DCT

2:24-cv-00386

Dyson Inc v. SharkNinja Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00386, E.D. Tex., 08/22/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants are foreign corporations. Further, Plaintiff alleges Defendant SharkNinja sells the accused products into the Eastern District of Texas through both direct-to-consumer websites and established retail channels like Walmart, with products available for purchase and pickup within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cyclonic stick, handheld, and corded vacuum cleaners infringe nine patents related to vacuum cleaner design, cyclonic separation technology, and cleaner head assemblies.
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on the highly competitive consumer market for bagless cyclonic vacuum cleaners, a technology space where Plaintiff has historically been a market leader.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint references prior legal proceedings, alleging that Defendants were aware of the ’250 Patent because a European family member was asserted against SharkNinja affiliates in the Unified Patent Court. The complaint also cites statements made by Defendants in a U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) proceeding to establish a close, multi-decade product development partnership between SharkNinja and Omachron.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-01-18 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,603,745
2006-07-18 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,117,712
2007-02-13 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,444,731
2007-10-18 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,302,250
2008-11-28 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,100,999
2009-10-20 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,603,745
2010-07-16 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,021,655
2012-01-24 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,100,999
2012-02-21 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,117,712
2012-11-06 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,302,250
2013-05-21 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,444,731
2013-07-31 Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 10,292,556 and 10,786,127
2015-05-05 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,021,655
2015-09-17 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,433,687
2019-05-21 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,292,556
2019-10-08 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,433,687
2020-09-29 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,786,127
2024-08-22 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,302,250 - “CLEANING APPLIANCE”

  • Issued: November 6, 2012

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for a versatile cleaning appliance that can function effectively both as a full-length "stick" cleaner for floors and as a compact hand-held unit for cleaning upholstery, stairs, or vehicles. (Compl. ¶6; U.S. Patent No. 8,302,250, col. 1:16-33).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a cleaning appliance with a main body containing the motor and cyclonic separator, a cleaner head for contacting the floor, and a rigid wand that connects the two. The key aspect is that the wand is removable from the main body, allowing a user to detach the main body and use it as a standalone hand-held vacuum, with or without a cleaning tool attached directly to it. (’250 Patent, col. 2:5-24; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This convertible design architecture offers consumers the functionality of two different types of vacuums in a single product, enhancing utility and convenience. (Compl. ¶6).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶54).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • A main body comprising a handle and a cyclonic separating apparatus.
    • A motor and fan unit for drawing air.
    • A cleaner head having a dirty air inlet.
    • A wand which is removably mounted on the main body and which provides fluid communication between the cleaner head and the main body.
  • The complaint reserves the right to identify additional infringed claims during discovery. (Compl. ¶54).

U.S. Patent No. 8,117,712 - “CLEANING APPLIANCE”

  • Issued: February 21, 2012

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the challenge of integrating an effective filtration system into a compact, hand-held vacuum cleaner without creating excessive airflow restriction, which can reduce suction power. (’712 Patent, col. 1:21-36).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a hand-held appliance where the main body (containing the motor/fan) and the cyclonic separator are releasably connected. Their connection point forms a chamber that houses a filter located upstream of the fan. This structural arrangement allows for a filter with a large surface area to be fitted into a compact form factor. (’712 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:44-59).
  • Technical Importance: By enabling a larger filter area relative to the airflow path, this design helps maintain suction performance over time and reduces the frequency of filter maintenance. (’712 Patent, col. 2:1-5).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶69).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • A separator for separating dirt and dust from an airflow.
    • A body housing a fan and motor.
    • The separator and the body being releasably connected together about a chamber.
    • The chamber is formed partly by the body and partly by the separator.
    • The chamber houses a filter located upstream of the fan and motor.
  • The complaint reserves the right to identify additional infringed claims during discovery. (Compl. ¶69).

U.S. Patent No. 7,603,745 - “CLEANER HEAD FOR A CLEANING APPLIANCE”

  • Issued: October 20, 2009
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a control system for a vacuum cleaner’s motorized brush bar. The system is designed to automatically energize the brush bar motor whenever the main suction motor is switched on, ensuring optimal cleaning performance by default without requiring a separate user action. (’745 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:6-14).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 5. (Compl. ¶82).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses products including the Detect Pro and Vertex Pro Cordless of infringing this patent. (Compl. ¶81).

U.S. Patent No. 8,444,731 - “HANDHELD CLEANING APPLIANCE”

  • Issued: May 21, 2013
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to the ergonomic design of a hand-held vacuum cleaner. It claims a specific arrangement of a main body, a cyclonic separator, a handle, and a power source, configured to improve balance and user comfort during operation. (’731 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:44-54).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1. (Compl. ¶94).
  • Accused Features: Accused products include the Pet Cordless and Rocket Cordless lines. (Compl. ¶93).

