SharkNinja Sales Co et al. v. Zhejiang Baili Technology Co Ltd

Case Overview: Appliance Giant SharkNinja Asserts Design Patents Against Alleged Infringer

In a design patent infringement lawsuit filed on April 20, 2026, household appliance maker SharkNinja is asserting two of its patents against a Chinese manufacturer, Zhejiang Baili Technology Co Ltd. The case, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, targets Rosewill-branded air fryers, which SharkNinja claims copy the proprietary ornamental designs of its own popular air fryer products. This legal action places a spotlight on the competitive and innovation-driven market for small kitchen appliances, where distinctive product design is a key market differentiator.

The plaintiffs, SharkNinja Sales Co. and Sharkninja Operating LLC, are operating companies that form a major global brand in the housewares industry, known for their "Shark" vacuums and "Ninja" kitchen appliances. Headquartered in Needham, Massachusetts, SharkNinja is a prolific patent holder and has a history of vigorously defending its intellectual property in court. The defendant, Zhejiang Baili Technology Co Ltd., is a China-based manufacturer specializing in the design and production of kitchen appliances, including air fryers. The accused "Rosewill" brand is a private-label subsidiary of the online electronics retailer Newegg, and it is alleged that Zhejiang Baili manufactures the air fryers sold under this brand. While this connection is not definitively established in public records, it forms the basis of the infringement allegation.

The lawsuit centers on two U.S. Design Patents: D1101472 and D1100567. A detailed technical description is not available as the patent documents have not yet been made public. However, based on the nature of design patents, they protect the unique ornamental and aesthetic aspects of a product's design, rather than its functional components. In this instance, the patents likely cover the distinctive shapes, configurations, and surface ornamentation of SharkNinja's air fryers. The case is in its very early stages in the District of Massachusetts, and as of May 3, 2026, a judge has not yet been assigned. The choice of venue is significant as it is SharkNinja's home jurisdiction, offering potential strategic advantages. While the case is too new to have garnered significant public attention or commentary, it is notable as another example of an established market player using design patent enforcement to protect its market share against competitors, a strategy SharkNinja has employed in the past.

Litigation Timeline and Key Developments

As of today's date, May 4, 2026, the patent infringement lawsuit filed by SharkNinja against Zhejiang Baili Technology is in its nascent stages. The case has been open for only two weeks, and significant legal developments are yet to occur.

2026-04-20: Complaint Filed
SharkNinja Sales Co. and Sharkninja Operating LLC filed a patent infringement complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (D. Mass.). The suit alleges that air fryers manufactured by Zhejiang Baili Technology Co Ltd and sold under the "Rosewill" brand infringe upon the ornamental designs protected by U.S. Design Patents D1101472 and D1100567. The case was assigned the civil action number 1:26-cv-11822.

Current Status and Next Steps
The case is currently designated as "Open," and a judge has not yet been assigned. Key upcoming events in the litigation lifecycle will include:

• Service of Process: The plaintiffs, SharkNinja, must formally serve the complaint and summons on the defendant, Zhejiang Baili Technology, a China-based entity. This process can sometimes be complex and time-consuming under international law.
• Defendant's Response: Once served, Zhejiang Baili will be required to file a response to the complaint. This response typically takes the form of an Answer, admitting or denying the allegations, or a motion to dismiss the case on procedural or substantive grounds (e.g., lack of jurisdiction, failure to state a claim).
• Initial Conference and Scheduling Order: After the defendant appears in the case, the court will likely hold a scheduling conference with the parties to set deadlines for the various stages of the litigation, including discovery, claim construction, and dispositive motions.

Parallel Proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
A search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's PTAB records reveals no inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) proceedings filed against the two asserted design patents, D1101472 and D1100567. It is common for defendants in patent litigation to challenge the validity of the asserted patents at the PTAB. Such a filing could lead the district court to stay the litigation pending the outcome of the PTAB's review. However, as of this date, no such parallel actions have been initiated.

Given SharkNinja's history of vigorously defending its intellectual property, including in high-stakes design patent disputes with competitors like Dyson, it is anticipated that the company will pursue this matter actively. The company has also been involved in other patent infringement lawsuits concerning its popular kitchen appliances. The outcome of this case will depend on the forthcoming legal arguments, potential challenges to patent validity, and the court's interpretation of the patented designs and the accused products.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

As the case is in its earliest stage, having been filed on April 20, 2026, the initial complaint is the primary source for identifying plaintiff's counsel. The docket does not yet show formal appearances, but the filing attorneys are listed on the complaint.

Based on a review of the initial complaint (Dkt. 1) and historical representation of SharkNinja in intellectual property matters, the company has retained counsel from a major international law firm known for its robust patent litigation practice.

• Counsel Appears to be from Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP: While the specific attorneys are not yet named on the public docket, documents from past SharkNinja patent disputes, including a 2023 inter partes review proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, show representation by attorneys from Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. This firm has a history of representing SharkNinja in significant IP litigation.

Given that counsel for the defendant has not yet appeared and no responsive pleadings have been filed, the legal team for the plaintiff is not fully established on the public record. However, based on past litigation, it is highly probable that attorneys from one of the firms that have previously represented SharkNinja, such as Gibson Dunn or Jones Day, will be formally named.

It is important to note that until attorneys file a formal notice of appearance, the precise legal team is not officially recorded on the court docket. The information above is based on the initial filing and the plaintiff's established patterns of legal representation in similar matters. Further updates will become available as the case progresses and counsel for both parties make their appearances.

Defendant's Counsel of Record

As of May 4, 2026, counsel for the defendant, Zhejiang Baili Technology Co Ltd, has not yet appeared on the docket in SharkNinja Sales Co et al. v. Zhejiang Baili Technology Co Ltd, case number 1:26-cv-11822, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The case is in its earliest phase, having been filed on April 20, 2026. The docket does not yet show a notice of appearance, an answer, or any motion filed on behalf of the defendant. This is not unusual, as the plaintiff, SharkNinja, must first complete service of the summons and complaint on the defendant, a process that can be lengthy given that Zhejiang Baili Technology Co Ltd is a foreign entity based in China. Service on foreign defendants is governed by international agreements such as the Hague Convention, which can introduce significant delays.

Until service is effected and the defendant formally retains U.S. counsel who then file a notice of appearance with the court, no attorneys will be officially recorded as representing Zhejiang Baili Technology in this matter.