DCT
2:25-cv-00254
Whirlpool Corp v. Krosol Global Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Whirlpool Corporation (Delaware)
- Defendant: Krosol Global Limited (Hong Kong)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Gillam & Smith, LLP; Nyemaster Goode, P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00254, E.D. Tex., 03/04/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that the Defendant is not a resident of the United States and may therefore be sued in any judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s non-genuine replacement refrigerator water filters infringe a patent covering a filter assembly with a specific bypass actuator mechanism.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns the mechanical interface between a replaceable water filter cartridge and the fluid manifold within an appliance, such as a refrigerator.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit claims priority from a U.S. provisional application filed on April 30, 2021. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or other proceedings related to the patent.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2021-04-30 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,806,648 |
| 2023-11-07 | U.S. Patent No. 11,806,648 Issued |
| 2025-03-04 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,806,648 - "Filter Assembly"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,806,648, "Filter Assembly", issued November 7, 2023 (the "’648 Patent").
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the general context of filtering water in appliances, which requires a user-replaceable filter unit to securely and correctly engage with a fluid manifold inside the appliance (’648 Patent, col. 1:19-23).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a filter unit featuring a unique "bypass actuator" that extends through the filter body. A user rotates an external knob, which in turn rotates the actuator. This single rotational action accomplishes two things simultaneously: 1) it drives a "bypass valve" in the manifold between bypass and filtering positions, and 2) its helical interface engages with the manifold to drive the entire filter unit axially, ensuring a secure, sealed connection with the manifold’s inlet and outlet valves (’648 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:11-22). This dual-function mechanism is designed to ensure proper installation and operation.
- Technical Importance: The design offers a mechanical advantage through its sloped groove interface, which can create a tighter seal between the filter and the manifold than a simple push-in design, potentially reducing the risk of leaks or improper installation (’648 Patent, col. 15:47-53).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶19).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A body portion for a water filter.
- An engaging portion with a first projection (inlet) and a second projection (outlet).
- A bypass actuator extending through the body and engaging portions.
- The bypass actuator has an actuating end (between the inlet/outlet) and an operating end (at the opposing end of the body).
- The actuating end has an interlock for a bypass valve and an interface with a helical section for engaging retaining features of a fluid manifold.
- A shaft couples the operating and actuating ends, where rotation of the operating end causes rotation of the actuating end.
- The bypass actuator is configured to rotate to "rotationally and axially operate the bypass valve" and to "drive axial engagement of the engaging portion with a valve assembly."
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the allegation of infringing "one or more claims" leaves this possibility open (Compl. ¶19).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are "non-genuine Whirlpool replacement water filters," including but not limited to filters sold under the "GlacialPure" brand (model GPE081) and "MARRIOTTO" brand (model MR81) that are marketed as replacements for the Whirlpool Filter A model filter (Compl. ¶¶5, 19).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused products are replacement filters for refrigerators (Compl. ¶4).
- It asserts that the structure of the accused products is "virtually identical" to that of the genuine Whirlpool® Filter A model filter, which itself is alleged to practice the ’648 patent (Compl. ¶¶12, 18). The core of the infringement allegation is that the accused filters replicate the patented assembly, including the specific mechanism for engaging the fluid manifold (Compl. ¶20).
