Book a demo
Shibumi Shade v. Beach Shade LLC — Beach Canopy Patent Infringement Case | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID5:21-cv-00256
FiledJun 2021
ClosedFeb 2024
Patent Litigation

Shibumi Shade v. Beach Shade LLC: Consent Judgment & Permanent Injunction After 969 Days

Shibumi Shade, Inc. sued Beach Shade LLC and founder Matthew Finneran in North Carolina federal court, asserting five patents covering its aerodynamic kite-lift beach canopy. The case resolved via consent judgment: Beach Shade acknowledged infringement, accepted a permanent injunction, and Shibumi recovered $250,000 in preliminary injunction security plus lost-profits damages.

Resolution time
969days
969 days — longer than average district court IP case but resolved without trial
Patents asserted
6
US10,190,330 and 4 further patents asserted (beach canopy / shade structure technology)
Outcome
Consent Judgment
Consent judgment for Shibumi — permanent injunction entered against Beach Shade Gen. 1
Cost ruling
Costs: $250K
Preliminary injunction security of $250,000 released to Shibumi; lost profits awarded
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

Consent judgment halts Beach Shade Gen. 1 in beach canopy IP dispute

Shibumi Shade, Inc. filed suit on June 11, 2021 in the Eastern District of North Carolina against Beach Shade LLC and its principal Matthew Finneran, asserting infringement of five U.S. patents — Nos. 10,190,330; 10,753,117; 11,111,690; 11,255,103; and 11,299,904 — all covering the distinctive kite-assisted aerodynamic beach shade structure sold under the Shibumi Shade brand. The complaint also included a false designation of origin claim under the Lanham Act, targeting the defendants’ competing Beach Shade Gen. 1 product.

The case closed on February 5, 2024 via a court-entered consent judgment and permanent injunction — a negotiated resolution in which neither party required a trial or adjudication of any factual or legal issue. Beach Shade expressly acknowledged the validity and enforceability of all five patents, admitted that Beach Shade Gen. 1 infringed one or more of them, and accepted a permanent injunction barring further manufacture, importation, sale, or distribution of the infringing product across all channels, including online retailers and social media.

At 969 days, the timeline reflects the complexity of multi-patent consumer product litigation, yet avoidance of trial suggests the parties likely reached commercial terms privately through the accompanying settlement agreement referenced in paragraph 14 of the judgment. Notably, Shibumi voluntarily dismissed its Lanham Act trade dress claim with prejudice to avoid double recovery — indicating patent damages alone were considered sufficient. The precise quantum of lost-profits damages remains confidential under the separate settlement agreement.

Case at a glance
Case no.5:21-cv-00256
CourtNorth Carolina Eastern
JudgeLouise Wood Flanagan
FiledJune 11, 2021
ClosedFebruary 5, 2024
Duration969 days
OutcomeConsent Judgment
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisConsent Judgment
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / North Carolina Eastern District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to settlement in 969 days

969 days — longer than average district court IP case but resolved without trial

Case timeline: Complaint filed May 13 2025, OCT–NOV — 969 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Shibumi Shade, Inc. v Beach Shade, LLC from filing to voluntary dismissal. Source: PACER, North Carolina Eastern District Court. JUN 11 2021 Complaint filed OCT–NOV 2021 Pre-trial proceedings FEB 5 2024 Resolved consent judgment 969 DAYS TOTAL
Court ruling

Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction entered for Shibumi Shade

Legal mechanism

What a consent judgment means — and why it matters here

A consent judgment is a court-enforceable order entered by agreement of both parties, without trial. Unlike a voluntary dismissal, it creates a final judgment on the merits. Here, Beach Shade did not merely agree to stop — it admitted validity of all five patents and acknowledged infringement. That admission is significant: it closes off future invalidity challenges by Beach Shade and provides Shibumi an immediately enforceable court order backed by contempt powers.

Plaintiff-favorable outcome
Injunction scope

Permanent injunction covers all channels — retail, online, and social

The injunction explicitly bars Beach Shade from manufacturing, importing, selling, or offering to sell Beach Shade Gen. 1 through any channel: brick-and-mortar retail, its own website, social media, and third-party online retailers. This breadth is notable — it forecloses workarounds through Amazon, distributors, or rebranded online listings. Any breach entitles Shibumi to immediate further injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys’ fees under the judgment’s own terms.

