DCT
2:25-cv-17664
Whirlpool Corp v. Electrolux Professional Ab
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Whirlpool Corp. (Delaware Corp., PPOB Michigan)
- Defendant: Electrolux Professional AB (Sweden); Electrolux Consumer Products, Inc. (Delaware Corp., PPOB North Carolina)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Midlige Richter, LLC; Winston & Strawn LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-17664, D.N.J., 11/18/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper for the foreign defendant (EAB) in any judicial district. For the domestic defendant (ECP), venue is alleged based on a "regular and established place of business" in New Jersey, evidenced by authorized dealers, showrooms, state business registration, and prior consent to venue in 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 the internal architecture of combination microwave and ventilation hood appliances, aiming to reduce their vertical height to fit in more compact kitchen spaces.
- Key Procedural History: Contemporaneous with this complaint, Plaintiff filed a similar complaint against ECP in the District of Delaware and a complaint against Electrolux and numerous other electronics manufacturers at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), asserting the same patent. This multi-front strategy suggests an intent to seek both monetary damages (in district court) and exclusionary orders (at the ITC) to block importation of accused products.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016-04-12 | ’819 Patent - Earliest Priority Date |
| 2019-01-01 | Whirlpool earns iF Design Award for its LP-MHC product (approx. date) |
| 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,” issued April 29, 2025 (’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 limit the vertical space available above a cooktop and "overly restrict[] access to rear cooking regions" (’819 Patent, col. 1:51-59).
- The Patented Solution: The invention claims to solve this problem by reconfiguring the internal components to create a "low-profile" appliance with a "significantly scaled down overall vertical dimension" (’819 Patent, col. 4:45-47). Instead of placing all ventilation components above or behind the cooking cavity, the design places key components, such as the hood fans, on the lateral sides of the cooking cavity (’819 Patent, col. 8:41-47; FIG. 7). This architectural shift allows for a reduction in the appliance's total height while maintaining ventilation performance (’819 Patent, col. 10:50-55).
- Technical Importance: This design enables the installation of a dual-function microwave and hood in spaces that previously could only accommodate a standalone ventilation hood, expanding the market for such combination appliances (Compl. ¶13; ’819 Patent, col. 4:55-59).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of independent claims 1 and 30 (Compl. ¶23-24).
- Independent Claim 1 Elements:
- A microwave oven with a low profile configuration, comprising:
- an external enclosure including first and second side portions, a top portion, and a bottom portion;
- a cooking cavity within the enclosure;
- a cooking component outside the cooking cavity;
- at least one recirculation vent outlet proximate an edge of the top portion;
- at least one vent inlet on the bottom portion;
- at least one hood fan inside the enclosure configured to draw air through the vent inlet and expel it through the recirculation vent outlet;
- a cooling air inlet and a cooling air outlet;
- a cooling fan configured to draw air through the cooling air inlet, direct it through the cooking cavity, and expel it through the cooling air outlet;
- wherein each fan is located "vertically below a top surface of the cooking cavity and vertically above a bottom surface of the cooking cavity."
- Independent Claim 30 Elements:
- A microwave oven, comprising:
- an external enclosure with side, top, and bottom portions;
- a cooking cavity within the enclosure;
- a cooking component outside the cooking cavity;
- a recirculation vent outlet, a vent inlet, a hood fan, a cooling air inlet, a cooling air outlet, and a cooling fan with similar functions to Claim 1;
- wherein the fans and cooking component "are located in a component space defined between exterior vertical surfaces of the cooking cavity and vertical surfaces of the external enclosure resulting in a vertical dimension of less than about 300 mm."
