Whirlpool v. Krosol Global: Default Judgment & Permanent Injunction in 142 Days
Whirlpool Corporation secured a default judgment and sweeping permanent injunction against Krosol Global Limited in the Eastern District of Texas, protecting US Patent No. 11,806,648 covering its EveryDrop Filter A refrigerator water filter line. The case closed in just 142 days — an unusually swift resolution driven by Krosol’s failure to appear or defend.
Whirlpool’s swift default win over counterfeit-compatible water filters
Filed on March 4, 2025, in the Eastern District of Texas, Whirlpool Corporation brought this infringement action against Krosol Global Limited — the operator of the gp-filter.com website — alleging that Krosol’s MARRIOTTO MR81 and GlacialPure GPE081 filters infringed claim 1 of US Patent No. 11,806,648, which protects Whirlpool’s EveryDrop Filter A refrigerator water filter design. The accused products were marketed as compatible replacements for Whirlpool’s patented filter models, including the EDRARXD1 through EDRARXD6 series.
The case closed on July 24, 2025, via default judgment — Krosol Global never appeared or filed a response, prompting Whirlpool to move for default judgment and a permanent injunction. The court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation without objection and entered a broad injunction covering not only product sales and distribution, but also payment processing relationships with Visa, Mastercard, PayPal, and similar services, as well as online advertising and the gp-filter.com domain itself.
Resolution in 142 days is consistent with default proceedings, where no contested briefing or trial is required. The breadth of the injunction — extending to payment processors and domain registrars — suggests Whirlpool pursued an unusually aggressive enforcement posture, likely aimed at dismantling the accused party’s entire e-commerce operation. Whether Krosol has related entities or successor operations distributing colorably different filters remains unaddressed by the public record.
Filing to Default Judgment in 142 days
142 days — faster than the E.D. Texas median; resolved by default rather than contested litigation
Default judgment entered: what Whirlpool’s sweeping win means for both parties
Default judgment: winning without a courtroom fight
A default judgment is entered when a defendant fails to appear or respond to a complaint. The court accepts the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations as true and, where supported, grants the requested relief. Here, Whirlpool’s motion was first reviewed by a Magistrate Judge, whose Report and Recommendation was adopted after no objections were filed — a two-step process that adds procedural legitimacy while maintaining speed.
Plaintiff wins on defaultWhirlpool secures one of the broadest injunctions in aftermarket filter IP
Beyond a standard sales injunction, the court blocked Krosol from using payment processors including Visa, Mastercard, PayPal, and Venmo in connection with the infringing website, and authorized Whirlpool to direct domain registrars to disable gp-filter.com. Inventory must be surrendered for destruction within 30 days. Attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and taxed costs further reinforce Whirlpool’s enforcement position and may deter future infringers.
Broad injunction + fee awardKrosol’s non-appearance leaves it fully exposed with no appeal record
By failing to appear, Krosol forfeited any opportunity to contest infringement, challenge patent validity, or limit the scope of the injunction. The default judgment binds Krosol’s subsidiaries, successors, assigns, officers, and agents — making it difficult to reconstitute operations under a related entity. Any future attempt to relitigate would face high procedural barriers. The public record is silent on whether Krosol has assets in the United States sufficient to satisfy a fee award.
No defense filed — fully boundA playbook for OEMs battling e-commerce aftermarket infringers
This case illustrates an emerging enforcement model: targeting not just the product, but the entire digital commerce infrastructure — payment rails, advertising links, and domain names. For other OEM filter manufacturers, it signals that US11806648 is actively enforced and that claim 1 covers the Filter A form factor broadly enough to reach multiple SKUs. Companies selling ‘compatible’ refrigerator filters in the US should treat this as a high-priority FTO signal.
E-commerce enforcement modelFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Whirlpool Corporation | Company | Major home appliance manufacturer — holder of US11806648B1 covering refrigerator water filtersSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Krosol Global Limited | Individual | Krosol Global Limited — operator of gp-filter.com, seller of aftermarket refrigerator water filtersSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeffrey David Harty | Attorney | Counsel for Whirlpool CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Whirlpool CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ryan Stefani | Attorney | Counsel for Whirlpool CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Gillam & Smith, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Whirlpool CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Nyemaster Goode PC | Law Firm | Representing Whirlpool CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Nyemaster Goode PC (Des Moines) | Law Firm | Representing Whirlpool CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order adopts the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation in full following de novo review — a standard that requires the district judge to independently evaluate the motion, not merely rubber-stamp it. The breadth of the injunction, extending beyond product sales to payment processing and domain infrastructure, reflects the court’s willingness to use equitable powers aggressively where a defendant defaults. The § 285 fee award further characterises this as an ‘exceptional case’ under patent law standards, which typically requires showing the losing party’s conduct was unreasonable — here, established by non-appearance itself.
