Portus Singapore PTE Ltd & Portus Pty Ltd v. Whirlpool Corp

Case Overview and Background

This litigation involved an assertion by non-practicing entities (NPEs) Portus Singapore PTE Ltd and Portus Pty Ltd against Whirlpool Corporation, a major manufacturer of home appliances. Portus, identified as a patent assertion entity (PAE), holds patents but does not produce products. Whirlpool is a well-known operating company that designs, manufactures, and markets a wide range of smart home appliances. The lawsuit alleged that Whirlpool's Wi-Fi-enabled products, such as smart refrigerators, ovens, washers, and dryers, infringed Portus's patents. Specifically, the complaint targeted the methods by which these appliances connect to and communicate over a network, a core feature of modern "Internet of Things" (IoT) devices. This case was part of a broader litigation campaign by Portus, which has filed dozens of similar lawsuits asserting the same patents against numerous technology and electronics companies.

The two patents asserted against Whirlpool were U.S. Patent No. 8,914,526, which generally describes a method for a device to automatically discover and connect to a network service, and U.S. Patent No. 9,961,097, which covers a system for configuring a device to access a wireless network by receiving credentials from another device. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, a venue historically favored by patent plaintiffs for its fast trial dockets and jury pools perceived as friendly to patent owners. However, the case was terminated on the same day it was filed, April 23, 2026, when Portus submitted a notice of voluntary dismissal.

The case is notable not for its courtroom developments, which were nonexistent, but for its context within the larger intellectual property landscape. It serves as a clear example of an NPE litigation strategy and highlights the critical interplay between district court litigation and parallel validity challenges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The immediate dismissal, followed weeks later by a PTAB final written decision in a parallel proceeding that invalidated all challenged claims of the '097 patent, strongly suggests the lawsuit was withdrawn in anticipation of this adverse ruling. This sequence underscores the effectiveness of the inter partes review (IPR) system as a tool for defendants to efficiently challenge patent validity and short-circuit potentially costly infringement campaigns.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

The litigation between Portus and Whirlpool was exceptionally brief, concluding before any substantive legal proceedings could occur. The case's entire public history in the Eastern District of Texas unfolded and concluded on the same day.

Chronological Developments

• 2026-04-23: Complaint Filed. Portus Singapore PTE Ltd and Portus Pty Ltd filed a patent infringement complaint against Whirlpool Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case was assigned to Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap. The complaint alleged that Whirlpool's Wi-Fi connected appliances infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 8,914,526 and 9,961,097. (Case No. 2:26-cv-00337, Dkt. 1).

• 2026-04-23: Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. On the very same day the complaint was filed, the plaintiffs, Portus, filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). (Case No. 2:26-cv-00337, Dkt. 4). This rule allows a plaintiff to unilaterally dismiss a lawsuit at any time before the opposing party files an answer or a motion for summary judgment.

• 2026-04-23: Case Closed. Following the notice of dismissal, the court clerk officially terminated and closed the case.

Outcome and Final Disposition

The case was terminated by the plaintiffs' voluntary dismissal on the day it was filed. This immediate withdrawal strongly suggests that a settlement and license agreement was reached between Portus and Whirlpool concurrently with the filing of the lawsuit. This is a common tactic used by non-practicing entities (NPEs) to formalize a settlement; the filing of the complaint serves as the trigger for the execution of a pre-negotiated agreement, after which the lawsuit is immediately dropped.

Because the case was dismissed before Whirlpool filed an answer or made any appearance, there were no other legal developments:

• Pleadings and Motions: No answer, counterclaims, or motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay were ever filed.
• Claim Construction and Discovery: The case did not advance to any later stages of litigation, so no claim construction (Markman) hearings were held, nor was there any formal discovery.
• Trial or Judgment: The case never proceeded to trial, and no judgment was entered on the merits.

Parallel Proceedings

A search of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) database reveals that the asserted patents have been the subject of Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings initiated by other companies sued by Portus. For instance, U.S. Patent No. 8,914,526 was challenged by General Motors in IPR2019-01257. However, these parallel proceedings had no direct procedural effect on the Whirlpool case due to its immediate termination. The existence of these challenges may have informed the settlement strategy between Portus and Whirlpool, but no stay pending IPR was ever requested in this litigation.

Plaintiff Counsel of Record

The complaint and notice of voluntary dismissal filed by the plaintiffs, Portus Singapore PTE Ltd and Portus Pty Ltd, identify attorneys from two law firms representing them in this matter.

Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC

This Wilmington, Delaware-based intellectual property firm frequently represents patent holders, including non-practicing entities, in litigation. Attorneys from the firm have represented Portus in numerous other patent infringement cases.

• Stamatios Stamoulis - Lead Counsel

  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: An experienced patent litigator with over 20 years in the field, Stamoulis has handled cases in major patent venues, including the Eastern District of Texas and the District of Delaware.

• Richard C. Weinblatt - Lead Counsel

  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: Weinblatt focuses on patent litigation and appellate work, with experience at firms like Fish & Richardson before co-founding his current firm. He successfully argued for the reversal of a § 101 dismissal at the Federal Circuit in Visual Memory, LLC v. NVIDIA Corp. (2017).

The Chong Law Firm, P.A.

Based in Delaware and Pennsylvania, this firm was listed on the pleadings, likely serving as local counsel in Texas as part of a common arrangement in patent litigation.

• Andrew Chong - Of Counsel / Local Counsel
  • Firm: The Chong Law Firm, P.A. (Wilmington, DE / Philadelphia, PA)
  • Note: While the firm's website focuses on personal injury, Andrew Chong has been involved as counsel for various LLC plaintiffs in a number of patent infringement cases, particularly in the District of Delaware.

Defendant Counsel of Record

No counsel for the defendant, Whirlpool Corp., ever made a formal appearance of record in this case.

The lawsuit was filed by Portus on April 23, 2026, and the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on the very same day (Dkt. 4), leading the court to terminate the case immediately. This dismissal occurred before Whirlpool was served or had an opportunity or obligation to respond to the complaint. As a result, no answer, motion, or notice of appearance was ever filed by any law firm on behalf of Whirlpool Corp.