DCT
1:25-cv-13661
SharkNinja Operating LLC v. Ningbo Rowan Electric Appliance Co Ltd
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: SharkNinja Operating LLC and SharkNinja Sales Company (Delaware)
- Defendant: Ningbo Rowan Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. (China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
- Case Identification: SharkNinja Operating LLC v. Ningbo Rowan Electric Appliance Co., Ltd., 1:25-cv-13661, D. Mass., 12/03/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant committed acts of infringement in the district and transacts business there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Kismile-branded air fryers infringe two U.S. design patents covering the ornamental appearance of Plaintiff's Ninja CRISPi portable air fryer.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of portable air fryers, a popular category within the competitive home kitchen appliance market.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided constructive notice of the patents-in-suit via its public patent-marking webpage, which may be relevant to future claims for damages.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2024-09-04 | Priority Date for D1,100,567 and D1,101,472 Patents |
| 2024-09-26 | Plaintiff launches Ninja CRISPi product |
| 2025-11-04 | U.S. Patent No. D1,100,567 issues |
| 2025-11-05 | Plaintiff alleges constructive notice for '567 Patent began |
| 2025-11-11 | U.S. Patent No. D1,101,472 issues |
| 2025-11-12 | Plaintiff alleges constructive notice for '472 Patent began |
| 2025-12-03 | Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. D1,100,567 - "Air Fryer," issued November 4, 2025 (’567 Patent)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the '567 Patent addresses the challenge of creating a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture, in this case, an air fryer pod (Compl. ¶20).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental appearance of a removable air fryer pod. The design features a two-tiered body with a rounded, tapered upper section that houses the controls and a wider, flared lower base with four distinct feet. The overall shape has a squared profile with rounded corners and a prominent handle extending from one side, as depicted in the patent's figures (’567 Patent, FIGS. 1-2, 6). The complaint alleges this design "capture[s] the essence of the product" (Compl. ¶22).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges this novel design aesthetic contributes to the market success of the Ninja CRISPi product by enabling "portable, safe air-frying functionality" in a user-friendly form factor (Compl. ¶22).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for an air fryer, as shown and described" (’567 Patent, Claim).
- The scope of the claim is defined by the solid lines in the patent's drawings, which depict the overall shape and configuration of the air fryer pod.
U.S. Patent No. D1,101,472 - "Air Fryer," issued November 11, 2025 (’472 Patent)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The '472 Patent claims a novel ornamental design for a complete air fryer assembly, rather than just the pod.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design of the removable air fryer pod from the '567 Patent in combination with a transparent glass cooking container and a size adapter ring that sits between the pod and container (Compl. ¶21). The claimed design is the overall visual appearance of this complete assembly, as illustrated in the patent's figures (’472 Patent, FIGS. 1-2).
- Technical Importance: This combination design creates a distinct visual identity for the entire product system, which the complaint alleges contributes to its consumer appeal and commercial success (Compl. ¶22).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for an air fryer, as shown and described" (’472 Patent, Claim).
- The claim's scope is defined by the visual appearance of the combined pod, adapter, and container as depicted in the patent’s figures.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The Kismile 4-in-1 Glass Air Fryer and the Kismile “Roasti” 5-in-1 Glass Air Fryer (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶32).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint identifies the Accused Products as air fryers sold in the United States through online marketplaces like Amazon.com (Compl. ¶¶ 4, 31-32). The complaint alleges these products are "inferior imitations" that "bear a striking resemblance to the Ninja CRISPi" (Compl. ¶¶ 4, 30). Visuals in the complaint depict the Accused Products as having a top-down heating unit that sits on a transparent cooking vessel, similar in configuration to Plaintiff's product. One such visual shows a side-by-side comparison of the Defendant's "Kismile 4-in-1" and Plaintiff's "Ninja CRISPi" (Compl. p. 9).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The central allegation is that the Accused Products are "substantially the same in overall impression to the patented design" from the perspective of an ordinary observer (Compl. ¶¶ 37, 46). The complaint provides side-by-side photographic comparisons to support this allegation.
- D1100567 Infringement Allegations
| Claimed Ornamental Feature ('567 Patent) | Alleged Infringing Appearance (Kismile 4-in-1 & 5-in-1) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental design of the air fryer pod, characterized by its two-tiered shape, flared base, and top handle. | The complaint alleges the Accused Products embody an overall visual appearance that is "substantially similar" to the patented design. A visual comparison shows the Kismile 4-in-1 pod next to a drawing from the patent. | ¶38; p. 10 | FIGS. 1-8 |
| A front profile featuring a tapered upper body above a wider, angular base supported by four feet. | The complaint provides a direct visual comparison suggesting the Kismile 4-in-1 and 5-in-1 products share a nearly identical front profile to the patented design. | pp. 11, 12 | FIG. 2 |
| A top-down plan view showing a squared shape with rounded corners, a circular central element, and a protruding power cord. | The complaint includes a top-view photograph of the Kismile products' control panels, alleging similarity to the top-down view of the patented design. | pp. 11, 12 | FIG. 6 |
- D1101472 Infringement Allegations
| Claimed Ornamental Feature ('472 Patent) | Alleged Infringing Appearance (Kismile 4-in-1) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental design of the air fryer assembly, including the pod, adapter ring, and glass cooking container. | The complaint alleges the Kismile 4-in-1 product, as a complete assembly, has a "substantially similar overall ornamental appearance" to the design claimed in the '472 Patent. | ¶47; p. 14 | FIGS. 1-8 |
| A perspective view showing the interplay of shapes between the pod, the flared adapter, and the transparent container. | The complaint presents a perspective photograph of the Kismile 4-in-1 next to a corresponding perspective drawing from the patent to illustrate the alleged similarity of the complete product. | p. 14 | FIG. 1 |
| A side profile of the combined assembly showing the specific proportions and contours of the pod sitting atop the container. | A side-view photographic comparison is provided to allege that the Kismile 4-in-1 mirrors the side profile of the patented design assembly. | p. 14 | FIG. 4 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The primary question for the court will be whether an ordinary observer would find the overall appearance of the Kismile products to be substantially the same as the patented designs. The analysis will turn on whether the similarities in the overall shape and configuration outweigh any differences in surface ornamentation, control panel layout, or branding.
- Technical Questions: A factual question will be how the presence of Defendant's "Kismile" branding on the Accused Products impacts the overall visual impression and the likelihood of observer confusion.
V. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing reference to Defendant "indirectly" importing infringing products, but the formal claims for relief are for direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 36, 45).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a specific count for willful infringement. However, it lays a foundation for enhanced damages by alleging that Defendant had, at a minimum, knowledge of the patents since the filing of the complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 40, 48). It further alleges that constructive notice was provided via Plaintiff's public patent marking webpage beginning on November 5, 2025, for the '567 Patent and November 12, 2025, for the ’472 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 40, 48).
VI. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the court's answers to two main questions:
- A central issue will be one of visual comparison: Would an ordinary observer, giving the attention a typical purchaser gives, find the overall ornamental appearance of the accused Kismile air fryers to be substantially the same as the designs claimed in the '567 and '472 patents, despite differences in branding and specific control panel layouts?
- A key underlying question, though not detailed in the complaint, will be the role of the prior art: How will the landscape of previous air fryer designs define the scope of novelty for the asserted patents and influence the "ordinary observer" analysis by establishing the context in which similarities and differences are judged?