US D1101472

Summary of US Patent D1101472

Title: Air fryer

Assignee: SharkNinja Operating LLC

Inventors: Adam Garland, Gregory Allan Fish, Alex Kibbe, Joshua D. Anthony, Kevin O'Malley, Christopher Meyer-Rassow

Filing Date: September 4, 2024

Issue Date: November 11, 2025

Abstract: Authoritative information for an abstract for US patent D1101472 is not available. Design patents, such as this one, typically do not include a written abstract. The scope of a design patent is defined by its drawings and a single claim.

Independent Claim Overview

As a design patent, US patent D1101472 contains a single independent claim. A plain-language overview of this claim is as follows:

• Claim 1: The ornamental design for an air fryer, as shown and described in the patent's drawings.

This means the patent protects the unique visual appearance of the air fryer depicted in its figures, including its shape, configuration, and any surface ornamentation. The protection is limited to the aesthetics of the device and does not cover its functional or structural features.

Litigation and CAFC Docket Search

A search of the Stanford NPE Litigation Database indicates that US patent D1101472 has been involved in litigation. However, specific details of the case(s) were not available through this search.

A search of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) dockets for 2026 did not yield any results for cases involving US patent D1101472 as of the date of this report.

Known Litigation Search

As of April 30, 2026, a comprehensive search for litigation involving US patent D1101472 in federal district courts, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), and specialized patent litigation databases has yielded no specific cases.

While the assignee, SharkNinja Operating LLC, has been a party in notable patent litigation, such as cases against Dyson, Inc. and iRobot Corporation, these disputes have concerned other patents and technologies. Current searches of PACER, Unified Patents, and other dockets do not show any records where D1101472 is an asserted patent.

Contradiction with Prior Information: This finding contradicts the previously generated "Litigation and CAFC Docket Search" section, which stated, "A search of the Stanford NPE Litigation Database indicates that US patent D1101472 has been involved in litigation." While the Stanford database does have a placeholder page for this patent number, it does not list any specific legal cases. The prior summary's conclusion appears to have been an overstatement based on the existence of that database entry. Based on the currently available data, there is no known litigation involving US patent D1101472.

Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings on file for US patent D1101472 as of 2026-05-30. The USPTO Open Data Portal API indicates no proceedings, and web searches for Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post-Grant Review (PGR), or Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings related to this patent did not yield any results. This means the patent's single claim remains untested by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), leaving its validity unchallenged in this forum.

Strategic summary

As of the current date, US patent D1101472 has not been subjected to any AIA trial proceedings before the PTAB. This means that the ornamental design claimed in the patent's single claim has not been challenged for patentability under §§ 102, 103, or other statutory bases in an IPR, PGR, or CBM context. Consequently, all aspects of the claimed design are currently considered "untested" by the PTAB.

Since no proceedings have been filed, there is no estoppel landscape established under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). Any potential petitioner would be free to raise any valid ground of unpatentability that they could reasonably assert based on prior art consisting of patents or printed publications for an IPR, or broader grounds for a PGR, assuming the timing requirements for such petitions are met.

Recommended next steps

Since no PTAB activity exists for US patent D1101472, the recommended next steps for a defendant facing assertion of this patent would be:

• Conduct a thorough prior art search: A robust prior art search is crucial to identify any designs that could anticipate or render obvious the ornamental design claimed in D1101472. This should focus on visual comparisons to determine if an "ordinary observer" would be deceived.
• Evaluate potential PTAB challenges: If sufficient prior art is found, consider filing a petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) if the nine-month window for Post-Grant Review (PGR) has passed, or a PGR if within the statutory window. Given D1101472 is a design patent, only IPR or PGR would generally be applicable, as it's unlikely to qualify as a Covered Business Method patent.
• Monitor for future PTAB filings: Continuously monitor the PTAB's Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS) for any new filings related to D1101472. The absence of PTAB activity is itself a signal; well-asserted patents often eventually attract IPRs.

Inventors

The named inventors for US Patent D1101472 are:

• Adam Garland
• Gregory Allan Fish
• Alex Kibbe
• Joshua D. Anthony
• Kevin O'Malley
• Christopher Meyer-Rassow

All inventors were employed by SharkNinja Operating LLC at the time of filing. There is no publicly available information indicating any unusual patterns, such as all inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing.

Original assignee

The entity named on the issued patent D1101472 is SharkNinja Operating LLC.

SharkNinja Operating LLC is a global product design and technology company known for its Shark cleaning solutions and Ninja kitchen appliances. The company actively ships a wide range of products, including air fryers, which embody the claims of this design patent.

SharkNinja's primary line of business is the development, manufacturing, and sale of high-performance kitchen and home appliances. As of May 26, 2026, SharkNinja, Inc. is an independent, publicly traded entity listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: SN), following its spin-off on July 31, 2023. The company is currently operating and reported over $6.59 billion in trailing 12-month revenue as of March 31, 2026.

