Broan-NuTone v. Conglom Hong Kong: Range Hood Patent Suit Ends in Defendant Win
Broan-NuTone, LLC brought a patent infringement action against Conglom Hong Kong Limited asserting two patents covering range hood installation systems. After 920 days of litigation in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Judge Stadtmueller granted Conglom’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of Broan-NuTone’s claims with prejudice.
Range Hood IP Battle Ends at Summary Judgment — Plaintiff Claims Extinguished
Broan-NuTone, LLC, a prominent ventilation products manufacturer and holder of US11519611B2 and US10539329B2, filed suit against Conglom Hong Kong Limited on March 27, 2023, in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The patents in suit cover range hood installation systems, a commercially significant product category in residential and commercial ventilation. Broan-NuTone alleged that Conglom’s products infringed these two patents, triggering litigation that would span more than two and a half years.
The case concluded on October 2, 2025, when Judge J.P. Stadtmueller granted Conglom Hong Kong’s motion for summary judgment, resulting in Broan-NuTone’s claims being dismissed with prejudice. A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits — Broan-NuTone is barred from re-filing these same patent claims against Conglom. Conglom’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, meaning Conglom retains the right to pursue those claims in a future proceeding.
The 920-day duration suggests complex claim construction or non-infringement disputes that required extensive discovery before reaching summary judgment. Notably, a sanctions motion filed by Conglom was denied as moot, suggesting the court found no need to address alleged litigation misconduct once the dispositive motion was resolved. The specific grounds for summary judgment — whether non-infringement, invalidity, or both — are not fully discernible from the public record, though the restriction order on multiple exhibits suggests commercially sensitive technical evidence was central to the dispute.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 920 days
920 days — well above the median district court patent case duration of ~700 days
Summary judgment for Conglom: what the dismissal terms mean for both parties
Summary judgment ends case — no trial required
Summary judgment under Federal Rule 56 is granted when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Conglom’s successful motion means the court found that, viewing evidence in Broan-NuTone’s favour, no reasonable jury could have found infringement (or that the patents were valid). This is a full merits resolution without trial.
Defendant summary judgment winDismissed with prejudice — Broan-NuTone cannot re-file these claims
A dismissal with prejudice against Broan-NuTone operates as a final judgment on the merits under res judicata. The company cannot re-assert these specific claims of US11519611B2 and US10539329B2 against Conglom based on the same accused products. The restriction order on key exhibits also limits public disclosure of the technical basis for the ruling.
Claims extinguished with prejudiceConglom prevails — counterclaims preserved for future use
Conglom Hong Kong secured a complete victory on Broan-NuTone’s infringement claims. Its own counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, meaning Conglom voluntarily or by agreement forfeited nothing permanently — those claims can potentially be reasserted in a future action. The denial of the sanctions motion as moot removes any adverse finding against Conglom from the record.
Counterclaims preservedRange hood market: Conglom clears the IP barrier — for now
The summary judgment win clears Conglom Hong Kong to continue its range hood installation system operations without liability under these two patents. However, Broan-NuTone retains ownership of US11519611B2 and US10539329B2 and could pursue other accused products or parties. Competitors in the ventilation sector should monitor whether Broan-NuTone pivots its enforcement strategy to different claim sets or defendants.
IP barrier cleared for defendantFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Broan-Nutone, LLC | Company | Ventilation products manufacturer — holder of US11519611B2 and US10539329B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Conglom Hong Kong Limited | Individual | Hong Kong-based consumer products manufacturer accused of range hood patent infringementSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Chelsea M Murray | Attorney | Counsel for Broan-Nutone, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaku M Begert | Attorney | Counsel for Broan-Nutone, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Josh R Denison | Attorney | Counsel for Broan-Nutone, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Peter M. Siavelis | Attorney | Counsel for Broan-Nutone, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Raymond R Ricordati , III | Attorney | Counsel for Broan-Nutone, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Thomas L. Duston | Attorney | Counsel for Broan-Nutone, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Barnes & Thornburg LLP | Law Firm | Representing Broan-Nutone, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Marshall Gerstein & Borun LLP | Law Firm | Representing Broan-Nutone, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Aaron T. Olejniczak | Attorney | Counsel for Conglom Hong Kong LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brian David O’Reilly | Attorney | Counsel for Conglom Hong Kong LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christopher R. Liro | Attorney | Counsel for Conglom Hong Kong LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Andrus Intellectual Property Law LLP | Law Firm | Representing Conglom Hong Kong LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | OReilly IP PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Conglom Hong Kong LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge J P Stadtmueller | Judge | Wisconsin Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order grants summary judgment to Conglom on all of Broan-NuTone’s infringement claims — a dispositive ruling requiring the court to have found no genuine triable issue of material fact. The simultaneous restriction of eight exhibits (ECF Nos. 96-1, 99-2 through 99-11) indicates that technically sensitive product or claim evidence was central to the motion. The denial of the sanctions motion as moot, rather than on the merits, is legally neutral but removes any misconduct finding from the record. The split treatment of dismissals — plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, counterclaims without — preserves Conglom’s future litigation optionality while permanently extinguishing Broan-NuTone’s current claims.
