DCT

1:25-cv-25323

SharkNinja Operating LLC v. Individuals Corps Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-25323, S.D. Fla., 11/14/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendants have committed acts of patent infringement, conduct substantial business, have registered agents, and reside or may be found in the district through sales activities on interactive e-commerce stores accessible to consumers in Florida.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ e-commerce store offerings of frozen drink makers infringe one utility patent and one design patent related to Plaintiff's Ninja SLUSHi Professional Frozen Drink Maker.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to countertop home appliances for making frozen or semi-frozen beverages, a market segment that has seen innovation aimed at bringing commercial-style results to consumers.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provides notice of its patent rights, including for the patents-in-suit, on its product packaging and through a publicly accessible website, which may be relevant to questions of notice and willfulness.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2024-01-18 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 12,285,028
2024-01-18 Priority Date for U.S. Design Patent No. D1,091,236
2024-07-11 Plaintiff's Ninja SLUSHi Product Launched
2025-04-29 U.S. Patent No. 12285028 Issued
2025-09-02 U.S. Design Patent No. D1091236 Issued
2025-11-14 Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 12,285,028 - Mixing Vessel Baffles for a Drink Maker, Issued April 29, 2025 (’028 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that existing frozen drink makers often must be "very tall to provide sufficient headspace" to prevent the processed slush from contacting and sticking to the upper sidewalls and top of the mixing chamber (Compl. ¶31; ’028 Patent, col. 4:51-60). This need for a tall chamber is described as particularly problematic for household models intended to fit under standard kitchen cabinets (Compl. ¶31; ’028 Patent, col. 4:60-63).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention addresses this problem by introducing one or more internal baffles within the mixing vessel, which are configured to "optimize slush processing and flow" (Compl. ¶32; ’028 Patent, col. 4:65-67). These baffles, including side, front, and corner baffles, are designed to direct the slush flow for more thorough mixing, prevent blockages, and keep the slush from migrating up the vessel walls (Compl. ¶32; ’028 Patent, col. 1:57-67). This internal flow control system allows for a more compact vessel design with less headspace (Compl. ¶32; ’028 Patent, col. 14:48-51).
  • Technical Importance: This approach makes it possible to create a "countertop professional-grade slush machine for home-use" that does not require the large vertical clearance of many commercial units (Compl. ¶21, ¶37).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 ('028 Patent, col. 15:24-41).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A mixing vessel for a frozen drink maker,
    • comprising a vessel chamber configured to receive a drink product to be processed, the chamber having a front, rear, right side, left side, top, and bottom,
    • the vessel chamber comprising at least one asymmetric wall portion proximate to the front or top of the chamber, configured to promote slush flow,
    • wherein the asymmetric wall portion comprises a side baffle configured to extend laterally along the left or right side of the vessel chamber,
    • the side baffle is further configured to promote slush flow away from the side of the chamber and back toward a center of the chamber.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,091,236 - Collection Tray for a Drink Maker, Issued September 2, 2025 (’236 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent protects the unique ornamental appearance of a component part of a larger appliance, distinguishing it aesthetically from other products on the market (Compl. ¶34).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a collection tray, as depicted in the patent's figures (’236 Patent, Figs. 1-3). The design features a generally rectangular basin with curved front and rear walls and distinctive end features.
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the claimed collection tray design "aids a user in cleaning and maintaining the SLUSHi unit," which contributes to the product's overall "user-friendly" application (Compl. ¶35).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts the single claim of the design patent.
  • The claim is for "The ornamental design for a collection tray for a drink maker, as shown and described" (’236 Patent, Claim).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as the "Infringing Products," which are frozen drink makers sold by the Defendants through various "Internet Stores" (Compl. ¶3, ¶4).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products are countertop frozen drink machines that, according to images provided in the complaint, bear a strong resemblance to the Plaintiff's Ninja SLUSHi product (Compl. ¶54, pp. 15-17). The complaint provides images suggesting these products incorporate features for making slush drinks, including a mixing vessel and dispenser (Compl. p. 20). The complaint alleges that these are "inferior imitations of the SLUSHi" sold through online marketplaces to consumers in the United States (Compl. ¶4, ¶46). One image shows an accused product with a cutaway view highlighting an internal "Side Baffle" (Compl. p. 20).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’028 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A mixing vessel for a frozen drink maker, the mixing vessel comprising: a vessel chamber configured to receive a drink product to be processed, the vessel chamber comprising a front, a rear, a right side, a left side, a top, and a bottom, The accused products are frozen drink makers that include a mixing vessel for processing a drink product. ¶69, p. 20 col. 1:22-26
the vessel chamber comprising at least one asymmetric wall portion proximate to at least one of the front or the top of the vessel chamber, and the at least one asymmetric wall portion configured to promote slush flow within the vessel chamber, The complaint alleges the accused products' mixing vessel contains an asymmetric wall portion in the form of a baffle that promotes slush flow. ¶69, p. 20 col. 4:64-67
wherein the at least one asymmetric wall portion comprises a side baffle configured to extend laterally along the left side or the right side of the vessel chamber, The complaint identifies a "Side Baffle" in the accused products that extends along the side of the vessel. An annotated image in the complaint points to this feature. ¶69, p. 20 col. 12:58-61
the side baffle further configured to promote slush flow away from the left side or the right side of the vessel chamber and back toward a center of the vessel chamber. The complaint alleges the identified "Side Baffle" is configured to direct slush flow away from the vessel wall and toward the center. ¶69, p. 20 col. 13:39-44