U.S. Patent No. 8,100,999 - “SEPARATING APPARATUS FOR A CLEANING APPLIANCE”

  • Issued: January 24, 2012
  • Technology Synopsis: The technology is a mechanism for emptying a cyclonic vacuum's dust bin. It discloses a system with two separate catches: a first catch to open the base of the dust bin for emptying, and a second catch to detach the entire bin from the vacuum body. The second catch is inaccessible or obscured until the first catch has been operated, preventing accidental detachment of the entire bin. (’999 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:10-24).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1. (Compl. ¶107).
  • Accused Features: The Shark Wandvac and similar models are accused of infringement. (Compl. ¶106).

U.S. Patent No. 10,433,687 - “VACUUM CLEANER”

  • Issued: October 8, 2019
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a hand-held vacuum cleaner with a pistol-grip handle inclined at a specific angle (85 to 140 degrees) relative to the longitudinal axis of the cyclonic separating unit. This ergonomic configuration is intended to provide a more natural and comfortable user grip while facilitating easy emptying of the dirt collector. (’687 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:41-51).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1. (Compl. ¶120).
  • Accused Features: Accused products include the Shark Detect Pro, Vertex Pro Cordless, and Stratos Cordless lines. (Compl. ¶119).

U.S. Patent No. 9,021,655 - “VACUUM CLEANING APPLIANCE”

  • Issued: May 5, 2015
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent relates to a cleaner head designed to improve the capture of energized dust particles. It describes a dust channel between the agitator chamber outlet and the exhaust port with walls shaped to retain dust particles through collisions, preventing them from being re-deposited on the floor before they can be entrained in the airflow. (’655 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-68).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1. (Compl. ¶133).
  • Accused Features: The Shark Vertex and Stratos vacuum cleaner lines are accused of infringement. (Compl. ¶132).

U.S. Patent No. 10,292,556 - “CLEANER HEAD FOR A VACUUM CLEANER”

  • Issued: May 21, 2019
  • Technology Synopsis: This invention concerns a cleaner head with a brush bar that incorporates both bristles and a separate "sealing material" (e.g., a tufted fabric) between the bristle rows. This sealing material is arranged to seal against the cleaner head housing, restricting airflow through the front opening of the head and improving suction performance at the dirty air inlet. (’556 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:37-51).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1. (Compl. ¶146).
  • Accused Features: The Shark Vertex and Stratos vacuum cleaner lines are accused of infringement. (Compl. ¶145).

U.S. Patent No. 10,786,127 - “CLEANER HEAD FOR A VACUUM CLEANER”

  • Issued: September 29, 2020
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is related to the ’556 Patent and further details a cleaner head with a brush bar and a specific internal partition. The partition divides the internal chamber into an agitating region and a settling region, and includes a wall extending tangentially to the brush bar to help direct airflow and debris. (’127 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1. (Compl. ¶159).
  • Accused Features: The Shark Vertex and Stratos vacuum cleaner lines are accused of infringement. (Compl. ¶158).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint names a wide range of Shark-branded vacuum cleaners, including the Detect Pro, Clean & Empty Cordless Stick Vacuum, Rocket Pro DLX Corded Stick, Vertex Pro Cordless, Stratos Cordless, Pet Cordless, Pet Plus Cordless, Shark Cordless Pro, Wandvac, and other models with "materially similar designs." (Compl. ¶¶ 53, 68, 81, 93, 106, 119, 132, 145, 158).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The accused products are primarily cyclonic, bagless vacuum cleaners offered in handheld, stick, and corded configurations. (Compl. ¶¶ 9-11). The complaint alleges that these products incorporate Dyson's patented technologies and directly compete with Dyson's own product lines. (Compl. ¶12). To support this, the complaint provides a visual comparison of the Dyson V10 stick vacuum and the accused Shark Detect Pro. (Compl. p. 6). Plaintiff alleges Defendants position these products as lower-cost alternatives to Dyson's, quoting from SharkNinja's 2023 Annual Report that its strategy involves "taking market share from competitors who sell products at price points above...our own," specifically naming "Dyson" as such a competitor. (Compl. ¶11). The complaint also provides a screenshot from SharkNinja's website showing its direct-to-consumer sales channel for its "Shark" and "Ninja" brands. (Compl. p. 9).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not attach, claim chart exhibits for the asserted patents. The following analysis is based on the narrative infringement theory presented in the complaint.

  • U.S. Patent No. 8,302,250 Infringement Allegations
    The complaint alleges that the '250 Accused Products, such as the Detect Pro, practice the technology claimed in the ’250 Patent, infringing at least claim 1. (Compl. ¶¶ 53-54). The complaint states that Exhibit 6, which was not provided, "establishes the striking similarities" between the patent and the accused products. (Compl. ¶59). The core of this allegation is that the accused stick vacuums possess a main body with a handle, a cleaner head, and a wand that is "removably mounted" to the main body to allow for conversion to a hand-held configuration, thereby meeting the structural limitations of claim 1.

