DCT
5:23-cv-02095
Electrolux Home Products Inc v. Aquamor LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Electrolux Home Products, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Aquamor, LLC (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Nicolson Law Group, PC; Electrolux North America, Inc. Legal Department; Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
- Case Identification: 5:23-cv-02095, C.D. Cal., 10/12/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the Central District of California based on the Defendant being a California LLC with its principal place of business in the district, making it the district in which the Defendant resides.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s HDX-branded refrigerator water filters infringe two of its design patents covering the ornamental appearance of a filter cartridge.
- Technical Context: The case concerns the market for replaceable water filter cartridges used in refrigerators, which represent a significant recurring revenue stream for appliance manufacturers.
- Key Procedural History: No prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history between the parties is mentioned in the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-05-19 | Priority Date for D'382 and D'383 Patents |
| 2016-07-12 | U.S. Patent No. D761,382 Issues |
| 2016-07-12 | U.S. Patent No. D761,383 Issues |
| 2022-12-10 | Plaintiff purchases an example of the Accused Product |
| 2023-10-12 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D761,382 S - "FILTER CARTRIDGE"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D761382, "FILTER CARTRIDGE," issued July 12, 2016.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The complaint does not describe a specific technical problem in the manner of a utility patent. Design patents protect the novel, ornamental, and non-functional appearance of an article of manufacture (Compl. ¶26). The implicit goal is to create a distinctive visual identity for a product.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a filter cartridge, which is defined by the visual appearance shown in its figures (Compl. ¶19; 'D'382 Patent, Figs. 1-5). The claimed design consists of the visible, solid-line portions of the filter, including the shape of the top connector interface, the configuration of the lower grip or handle portion, and the overall proportions of the cartridge body shown in the drawings (’D'382 Patent, DESCRIPTION). The broken lines in the figures depict the remainder of the filter cartridge for environmental context only and form no part of the claimed design (’D'382 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
- Technical Importance: The design pertains to "Twist Filters" used in FRIGIDAIRE® branded refrigerators, and sales of these proprietary filters are alleged to "comprise a significant portion of Electrolux's sales" (Compl. ¶¶8, 15, 20).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent asserts a single claim for "The ornamental design for a filter cartridge, as shown and described" (’D'382 Patent, CLAIM).
- The essential visual elements of this design claim include:
- A specific top connector configuration with multiple, distinct protrusions and cutouts.
- A smooth, cylindrical upper body section.
- A flared lower body section forming a grip, with a distinct recessed area on its face.
- A specific bottom surface design.
U.S. Design Patent No. D761,383 S - "FILTER CARTRIDGE"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D761383, "FILTER CARTRIDGE," issued July 12, 2016.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’382 Patent, this patent protects the ornamental appearance of a filter cartridge, aiming to establish a distinct visual identity (Compl. ¶48).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims a specific ornamental design for a filter cartridge, as depicted in its figures (Compl. ¶21; ’D'383 Patent, Figs. 1-5). While visually similar to the ’382 Patent, the ’383 Patent claims a distinct design, with the primary difference appearing in the configuration of the top connector interface (’D'383 Patent, Fig. 4). The design is defined by the solid-line portions of the drawings, with broken lines showing the unclaimed environmental structure (’D'383 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
- Technical Importance: This design also relates to "Twist Filters" for FRIGIDAIRE® refrigerators, which are a commercially significant product line for the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶¶8, 15, 20).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent asserts a single claim for "The ornamental design for a filter cartridge, as shown and described" (’D'383 Patent, CLAIM).
- The essential visual elements of this design claim include:
- A top connector configuration that is visually simpler than the design in the ’382 Patent.
- A smooth, cylindrical upper body section.
- A flared lower body section forming a grip, with a distinct recessed area on its face, appearing visually identical to that of the ’382 Patent.
- A specific bottom surface design.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies the accused product as the "HDX branded refrigerator water filters, Model No. FMF-8" (Compl. ¶11). The complaint alleges that Defendant Aquamor, LLC is the manufacturer of this product (Compl. ¶30).
