Electrolux v. Aquamor: Design Patent Fight Over Refrigerator Water Filters Ends in Stipulated Dismissal
Electrolux Home Products, Inc. filed suit against Aquamor, LLC in the Central District of California, asserting two design patents covering refrigerator water filter aesthetics against the HDX-branded Model No. FMF-8. The parties reached a stipulated dismissal with prejudice after 230 days — each bearing its own legal costs.
Electrolux pursues design patent claims on water filter form factor
On October 12, 2023, Electrolux Home Products, Inc. filed an infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Aquamor, LLC. The complaint centred on two design patents — USD761383S (Application No. US29/527439) and USD761382S (Application No. US29/527438) — both directed at the ornamental design of refrigerator water filters. The accused product was the HDX-branded refrigerator water filter, Model No. FMF-8.
The case closed on May 29, 2024, via a court-ordered stipulated dismissal with prejudice in its entirety. The order, entered on the joint agreement of both parties and their counsel, specifies that each side shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs. A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits for preclusion purposes — Electrolux is barred from re-asserting the same design patent claims against Aquamor in a future action.
The 230-day resolution timeline is relatively short for a patent infringement action, suggesting the parties likely reached a private commercial resolution before substantive litigation milestones such as claim construction or discovery completion. The mutual fee-bearing arrangement is consistent with a negotiated settlement — though the public record does not disclose any licensing terms, royalty payments, or design-around commitments, so the precise commercial outcome remains unknown.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 230 days
230 days — below the median district court patent case duration, suggesting early resolution
Stipulated dismissal with prejudice: what the order means for both parties
Dismissed with prejudice by stipulation — a final bar on re-filing
A dismissal with prejudice entered by stipulation operates as a final judgment on the merits for claim preclusion purposes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). Electrolux cannot re-file these same design patent claims — USD761383S and USD761382S — against Aquamor in any future federal action. The joint nature of the stipulation signals mutual agreement rather than a contested ruling.
Rule 41 — final merits barElectrolux forfeits the right to relitigate these specific claims
By agreeing to dismissal with prejudice, Electrolux permanently relinquished its ability to sue Aquamor under these two design patents for the conduct at issue. This is a meaningful concession unless a private resolution — such as a licensing agreement, a design-around commitment, or a commercial settlement — was secured. The public record is silent on any such terms, so the true value exchange, if any, remains undisclosed.
Claims extinguished — no public settlement termsAquamor obtains finality on both asserted design patents
Aquamor, LLC secured dismissal with prejudice on both asserted design patents without any public judgment against it. The each-party-bears-own-costs arrangement suggests Aquamor did not face a cost award. Whether Aquamor made any private concession — such as modifying the FMF-8 design or paying a lump sum — cannot be determined from the court docket alone. The outcome nonetheless provides Aquamor with claim preclusion protection going forward.
Claim preclusion protection securedDesign patent enforcement in the water filter aftermarket — a live risk
This case signals that major appliance brands such as Electrolux are willing to deploy design patents against aftermarket filter suppliers targeting their installed base. Design patents on filter form factors can be commercially potent where replacement products must approximate OEM dimensions. Competing aftermarket suppliers should assess ornamental similarity to Electrolux’s USD761383S and USD761382S when designing compatible products for the relevant refrigerator platforms.
Aftermarket filter design riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Electrolux Home Products, Inc. | Company | Home appliance manufacturer — holder of design patents USD761383S and USD761382SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Aquamor, LLC | Company | Aquamor, LLC — distributor of HDX-branded refrigerator water filters including Model No. FMF-8Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Daniel S. Cho | Attorney | Counsel for Electrolux Home Products, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew S. DeAntonio | Attorney | Counsel for Electrolux Home Products, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ray Ashburg | Attorney | Counsel for Electrolux Home Products, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP | Law Firm | Representing Electrolux Home Products, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Electolux Noeth America, Inc. | Law Firm | Representing Electrolux Home Products, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Nicolson Law Group, PC | Law Firm | Representing Electrolux Home Products, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Sean M. Murray | Attorney | Counsel for Aquamor, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Aquamor, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order adopts the parties’ stipulation verbatim, providing no independent judicial analysis of the merits of the design patent infringement claims. The with-prejudice language is significant — it forecloses any future assertion of these specific claims by Electrolux against Aquamor, creating a preclusive bar. The equal fee allocation is neutral and does not indicate either party was found to have litigated unreasonably. No claim construction, validity ruling, or infringement finding appears on the public record.
