Whirlpool Corp v. Kedyrolo LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Whirlpool Corporation (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Kedyrolo LLC (Florida)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Gillam & Smith, LLP; NYEMASTER GOODE, P.C.
• Case Identification: 2:16-cv-01292, E.D. Tex., 11/22/2016
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on the Defendant having committed acts of infringement within the district, including offering for sale and selling accused products to customers residing in the Eastern District of Texas via the internet.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Whirlpool-compatible replacement refrigerator water filters infringe a patent related to the design of fluidic cartridges and their end-piece connectors.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns the mechanical interface for replaceable water filter cartridges used in appliances, focusing on a design that allows for a more compact connection mechanism and thus a longer, more effective filter.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,000,894, successfully underwent an ex parte reexamination, with a certificate issued in 2014. The complaint also highlights a significant litigation history, stating that the patent's validity and enforceability have been acknowledged in numerous consent judgments entered by the same court in prior cases against other defendants.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2003-04-25	'894 Patent Priority Date
2006-02-21	'894 Patent Issue Date
2014-03-03	'894 Patent Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate Issue Date
2016-11-22	Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 7,000,894 - "Fluidic Cartridges and End Pieces Thereof"

• Issued: February 21, 2006

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies a desire to create more compact connection systems for water filter cartridges to maximize the space available for the filter media itself within confined appliance spaces. It also notes a desire for a design that uses mechanical advantage to actuate the appliance's internal valves ('894 Patent, col. 1:31-44).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes an end piece for a filter cartridge featuring specially designed inlet and outlet fittings. These fittings include "cam surfaces" that are "vectored," or angled, relative to the direction of the cartridge's insertion ('894 Patent, Abstract). When a user inserts the cartridge, these angled surfaces engage corresponding followers in the appliance's head assembly, translating the linear insertion motion into a perpendicular (orthogonal) motion that opens the appliance's water valves ('894 Patent, col. 10:33-57). This orthogonal actuation allows the valve mechanisms to be stacked, saving space and enabling a longer cartridge body. A third protrusion on the end piece can simultaneously operate a bypass valve ('894 Patent, col. 1:40-44).
• Technical Importance: This design allows for a more compact head assembly inside an appliance, which in turn permits the use of a longer, higher-capacity filter cartridge in the same overall footprint, improving filtration performance ('894 Patent, col. 10:40-57).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 4 ('Compl. ¶14). Independent claim 1, as amended by the reexamination certificate, is central to the dispute.
• Independent Claim 1 (as amended): An end piece for a filter cartridge comprising:
  • An end piece wall;
  • An inlet fitting having a longitudinal axis and a "cam surface" where at least a portion of the cam surface is "vectored" from the longitudinal axis;
  • An outlet fitting;
  • A protrusion having a longitudinal axis, positioned between the inlet and outlet fittings; and
  • A specific geometric arrangement wherein the distances between the longitudinal axes of the inlet fitting, outlet fitting, and protrusion are each "about 2 cm."
• The complaint alleges indirect infringement of claims 2, 3, and 28 and reserves the right to assert additional claims ('Compl. ¶¶ 17, 19).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are "Whirlpool-compatible replacement water filters," specifically identifying a filter with a "Beta" label, Model No. B123, which is described as a "Whirlpool 'Filter 3' design" (the "Infringing Filter") ('Compl. ¶¶ 5, 15).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused filters are designed to be installed in Whirlpool refrigerators, replacing the original manufacturer's filters to provide filtered water ('Compl. ¶18).
• The complaint alleges these filters are sold through online retail outlets, including www.walmart.com ('Compl. ¶5). The complaint also states that Whirlpool has obtained a physical sample of the accused filter ('Compl. ¶15). The complaint provides photographs of the accused 'Beta' label, Model No. B123 filter, intended to show its infringing structure (Compl. ¶15, Ex. B).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain or reference a claim chart exhibit. The infringement theory is articulated through general allegations that the accused filters are covered by at least claims 1 and 4 of the ’894 patent ('Compl. ¶14). The core of the direct infringement allegation is that the accused "Beta" Model B123 filter has a physical structure, particularly its end piece, that embodies the patented invention. This compatibility with Whirlpool's "Filter 3" refrigerators suggests, according to the complaint, that the accused filter necessarily includes an end piece with inlet and outlet fittings and a central protrusion arranged in the specific geometry required by claim 1. The allegation further implies that the accused filter's inlet fitting features a "cam surface" that is "vectored" to achieve the orthogonal valve actuation central to the patented design ('Compl. ¶¶ 5, 15).

