DCT
1:25-cv-01403
Whirlpool Corp v. Electrolux Consumer Products Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Whirlpool Corp. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Electrolux Consumer Products, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Winston & Strawn LLP
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01403, D. Del., 11/18/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s low-profile over-the-range microwave hood combination products infringe a patent related to space-saving designs for such appliances.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns combination over-the-range microwave and ventilation hood systems with a reduced vertical height, enabling installation in kitchens with limited space between a cooktop and upper cabinetry.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff’s commercial products, which practice the asserted patent, have received industry recognition, including a 2019 iF Design Award. Plaintiff also alleges that its products have been marked with the asserted patent number, potentially entitling it to past damages.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016-04-12 | ’819 Patent Priority Date |
| 2019 | Whirlpool receives iF Design Award for its LP-MHC product |
| 2025-04-29 | ’819 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-11-18 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 12,289,819 - Combination Microwave and Hood System
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,289,819, titled “Combination Microwave and Hood System,” issued April 29, 2025 (the "’819 Patent").
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section notes that conventional combination microwave and ventilation hood systems "typically have a significant overall vertical dimension," which can prevent their installation in kitchens without sufficient vertical space above the cooking range (’819 Patent, col. 1:50-58).
- The Patented Solution: The invention achieves a "low-profile" design by reconfiguring the internal components. Instead of stacking ventilation fans and other hardware above or below the cooking cavity, the patented design places one or more hood fans on the "lateral sides of [the] cooking cavity" (’819 Patent, col. 8:41-44). This rearrangement significantly reduces the appliance's overall vertical height while preserving both cooking and ventilation functions. Figure 8 of the patent illustrates this concept, showing a hood fan (74) positioned to the side of the main cooking cavity (34), within the overall appliance housing.
- Technical Importance: This architectural approach allows for the installation of a dual-function microwave and ventilation appliance in spaces that previously could only accommodate a single-function ventilation hood (Compl. ¶9; ’819 Patent, col. 4:56-60).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-12, 16-18, 21-22, and 24-30, with a focus on independent claims 1 and 30 (Compl. ¶¶19-20).
- Independent Claim 1 requires, in essence:
- An external enclosure with top, bottom, and side portions, and a door.
- A cooking cavity within the enclosure.
- A cooking component (e.g., magnetron) located outside the cooking cavity.
- At least one recirculation vent outlet on the top portion and at least one vent inlet on the bottom portion.
- At least one hood fan to draw air through the inlet and expel it through the outlet.
- A separate cooling fan and associated air inlet/outlet to direct air through the cooking cavity.
- A key spatial limitation: "wherein each of the cooling fan and the at least one hood fan is located vertically below a top surface of the cooking cavity and vertically above a bottom surface of the cooking cavity."
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are "low-profile microwave hood combination products" sold under the "Frigidaire" and/or "Electrolux" brand names, including at least SKUs GMOS1266AF and GMOS1266SS (the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶¶1, 14).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the Accused Products are "copycat products" designed to compete with Plaintiff's own low-profile microwaves (Compl. ¶13). The complaint provides a screenshot from Defendant's website for the Frigidaire model GMOS1266AF, which markets the product's "Low-Profile Over-the-Range" design (Compl. ¶13). It also includes photographs of the exterior and interior of an Accused Product, showing the general arrangement of its cooking cavity and internal electronic and mechanical components (Compl. ¶15). A top-down view of the interior of an Accused Product shows various components situated to the side of the main microwave cavity (Compl. ¶15, bottom image).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references a claim chart in Exhibit B, which was not publicly filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶20). The analysis below constructs a summary of the likely infringement theory for Claim 1 based on the complaint's narrative allegations and photographic evidence.
’819 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an external enclosure including... a first side portion; a second side portion; a top portion... a bottom portion... and a door | The overall metal and plastic housing of the Frigidaire microwave, which includes a front door. The exterior is depicted in a photograph. | ¶15 | col. 6:40-51 |
| a cooking cavity located within the external enclosure | The central interior chamber of the microwave where food is heated. | ¶15 | col. 6:41-42 |
| a cooking component located inside the external enclosure and outside the cooking cavity | The magnetron, transformer, and associated electronics required for generating microwaves, which are shown positioned adjacent to the cooking cavity. | ¶15 | col. 7:15-24 |
| at least one hood fan located inside the external enclosure | Fan assemblies shown in the internal photographs of the accused product, located to the side of the cooking cavity. | ¶15 | col. 8:46-64 |
| a cooling fan configured to: draw air through the cooling air inlet; direct the air through the cooking cavity; and expel the air... | A fan assembly alleged to perform the function of cooling internal components and circulating air. The complaint does not distinguish this fan from the hood fan in its photographs. | ¶15 | col. 10:11-23 |
| wherein each of the cooling fan and the at least one hood fan is located vertically below a top surface of the cooking cavity and vertically above a bottom surface of the cooking cavity | The internal components, including fan assemblies, are arranged laterally next to the cooking cavity, rather than stacked vertically above or below it. This side-by-side arrangement is visible in a photograph of the accused product's interior. | ¶15 | col. 22:57-63 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the meaning of the final limitation requiring the fans to be "located vertically below a top surface of the cooking cavity and vertically above a bottom surface of the cooking cavity." The question for the court will be whether this requires every physical part of the fan assemblies to be strictly confined within the vertical height of the cooking cavity, or if it functionally describes a general side-by-side arrangement.
- Technical Questions: The complaint's photographs show various internal components, but do not explicitly identify and differentiate the "hood fan" from the "cooling fan" as required by separate limitations in Claim 1. Plaintiff will need to present evidence that the Accused Products contain two distinct fan systems performing the claimed functions.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "located vertically below a top surface of the cooking cavity and vertically above a bottom surface of the cooking cavity"
- Context and Importance: This phrase defines the core architectural novelty of the claimed invention—the spatial relationship between the fans and the cooking cavity that enables the "low-profile" design. The entire infringement case may depend on how this geometric and functional limitation is construed.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that the term should be interpreted functionally to mean that the fans are generally placed on the "lateral sides" of the cavity, consistent with the specification's description of the invention's purpose (’819 Patent, col. 8:41-44). This reading would accommodate minor parts of a fan assembly extending slightly above or below the cavity's vertical boundaries.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue for a strict, literal, and geometric interpretation, requiring the entirety of the fan assemblies to fit within the precise vertical planes defined by the top and bottom walls of the cooking cavity. Embodiments like Figure 8, which depict the fan components neatly beside the cavity, could be used to support this narrower construction (’819 Patent, Fig. 8).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Electrolux encourages infringement through its "marketing materials, product manuals, and web pages on its website" that promote the use of the Accused Products (Compl. ¶¶21-22).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Electrolux's purported knowledge of the ’819 Patent, or willful blindness to its existence (Compl. ¶25). The complaint explicitly states that by filing the suit, it has provided notice to Electrolux, forming a basis for potential post-suit willfulness damages (Compl. ¶23).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This dispute appears to center on allegations of direct copying of a novel product architecture. The outcome will likely depend on the answers to two primary questions:
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: How strictly must the spatial limitation "located vertically below a top surface... and vertically above a bottom surface of the cooking cavity" be interpreted? The case may turn on whether this language mandates a precise geometric alignment or describes a more general side-by-side arrangement of components.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: Can Plaintiff demonstrate, through technical evidence beyond the initial complaint photographs, that the accused Frigidaire microwaves not only adopt the patented side-by-side component layout but also contain the distinct "hood fan" and "cooling fan" systems as separately required by the asserted claims?