DCT
2:25-cv-01752
Whirlpool Corp v. Broan Nutone LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Whirlpool Corporation (Delaware)
- Defendant: Broan-Nutone LLC (Wisconsin)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Nyemaster Goode, P.C.; Boyle Fredrickson S.C.
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01234, E.D. Wis., 11/07/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is a Wisconsin company that resides in, has a regular and established business in, and where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred within the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s “EZ1 Installation System” for undercabinet ventilation hoods infringes three patents related to simplified mounting brackets and installation methods that enable a single user to perform the installation.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns mechanical mounting systems for kitchen appliances, a field where ease of installation is a significant feature for both professional installers and do-it-yourself consumers.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant cited the application that matured into the lead patent-in-suit in its own patent applications and has previously litigated issues relating to it. The other two patents-in-suit are alleged to be part of the same patent family. These allegations may be used to support claims of pre-suit knowledge and willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-08-14 | Earliest Priority Date for ’507, ’093, and ’200 Patents |
| 2016-12-20 | U.S. Patent No. 9,523,507 Issues |
| c. 2017 | Accused Product instructional video published |
| 2019-06-11 | U.S. Patent No. 10,317,093 Issues |
| 2021-03-16 | U.S. Patent No. 10,948,200 Issues |
| 2025-11-07 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,523,507 - "Method for Mounting Undercabinet Ventilation Hood," issued December 20, 2016
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes conventional methods for installing undercabinet appliances like microwave ovens and ventilation hoods as tedious and time-consuming, often requiring two people—one to hold the heavy unit in place and another to insert fasteners (U.S. Patent No. 9,523,507, col. 2:1-18). This process is prone to misalignment issues.
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a method that simplifies installation so a single person can perform it. The method involves first securing specialized brackets to the underside of a cabinet. These brackets feature a “locator tab” to ensure correct spacing from the rear wall and “support tabs” that hang below the cabinet. The installer can then lift the ventilation hood, insert the support tabs into slots on the hood’s top panel, and slide the hood rearward. As the hood slides back, its top panel is received in slits formed by the support tabs, securely hanging the hood in place before final fastening (ʼ507 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:26-53).
- Technical Importance: This method was designed to eliminate the need for a second person during installation, reducing labor costs and complexity while improving the accuracy of the final placement (ʼ507 Patent, col. 2:19-24).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent method claim 1 (Compl. ¶37).
- Essential elements of claim 1 include:
- securing first and second brackets to the underside of the cabinet at spaced positions, with each of the first and second brackets including a locator tab abutting the real wall and at least some support tab extending below the cabinet;
- inserting each support tab into a respective slot provided in a top panel of the ventilation hood; and
- shifting the ventilation hood rearward, causing portions of the top panel of the ventilation hood to be received within slits established between the support tabs and main body portions of the first and second brackets, wherein the ventilation hood is hung from the first and second brackets.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 10,317,093 - "System for Mounting Undercabinet Ventilation Hood," issued June 11, 2019
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As with the parent ’507 Patent, this patent addresses the technical challenge of enabling a single person to easily and accurately mount a ventilation hood under a cabinet (U.S. Patent No. 10,317,093, col. 2:1-18).
- The Patented Solution: This patent claims the physical system (apparatus) that enables the simplified installation method. The system comprises two key components: (1) a pair of mounting brackets and (2) a ventilation hood. Each bracket includes a main body, a locator tab for positioning against a rear wall, and at least one support tab that, in combination with the main body, defines a “slit.” The ventilation hood is designed with a top panel containing slots that receive the support tabs, allowing the edge of the top panel to slide into and be supported by the slits in the brackets (’093 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:18-55).
- Technical Importance: By claiming the apparatus itself, the patent covers the tangible products that embody the single-person installation solution, rather than just the method of using them (’093 Patent, col. 2:19-24).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent system claim 1 (Compl. ¶58).
- Essential elements of claim 1 include:
- first and second brackets configured to be mounted to the underside of the cabinet at spaced positions, each of the first and second brackets including a main body, a locator tab extending from the main body for abutting the real wall and at least one support tab extending from the main body through a respective connection section and defining, in combination with the main body, a slit, with the support tabs being configured to extend below the cabinet upon mounting the first and second brackets; and
- a ventilation hood including a top panel provided with slots for receiving the support tabs in order to hang the ventilation hood from the first and second brackets with portions of the top panel being received in the slits.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 10,948,200 - "System for Mounting Undercabinet Ventilation Hood," issued March 16, 2021 (Multi-Patent Capsule)
- Technology Synopsis: This patent, a continuation of the ’507 Patent, claims a mounting system focused on the interaction between the bracket and the hood. The claims require a bracket with "distinct aligning and hanging structure," where the hanging structure includes a support tab that establishes a "ramp." This ramp is configured to force the ventilation hood upward against the underside of the cabinet as it is hung, ensuring a tight and secure fit (Compl. ¶73; U.S. Patent No. 10,948,200, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: Independent system claim 11 (Compl. ¶73).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that both "Bracket Design 1" and "Bracket Design 2" of the Accused Product embody the claimed system. Specifically, the main body and locator tab of the accused brackets allegedly form the "aligning structure," while the support tab with its angled or bent portion allegedly forms the "hanging structure" including the claimed "ramp" (Compl. ¶¶77-80).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The "EZ1 Installation System" for undercabinet ventilation hoods, sold by Defendant Broan-Nutone LLC. This system includes both the mounting brackets and the ventilation hoods designed to interface with them (Compl. ¶¶5, 22). The complaint identifies two specific bracket designs, "Bracket Design 1" and "Bracket Design 2" (Compl. ¶¶23-25).
