RJ Brands LLC v. SharkNinja Operating LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-01529
• Patent #: 11,389,026
• Filed: September 12, 2025
• Petitioner(s): RJ Brands, LLC, d/b/a CHEFMAN
• Patent Owner(s): SharkNinja Operating LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-4 and 7-20

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Dual Air Fryer Cooking System
• Brief Description: The ’026 patent describes a cooking system, such as an air fryer, with a side-by-side dual-compartment configuration. The system features two independent and removable cooking containers, each with its own heating element and fan, allowing for simultaneous and independent cooking operations within a single housing.

3. Key Technical Contentions

• Priority Date Challenge: Petitioner argued the ’026 patent is not entitled to its claimed priority date of July 15, 2019, from the ’193 Provisional application. The argument centered on the limitation "forming a continuous outer surface," which was added during prosecution. Petitioner asserted that the ’193 provisional lacks written description support for this feature, showing instead a noticeable gap between the cooking container and the housing. Petitioner contended the first disclosure supporting this limitation appeared in the July 15, 2020, PCT application. This later effective filing date is critical, as it renders the Zhang reference, published in January 2020, prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1).

4. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over Zhang - Claims 1-4, 7, and 16 are anticipated by Zhang.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Zhang (Chinese Utility Model Patent No. CN110664270A).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Zhang discloses every element of the challenged independent claims. Zhang teaches a dual-pot air fryer with a main housing containing two internal compartments, each receiving a removable pot body (cooking container). Zhang explicitly describes two independent heating tubes and two hot air fans, positioned above the respective pot bodies, that allow for two different cooking operations to be performed simultaneously. Critically, Petitioner argued Zhang discloses that when the pot bodies are inserted, their outer sides remain "flush" with the housing body, forming the claimed "continuous outer surface." Dependent claims relating to fluidly separate compartments, vertical stacking of fans over heating elements, and handles on each container were also argued to be expressly taught by Zhang.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Zhang and Conrad - Claims 11-14 and 17-19 are obvious over Zhang in view of Conrad.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Zhang (Chinese Utility Model Patent No. CN110664270A) and Conrad (WO 2019/068193A1).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Zhang provides the foundational dual-basket air fryer with independent heating assemblies, as detailed in Ground 1. For claim limitations related to programmability and control systems not explicitly detailed in Zhang, Petitioner relied on Conrad. Conrad teaches a tabletop kitchen device with dual cooking zones where cooking conditions (e.g., temperature, convection speed) can be selectively activated and deactivated independently for each zone according to a user-selected cooking program via a controller.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Conrad's programmable controller with Zhang's dual-fryer structure to achieve the known benefit of enhanced user control and cooking flexibility. Since Zhang’s device is designed to perform two different cooking operations simultaneously, incorporating a programmable control system as taught by Conrad would be a logical and predictable step to implement this functionality effectively.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because implementing programmable controls on a dual-zone cooking appliance was a well-understood practice. The combination would involve applying known electronic control principles to a known mechanical structure to achieve a predictable improvement in functionality.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Philips and Moon - Claims 1-4, 7-9, and 11-20 are obvious over Philips in view of Moon.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Philips (WO 2018/095949A1) and Moon (Application # 2017/0231430).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted Philips discloses a cooking appliance with two separate, side-by-side cooking compartments, each with its own heating element and fan, enabling independent and simultaneous cooking. Philips teaches that its cooking containers are removably mounted in a support structure "like a drawer." To the extent Philips does not explicitly disclose a "continuous outer surface," Petitioner argued Moon teaches this feature. Moon discloses a drawer-style air fryer that, when closed, "forms a continuous outer surface with the base" to seal the chamber and prevent heat loss. Moon also explicitly teaches using handles on cooking baskets and a user interface with programmable buttons.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Moon's features with Philips's dual-chamber design for predictable benefits. A POSITA would incorporate Moon’s sealed, continuous-surface drawer design to improve the thermal efficiency and safety of the Philips appliance. Similarly, adding handles to Philips's hot, removable containers, as taught by Moon, would be a straightforward modification to improve user safety and convenience. Finally, adding Moon's programmable interface would improve the operability of Philips’s dual-chamber system.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success in this combination because it involved integrating well-known, commonplace features (sealed drawers, handles, programmable controls) into a conventional dual-chamber appliance design to achieve established benefits like improved efficiency and user-friendliness.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-4 and 7-20 of the ’026 patent as unpatentable.