SharkNinja Operating LLC v. Zhejiang Abies Network Technology Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: SharkNinja Operating LLC and SharkNinja Sales Company (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Zhejiang Abies Network Technology Co., Ltd. (China)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP.
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-12115, D. Mass., 05/08/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant's transaction of business and commission of infringing acts within the District of Massachusetts, conducted through fully interactive e-commerce storefronts accessible to local consumers.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's Blatomic-branded air fryers infringe a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of an air fryer pod and a utility patent related to a vessel and handlebar assembly, both of which are commercialized in Plaintiff's Ninja CRISPi product line.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to countertop air fryers, specifically a modular design featuring a removable heating and fan "pod" that can be placed on a separate glass cooking vessel, enabling a cook, serve, and store workflow in a single container.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had constructive notice of the asserted patents since at least November 2025 via a public patent-marking webpage maintained by Plaintiff.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2023-08-01	'739 Patent Priority Date
2024-09-04	'567 Patent Priority Date
2024-09-12	'739 Patent Application Filed
2024-09-26	Plaintiff's Ninja CRISPi Launched
2025-09-30	'739 Patent Issued
2025-11-04	'567 Patent Issued
2025-11-05	'567 Patent Constructive Notice Begins
2025-11-12	'739 Patent Constructive Notice Begins
2026-05-08	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,100,567, "Air Fryer," issued November 4, 2025

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents do not articulate a problem, but the implicit goal is to create a unique and non-obvious ornamental appearance for a product to distinguish it in the marketplace.
• The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual and ornamental characteristics of a removable air-fryer pod Compl. ¶20 The design is defined by its overall two-tiered shape, the proportions of the upper and lower sections, the curved transition between them, and the specific recessed handle and top surface features depicted in the patent's figures '567 Patent, Figs. 1-8
• Technical Importance: This design provides a distinct product identity for a modular air fryer, differentiating it from conventional, monolithic drawer-style appliances Compl. ¶14

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for an air fryer, as shown and described" '567 Patent, Claim This claim protects the overall visual appearance of the air fryer pod as depicted in the drawings.

U.S. Patent No. 12,426,739, "Cooking devices and components thereof," issued September 30, 2025

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes conventional air fryers as typically monolithic devices requiring food to be transferred from a cooking basket to a separate serving dish, creating inconvenience and additional cleaning '739 Patent, col. 22:46-64
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a cooking system that separates the heating unit ("cooking device") from the cooking container ("vessel") '739 Patent, abstract This allows a user to cook food in the vessel, remove the cooking device, and then use the same vessel for serving or storage, for instance by adding a lid '739 Patent, col. 22:1-14 A key aspect of the invention is a vessel assembly that includes a handlebar with a "thermal break" to ensure the handle remains cool enough for safe handling after cooking '739 Patent, col. 41:23-26
• Technical Importance: The modular system is designed to improve user convenience and safety by integrating the cooking, serving, and storage functions into a single vessel equipped with a thermally insulated handle Compl. ¶13 Compl. ¶47

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 7 Compl. ¶41 Compl. ¶49
• Independent Claim 1 recites a vessel assembly with a unitary vessel and a U-shaped base fixed to opposed sidewalls that supports the vessel's bottom without contacting the cooking device.
• Independent Claim 7 recites a vessel assembly with the following essential elements:
  • a vessel, comprising a cavity configured to receive a food product therein; an opening positioned in a wall of the vessel and configured for accessing the cavity
  • a handlebar positioned under the vessel and configured to be contacted by a user, the handlebar extending upward along a portion of a height of the vessel
  • a gap positioned between the wall of the vessel and the handlebar, the gap configured to be a thermal break between the vessel and the handlebar
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, though this is common practice in litigation.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused products as the "Blatomic-branded air-fryer products," and specifically the "6-in-1 Glass Air Fryer with 2.6 QT & 4.7 QT Interchangeable Glass Bowls" (collectively, the "Accused Products") Compl. ¶27

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the Accused Products are "obvious knock-off[s]" of Plaintiff's Ninja CRISPi product, intentionally designed to copy its form and function Compl. ¶41 The functionality is described as a modular system with a removable heating pod used with interchangeable glass bowls that feature a plastic handlebar assembly Compl. ¶¶43-47 The complaint includes a promotional image from the accused product's listing that depicts two different sizes of glass cooking containers Compl. ¶43

