Whirlpool’s patent infringement suit against LG Electronics Inc. was resolved without a jury trial after a federal judge granted LG’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity in the action, according to lawyers for the South Korean concern.
The law firm of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, said the motion was granted Aug. 15 in U.S. District Court for Western Michigan. Previously, on July 18, the court granted LG’s motion for summary judgment of no infringement.
The full press release is as follows:
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP announced a major victory for client LG Electronics, Inc. against Whirlpool Corporation in a patent infringement action against the Profile Harmony washing machine, a high-efficiency washer made by LG and sold by GE.
On August 15, 2006, the District Court for the Western District of Michigan granted LG’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity in the action (Whirlpool Corporation v. LG Electronics, Inc., No. 1:04-CV-100) (W.D. Mich.). Earlier, on July 18, 2006, the Court granted LG’s motion for summary judgment of no infringement. As a result of these two decisions, the Court completely resolved the case in LG’s favor, entering Judgments against Whirlpool’s claims that the Profile Harmony washer or its use infringes the two asserted Whirlpool patents. Had the Court not entered the summary judgments, a jury trial would have begun on September 11, 2006.
At issue was Whirlpool’s efforts to remove the Profile Harmony washer from the U.S. market and to seek monetary damages, as Whirlpool itself announced when it filed the infringement action against LG in February of 2004. The Profile Harmony washer was the first U.S. brand impeller washing machine introduced in the U.S. market. It also was largest capacity washing machine available in the U.S. market, when it was introduced in 2003. This high-efficiency, large capacity impeller washer represents revolutionary advances in washing machine technology and major competition to Whirlpool. In an attempt to limit competition, Whirlpool initiated a lawsuit against LG, alleging infringement of two patents, U.S. Patent No. 4,784,666 (“the ‘666 patent”) and 6,212,722 (“the ‘722 patent”). In response, LG denied the allegations of infringement and announced that it would seek judgments that the asserted patents were not infringed and invalid. LG defended both its and its customer GE’s rights to compete in the U.S. market and bring better products and choices for U.S. consumers.
Finnegan vigorously defended LG in the action, and after discovery closed, Finnegan filed six summary judgment motions, seeking judgments of invalidity and noninfringement on both patents. These motions led to the Court’s grant of Judgments against both of Whirlpool’s asserted patents. The Court in the first grant found that the Profile Harmony machine and its use did not infringe the ‘666 patent. The Court in the second grant found that each of the 22 asserted claims of the ‘722 patent was invalid. Because these decisions completely resolved the case against Whirlpool, the Court granted Judgments against Whirlpool and did not decide LG’s additional motions seeking judgments that the ‘666 patent is invalid and the ‘722 patent is not infringed. The Court held these additional defenses, and LG’s defense of inequitable conduct against the ‘722 patent, to be moot at this stage of the case. One remaining issue before the Court is LG’s request that Whirlpool be ordered to pay LG its attorneys fees in defending LG’s and GE’s rights to compete in the U.S. market. Finnegan will file a motion with the Court requesting such an award.