Assignment timeline

A comprehensive search of the USPTO Patent Assignment Search database (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov) for US Patent D1101472 did not yield any recorded assignments for this patent. This indicates that, as of the date of this report, SharkNinja Operating LLC, the original assignee, remains the current owner of record for US Patent D1101472.

Prior Art Analysis for US Patent D1101472

As of the date of this analysis, a direct retrieval of the "References Cited" section for US patent D1101472 through available search tools was not successful. Access to the patent's file history, typically available through direct search of databases like the USPTO Patent Public Search or Google Patents, is necessary to identify the specific prior art considered by the patent examiner during the examination of the application.

While basic bibliographic information for D1101472 has been confirmed—such as its title ("Air fryer"), assignee (SharkNinja Operating LLC), and issue date (November 11, 2025)—the specific documents that constitute the most relevant prior art are listed on the face of the patent, which could not be programmatically accessed.

Anticipation Under 35 U.S.C. § 102

For a design patent such as D1101472, the single claim covers the "ornamental design for an air fryer, as shown and described." Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 would require a single prior art reference to show a design that is substantially the same as the one claimed in D1101472. This is determined by the "ordinary observer" test, which considers whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the new design, believing it to be the same as the one shown in the prior art.

Without the list of cited references, a definitive analysis of potential anticipation is not possible. Such an analysis would involve a visual comparison of the drawings in D1101472 against the designs disclosed in each cited patent or publication. Each reference would be evaluated to determine if it discloses an air fryer design with the same overall visual appearance, including shape, configuration, and surface ornamentation, as that claimed by SharkNinja's patent.

Obviousness Analysis for US Patent D1101472 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103

A definitive obviousness analysis for US Patent D1101472 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires access to the prior art references cited during its prosecution, as well as potentially other relevant prior art in the field of air fryer designs. As noted in the "Prior Art Analysis" section, direct retrieval of the "References Cited" section for D1101472 was not successful, and programmatic access to the patent's file history is currently unavailable. Without specific prior art references, a precise evaluation of obviousness is not possible.

However, the general principles for determining obviousness for a design patent can be outlined:

Legal Standard for Obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103)

For design patents, obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is determined by the "ordinary designer" test, as established by the Federal Circuit in In re Rosen, 673 F.2d 388 (CCPA 1982), and In re Borden, 90 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996). This test involves two steps:

1. Primary Reference Identification: A primary prior art reference must exist that is "basically the same" as the claimed design. This means that the overall appearance of the primary reference must be "substantially the same" as the claimed design, such that an ordinary observer would believe they are the same design. This reference serves as the starting point for the obviousness analysis.
2. Secondary Reference Modification: If a primary reference is found, other secondary prior art references may be used to modify the primary reference to achieve the claimed design. However, there must be a clear and express suggestion or motivation to combine these references from the prior art itself, or from the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art (an "ordinary designer" in the field of air fryers), to create the overall appearance of the claimed design. This motivation cannot be based on hindsight.

The "ordinary designer" in the field of air fryers would be someone with design experience and knowledge of aesthetics and common features in kitchen appliances, particularly air fryers. They would understand design principles like shape, form, surface ornamentation, and how these elements contribute to the overall visual impression of a product.

Application to US Patent D1101472 (Hypothetical)

Given that D1101472 protects the "ornamental design for an air fryer, as shown and described," a hypothetical obviousness analysis would proceed as follows:

• Step 1: Identify a Primary Reference. We would look for a single prior art design for an air fryer that has an overall visual appearance substantially similar to the design claimed in D1101472. This primary reference would ideally possess many, if not most, of the aesthetic features of the claimed air fryer.

• Step 2: Identify Secondary References and Motivation to Combine. If the primary reference does not disclose all aspects of the claimed design, we would then search for secondary prior art references (e.g., other air fryer designs, or even designs from related kitchen appliances) that disclose the missing ornamental features. Crucially, there must be a clear and articulated reason why an ordinary designer would have been motivated to take features from these secondary references and combine them with the primary reference to arrive at the specific ornamental design of D1101472.

  For example, if the primary reference showed an air fryer with a generally cylindrical body but lacked a particular handle design or control panel arrangement found in D1101472, an obviousness argument would need to demonstrate:

  • Another prior art reference showing that specific handle or control panel design.
  • A motivation for an ordinary designer to combine that specific handle/control panel with the cylindrical body of the primary reference. This motivation could be to improve aesthetics, standardize components, or follow a prevailing design trend, provided such motivation is evident from the prior art itself.

Without the actual cited prior art, or a comprehensive search specifically for air fryer designs that predated September 4, 2024 (the filing date of D1101472), it is impossible to identify specific combinations of references or articulate motivations to combine them. The analysis is therefore limited to explaining the methodology for conducting such an assessment.