- Functionality and Market Context: The accused system is designed to facilitate a simplified, single-person installation of a ventilation hood. The complaint provides images from Broan's installation guides and promotional videos that depict a process of mounting brackets to a cabinet, then lifting and hanging the hood on those brackets before sliding it into its final position (Compl. ¶¶40, 41, 47-49). A screenshot from a promotional video for the accused system states that it "makes one-person installation safer, simpler and faster than traditional installation methods" (Compl. p. 10). This visual evidence shows an annotated diagram from an installation guide identifying the "Locator Tab" and "Support Tab" on the accused bracket (Compl. p. 8).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
9,523,507 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| securing first and second brackets to the underside of the cabinet at spaced positions, with each of the first and second brackets including a locator tab abutting the real wall and at least some support tab extending below the cabinet; | Defendant's installation instructions and demonstration videos direct users to secure the brackets to a cabinet. The complaint includes annotated photos showing the accused brackets have a "Locator Tab" for abutting a rear wall and a "Support Tab" that extends below the cabinet. | ¶¶39, 40, 47 | col. 5:26-39 |
| inserting each support tab into a respective slot provided in a top panel of the ventilation hood; | Defendant’s instructions and videos allegedly show users inserting the support tabs of the brackets into slots on the top panel of the accused ventilation hood. | ¶¶41, 48 | col. 5:41-47 |
| shifting the ventilation hood rearward, causing portions of the top panel of the ventilation hood to be received within slits established between the support tabs and main body portions of the first and second brackets, wherein the ventilation hood is hung from the first and second brackets. | Defendant’s instructions and videos allegedly show users shifting the hood rearward, causing the top panel to engage with the brackets such that the hood is hung from them. | ¶¶42, 49 | col. 5:47-53 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A potential issue may be whether the physical gap on the accused bracket constitutes "slits established between the support tabs and main body portions" as required by the claim. The analysis will depend on how the court construes the term "slit" in the context of the patent.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges direct infringement by Defendant itself through the creation of demonstration videos (Compl. ¶¶45-49). An evidentiary question will be whether the actions depicted in those videos meet every limitation of the claimed method.
10,317,093 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| first and second brackets... each... including a main body, a locator tab extending from the main body for abutting the real wall and at least one support tab... defining, in combination with the main body, a slit... | The complaint provides annotated photographs of the accused brackets identifying the "Bracket Main Body," "Locator Tab," "Support Tab," and "Slit" as distinct features corresponding to the claim language. | ¶¶61, 62 | col. 4:25-51 |
| a ventilation hood including a top panel provided with slots for receiving the support tabs in order to hang the ventilation hood... with portions of the top panel being received in the slits. | The Accused Product's ventilation hoods are alleged to include a top panel with slots. The complaint includes a diagram showing these slots receiving the support tabs and portions of the top panel being received in the slits of the brackets. | ¶63 | col. 5:1-11 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: As with the ’507 Patent, the construction of the term "slit" will be critical. The dispute may center on whether the accused product's structure, a gap formed by a bent piece of metal, meets the definition of a "slit... defin[ed], in combination with the main body." The complaint presents a compelling visual by directly labeling the accused product with the patent claim term "Slit" (Compl. p. 15).
- Technical Questions: The complaint's allegations are supported by photographs of the accused product with its components explicitly labeled to match the claim elements (Compl. p. 15). The technical question for the court will be whether those labels accurately describe the function and structure of the accused device in a way that satisfies the claim limitations.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "slit"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in the independent claims of both the ’507 and ’093 patents and is foundational to the claimed invention. It describes the feature on the mounting bracket that receives and supports the top panel of the ventilation hood. The infringement analysis for both patents may turn on whether the accused bracket's structure falls within the scope of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's visual evidence directly maps this term onto a specific feature of the accused product (Compl. p. 15).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification refers to the feature as a "slit or recess 140" ('093 Patent, col. 4:46-47), suggesting the term is not limited to a narrow cut but could encompass a broader indentation or gap. Claim 1 of the ’093 patent defines it functionally as being formed "in combination with the main body," which could support an interpretation covering any structure that creates the necessary gap between the support tab and main body to hang the hood.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures and the corresponding description depict a specific embodiment where the slit is formed by a "cantilevered projection or finger section" extending from the main support tab structure ('093 Patent, Fig. 3; col. 4:42-51). A defendant could argue that the term "slit" should be limited to this particular stamped-and-bent metal geometry, rather than any generic gap.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all three patents. The factual basis for this allegation is that Defendant provides installation guides and publishes demonstration videos that allegedly instruct and encourage customers to assemble the accused system and perform the claimed installation method, thereby directly infringing the patents (Compl. ¶¶43-44, 65, 82).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all three patents. The complaint asserts that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patent family based on allegations that Defendant "cited the application that matured into the '507 Patent in connection with its own patent applications" and has "extensively litigated issues relating to the '507 Patent" in other matters (Compl. ¶27). Knowledge is imputed to the divisional ’093 Patent and continuation ’200 Patent as members of the same family (Compl. ¶¶51, 66, 83).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "slit," which is described in the patent specification with a specific geometric embodiment, be construed broadly enough to read on the accused bracket's structure, or will it be limited to the precise configuration shown in the patent's figures? The resolution of this question will likely be dispositive for the ’507 and ’093 patents.
- A central question for the '200 patent will be one of technical function: does the accused bracket's angled support tab perform the function of a "ramp" that "forces the ventilation hood upward to the underside of the cabinet," as required by the claim? The case may require expert testimony to establish whether the accused product's operation matches this specific functional limitation.
- A key legal issue will be willfulness: given the complaint’s strong allegations of pre-suit knowledge based on Defendant’s own patent prosecution and prior litigation history involving the asserted patent family, the court will need to examine Defendant’s state of mind and conduct to determine if any infringement was willful and deliberate.