a generally flat bottom surface.
    • A support flange extending downwardly from the bottom surface to create an enclosed internal cavity.
    • An air outlet port in the bottom surface.
    • An exhaust vent allowing air to leave the internal cavity.
    • A baffle projection extending from the bottom surface inside the cavity.
    • The outlet port and exhaust vent are on opposing sides of the baffle projection, forcing air to flow around the baffle before exiting.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE45,655 - “Sealing Enclosure for a Blender”, issued August 18, 2015

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the common problem of noise escaping from a blender enclosure, particularly from the seam where the movable cover meets the main body of the enclosure. An ineffective seal at this interface allows sound to escape and can permit the cover to vibrate against the body, creating additional noise ('655 Patent, col. 2:50-68).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an enclosure system comprising a body portion and a pivotable cover. The body portion features a purpose-built flange that extends outwardly from its sidewalls. A gasket is positioned on this flange. When the cover is closed, it engages the gasket, creating a continuous seal that is designed to significantly reduce noise transmission and prevent vibration between the two components ('655 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:21-44).
  • Technical Importance: This sealing system provides a dedicated structure to improve the sound-dampening performance of a blender enclosure, a critical feature for blenders used in commercial environments where ambient noise is a concern ('655 Patent, col. 5:1-10).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 157).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • An enclosure for a blender comprising a body portion and a cover.
    • The body portion has opposed sidewalls.
    • A flange extends outwardly from each of the sidewalls.
    • The cover is pivotally secured to the body portion.
    • A gasket is positioned between the cover and the flanges when the cover is in a closed position.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE45,308 - “Enclosure for a Blender”, issued December 30, 2014

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the problem of vibrations being transferred from the blender base to the sound-dampening enclosure. The patented solution involves an enclosure with a metallic foot that mates with the blender base, a gasket positioned between the foot and the base to isolate vibrations, and the use of magnets to secure the enclosure without mechanical fasteners ('308 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶ 77).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 163).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the manner in which the Vevor Silent Blender's enclosure sits on and interfaces with its base infringes this patent (Compl. ¶¶ 124, 163).

U.S. Patent No. 8,814,011 - “Blender Container and Cover”, issued August 26, 2014

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a blender container with a specific non-symmetrical shape (one arcuate wall and two straight walls) intended to improve blending efficiency. It also claims a cover with an integrated plug and flap designed to effectively seal the container's pouring spout during operation ('011 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶ 79).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 169).
  • Accused Features: The container and cover of the Vevor Silent Blender are alleged to infringe. The complaint includes a visual comparison of the accused container next to the Vitamix The Quiet One® container (Compl. ¶¶ 122, p. 22).

U.S. Design Patent No. D595,084 - “Base of a Blender”, issued June 30, 2009

  • Technology Synopsis: This is a design patent that claims the unique ornamental, non-functional appearance of a blender base. The protected design includes the specific shapes, curves, and arrangement of features on the base's exterior (Compl. ¶ 81).
  • Asserted Claims: The single claim of the design patent (Compl. ¶ 175).
  • Accused Features: The overall visual appearance of the Vevor Silent Blender base. The complaint provides a direct visual comparison of the front of the accused product to a figure from the '084 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 120, p. 21).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "VEVOR 110V Commercial Smoothie Blender, 1.5L/50.7oz 1500W Countertop Silent Blender," referred to as the "Vevor Silent Blender" (Compl. ¶ 113).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused product is a commercial smoothie blender marketed with "QUIET blend technology" and sold through various e-commerce channels, including Defendants' own website, Amazon, and Walmart (Compl. ¶¶ 112, 114). The complaint alleges the product is a "slavish, direct copy" of Plaintiff's "The Quiet One®" blender and is imported from China and sold at a fraction of the price of the Vitamix product (Compl. ¶¶ 114, 141, 143). A side-by-side photograph provided in the complaint shows the Vevor Silent Blender next to Plaintiff's The Quiet One® blender, illustrating their visual similarity (Compl. p. 21).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’116 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A base for a blender... comprising a generally flat bottom surface... The accused Vevor Silent Blender includes a base with a bottom surface that the complaint alleges is "plainly copied" from the patented design (Compl. ¶ 121). A visual shows the underside of the accused base (Compl. p. 22). ¶121 col. 6:5-6
a support flange extending downwardly from said bottom surface... thereby creating an enclosed internal cavity... The accused base allegedly has an identical arrangement of a support flange that creates an internal cavity on its underside (Compl. ¶ 121). ¶121 col. 6:7-14
an air outlet port in said bottom surface... The accused base allegedly incorporates air outlet ports within the internal cavity on its underside (Compl. ¶ 121). ¶121 col. 6:18-20
an exhaust vent permitting air to leave said enclosed internal cavity... The accused base allegedly includes exhaust vents on its underside to permit air to exit (Compl. ¶ 121). ¶121 col. 6:23-26
a baffle projection extending from said bottom surface within said internal cavity... The complaint alleges the accused base has a baffle structure that is "plainly copied," and provides a photographic comparison to the patent's FIG-3 to support this (Compl. p. 22). ¶121 col. 6:40-44
said outlet port and said exhaust vent positioned on opposing sides of said baffle projection such that air flows downwardly through said outlet port and around said baffle projection before exiting... The complaint alleges the "identical arrangement and function" of the accused components, implying the airflow is managed in the claimed manner (Compl. ¶ 121). ¶121 col. 6:40-44