USD761383S & USD761382S — ornamental designs for refrigerator water filters
USD761383S and USD761382S are U.S. design patents protecting the ornamental appearance of refrigerator water filters, filed under application numbers US29/527439 and US29/527438 respectively. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect only the ornamental, non-functional visual characteristics of an article of manufacture. In the water filter context, this typically encompasses the exterior housing shape, surface contours, and overall aesthetic configuration — not the filtration mechanism itself. The two related applications suggest a coordinated prosecution strategy to capture closely adjacent visual embodiments.
Strategically, design patents on consumer-facing filter housings carry significant commercial weight in the appliance aftermarket because replacement filters must conform to physical form factors dictated by the OEM refrigerator platform — limiting a competitor’s ability to create a non-infringing design that still fits the appliance. Electrolux’s assertion of both patents simultaneously against a single product (the HDX FMF-8) suggests the company views this paired design patent portfolio as a meaningful deterrent against aftermarket competition in the refrigerator filtration segment.
Should you run an FTO against USD761383S and USD761382S?
Any company developing, sourcing, or distributing aftermarket refrigerator water filters that are dimensionally or aesthetically compatible with Electrolux-platform refrigerators should conduct a design patent freedom-to-operate analysis against USD761383S and USD761382S before commercial launch. The HDX FMF-8 precedent demonstrates that even well-established retail filter products can attract design patent enforcement. The relevant test is the ‘ordinary observer’ standard — whether an ordinary consumer would find the accused filter substantially similar in overall visual impression.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can rapidly map the visual claim scope of USD761383S and USD761382S against your product’s design documentation, flag related Electrolux design patent filings in the same application family, and surface prior art that may limit the enforceable scope of these design rights. For product teams launching compatible filters or redesigning existing SKUs, an Eureka FTO report provides a defensible clearance baseline before market entry.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0761383S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent infringement cases in the consumer appliance aftermarket
Explore comparable design patent infringement actions involving consumer appliance components filed in the Central District of California and related federal courts.
What this case signals for the refrigerator water filter IP landscape
Electrolux’s willingness to assert design patents against HDX-branded aftermarket filters signals a broader enforcement posture in the appliance aftermarket.
Design patents are a credible enforcement tool for OEM filter manufacturers
Electrolux’s assertion of two design patents — not utility patents — against the HDX FMF-8 underscores that ornamental design rights are a first-line enforcement mechanism in the aftermarket filter space. Aftermarket suppliers should conduct design patent clearance searches before launching form-factor-compatible replacement filters.
Stipulated dismissal with prejudice typically signals private resolution
The combination of mutual fee-bearing and a with-prejudice dismissal entered only 230 days after filing is strongly consistent with a confidential commercial settlement. Parties monitoring this space should note that public docket silence does not mean no obligations were created — licensing or design-change terms may govern ongoing product sales.
Electrolux v Aquamor — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice by stipulation of the parties on May 29, 2024, approximately 230 days after filing. Each party agreed to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs. No public judgment on the merits of the design patent infringement claims was entered.
Electrolux asserted two design patents: USD761383S (application US29/527439) and USD761382S (application US29/527438). Both patents protect the ornamental design of refrigerator water filters. The accused product was the HDX-branded refrigerator water filter, Model No. FMF-8.
A dismissal with prejudice entered by stipulation does not reflect a determination of who won or lost on the merits. It means the parties mutually agreed to end the litigation permanently — Electrolux cannot re-file the same claims against Aquamor. The outcome is consistent with a private settlement, though no settlement terms are public.
The order that each party bears its own attorneys’ fees and costs is a neutral disposition. It means neither party was found to have litigated unreasonably or in bad faith, and no prevailing-party fee award was made under 35 U.S.C. § 285. This arrangement is common in stipulated dismissals reflecting a negotiated resolution.
USD761383S and USD761382S are U.S. design patents covering the ornamental appearance of Electrolux refrigerator water filters. They matter for aftermarket suppliers because design patent infringement is assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test — a filter with substantially similar overall visual appearance can infringe even if internal filtration technology differs. Suppliers of compatible replacement filters should conduct FTO clearance against these patents before launch.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.