Sharkninja Operating, LLC v. Ningbo Moetree Furniture Co., Ltd.
Infringement action filed 8 Dec 2025 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and closed 13 Apr 2026, with 3 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Case record
- Patents involved
- USD1101472SUSD1100567SUSD1101481S
- Case no.
- 1:25-cv-13755
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- D. Mass.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Massachusetts
- Chief judge
- George A. OToole Jr.
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 8 Dec 2025 – 13 Apr 2026
- Duration
- 126 days
- Basis of termination
- Voluntary dismissal
- Products & marks
- The OYLUS, Rellytech, and Flamemore-branded airfryer products
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Air fryer
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 11 Nov 2025
- Est. expiry
- 11 Nov 2040
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- GARLAND, ADAM · FISH, GREGORY ALLAN · KIBBE, ALEX · ANTHONY, JOSHUA D. · O’MALLEY, KEVIN · MEYER-RASSOW, CHRISTOPHER
- Prosecution counsel
- MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD
- Examiner
- PHAM, RICKY
Air fryer
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 4 Nov 2025
- Est. expiry
- 4 Nov 2040
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- GARLAND, ADAM · FISH, GREGORY ALLAN · KIBBE, ALEX · ANTHONY, JOSHUA D. · O’MALLEY, KEVIN · MEYER-RASSOW, CHRISTOPHER
- Prosecution counsel
- MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD
- Examiner
- PHAM, RICKY
Also asserted in this case
1 moreThe docket lists 3 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining asserted patent are one query away in Eureka.
Parties of record
Sharkninja Operating, LLC
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Emyr T. Remy
- Firm
- Shook Hardy Bacon LLP
Ningbo Moetree Furniture Co., Ltd.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Kevin J. O’Connor · Richard E. Briansky · Tao Liu · Wei Wang
- Firm
- Glacier Law LLP, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Emyr T. Remy | Sharkninja Operating, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Kevin J. O’Connor | Ningbo Moetree Furniture Co., Ltd. | Defendant |
| Richard E. Briansky | Ningbo Moetree Furniture Co., Ltd. | Defendant |
| Tao Liu | Ningbo Moetree Furniture Co., Ltd. | Defendant |
| Wei Wang | Ningbo Moetree Furniture Co., Ltd. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiffs SharkNinja Operating LLC and SharkNinja Sales Company voluntarily dismiss this action without prejudice as to Defendants Ningbo Moetree Furniture Co., Ltd., Ningbo Peitebobi Chongwu Yongping Ltd., Ningbo Gaotong Commerce Co., Ltd., and Ningbo Gaotong Shangwefuwu Youxiangon. Dismissal is proper under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) because no Defendant has served an answer or motion for summary judgment.”
Case 1:25-cv-13755 · D. Mass. · closed 13 April 2026
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 1:25-cv-13755?
1:25-cv-13755 is a patent infringement action brought by Sharkninja Operating, LLC against Ningbo Moetree Furniture Co., Ltd., filed on 8 Dec 2025 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The case closed on 13 April 2026.
Which patents were asserted in 1:25-cv-13755?
USD1101472S (“Air fryer”), assigned to SHARKNINJA OPERATING LLC, currently active; USD1100567S (“Air fryer”), assigned to SHARKNINJA OPERATING LLC, currently active; USD1101481S (“Air fryer adapter”), assigned to SHARKNINJA OPERATING, LLC. The record also lists The OYLUS, Rellytech, and Flamemore-branded airfryer products.
How was case 1:25-cv-13755 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiffs SharkNinja Operating LLC and SharkNinja Sales Company voluntarily dismiss this action without prejudice as to Defendants Ningbo Moetree Furniture Co., Ltd., Ningbo Peitebobi Chongwu Yongping Ltd., Ningbo Gaotong Commerce Co., Ltd., and Ningbo Gaotong Shangwefuwu Youxiangon. Dismissal is proper under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) because no Defendant has served an answer or motion for summary judgment.”
What does dismissal without prejudice mean?
A dismissal without prejudice ends this action but leaves the claims alive — the plaintiff may file them again later, subject to the limitation period.
How long did case 1:25-cv-13755 take?
126 calendar days, from filing on 8 Dec 2025 to closure on 13 April 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:25-cv-13755?
Chief Judge George A. OToole Jr. presided. Emyr T. Remy is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Sharkninja Operating. Kevin J. O’Connor, Richard E. Briansky, Tao Liu and Wei Wang appear for defendant Ningbo Moetree Furniture.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:25-cv-13755 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.