Monster Energy Co. v. Vital Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al.

Dollar Amount: $293 million

Case Name: Monster Energy Co. v. Vital Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Type of Case: False advertising, tortious interference and trade secrets theft

Court: Central District

Judge(s): U.S. District Judge Jesus G. Bernal

Plaintiff Lawyers: Hueston Hennigan LLP, John C. Hueston, Moez M. Kaba, Allison L. Libeu, Lauren McGrory Johnson, Sara Haji, Sourabh Mishra, Eunice Leong, Michael H. Todisco, Justin M. Greer, Julia L. Haines, Amber E. Munoz, Winston G. Shi

Defense Lawyers: Quarles & Brady LLP, David P. Muth, Michael W. Carwin, Brittany S. Ogden, Matthew J. Duchemin, Joshua B. Fleming, Nolan J. Mitchell, Daniel M. Janssen

In the highly-competitive energy drink market, Bang was moving up fast on rival Monster -- but that accomplishment was based on a lie, lawyers for Monster contended. A federal jury agreed with Monster's lead trial counsel, John C. Hueston of Hueston Hennigan LLP, who gave the opening argument and contended that Bang "achieved its wild success based on widespread deception."

The jurors punished Bang's maker with a $293 million verdict that could go still higher if U.S. District Judge Jesus G. Bernal of Riverside accepts Monster's punitive damages claims amid post-trial briefing that is still underway.

Moez M. Kaba

The dispute involved Bang's promotion of "super creatine," a performance-enhancing amino acid, in its formula. Monster protested. "Our client knew you couldn't put creatine in liquid because it's not stable," said Hueston Hennigan partner Allison L. Libeu. "After research, we discovered that the company was just lying about that and lying to consumers, so Monster sued."

The verdict was one of the largest ever under the Lanham Act, the federal trademark protection statute. The jury held that Vital Pharmaceuticals, Bang's maker, stole trade secrets by recruiting former Monster Energy employees and interfered with Monster's contracts with major retailers over shelf space. Monster Energy Co. v. Vital Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al., 18-cv-01882 (C.D. Ca., filed Sept. 4, 2018).

"The key for us was that we prepped for three cases, regarding the Lanham Act, trade secrets and tortious interference," said Hueston Hennigan co-lead Moez M. Kaba, who presented the closing argument. "Stitching those together, we made the jury understand that there were serious systemic wrongs at play. Each had unique challenges, but together they made a single narrative."

Allison L. Libeu

Libeu, who handled the damages portion of the plaintiff's case and examined the main trade secrets witness, said, "It's a big win for Monster, which can now make sure that Bang can't continue to deceive consumers about its products."

Lawyers for Vital Pharmaceuticals did not return messages seeking comment.

The win followed confirmation of a separate $175 million arbitration award plus $9.3 million in attorney fees in Monster's favor in a trademark infringement case in which the Hueston Hennigan team successfully accused Vital Pharmaceuticals of misusing the Bang name. Vital Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Orange Bang Inc. et al., 01-20-0005-6081 (AAA, filed June 15, 2020). Vital Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Orange Bang Inc. et al., 5:20-cv-01464 (C.D. Cal., award confirmed June 30, 2022).

--John Roemer