This case is about coffee. Not just any coffee-it is about the individual coffee pods that are used in the popular Keurig coffeemakers. The Keurig system solved a problem with which coffee drinkers had struggled for years: how to make individual portions of fresh-brewed cof fee in a tidy, flavorful, easy, and relatively inexpensive way. The defendants, Sturm Foods, Inc., and Treehouse Foods, Inc., wanted to enter the market for Keurig-compatible pods once patent protection expired, but they jumped the gun in a way that the plaintiffs, who hope to represent a class, believe was deceptive and in violation of the consumer protection laws of a number of states. The district court refused to certi fy the class, and then ruled against each of the named plain tiffs' individual claims. We conclude that the court erred in its class certification decision; if its approach were correct, it would never be possible to certify a consumer class action because some individual proof is always needed. We also conclude that the court overlooked genuine issues of fact when it granted summary judgment against the individual plaintiffs. We therefore reverse and remand for further pro ceedings.
This case is about coffee. Not just any coffee-it is about the individual coffee pods that are used in the popular Keurig coffeemakers. The Keurig system solved a problem with which coffee drinkers had struggled for years: how to make individual portions of fresh-brewed cof fee in a tidy, flavorful, easy, and relatively inexpensive way. The defendants, Sturm Foods, Inc., and Treehouse Foods, Inc., wanted to enter the market for Keurig-compatible pods once patent protection expired, but they jumped the gun in a way that the plaintiffs, who hope to represent a class, believe was deceptive and in violation of the consumer protection laws of a number of states. The district court refused to certi fy the class, and then ruled against each of the named plain tiffs' individual claims. We conclude that the court erred in its class certification decision; if its approach were correct, it would never be possible to certify a consumer class action because some individual proof is always needed. We also conclude that the court overlooked genuine issues of fact when it granted summary judgment against the individual plaintiffs. We therefore reverse and remand for further pro ceedings.
This case is about coffee. Not just any coffee-it is about the individual coffee pods that are used in the popular Keurig coffeemakers. The Keurig system solved a problem with which coffee drinkers had struggled for years: how to make individual portions of fresh-brewed cof fee in a tidy, flavorful, easy, and relatively inexpensive way. The defendants, Sturm Foods, Inc., and Treehouse Foods, Inc., wanted to enter the market for Keurig-compatible pods once patent protection expired, but they jumped the gun in a way that the plaintiffs, who hope to represent a class, believe was deceptive and in violation of the consumer protection laws of a number of states. The district court refused to certi fy the class, and then ruled against each of the named plain tiffs' individual claims. We conclude that the court erred in its class certification decision; if its approach were correct, it would never be possible to certify a consumer class action because some individual proof is always needed. We also conclude that the court overlooked genuine issues of fact when it granted summary judgment against the individual plaintiffs. We therefore reverse and remand for further pro ceedings.