Skip to main content
A Better Partnership


Nov 2014
November 21, 2014

Defining Steam Set Stage for Client Victory

Who: Whirlpool Corp.
Industry: Manufacturing
Area of Law: Intellectual Property, Litigation
Results: A favorable judgment for Whirlpool that saved our client $84.5 million.


The Case

In 2007, appliance manufacturers Whirlpool Corp. and LG Electronics USA introduced the first steam clothes dryers. Whirlpool unveiled its steam dryer two months before LG, but LG filed a lawsuit that claimed Whirlpool’s dryers didn’t use steam. LG accused Whirlpool of false advertising and claimed Whirlpool’s actions cost LG $84.5 million in lost revenue. Whirlpool is a longtime Warner Norcross client, and made our lawyers part of the trial team that was assembled to fight LG’s claim. After a three-year legal battle that included an 11-day jury trial, the federal court rejected LG’s claim and ruled that Whirlpool’s dryers did, in fact, use real steam. The court ordered LG to pay $410,000 in costs to Whirlpool.

How We Helped

The case hinged on the definition of steam. LG claimed its dryer was the only steam dryer because it injected boiling water into the dryer drum. The Whirlpool dryer injected cool water into the hot, spinning drum. We participated in every aspect of the case, from extensive document collection and production during the preliminary injunction phase of the litigation to the handling of the crucial scientific testimony and key witness testimony for trial.

NOTICE. Although we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Also, we cannot treat unsolicited information as confidential. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any matter that may involve you until you receive a written statement from us that we represent you.

By clicking the ‘ACCEPT’ button, you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if you submitted it in a good faith effort to retain us, and even if you consider it confidential, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you.

Please click the ‘ACCEPT’ button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.



+ -