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The amended claim 1 specifies that the distances between the axes of the inlet, outlet, and protrusion are all "about 2 cm." A central question for the court will be the proper construction of the term "about." The infringement analysis may turn on whether the measured dimensions of the accused filter fall within the range permitted by this term.
• Technical Questions: A key factual dispute will be whether the accused filter's inlet fitting has a structure that meets the patent’s definition of a "cam surface" and is "vectored" in the claimed manner. This will involve a technical comparison to determine if the accused product's surface performs the specific function of orthogonal valve actuation as described in the patent, or if it operates in a materially different way.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"cam surface"

Context and Importance: This term is the primary functional element of the asserted claims. The infringement dispute will likely depend on whether a surface on the accused filter's connector meets the structural and functional requirements of a "cam surface." Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition dictates how the accused product's physical form is mapped to the claim's functional language.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent provides a broad functional definition, stating "the term 'cam surface' refers to the sum of all surfaces that physically touch a follower of a valve for the purpose of actuating the valve" ('894 Patent, col. 3:61-64).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes specific embodiments in detail, such as a cam surface comprising an "angled portion 70" for moving a valve follower and a "flat portion 68" for holding it in place ('894 Patent, col. 14:45-53).

"vectored"

Context and Importance: This term defines the orientation of the cam surface, which provides the claimed "mechanical advantage." Whether the accused product's actuating surface is "vectored" will be a critical infringement question.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines "vectored" as having a "radial component some degree from a referenced line or axis," which is a relatively broad definition ('894 Patent, col. 4:8-11).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses specific angles, such as "approximately 45 degrees" ('894 Patent, col. 8:1-3), and distinguishes between "partially vectored" and "fully vectored" (90 degrees) ('894 Patent, col. 4:15-21).

"about 2 cm"

Context and Importance: This dimensional limitation, added during reexamination, defines the specific geometry of the claimed end piece. Given its specificity, it is likely to be a dispositive element in the infringement analysis.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of "about" inherently provides flexibility and is intended to cover minor variations from the stated value. Plaintiff may argue the term should be interpreted to encompass any filter that is functionally interchangeable with one having the exact 2 cm dimension.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue that the addition of this precise numerical value during reexamination was intended to narrow the claim to distinguish it from prior art, suggesting that "about" should be construed narrowly to cover only very slight deviations from 2 cm.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. The inducement claim is based on allegations that Kedyrolo had knowledge of the '894 patent (via Whirlpool's product marking and prior lawsuits) and intended for its customers to infringe by providing installation instructions and marketing the filters as compatible with Whirlpool refrigerators ('Compl. ¶¶ 17, 18). The contributory infringement claim alleges the filter is a material component of the patented system that lacks substantial non-infringing uses ('Compl. ¶19).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Kedyrolo's purported pre-suit knowledge of the '894 patent. This knowledge is alleged to stem from Whirlpool's patent marking on its own commercial products, as well as the "large number of lawsuits" and "consent judgments" related to the same patent against other parties ('Compl. ¶¶ 17, 20).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A core issue will be one of dimensional scope: Will the accused filter's measured geometry, specifically the triangular spacing between its inlet, outlet, and protrusion, be found to fall within the scope of the claim term "about 2 cm" as construed by the court?
• A second central question will be one of structural and functional correspondence: Does the accused filter's connector possess a physical surface that meets the patent's definition of a "cam surface" that is "vectored," and does that surface operate to cause the specific orthogonal valve actuation that is the stated purpose of the invention?