Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. Sunbeam Prods., Inc.

Decision Date17 December 2013
Docket NumberNo. 2012–1581.,2012–1581.
Citation726 F.3d 1370
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
PartiesHAMILTON BEACH BRANDS, INC., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. SUNBEAM PRODUCTS, INC. (doing business as Jarden Consumer Solutions), Defendant–Appellee.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Robert M. Tyler, McGuire Woods LLP, of Richmond, VA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief were Kristen M. Calleja and William N. Federspiel.

Richard D. Harris, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, of Chicago, IL, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were Kevin J. O'Shea and Matthew J. Levinstein. Of counsel on the brief was Kimberly Warshawsky, of Phoenix, AZ.

Before O'MALLEY, BRYSON, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge O'MALLEY.

Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge REYNA.

O'MALLEY, Circuit Judge.

Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. (Hamilton Beach) appeals from the decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granting in part Sunbeam Products, Inc.'s (Sunbeam) motion for summary judgment finding claims 1 and 3–7 (“asserted claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,947,928 (“the '928 patent”) invalid as anticipated. The district court also found that Sunbeam did not literally infringe the asserted claims of the ' 928 patent. Hamilton Beach's appeal is timely, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). For the reasons below, we affirm the district court's ruling that the asserted claims are invalid under the on-sale bar.

I. Background

Hamilton Beach and Sunbeam are direct competitors in the small kitchen appliance industry. Both Hamilton Beach and Sunbeam sell competing versions of “slow cookers,” which are electrically heated lidded pots that are used to cook food at low temperatures for long periods. See New Oxford English Dictionary (3d ed.2010) (“slow cooker, n. a large electric pot used for cooking food”). Hamilton Beach is the assignee of the '928 patent, which is directed to a particular type of portable slow cooker.

The '928 patent, filed June 4, 2010, is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 12/255,188, which, in turn, is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 11/365,222 (“the '222 application”). The '222 application was filed on March 1, 2006 and issued on February 3, 2009, as U.S. Patent No. 7,485,831 (“the '831 patent”). In other words, the '928 patent directly at issue in this case is the “grandchild” of the '831 patent. The '831 patent disclosed a “portable” slow cooker. The claimed slow cooker included clips used to seal the detachable lid of the device on the housing of the cooker. The sealing action provided by the clips is intended to limit leaking during transport. See '831 patent, col. 1, ll. 16–34. The '831 patent provides an IMAGE

'831 patent, col. 2, ll. 29–34. The written description provides that at least one “clip” (element 22) is used, among other elements, to seal the lid onto the body of the slow cooker. Id., col. 5, ll. 13–46.

Hamilton Beach's commercial embodiment of its patented invention is the Stay or Go® slow cooker. According to Hamilton Beach, the Stay or Go® slow cooker was a tremendous commercial success and increased Hamilton Beach's market share by over 30 percent. In response to Hamilton Beach's success, Sunbeam, the previous market leader, developed a competing slow cooker called the Cook & Carry®. Sunbeam attempted to design around the '831 patent claims by mounting sealing clips on the lid of the slow cooker rather than on the body.

Hamilton Beach responded to Sunbeam's introduction of its slow cooker by filing a continuation of the '222 application, which eventually matured into the '928 patent. As could be predicted, the '928 patent claimed a slow cooker with sealing clips on the lid of the slow cooker. See '928 patent, col. 8, ll. 34–49. During prosecution of the '928 patent, Hamilton Beach argued that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that placing the clips on the lid was wholly consistent with the original disclosure in the '222 application. The patent office agreed, and the '928 patent issued on May 24, 2011. That same day, Hamilton Beach filed suit alleging that Sunbeam's Cook & Carry® slow cooker infringed the '928 patent. See Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. Sunbeam Prods., Inc., 3:11–cv–00345–JRS, ECF No. 1 (E.D.Va. May 24, 2011).

Hamilton Beach alleged that Sunbeam's Cook & Carry® slow cooker infringed claims 1 and 3–7 of the '928 patent (“asserted claims”). Claim 1 is representative and provides:

1. A slow cooker for heating of food stuffs, the slow cooker comprising:

a housing having a base and a side wall extending therefrom to define a heating cavity within the housing, the housing further having a housing rim at a first, free edge of the side wall defining an opening to the heating cavity;

a heating element disposed within the housing sufficiently proximate the heating cavity to heat the heating cavity; a container having a generally hollow interior and a container rim defining an opening for accessing the interior thereof, the interior being capable of retaining the food stuffs therein, the container being shaped and sized to fit within the heating cavity of the housing for heating thereof by the heating element;

a lid sized and shaped to at least partially cover the opening of the container when placed on the container rim, the lid having a gasket around an outer edge thereof for sealing engagement with the container rim; and

at least one clip mounted between the lid and the side wall of the housing, the at least one clip being an over-the-center clip having a hook and a catch, one of the hook and catch being mounted on one of the lid and side wall of the housing and the other of the hook and catch being mounted on the other of the lid and side wall of the housing, the at least one clip being selectively engageable with the lid and side wall of the housing to selectively retain the lid in sealing engagement with the container rim to inhibit leakage of the food stuffs from the interior of the container, wherein the housing and lid have a vertical height, the at least one clip being disposed entirely within the vertical height of the housing and lid to facilitate storage and transport of the slow cooker when the at least one clip is engaged with the lid and side wall of the housing.

