DCT
1:25-cv-13755
SharkNinja Operating LLC v. Ningbo Moetree Furniture Co Ltd
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: SharkNinja Operating LLC and SharkNinja Sales Company (Delaware)
- Defendant: Ningbo Moetree Furniture Co., Ltd.; Ningbo Peitebobi Chongwu Yongping Ltd.; Ningbo Gaotong Commerce Co., Ltd.; and Ningbo Gaotong Shangwefuwu Youxiangon (China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-13755, D. Mass., 12/08/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants committed acts of infringement within the district and transact business there through interactive e-commerce websites accessible to Massachusetts consumers.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ OYLUS, Rellytech, and Flamemore-branded air fryers infringe three design patents covering the ornamental appearance of Plaintiff's Ninja CRISPi portable air fryer and its components.
- Technical Context: This dispute concerns the ornamental design of consumer kitchen appliances, a market where distinctive product appearance can be a significant commercial differentiator.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided constructive notice of the patents-in-suit via a public patent-marking webpage, referenced on its product packaging, beginning shortly after the patents issued.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2024-09-04 | Priority Date for D'567, D'472, and D'481 Patents |
| 2024-09-26 | Plaintiff's Ninja CRISPi Product Launch |
| 2025-11-04 | D1,100,567 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-11-05 | Alleged Constructive Notice for D'567 Patent Begins |
| 2025-11-11 | D1,101,472 and D1,101,481 Patent Issue Dates |
| 2025-11-12 | Alleged Constructive Notice for D'472 and D'481 Patents Begins |
| 2025-12-08 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,100,567 - Air Fryer
- Patent Identification: D1,100,567, "Air Fryer," issued November 4, 2025. (Compl. ¶1; ’567 Patent, cover).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the ’567 Patent does not describe a technical problem and solution. Instead, it protects a novel ornamental design for an article of manufacture (Compl. ¶19). The complaint provides context, describing the Plaintiff's product as part of a new category of portable air fryers featuring a removable top-down heating pod used with a glass container (Compl. ¶14).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a removable air-fryer pod (Compl. ¶20). The claimed design, illustrated in the patent's figures, consists of a two-tiered body with a flared, squared-off base that transitions into a curved, narrower upper housing, topped by a circular control surface ('567 Patent, Figs. 1-2).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the claimed design captures the "essence of the product" and is a driver of the product's "user-friendly, at-home applications" (Compl. ¶23).
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 visual appearance of the air fryer pod as depicted in the solid lines of Figures 1 through 8 of the patent. Key visual elements include:
- A multi-level body with distinct upper and lower sections.
- A generally square-shaped base with beveled corners and feet.
- A rounded upper section with a circular inset on the top surface.
- The specific proportions and curvatures of the transitions between these elements.
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,101,472 - Air Fryer
- Patent Identification: D1,101,472, "Air Fryer," issued November 11, 2025. (Compl. ¶1; ’472 Patent, cover).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: This design patent protects the ornamental appearance of a complete air fryer assembly, rather than a functional solution to a technical problem (Compl. ¶19).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design of an assembled air fryer unit, which combines the removable air-fryer pod with a glass cooking container and a size adapter between the two components (Compl. ¶21). The claimed design is the overall visual impression created by the combination of these three elements, as depicted in the patent's figures ('472 Patent, Figs. 1-8).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the ornamental design of the complete assembly contributes to the commercial success of the Ninja CRISPi and enables its "portable, safe air-frying functionality" (Compl. ¶23).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent asserts a single claim for "The ornamental design for an air fryer, as shown and described" (’472 Patent, claim).
- The scope of this claim is defined by the overall ornamental appearance of the assembled product shown in the solid lines of the patent's figures. Essential visual elements include:
- The air-fryer pod design (similar to that in the '567 Patent).
- A transparent, rectangular glass container with integrated handles.
- An intermediate adapter ring that mates the pod to the container.
- The visual relationship and proportions of the combined parts.
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,101,481 - Air Fryer Adapter
- Patent Identification: D1,101,481, "Air Fryer Adapter," issued November 11, 2025. (Compl. ¶1, ¶55; ’481 Patent, cover).
- Technology Synopsis: This patent protects the ornamental design for an air fryer adapter component. The complaint identifies this piece as the "size adapter" used between the air fryer pod and the cooking container (Compl. ¶21, ¶58). The design consists of a generally square frame with specific surface contours and feet ('481 Patent, Figs. 1-8).
- Asserted Claims: The single claim is for "The ornamental design for an air fryer adapter, as shown and described" ('481 Patent, claim).