- The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2-12, 16-18, 21-22, and 24-29 (Compl. ¶23).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are "low-profile" over-the-range microwave ovens sold under the "Frigidaire" and/or "Electrolux" brand names, including at least Stock Keeping Units (SKUs) GMOS1266AF and GMOS1266SS (Compl. ¶17-18).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges these are "copycat products" that Electrolux launched subsequent to Whirlpool's own product launch (Compl. ¶17). The products are marketed with the term "Low-Profile," which the complaint claims was coined by Whirlpool (Compl. ¶17). A screenshot from Defendant's website shows the "Frigidaire Gallery 1.2 Cu. Ft. Low-Profile Over-the-Range Microwave" marketed for its ability to fit into an "existing undercabinet hood space without losing interior capacity" (Compl. ¶17, p. 7). The complaint provides photographic evidence of the internal layout of an exemplary accused product, SKU GMOS1266AF, showing the placement of its fans, transformer, and other electronic components relative to the cooking cavity (Compl. ¶19).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’819 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an external enclosure including... a top portion... | The accused product has an external metal chassis, including a top surface. | ¶19 | col. 6:42-44 |
| a cooking cavity located within the external enclosure... | The accused product contains an internal cavity for cooking food. | ¶19 | col. 6:41-42 |
| a cooking component located inside the external enclosure and outside the cooking cavity... | The accused product contains a magnetron and high-voltage transformer outside the cooking cavity to generate microwaves. An image of the internal components shows a transformer and other electronics next to the cooking cavity (Compl. ¶19, p. 8). | ¶19 | col. 8:16-24 |
| at least one hood fan located inside the external enclosure... | The accused product contains internal ventilation fans, visible in a top-down photograph, designed to draw air from the cooktop below (Compl. ¶19, p. 9). | ¶19 | col. 8:41-47 |
| a cooling fan configured to... draw air through the cooling air inlet... | The complaint does not specify the location of the cooling fan or its function, but alleges infringement of the claim. | ¶23 | col. 9:11-14 |
| wherein each of the... hood fan is located vertically below a top surface of the cooking cavity and vertically above a bottom surface of the cooking cavity. | The complaint's photographs of the accused product's internal structure are intended to show that the ventilation fans are positioned laterally beside the cooking cavity, satisfying this geometric limitation. | ¶19 | col. 10:1-4 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the meaning of the spatial limitations in the claims. For Claim 1, the phrase "located vertically below a top surface of the cooking cavity and vertically above a bottom surface of the cooking cavity" will be critical. The question for the court will be whether this language requires the entirety of the fan assembly to be within this vertical range, and whether the accused products meet that geometric constraint. For Claim 30, the question will be whether the accused product's internal layout constitutes a "component space defined between exterior vertical surfaces of the cooking cavity and vertical surfaces of the external enclosure."
- Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires the cooling fan to "direct the air through the cooking cavity." The complaint does not provide specific evidence on this point. A key technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused product's cooling airflow path passes through the main cooking chamber itself, as opposed to flowing through channels around or adjacent to it, and whether the latter configuration meets the claim limitation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
"component space defined between exterior vertical surfaces of the cooking cavity and vertical surfaces of the external enclosure" (Claim 30)
- Context and Importance: This term is central to Claim 30's definition of the low-profile architecture. Its construction will determine whether the claim broadly covers various height-reducing designs or is limited to the specific side-mounted component arrangements shown in the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent repeatedly discusses the overall goal of reducing vertical dimension, which could support an interpretation that covers any component layout achieving that result, as long as it is between the cavity's outer wall and the chassis's inner wall (’819 Patent, col. 4:45-51).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures, such as FIG. 7 and FIG. 8, consistently depict the hood fans (66, 74) and cooking components (64) as being located on the lateral sides of the cooking cavity (34). This could support an interpretation limiting the "component space" to these lateral regions.
"direct the air through the cooking cavity" (Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This functional limitation on the cooling fan is a specific requirement for infringement of Claim 1. Whether the accused product's cooling system meets this limitation will be a key factual question.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself does not specify the volume or purpose of the airflow, potentially allowing for any amount of air directed into the main chamber to satisfy the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification and FIG. 16 illustrate a specific path for cooling air (94) passing through a "first cooking cavity air passage 96" and a "second cooking cavity air passage 98 on a top surface of cooking cavity 34" (’819 Patent, col. 10:21-28). This suggests the "through the cooking cavity" language may refer to these specific surface-level passages rather than the main food-containing volume, potentially narrowing the claim's scope.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement based on Electrolux's promotion, marketing materials, product manuals, and website content, which allegedly encourage infringing use by distributors and end-users (Compl. ¶25-26).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on two theories. First, the complaint pleads "on information and belief" that Electrolux knew of the ’819 patent or was willfully blind to its existence prior to the lawsuit (Compl. ¶29). Second, it establishes a basis for post-suit willfulness by stating that Electrolux received notice of the patent and its alleged infringement no later than the filing of the complaint (Compl. ¶27).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
A core issue will be one of claim construction and geometric scope: How will the court interpret the spatial relationship between the fans and the cooking cavity as defined in Claims 1 and 30? The case may turn on whether the accused product's internal architecture fits within the specific geometric boundaries required by the patent's language, particularly whether the fans are located in the "component space" between the cavity's vertical walls and the enclosure's vertical walls.
A second key issue will be one of factual infringement and technical operation: What evidence will be presented to show that the accused product's cooling fan "direct[s] the air through the cooking cavity" as required by Claim 1? The resolution of this question will depend on technical evidence detailing the precise airflow paths within the accused microwaves and whether those paths meet the functional requirements of the claim as construed by the court.