'928 patent, col. 8, ll. 16–49.

Two days after filing suit, Hamilton Beach moved for a preliminary injunction, which the district court denied. See Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. Sunbeam Prods., Inc., 3:11–cv–00345–JRS, ECF No. 58 (E.D.Va. Aug. 15, 2011). A few months later, the district court construed a number of claim terms and then entertained the parties' motions for summary judgment. See Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. Sunbeam Prods., Inc., 3:11–cv–00345–JRS, ECF No. 79 (E.D.Va. Dec. 20, 2011).

Sunbeam moved the court for summary judgment, contending that its Cook & Carry® slow cooker did not infringe the asserted claims. Sunbeam also argued that the asserted claims of the '928 patent were invalid because Hamilton Beach could not claim priority to the '831 patent as it introduced new matter into the '928 written description, which rendered the '928 patent's claims anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (b). Sunbeam further claimed that Hamilton Beach offered for sale and publicly used the Stay or Go® slow cooker, the commercial embodiment of the '831 patent, more than one year prior to the earliest possible filing date, i.e., one year prior to the ' 831 patent's application date—March 1, 2006 (the '831 patent's application date and the earliest possible filing date), rendering the '928 patent claims invalid. Sunbeam last contended that the '928 patent claims were invalid as obvious. Hamilton Beach moved the court for a finding that the '928 patent claims were not invalid on the ground that no new matter was added.

The district court granted Sunbeam's motion, finding that the Cook & Carry® slow cooker did not infringe the asserted claims of the '928 patent. See Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. Sunbeam Prods., Inc., 3:11–cv–00345–JRS, ECF No. 200 (E.D.Va. July 13, 2012). The district court also concluded that the ' 928 patent was invalid because it was not entitled to an earlier filing date than the one listed on its face because Hamilton Beach added new matter when it filed its continuation; therefore, the sales of the Stay or Go® slow cooker more than one year before that date served as invalidating sales and uses of the '928 patent under the on-sale and public use bars of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)1. Id. And, the district court found that, even if the ' 928 patent was entitled to an earlier priority date coincident with the '222 application, there were invalidating commercial offers to sell the Stay or Go® slow cooker prior to the critical date. Id. The district court, however, determined that Sunbeam did not establish its public use defense with respect to the '222 application date or that the patent was obvious. Id. Hamilton Beach then filed this appeal.

II. Discussion

The district court found that Hamilton Beach's purchase order with its foreign supplier for the Stay or Go® amounted to an invalidating commercial offer for sale under the on-sale bar of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We agree with the district court that Hamilton Beach's transaction with its foreign supplier in early 2005 was an offer for sale of a product that anticipated the asserted claims and that the invention was ready for patenting prior to the critical date. As discussed below, therefore, we hold the asserted claims of the ' 928 patent invalid under § 102(b). Consequently, we find the remaining issues on appeal moot.

A. Legal Standard

We apply the law of the regional circuit when reviewing summary judgment decisions. Brilliant Instruments, Inc., v. GuideTech, LLC, 707 F.3d 1342, 1344 (Fed.Cir.2013) (citing Lexion Med., LLC v. Northgate Techs., LLC, Inc., 641 F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed.Cir.2011)). The Fourth...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 cases
  • Speedfit LLC v. Woodway USA, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • January 9, 2020
    ...of sufficient nature to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention. Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. Sunbeam Prod., Inc. , 726 F.3d 1370, 1374–75 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). The on-sale bar is a question of law based on underlying factual findings. See Grp......
  • Dorman Prods., Inc. v. Paccar, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • August 22, 2016
    ...must be "sufficiently definite that another party could make a binding contract by simple acceptance." Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. Sunbeam Prods. , 726 F.3d 1370, 1374 (Fed.Cir.2013) (quoting Atlant a Attachment Co. v. Legget t & Platt, Inc. , 516 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed.Cir.2008) ). "An ac......
  • Medicines Co. v. Mylan Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • October 27, 2014
    ...be the subject of a commercial offer for sale; and (2) the invention must be ready for patenting.” Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. Sunbeam Prods., Inc., 726 F.3d 1370, 1374 (Fed.Cir.2013) (citing Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 67, 119 S.Ct. 304, 142 L.Ed.2d 261 (1998) ). In determ......
  • In re Method of Processing Ethanol Byproducts & Related Subsystems ('858) Patent Litig.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana
    • October 23, 2014
    ...the subject of a commercial offer for sale; and (2) the invention must be ready for patenting. See Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. Sunbeam Prods., Inc. , 726 F.3d 1370, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc. , 525 U.S. 55, 67, 119 S.Ct. 304, 142 L.Ed.2d 261 (1998) ). "An a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 firm's commentaries
1 books & journal articles
  • Chapter §7.06 Loss of Right/Statutory Bars Under §102(b)
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Mueller on Patent Law Volume I: Patentability and Validity Title CHAPTER 7 Novelty, No Loss of Right, and Priority [Pre-America Invents Act of 2011]
    • Invalid date
    ...the on-sale bar, regardless of whether that sale is ever consummated."). See also Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. Sunbeam Prods., Inc., 726 F.3d 1370, 1374–1376 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (explaining that the on sale bar applies to a commercial offer regardless of whether the parties execute a binding......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT