DCT
1:25-cv-00267
Solbello Inc v. Shoreshade LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Solbello, Inc. (North Carolina)
- Defendant: ShoreShade LLC (Georgia)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Hull Barrett, PC; Ward and Smith, P.A.
- Case Identification: Solbello, Inc. v. ShoreShade LLC, 1:25-cv-00267, S.D. Ga., 11/07/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having its principal place of business within the Augusta Division of the Southern District of Georgia and conducting business in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s ShoreShade sunshade infringes a reissue patent related to a self-adjusting sunshade assembly that orients itself with the wind.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns portable, pole-mounted sunshades, particularly for beach environments, designed to improve stability in windy conditions by functioning like a weather vane.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit, RE50,606, is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 11,596,211. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff filed the reissue application after discovering the accused product, intending to amend the claims "to remove any dispute that Defendant was infringing Solbello's intellectual property." This history suggests the asserted claims may have been drafted with the accused product in view, a factor that could become relevant to claim construction and potential defenses like intervening rights.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2019-08-28 | '606 Patent Priority Date |
| 2022-12-01 | Defendant allegedly purchased Plaintiff's product |
| 2023-01-01 | Defendant allegedly began selling accused ShoreShade product (approx.) |
| 2023-03-07 | Original U.S. Patent 11,596,211 Issued |
| 2023-09-12 | Plaintiff filed application to reissue U.S. Patent 11,596,211 |
| 2023-11-07 | Plaintiff first became aware of accused product (approx.) |
| 2023-11-17 | Plaintiff sent cease-and-desist letter to Defendant |
| 2023-12-18 | Defendant replied to cease-and-desist letter |
| 2025-09-30 | U.S. Reissue Patent RE50,606 E Issued |
| 2025-11-07 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE50,606 E - “Self-Adjusting Sun Shade Assembly”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE50,606 E, “Self-Adjusting Sun Shade Assembly,” issued September 30, 2025 (the “’606 Patent”).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies a key flaw in conventional beach umbrellas: their fixed canopies catch wind gusts, causing them to shift, tip over, or blow away, creating a nuisance and potential safety hazard (Compl. Ex. B, ’606 Patent, col. 1:33-51).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a sunshade assembly where a fabric "sail" is attached to one or more "ribs." These ribs are connected to the top of a central mast via a pivoting mechanism, allowing the sail and rib structure to freely rotate around the mast. This configuration enables the assembly to act like a weather vane, automatically orienting itself with the direction of the wind rather than resisting it, which enhances stability (Compl. Ex. B, ’606 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:4-7). Figure 1 illustrates the overall assembly, and Figure 10h depicts the sail extended in the direction of the wind.
- Technical Importance: This self-adjusting design aims to provide "improved stability in response to the wind blowing" and "reduce the likelihood of tipping over" compared to traditional umbrellas (Compl. Ex. B, ’606 Patent, col. 1:48-51).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 44 (’606 Patent, col. 16:44-col. 17:11; Compl. ¶53).
- The essential elements of claim 44 are:
- a mast configured to extend upwardly from a supporting surface, and having a top end and a bottom end;
- at least one rib located proximate the top end of said mast, and configured to rotate relative to the supporting surface;
- a sail having a proximal edge secured to said rib and an unrestrained free edge adapted to unfurl in response to blowing of the wind, and wherein an entire surface area of said sail is unrestrained from the proximal edge to the free edge; and
- when unfurled, said sail and rib are adapted to rotate together to a direction of the blowing wind.
- The complaint alleges infringement of the claims of the patent, "including, but not limited to," claim 44, thereby reserving the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶52).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused product is the "ShoreShade" sunshade (Compl. ¶36).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the ShoreShade is a "substantially identical copy" and a "copycat product" of Plaintiff's Solbello Shade (Compl. ¶¶36-37). Its functionality is described as a vertical sunshade with horizontal ribs that release a "billowing sail" designed to "rotate to align with the wind" (Compl. ¶62). The complaint provides extensive visual evidence, including a side-by-side photograph of the assembled products on a beach, to support its allegation of near-identicality (Compl. ¶37, p. 8). Further photographs compare the disassembled components, including ribs, arms, and hardware, which are alleged to be "identical in measurement, shape, and even screw position" (Compl. ¶¶39-42). The product is sold through Defendant's website and on Amazon (Compl. ¶50).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
RE50,606 E Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 44) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a mast configured to extend upwardly from a supporting surface, and having a top end and a bottom end; | The accused product includes a central pole or mast that extends upward from the beach, which acts as the supporting surface. This is depicted in a photograph with an annotation highlighting the mast (Compl. Ex. E). | ¶63 | col. 8:1-4 |
| at least one rib located proximate the top end of said mast, and configured to rotate relative to the supporting surface; | The ShoreShade has horizontal ribs attached to the top of the mast. The complaint alleges these ribs are configured to rotate to allow the sail to adjust to the wind, supported by annotated photographs and customer reviews stating the product "automatically adjust[s] to the wind direction." | ¶63 | col. 6:4-7 |
| a sail having a proximal edge secured to said rib and an unrestrained free edge adapted to unfurl in response to blowing of the wind, and wherein an entire surface area of said sail is unrestrained from the proximal edge to the free edge; and | The product includes a fabric sail whose leading ("proximal") edge is secured to the ribs, while its trailing ("free") edge is unrestrained, allowing it to unfurl or billow in the wind, as shown in an annotated photograph. | ¶63 | col. 9:55-64 |
| when unfurled, said sail and rib are adapted to rotate together to a direction of the blowing wind. | The complaint alleges that the ShoreShade's sail and ribs rotate together to align with the wind, performing the same function as the patented invention. This allegation is supported by reference to customer reviews included in an exhibit. | ¶63 | col. 9:64-67 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint's theory is one of literal infringement via direct copying, which simplifies the legal analysis if the factual allegations are proven. A potential point of contention may arise from the term "at least one rib," as the patent's embodiments primarily show a "pair of ribs." While a pair satisfies "at least one," any structural deviation in the accused product from the patent's specific embodiments could raise questions of scope under the doctrine of equivalents, which the complaint also pleads (Compl. ¶52).