’236 Patent Infringement Allegations

  • The complaint alleges infringement of the design patent by presenting a side-by-side visual comparison of Figure 1 from the ’236 Patent with photographs of the collection trays from the accused products (Compl. ¶75, p. 22). The complaint alleges that the accused products "infringe directly and/or indirectly the Design Patent" (Compl. ¶74). The visual comparison provided shows the accused products' trays, which appear to embody the claimed design's curved basin and overall shape (Compl. p. 22).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: For the ’028 Patent, a central question may be whether the term "asymmetric wall portion," which is described in the patent as including baffles, can be construed to cover the specific internal structures of the accused products. The analysis will also question whether the accused products' internal components are "configured to promote slush flow" in the manner claimed, or if their structure serves a different primary purpose.
  • Technical Questions: For the ’028 Patent, a key factual question is what evidence exists that the accused products' "Side Baffle" actually performs the specific function of promoting slush flow "away from the left side or the right side... and back toward a center," as required by the final limitation of Claim 1.
  • Design Patent Standard: For the ’236 Patent, the analysis will turn on the "ordinary observer" test, raising the question of whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused design is the same as the patented design.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’028 Patent, Claim 1

  • The Term: "asymmetric wall portion"

    • Context and Importance: This term is foundational to Claim 1, as it defines the inventive structure that allegedly solves the problems of prior art devices. Its scope will be critical, as the infringement allegation hinges on the internal structures of the accused products meeting this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if it is limited to the specific baffle embodiments shown or if it can encompass any non-symmetrical feature on the vessel's interior wall that affects flow.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad, referring to a "portion" of the wall, which is not explicitly limited to a separate, attached structure. This could support an argument that any integral, non-symmetrical molding on the vessel wall that affects flow meets the limitation.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the "asymmetric wall portion" by referencing specific baffle structures (e.g., "the mixing vessel may include a first baffle (i.e., a 'side baffle')") ('028 Patent, col. 5:1-3). This repeated equation of the term with specific baffle embodiments could support a narrower construction limited to such structures.

  • The Term: "side baffle"

    • Context and Importance: This term recites the specific structure that the "asymmetric wall portion" must comprise in Claim 1. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the feature identified in the accused products (Compl. p. 20) qualifies as a "side baffle."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim defines the baffle in functional terms: "configured to extend laterally" and "configured to promote slush flow." An argument could be made that any structure meeting these functional requirements is a "side baffle," regardless of its precise shape.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures provide specific examples of the side baffle, including one with a "curved surface 151" that "may slope gradually inward until reaching an inflection point 153" ('028 Patent, col. 13:10-20; Fig. 6A). This detailed description of a specific geometry could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to baffles with similar structural characteristics.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants "directly and/or indirectly" infringe the patents (Compl. ¶3, ¶68, ¶74). However, it does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for claims of induced or contributory infringement beyond the general sale of the accused products.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement has been and continues to be willful (Compl. ¶71, ¶76). The basis for this allegation appears to be the Defendants' "knowingly and willfully" use of the patents in their commercial activities (Compl. ¶59). The complaint also establishes a basis for notice by pointing to Plaintiff's patent marking, which directs the public to a website listing the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶39).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A primary issue will be one of functional scope: Do the internal protrusions in the accused frozen drink makers perform the specific, multi-part slush-flow-directing function required by the "side baffle" limitation in Claim 1 of the ’028 patent, or is there a material difference in their technical operation?
  • A second core issue will be one of design identity: From the perspective of an ordinary observer, is the overall ornamental appearance of the accused collection trays substantially the same as the specific design claimed in the ’236 patent, or are the similarities dictated by function or are there sufficient visual differences to avoid infringement?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of knowledge and willfulness: Given that the defendants are identified as a collective of online sellers, what evidence can Plaintiff produce to demonstrate that any specific defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents, as might be required to establish willful infringement?