US11806648B1 — Whirlpool EveryDrop Filter A refrigerator water filter
US Patent No. 11,806,648 (application number US18/308305) is a utility patent protecting the design and functional characteristics of Whirlpool’s EveryDrop Filter A refrigerator water filter — marketed under model numbers EDRARXD1 through EDRARXD6. The patent covers claim 1, which the court’s injunction treats as broad enough to encompass aftermarket filters marketed as ‘compatible’ replacements, including the MARRIOTTO MR81 and GlacialPure GPE081 SKUs. As a B1 grant (no pre-grant publication), the patent issued directly from application to grant.
The aftermarket refrigerator filter segment is a high-volume, high-margin category that OEMs have consistently sought to protect through both IP enforcement and technical lock-in. Whirlpool’s active enforcement of US11806648 — including seeking domain seizures and payment processor blocks — signals that this patent is a cornerstone of its Filter A IP moat. Any competitor designing or importing refrigerator filters compatible with Whirlpool appliances should treat claim 1 as a primary FTO target, particularly given the court’s willingness to enter broad injunctive relief on default.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US11806648B1?
If your company designs, imports, or distributes refrigerator water filters marketed as compatible with Whirlpool appliances — including Filter A, EveryDrop, or EDRARXD-series models — an FTO analysis against US11806648 is not optional. This case demonstrates that Whirlpool is actively enforcing claim 1 in U.S. courts and is prepared to seek payment processor blocks and domain seizures against sellers who do not engage. Private-label brands, OEM suppliers, and e-commerce resellers all face exposure.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your filter product’s technical features against the claim 1 language of US11806648, identify prior art that may narrow its scope, and surface related Whirlpool patents in the same family that could present additional risk vectors. Eureka’s litigation monitoring layer will also flag new filings by Whirlpool against similar products — giving your IP and product teams early warning before enforcement reaches your SKUs.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11806648B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Related refrigerator water filter patent cases in U.S. district courts
Cases involving aftermarket refrigerator water filter IP enforcement in U.S. district courts, particularly E.D. Texas default judgment and injunction proceedings.
What this case signals for the appliance aftermarket IP landscape
Whirlpool’s win sets a template for IP enforcement against online aftermarket sellers — combining patent rights with digital commerce disruption.
Payment processor injunctions are becoming an IP enforcement tool
The court’s order blocking Visa, Mastercard, PayPal, and others from serving the infringing website signals a shift in how OEMs enforce IP against e-commerce infringers. Companies selling compatible filters online — particularly via third-party marketplaces or direct websites — face existential operational risk if a similar motion is granted against them.
Claim 1 of US11806648 is now judicially tested and enforcement-ready
While default judgments do not involve adversarial claim construction, the court’s adoption of Whirlpool’s allegations confirms that the MARRIOTTO MR81 and GlacialPure GPE081 fall within claim 1’s scope. Any seller of Filter A-compatible replacements in the US should treat this as a live enforcement signal and conduct an FTO analysis against US11806648 before continuing distribution.
Whirlpool v Krosol — key questions answered
Whirlpool Corporation obtained a default judgment and permanent injunction against Krosol Global Limited in the Eastern District of Texas on July 24, 2025. The court adopted the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation, permanently enjoining Krosol from selling, distributing, or importing the MARRIOTTO MR81 and GlacialPure GPE081 filters, and awarded attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
US11806648B1 protects Whirlpool’s EveryDrop Filter A refrigerator water filter technology, covering model numbers EDRARXD1 through EDRARXD6. Claim 1 was asserted against aftermarket filters marketed as compatible replacements, specifically the MARRIOTTO MR81 and GlacialPure GPE081 products sold via gp-filter.com.
The court awarded attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which authorises fee recovery in ‘exceptional cases.’ Courts in the Eastern District of Texas have found that a defendant’s failure to appear and defend, combined with deliberate infringement, can satisfy the § 285 exceptional case standard. Costs were also taxed to Krosol as the non-prevailing party.
The injunction is exceptionally broad. It covers product sales, distribution, and importation; payment processing relationships with Visa, Mastercard, PayPal, and Venmo; online advertising linking to gp-filter.com; and authorises Whirlpool to direct domain registrars including NameSilo and Verisign to disable the gp-filter.com domain. Existing inventory must be surrendered to Whirlpool for destruction within 30 days.
The injunction covers not only the named products but also ‘any replacement water filters that are not more than colorably different therefrom.’ This means Krosol — or any successor — cannot relaunch with a nominally redesigned filter without risking contempt proceedings. Competitors selling Filter A-compatible products should conduct a thorough design-around analysis to ensure their products are substantively, not merely cosmetically, distinct from the enjoined SKUs.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.