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses the "size adapters" included with the Accused Products of infringing the '481 Patent (Compl. ¶58).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The OYLUS, Rellytech, and Flamemore-branded air-fryer products (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶34).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Products are air fryers sold by Defendants through online marketplaces such as Amazon.com and Walmart.com (Compl. ¶26, ¶28, ¶32). The products are presented as having a "striking resemblance" to SharkNinja's Ninja CRISPi and are characterized as "inferior imitations" (Compl. ¶4, ¶34). A side-by-side comparison image provided in the complaint shows the accused OYLUS product next to the Ninja CRISPi, both depicting a top-mounted heating unit, a transparent cooking vessel, and a base or adapter (Compl. ¶35).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The infringement analysis for a design patent centers on the "ordinary observer" test, which assesses whether an ordinary observer would believe the accused design is substantially the same as the patented design. The complaint provides visual side-by-side comparisons to support its allegations.
'567 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Patented Design Feature (from Figures 1-2) | Alleged Infringing Feature | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall two-tiered shape of the air fryer pod | The accused OYLUS, Rellytech, and Flamemore products each feature an air fryer pod with a similar two-tiered shape. | ¶43 | Figs. 1-2 |
| Flared, generally square base with curved corners | The accused pods appear to have a flared base with a similar squared-off footprint and corner radii. | ¶43 | Fig. 2 |
| Rounded upper body transitioning from the base | The upper section of the accused pods is rounded and transitions from the base in a manner that creates a similar visual impression. | ¶43 | Fig. 2 |
| Circular top surface feature | The accused pods display a circular feature on their top surface, corresponding in location and general appearance to the patented design. | ¶43 | Fig. 6 |
'472 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Patented Design Feature (from Figures 1-2) | Alleged Infringing Feature | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall appearance of the assembled pod, adapter, and container | The fully assembled accused products create an overall visual impression alleged to be substantially similar to the patented combination. | ¶51 | Fig. 1 |
| Combination of a top pod with a transparent, rectangular cooking vessel below | The accused products combine a top-mounted heating unit with a transparent, rectangular cooking vessel. | ¶51 | Fig. 1 |
| Proportional relationship between the pod, adapter, and container | The relative sizes and arrangement of the components in the accused products are alleged to be substantially the same as in the patented design. | ¶51 | Fig.2 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Overall Visual Impression: The central dispute will be whether an ordinary observer, giving the attention a typical purchaser would, would be deceived into thinking the Accused Products are the same as the patented designs. The complaint supports this with several side-by-side photographic comparisons of the accused products and patent figures (Compl. ¶43, ¶51, ¶59).
- Significance of Differences: The analysis may focus on the visual effect of any minor differences between the products, such as variations in surface logos, button placement, or exact curvature. The question for the court will be whether such differences are sufficient to create a distinct overall visual impression or are merely trivial details that do not alter the substantial similarity of the designs.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent cases, the "claim" is the visual design itself as depicted in the drawings, rather than a set of text-based limitations. The central issue is therefore the scope of the claimed design.
- The "Term": The overall ornamental design as depicted in the solid lines of the '567 and '472 patents.
- Context and Importance: The outcome of the infringement analysis depends entirely on the visual scope of the patented designs and how they are compared to the Accused Products. Practitioners may focus on this issue because the perceived breadth of the design dictates how much variation an accused product can have while still infringing.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the patents protect the overall shape, configuration, and combination of the components—the flared base, the two-tiered pod, and the assembly with a transparent container. Under this view, minor variations in surface texture, coloration, or branding on the Accused Products would not be sufficient to avoid infringement if the core visual identity is appropriated.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the claimed design is limited to the exact proportions, contours, and specific details shown in the solid lines of the drawings, such as the precise curvature of the upper pod housing ('567 Patent, Fig. 2) or the specific shape of the feet on the adapter ('472 Patent, Fig. 2). Any deviation in these specific details could be argued to create a different overall visual impression in the eye of the ordinary observer.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a general allegation that Defendants "indirectly import" infringing products (Compl. ¶3). However, the enumerated claims for relief are for direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), and the complaint does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for claims of induced or contributory infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a separate count for willful infringement but alleges facts that may support such a claim. It alleges Defendants had knowledge of the patents-in-suit at least as of the filing of the complaint (Compl. ¶44, ¶52, ¶60). It further alleges that Plaintiff provided constructive notice via a public patent-marking webpage, beginning one day after each patent's issuance, potentially establishing a basis for pre-suit knowledge (Compl. ¶44, ¶52, ¶60).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual similarity: Applying the "ordinary observer" test, are the overall ornamental designs of the OYLUS, Rellytech, and Flamemore air fryers substantially the same as the designs claimed in the SharkNinja patents, such that a typical consumer would be confused?
- A related question will be the scope of the design: Will the protected designs be viewed as covering the general configuration and combination of elements, or will they be limited to the precise, specific contours and details depicted in the patent figures? The answer will determine the degree to which differences between the products are legally significant.
- A key evidentiary question will concern notice and damages: Did SharkNinja's patent marking efforts—consisting of a statement on its product box directing consumers to a website—provide legally sufficient constructive notice to Defendants under 35 U.S.C. § 287, thereby enabling the recovery of damages for infringement that occurred prior to the filing of the lawsuit?