- The complaint alleges the filters are sold throughout the United States (Compl. ¶5).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’648 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a body portion configured to receive a water filter | The infringing filters include a body portion configured to receive a water filter. | ¶20 | col. 6:11-12 |
| an engaging portion coupled to the body portion, wherein the engaging portion includes a first projection defining an inlet and a second projection defining an outlet | The infringing filters include an engaging portion with a first projection defining an inlet and a second projection defining an outlet. | ¶20 | col. 7:35-42 |
| a bypass actuator extending through the body portion and the engaging portion, wherein the bypass actuator includes an actuating end positioned between the inlet and the outlet | The infringing filters include a bypass actuator extending through the body and engaging portions, with an actuating end positioned between the inlet and outlet. | ¶20 | col. 6:18-22 |
| wherein the actuating end defines an interlock for engaging a bypass valve of a fluid manifold and an interface for engaging retaining features of the fluid manifold, and wherein the interface includes a helical section | The actuating end of the bypass actuator defines an interlock for engaging a bypass valve and an interface with a helical section for engaging retaining features of the fluid manifold. | ¶20 | col. 11:18-34 |
| and an operating end positioned at an opposing end of the body portion relative to the actuating end, wherein rotation of the operating end causes rotation of the actuating end, and a shaft coupled to the actuating end and the operating end | The bypass actuator includes an operating end at an opposing end of the body portion, where rotation of the operating end rotates the actuating end via a coupled shaft. | ¶20 | col. 9:16-24; col. 9:5-10 |
| wherein the bypass actuator is configured to rotate relative to the engaging portion and the body portion to rotationally and axially operate the bypass valve | The bypass actuator is configured to rotate relative to the engaging and body portions to rotationally and axially operate the bypass valve. | ¶20 | col. 17:11-20 |
| and wherein the bypass actuator is further configured to drive axial engagement of the engaging portion with a valve assembly of the fluid manifold | The bypass actuator is further configured to drive axial engagement of the engaging portion with a valve assembly of the fluid manifold. | ¶20 | col. 16:15-24 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint’s theory relies on the accused products being "virtually identical" to a product that practices the patent (Compl. ¶12). A primary point of contention will be whether the accused products’ components meet the specific definitions of the claim terms. For example, does the accused mechanism for engaging the manifold constitute an "interface" that includes a "helical section" as construed from the patent, or does it operate via a different mechanical principle (e.g., simple threads, a different cam structure) that falls outside the claim scope?
- Technical Questions: A key question for the court will be whether the accused actuator performs the dual functions recited in the claim: specifically, whether its rotation both "rotationally and axially operate[s] the bypass valve" and simultaneously "drive[s] axial engagement of the engaging portion." The defense may argue that its product achieves a similar result through a mechanism that operates in a technically distinct, and therefore non-infringing, manner.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "bypass actuator"
Context and Importance
This is the central component of the invention. Its construction will determine whether the accused product's mechanism for connecting to the manifold infringes. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition dictates the boundaries of the claimed invention and whether a competing design that achieves a similar outcome is infringing.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The Summary of the Disclosure describes the term functionally, stating a "bypass actuator rotates relative to the engaging portion to rotationally and axially operate a bypass valve" and "drives axial engagement," which could support a construction not limited to the exact structure shown in the embodiments (’648 Patent, Abstract).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures show a specific multi-part structure for the bypass actuator (18), comprising a knob (204), a shaft (228), and a fastener (170) that work in concert (’648 Patent, col. 9:5-10; Fig. 3). A defendant may argue that the term should be limited to an actuator having this type of multi-part construction.
The Term: "interface ... includ[ing] a helical section"
Context and Importance
This term defines the specific mechanical means by which the actuator's rotation is converted into axial motion of the filter unit. Infringement will depend on whether the accused product's engagement mechanism meets this structural requirement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself uses the general term "helical section," which could arguably encompass any spiral or corkscrew-like guide, not just the specific one shown.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly links this term to the "sloped grooves" (260, 262) on the fastener (170) which "spiral or extend in the same direction... to define the helical shape or section" (’648 Patent, col. 11:30-34). A party could argue the term is limited to this disclosed "double helix" sloped groove embodiment.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on allegations that Defendant provides instructions and advertises the filters as compatible replacements, thereby intending for customers to infringe (Compl. ¶23). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the filters are a material part of the invention, are not staple articles of commerce, and have no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶24).
Willful Infringement
- Willfulness is alleged based on "information and belief" that Defendant had "prior knowledge" of the ’648 patent and "sought to copy Whirlpool's patented Filter A design" (Compl. ¶¶22, 25).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction and factual equivalence: does the specific mechanical design of the accused replacement filters, particularly their actuator and engagement interface, embody the precise structures defined by key claim terms like "bypass actuator" and "helical section", or are there sufficient technical differences to place them outside the literal scope of the claims?
- A key evidentiary question will be whether the plaintiff's assertion that the accused products are "virtually identical" to its own patented product can be substantiated through discovery. The degree of similarity or difference in the products' internal mechanics will be central to both literal infringement and any potential doctrine of equivalents analysis.