Functionality and Market Context
The Accused Product is a replacement water filter cartridge designed for use in refrigerators (Compl. ¶11). The complaint includes an image from an online retail listing which describes the product as a "Premium-Refrigerator-Replacement-Filter-Fits-Frigidaire-PureSource-Ultra-II" (Compl. ¶30). The complaint presents an image of the Accused Product packaging, which states it "FITS FRIGIDAIRE" models (Compl. ¶29, Image). This positions the product as a direct, third-party replacement for Electrolux's proprietary filters. The complaint provides an image of the label on the Accused Product, which identifies "Aquamor, LLC, Temecula, CA" as the manufacturer (Compl. ¶30, Image).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The infringement allegation for a design patent centers on the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented one. The complaint alleges that the overall appearance of the Accused Product is "substantially the same if not identical" to the patented designs (Compl. ¶¶32, 54).
The complaint includes side-by-side visual comparisons to support its infringement claims. This image from the complaint's "Table 2" compares Figure 1 of the D'382 Patent with a photograph of the Accused Product to argue for their visual similarity (Compl. p. 11).
D761,382 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a filter cartridge, as shown and described. | The complaint alleges that the Accused Product embodies a design that is "substantially the same" as the patented design. It presents side-by-side photographic comparisons of the Accused Product and the patent figures to show visual similarity in the overall shape, the top connector, and the bottom grip portion. | ¶¶31-32, p. 11 | Figs. 1-5 |
D761,383 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a filter cartridge, as shown and described. | The complaint alleges the Accused Product's design is also "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the ’383 Patent. It provides a separate table of side-by-side visual comparisons between the Accused Product and the figures of the ’383 Patent to support this allegation. | ¶¶53-54, p. 17 | Figs. 1-5 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central issue may be the distinction between functional and ornamental features. Defendant may argue that many aspects of the filter's design, particularly the top connector and the overall cylindrical shape, are dictated by their function (i.e., mating with the refrigerator and fitting within the designated space) and must therefore be excluded from the infringement analysis. The scope of the claimed design is expressly limited by the broken lines in the patent figures, which denote unclaimed subject matter (’D'382 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
- Technical Questions: A key question is whether the Accused Product can be "substantially the same" as two different patented designs (’D'382 and ’D'383). While the patented designs are similar, they are not identical, differing most notably in the top connector design. This raises the question of whether the Plaintiff is pleading in the alternative or if it believes the Accused Product is simultaneously close enough to both distinct designs to infringe each.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent cases, the "claim" is the visual design itself as depicted in the drawings, rather than a set of text-based limitations. Therefore, claim construction focuses on determining the scope of the claimed design as a whole, rather than defining individual terms.
- The "Term": The Scope of "The Ornamental Design"
- Context and Importance: The core of the dispute will be defining the scope of the claimed ornamental designs and comparing them to the accused design. The outcome of the case will depend on which visual features are deemed ornamental and protected, versus those deemed functional and un-protected. Practitioners may focus on this issue because successfully arguing that key visual similarities are driven by function can defeat a claim of design patent infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (favoring Plaintiff): The plaintiff may argue that the claim covers the overall visual impression of the design, and that minor differences are irrelevant if the accused product appropriates the novel aesthetic as a whole. The complaint focuses on the "overall appearance" being "substantially the same" (Compl. ¶¶32, 54).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (favoring Defendant): The defendant may argue the scope is limited to the precise ornamental features shown in solid lines, and that any functional aspects must be filtered out. The patent specification itself provides a basis for this by stating, "The broken line showing of the remainder of the filter cartridge is for environmental purposes only and forms no part of the claimed design" (’D'382 Patent, DESCRIPTION; ’D'383 Patent, DESCRIPTION). The analysis will also be narrowed by any relevant prior art introduced during the case.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by encouraging others, such as retailers, to sell the Accused Product, and that infringement occurs when they do so in accordance with Defendant's "instructions and/or encouragement" (Compl. ¶¶36, 58).
- Willful Infringement: Plaintiff alleges upon "information and belief" that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents and that its infringement has been willful (Compl. ¶¶37, 59). It also asserts that Defendant will have post-suit knowledge upon service of the complaint, making any continued infringement willful (Compl. ¶¶38, 60).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of functionality: To what extent are the visual features of the accused filter—particularly the connector interface and grip—dictated by their function? The court's determination of which design elements are purely ornamental versus functional will be critical in defining the scope of the protected design for the infringement analysis.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of visual comparison under the ordinary observer test: Will an ordinary observer, after filtering out functional elements and considering the prior art, be deceived into believing the single design of the accused HDX FMF-8 filter is the same as the two distinct (though similar) designs claimed in the ’382 and ’383 patents? The case may turn on whether the accused product is found to be substantially similar to one, both, or neither of the asserted patented designs.