’655 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
An enclosure for a blender comprising a body portion including opposed sidewalls... The accused Vevor Silent Blender includes a sound-dampening enclosure with a body portion and sidewalls, which the complaint alleges is a "direct copy" of the patented product (Compl. ¶¶ 119, 143). ¶¶119, 143 col. 3:50-51
a flange extending outwardly from each of said sidewalls... The complaint's general allegation that the accused product infringes every element of the claim implies the accused enclosure body includes the claimed outwardly extending flanges (Compl. ¶¶ 124, 157). ¶¶124, 157 col. 3:52-54
a cover pivotally secured to said body portion... The accused enclosure includes a cover that pivots relative to the body, as shown in the side-by-side photograph (Compl. p. 21). ¶119 col. 4:1-4
a gasket positioned between said cover and said flanges on said body portion when said cover is in the closed position. Based on the allegation that the accused product is a copy that infringes all elements, the Vevor blender allegedly incorporates a gasket that creates a seal between its cover and body flanges when closed (Compl. ¶¶ 124, 157). ¶¶124, 157 col. 4:32-44

Identified Points of Contention:

  • Structural and Functional Identity: For all asserted patents, the central dispute appears to be a factual one of direct copying. A primary question will be whether the accused Vevor blender, upon physical inspection, possesses structures that are identical or equivalent to the specific features recited in the asserted claims. The complaint's photographic evidence, such as the comparison of the accused blender's underside to the '116 Patent's FIG-3 (Compl. p. 22), suggests a high degree of structural similarity. The defense may focus on arguing for functional differences or subtle structural distinctions not visible in photographs.
  • Scope Questions: For the '116 Patent, a question may arise as to whether any structure on the underside of the accused product that impedes airflow meets the definition of a "baffle projection" as used in the patent, or if the term requires a more specific form, such as the wall-like structures shown in the patent's figures.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • ’116 Patent, Claim 1: "baffle projection"

    • Context and Importance: This term describes the core noise-reducing element of the invention. The infringement analysis for the '116 Patent will depend on whether the structure found on the underside of the Vevor blender base falls within the proper construction of this term.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the element generally as a "baffle projection 38 [that] extends downwardly from bottom surface 20" ('116 Patent, col. 6:40-41). This language does not appear to limit the term to a particular size or shape, suggesting it could encompass any projection that serves to redirect airflow.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the term should be limited to the specific embodiments shown, where the projections are depicted as distinct, linear walls. The specification notes that in "certain embodiments," the projection may "extend from an edge of outlet port 34 to an edge of exhaust vent 36," which could be used to argue for a more structurally defined feature ('116 Patent, col. 6:45-47).

  • ’655 Patent, Claim 1: "gasket positioned between said cover and said flanges"

    • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the location and relationship of the key sealing components. Infringement hinges on the accused product having a gasket that meets this specific positional and functional requirement relative to the cover and body flanges.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "positioned between" is locational and could be interpreted to cover any arrangement where the gasket is interposed to create a seal, regardless of which component it is physically affixed to. The claim focuses on the final, assembled state when the "cover is in the closed position."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Practitioners may focus on whether "positioned between" requires a specific assembly or interaction beyond simple contact. The patent's figures and description show a system where the gasket is fitted over the flange on the body, and the cover then presses onto it, suggesting a specific functional relationship that a defendant could argue is a required aspect of the term's meaning ('655 Patent, FIG. 1; col. 4:32-44).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint's infringement counts focus on direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Compl. ¶¶ 151, 157, 163, 169, 175). No separate counts for induced or contributory infringement are pleaded.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint makes extensive allegations to support willfulness. It alleges Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit via cease and desist letters sent in December 2022 (Compl. ¶ 125). It further alleges that Defendants have a pattern of copying products and have been sued for IP infringement by other parties, including one prior case where a Vevor entity admitted to willful infringement in a consent judgment (Compl. ¶¶ 46, 110). Each patent infringement count asserts that Defendants' infringement "has been, and continues to be knowing, intentional, and willful" (e.g., Compl. ¶ 152).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A central issue will be one of technical identity: Does the accused Vevor Silent Blender, upon physical inspection, contain structures that read on the specific limitations of Vitamix’s utility patent claims? The complaint’s side-by-side photographic evidence suggests a case built on allegations of direct copying, making the dispute a heavily fact-dependent comparison of the accused product to the patent claims.
  • A second key question will be one of willfulness and exceptionality: Can Vitamix prove that Defendants' alleged infringement was egregious in light of their alleged litigation history and their conduct after receiving pre-suit notice of infringement? The outcome of this question will determine the availability of enhanced damages and attorney's fees.
  • Finally, a key question for the design patent and trade dress claims will be one of visual similarity: Is the overall ornamental appearance of the accused Vevor blender "substantially the same" as Vitamix's patented design and asserted trade dress in the eyes of an ordinary observer, such that it is likely to cause consumer confusion?