  • U.S. Patent No. 8,117,712 Infringement Allegations
    The complaint alleges that the '712 Accused Products, including the Vertex Pro and Stratos Cordless, infringe at least claim 1 of the ’712 Patent. (Compl. ¶¶ 68-69). The complaint states that Exhibit 7, which was not provided, demonstrates this infringement. (Compl. ¶72). The narrative theory suggests that the accused products feature a main body with the motor and a separable cyclonic unit, and that the interface between these two components creates a chamber that houses a filter, as required by claim 1.

  • Identified Points of Contention:

    • Scope Questions: For the ’250 Patent, a central question may be whether the connection mechanism of the accused products' extension tubes qualifies as a "wand which is removably mounted on the main body" as construed from the patent's specification. For the ’712 Patent, the dispute may focus on the term "chamber...which is formed partly by the body and partly by the separator," raising the question of whether the accused products' components are sufficiently distinct yet cooperative to meet this structural limitation.
    • Technical Questions: A key factual question will be mapping the specific components of the numerous accused Shark products onto the elements of the asserted claims. For instance, with respect to the cleaner head patents (’556, ’127, ’655), the analysis will require detailed evidence of the internal geometry, airflow paths, and material composition of the accused brush bar assemblies.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "wand which is removably mounted on the main body" (from claim 1 of the ’250 Patent)

  • Context and Importance: The infringement case for the ’250 Patent may turn on the construction of this phrase. Its definition will determine whether the modular stick components of the accused products fall within the scope of the claim. Practitioners may focus on whether "removably mounted" implies a specific type of connection intended for frequent user conversion between stick and handheld modes.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes the wand as being "attached" at one end to the main body and at the other to the cleaner head, without specifying a particular latching mechanism, which may support a broader reading covering various forms of detachable connections. (’250 Patent, col. 3:40-42).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures, such as Figure 1, depict a specific embodiment where the wand appears as a distinct, rigid tube connecting a handheld-style main body to a floor tool. This could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to designs that closely resemble this convertible architecture. (’250 Patent, Fig. 1).

  • The Term: "a chamber...which is formed partly by the body and partly by the separator" (from claim 1 of the ’712 Patent)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the core structural relationship of the claimed invention. The infringement analysis for the ’712 Patent will depend on whether the interface between the motor housing and cyclonic unit in the accused products creates a single, shared "chamber" as required.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the body and separator being "releasably connected together about a chamber," which could suggest that any cavity created at the junction of these two separable components meets the limitation, regardless of its precise geometry. (’712 Patent, col. 8:17-24).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 4 illustrates a specific embodiment where two corresponding recesses (50, 152) in the body and separator, respectively, combine to "form a chamber in which a pre-motor filter 56 is housed." This could support an argument that the term requires two partial, concave structures that join to form a complete enclosure for the filter. (’712 Patent, col. 4:35-42; Fig. 4).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For each asserted patent, the complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The allegations are based on Defendants publishing user manuals, promotional literature, and online support materials that allegedly instruct and encourage end-users to operate the accused products in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶¶ 60, 73, 85). The complaint also alleges Omachron induces infringement by actively assisting and encouraging SharkNinja in the development of the accused products. (Compl. ¶60).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all asserted patents, seeking enhanced damages. The basis for willfulness is alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents from multiple sources, including: (1) Dyson’s public patent marking website; (2) the assertion of a European counterpart to the ’250 patent against SharkNinja’s European affiliates; and (3) numerous citations to the patents-in-suit in U.S. patents assigned to Defendants Omachron IP and SharkNinja’s subsidiary, SharkNinja Operating, LLC. (Compl. ¶¶ 55-58, 70-71, 83-84).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim scope across a diverse portfolio: With nine patents covering distinct aspects of vacuum design—from ergonomics and modularity to cleaner head mechanics—a central challenge will be mapping the specific limitations of dozens of asserted claims onto the varied designs of the numerous accused SharkNinja products. The case will likely fragment into a series of sub-disputes over the technical operation of specific product families.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of willfulness and intent: The complaint presents extensive allegations of pre-suit knowledge, including citations to Dyson's patents within the Defendants' own patent prosecution files. This raises a critical question for the litigation: can Defendants establish that their designs were the result of good-faith, independent development and legitimate design-arounds, or will the evidence support the Plaintiff's narrative of knowing and willful imitation of patented technology?
  • Finally, the case presents a fundamental question of market narrative: The dispute pits an established market innovator against a competitor that is alleged to have built its market share by producing "lower-quality imitations." The court will be asked to determine whether the accused products represent lawful competition in the marketplace or an unlawful appropriation of patented intellectual property.