US11519611B2 & US10539329B2 — Range Hood Installation System Patents
US11519611B2 (application no. US16/688181) and US10539329B2 (application no. US15/159571) both cover range hood installation systems — a technology domain encompassing the mechanical and structural methods by which ventilation hoods are mounted, aligned, and secured in residential and commercial kitchens. These patents sit within a product category where ease of installation and compatibility with standard cabinetry are commercially differentiating features. The continuation relationship suggested by their application numbers implies a family strategy by Broan-NuTone to protect incremental design improvements.
For Broan-NuTone, a major OEM in the North American ventilation market, these patents likely reflect investment in installation-simplification technology that differentiates their products from lower-cost imports. Asserting both patents against a Hong Kong-based manufacturer suggests a strategy aimed at blocking competitive imports at the product-design level. The summary judgment outcome — and the court’s restriction of key technical exhibits — limits the public record’s utility for third-party claim mapping, making independent FTO analysis against the full patent family especially important for competitors.
Should you run an FTO against US11519611B2 and US10539329B2?
Any manufacturer, distributor, or retailer active in the range hood and kitchen ventilation installation sector should treat these two patents as live enforcement risks. Despite Broan-NuTone’s loss against Conglom, both patents remain in force and Broan-NuTone retains full rights to assert them against other parties. Product teams designing or sourcing range hood mounting systems, installation brackets, or related hardware should verify their designs do not fall within surviving claim scope — particularly independent claims not at issue in the Conglom dispute.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of US11519611B2 and US10539329B2 against your product specifications, surface the full Broan-NuTone patent family, and identify prior art that may bear on validity. Given that the court restricted key technical exhibits, public analysis of claim scope is inherently incomplete — Eureka’s AI-assisted claim charting provides a structured starting point for counsel to assess design-around options and remaining exposure across the ventilation installation technology space.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11519611B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Range Hood & Ventilation Patent Cases in U.S. District Courts
Explore comparable patent infringement actions involving ventilation and kitchen appliance installation technology litigated in U.S. district courts, including E.D. Wisconsin.
What this case signals for the ventilation products IP landscape
A summary judgment loss with prejudice reshapes enforcement strategy — for both the patent holder and the broader range hood market.
Summary judgment loss with prejudice raises the bar for future enforcement
Broan-NuTone’s claims being dismissed with prejudice signals that the patents’ claim scope may be narrower than initially asserted. Competitors in the range hood sector should closely audit their own designs against the surviving claim language before assuming broad freedom to operate.
Conglom’s preserved counterclaims are a latent threat worth tracking
Counterclaims dismissed without prejudice typically include invalidity or unenforceability challenges. Conglom retains the right to press these in a future proceeding. Any future Broan-NuTone enforcement action — whether against Conglom or another party — could reactivate these claims as a defence.
Broan-Nutone v Conglom — key questions answered
Defendant Conglom Hong Kong Limited won. Judge Stadtmueller granted Conglom’s motion for summary judgment on October 2, 2025. Broan-NuTone’s patent infringement claims were dismissed with prejudice, permanently barring re-filing of those claims. Conglom’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, preserving Conglom’s option to pursue them in future proceedings.
Broan-NuTone asserted two patents: US11519611B2 (application no. US16/688181) and US10539329B2 (application no. US15/159571). Both patents relate to range hood installation systems. The patents remain in force despite the adverse outcome, meaning Broan-NuTone retains rights to assert them against other parties or in connection with different accused products.
A dismissal with prejudice following summary judgment operates as a final judgment on the merits under the doctrine of res judicata. Broan-NuTone cannot re-file the same patent infringement claims against Conglom Hong Kong based on the same accused products. It does not, however, prevent Broan-NuTone from asserting the same patents against different defendants or different accused products.
Conglom’s motion for sanctions (ECF No. 81) was denied as moot because the court resolved the case in Conglom’s favour via summary judgment. Once the underlying claims are eliminated, courts typically decline to rule on ancillary motions such as sanctions that no longer affect the outcome. This denial carries no adverse finding against either party on the merits of the sanctions allegations.
Both patents remain active and enforceable despite Broan-NuTone’s litigation loss. The specific claim limitations that failed at summary judgment are partially shielded by a court restriction order, limiting public visibility. Manufacturers or distributors of range hood installation systems should conduct independent FTO analysis against the full claim scope of both patents, particularly any claims not specifically addressed in the Conglom proceedings.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.