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

For the '567 Patent, infringement is a question of whether the Accused Product's design is "substantially the same" as the patented design to an "ordinary observer." The complaint provides a side-by-side comparison of the patented design figures and photographs of the Accused Product's air fryer pod, arguing for a "substantially similar overall ornamental appearance" Compl. ¶34 This image shows similarities in the pod's two-tiered profile, the recessed handle shape, and the overall proportions Compl. ¶34

'739 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 7)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a vessel, comprising a cavity configured to receive a food product therein; an opening positioned in a wall of the vessel and configured for accessing the cavity	The Accused Products include glass cooking vessels with an internal volume (cavity) for holding food and an open top for access.	¶43	col. 27:50-62
a handlebar positioned under the vessel and configured to be contacted by a user, the handlebar extending upward along a portion of a height of the vessel	The Accused Products' glass vessels sit within a black plastic part that is positioned underneath the vessel and extends up its sides, forming a handle for a user to hold.	¶45	col. 38:36-40
a gap positioned between the wall of the vessel and the handlebar, the gap configured to be a thermal break between the vessel and the handlebar	The complaint alleges there is a space between the glass vessel and the plastic handlebar, created by internal ribs on the handlebar, and that this gap functions as a thermal break for safe handling. An image in the complaint purports to show this gap Compl. ¶46	¶¶46-47	col. 38:48-59

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over the definition of "handlebar." The defense could argue that the accused cradle-like structure is functionally and structurally different from the "handlebar" disclosed in the patent's embodiments.
  • Technical Questions: The infringement analysis for claim 7 will likely focus on whether the accused product meets the "gap configured to be a thermal break" limitation. The complaint asserts that the gap enables safe handling, thus serving as a thermal break Compl. ¶47 A key question for the court will be what evidence demonstrates that the gap in the accused product is configured for this purpose, rather than being an incidental space resulting from manufacturing choices.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "gap configured to be a thermal break" (from '739 Patent, Claim 7)
• Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement analysis of claim 7. The dispute will likely hinge on whether the space between the accused product's vessel and its handle was intentionally designed or arranged to provide thermal insulation. Practitioners may focus on this term because "configured to" often implies more than an incidental or inherent function; it suggests a deliberate design choice.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for a broader definition may point to the specification's functional description, which states the gap's purpose is to "reduce heat transfer from the vessel" '739 Patent, col. 30:29-34 This could support an argument that any gap that achieves this function meets the limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party arguing for a narrower definition may highlight specific embodiments in the patent, such as the detailed structure of the base and support arms (e.g., element 2006 in Fig. 27), to argue that "configured to be a thermal break" requires a specific structural arrangement beyond a simple air gap '739 Patent, col. 38:48-59 The term "thermal break" itself implies a specific engineering purpose that may require more proof than the mere existence of a space.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a general allegation of indirect infringement Compl. ¶3 However, it does not provide sufficient detail for analysis, as it does not plead specific facts concerning Defendant's knowledge or intent to induce or contribute to infringement by others (e.g., by analyzing user manuals or marketing materials that instruct on an infringing use).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges knowledge of the patents "at a minimum, since the filing date of this Complaint," which would support a claim for post-suit willfulness Compl. ¶35 Compl. ¶50 It also alleges pre-suit knowledge based on constructive notice via Plaintiff's public patent-marking webpage, which it claims has been active since November 2025 Compl. ¶35 Compl. ¶50

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

• A primary issue for the '567 design patent is one of visual deception: would an ordinary purchaser, seeing the accused Blatomic air fryer, be deceived into believing it is the Plaintiff's product, given the alleged similarities in the overall shape, proportions, and surface configuration of the respective air fryer pods?
• A central evidentiary question for the '739 utility patent is one of functional purpose: does the air gap between the vessel and the handle in the accused product meet the claim requirement of being "configured to be a thermal break," or is it an incidental manufacturing feature that does not possess the specific design and function taught and claimed by the patent?
• Overall, the case presents a classic dispute over a "knock-off" product, requiring the court to distinguish between permissible competition and the unlawful appropriation of patented ornamental designs and functional inventions.