- Technical Questions: The central technical question will be whether the accused product's rotational mechanism performs in the manner required by the claim. The complaint provides images of the accused product and relies on customer reviews to evidence the rotational function (Compl. ¶63, p. 20). The defense may focus on what specific structure is required to be "configured to rotate" and whether there is a fundamental mismatch in the technical operation of the accused product's pivot mechanism compared to that disclosed in the patent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "configured to rotate relative to the supporting surface"
- Context and Importance: This phrase captures the core self-adjusting function of the invention. The interpretation of this term will determine whether infringement requires a specific rotational structure or merely the capability to rotate. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent discloses a specific "pivot cap" ('606 Patent, col. 6:60), and the dispute may turn on whether the accused product's mechanism is equivalent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language does not recite a specific structure (e.g., a "pivot cap"), which may support a broader functional interpretation covering any structure that allows the rib to rotate relative to the ground. The specification describes the function generally: "The ribs and support arms rotate about the mast, thereby self-adjusting the direction of sail 20 in response to the wind blowing" (’606 Patent, col. 6:4-7).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently describes and depicts the use of a "pivot cap 40" as the structure that "enables rotation of the ribs about mast 30" (’606 Patent, col. 6:60-62; Fig. 3a). A party could argue that the term should be construed more narrowly in light of these specific disclosures.
- The Term: "wherein an entire surface area of said sail is unrestrained from the proximal edge to the free edge"
- Context and Importance: This limitation defines the aerodynamic character of the sail, distinguishing it from a conventional, multi-ribbed umbrella canopy. Infringement will depend on whether the accused product's sail lacks any intermediate connections or structures.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language suggests a sheet of material attached only at its leading edge, with no tethers, stays, or other structural elements attached to the main body of the sail.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures consistently show a simple, rectangular sheet of fabric (’606 Patent, Fig. 1, 8a). A defendant might argue that a sail with a different shape, cutouts, or minor stiffening elements would not have its "entire surface area" unrestrained, potentially seeking to limit the term to the specific, simple embodiments shown.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes boilerplate allegations for inducement and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 110-111) but does not provide specific facts to support these claims, such as allegations regarding user manuals or the sale of non-staple components for an infringing purpose.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge (Compl. ¶112). The basis for pre-suit knowledge is the allegation that Defendant purchased Plaintiff's Solbello Shade on December 1, 2022, and used it to create a "copycat product" (Compl. ¶¶ 32, 36). Post-suit knowledge is based on a cease-and-desist letter sent by Plaintiff on November 17, 2023, which provided Defendant with actual notice of the original patent (Compl. ¶98).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of claim scope in light of the patent's reissue history: The complaint states the reissue was pursued with knowledge of the accused product "to remove any dispute" about infringement. This raises the critical question of whether the asserted claims were impermissibly broadened to capture the accused product and whether Defendant may be entitled to intervening rights for sales made before the reissue patent was granted.
- The case will also turn on a key evidentiary question of copying: The complaint's narrative and willfulness allegations rely heavily on evidence of deliberate, part-for-part copying, primarily supported by side-by-side photographs. A core issue for the fact-finder will be whether this evidence is sufficient to prove that Defendant's product is not the result of independent design but of direct replication, which would strongly support the willfulness claim.
- Finally, a likely battleground will be patent validity: The defendant's pre-suit correspondence suggests it will challenge the patent's validity. Given the mechanically straightforward nature of a pivoting shade, a key question for the court will be whether the asserted claims of the '606 Patent are novel and non-obvious over prior art related to umbrellas, kites, sails, and weather vanes.