Broad channel coverage
Damages structure

Lost profits awarded; Lanham Act claim dismissed to avoid double recovery

The consent judgment awards Shibumi lost profits on every Beach Shade Gen. 1 unit sold — a plaintiff-favorable damages theory requiring proof that Shibumi would have made those sales. Shibumi simultaneously dismissed its Lanham Act trade dress claim with prejudice, explicitly stating additional recovery would constitute double recovery. This signals the lost-profits figure was treated as fully compensatory. The exact amount is governed by the confidential settlement agreement referenced in paragraph 14.

Lost profits basis
Security bond

$250,000 injunction security returned to Shibumi

Courts require plaintiffs to post security when obtaining preliminary injunctions, in case the injunction proves wrongful. Here, Shibumi had posted $250,000 across two tranches (Dkts. 43 and 68). The consent judgment directs immediate release of that bond to Shibumi — consistent with a final judgment confirming the injunction was warranted. This $250,000 return is separate from, and in addition to, any lost-profits damages paid under the settlement agreement.

Bond released to plaintiff
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 5:21-cv-00256 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffShibumi Shade, Inc.CompanyBeach canopy innovator — holder of US10,190,330 and four related shade structure patentsSearch in Eureka ↗
DefendantBeach Shade, LLCCompanyBeach Shade LLC, maker of the competing Beach Shade Gen. 1 aerodynamic canopy productSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselChristine H. DupriestAttorneyCounsel for Shibumi Shade, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJulie GiardinaAttorneyCounsel for Shibumi Shade, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselLauren U. BakerAttorneyCounsel for Shibumi Shade, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselPreston H. HeardAttorneyCounsel for Shibumi Shade, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselSamuel B. HartzellAttorneyCounsel for Shibumi Shade, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselAlan B. FeltsAttorneyCounsel for Beach Shade, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselAndrew Robert ShoresAttorneyCounsel for Beach Shade, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselDavid W. SarAttorneyCounsel for Beach Shade, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselJeffrey Scott SoutherlandAttorneyCounsel for Beach Shade, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselRichard T. MatthewsAttorneyCounsel for Beach Shade, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselRobert C. Van ArnamAttorneyCounsel for Beach Shade, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge Louise Wood FlanaganChief JudgeNorth Carolina Eastern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Stipulation of dismissal — official text

“This action, having come on for consideration upon the Complaint of Plaintiff, Shibumi Shade, Inc. (“Shibumi”), is one for infringement of Shibumi’s United States Patent Nos. 10,190,330 (the “’330 Patent”), 10,753,117 (the “’117 Patent”), 11,111,690 (the “’690 Patent”), 11,255,103 (the “’103 Patent”), and 11,299,904 (the “’904 Patent”) (collectively, the “Patents-inSuit”) and for false designation of origin by Beach Shade LLC and Matthew Finneran (collectively, “Beach Shade”) via their Beach Shade product (referred to herein as “Beach Shade Gen. 1”). Shibumi and Beach Shade having waived the entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Rule 52 of the Federal Ru1es of Civil Procedure, and without trial, argument, or adjudication of any issue of fact or law, having consented to and stipulated to the entry of this Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction under the terms provided herein: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: 1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) because this action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, including 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. and the Lanham Act, including 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). This Court Case 5:21-cv-00256-FL Document 112 Filed 02/05/24 Page 1 of 6 2 has jurisdiction of all pendant state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because all such claims are based upon the same or substantially the same conduct by Beach Shade. 2. Shibumi owns all right, title, and interest in the Patents-in-Suit. 3. Shibumi makes, distributes, offers to sell, and sells products, the Shibumi Shade, that practice the Patents-in-Suit. Shibumi has marked the covered products in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 287. 4. Beach Shade acknowledges the validity and enforceability of the Patents-in-Suit and the ownership thereof by Shibumi. 5. Shibumi is also the owner of common law trade dress rights in the overall appearance of the Shibumi Shade product. 6. Beach Shade acknowledges the existence and validity in the United States of the trade dress rights described in Paragraph 5 above, and the ownership thereof by Shibumi. 7. Beach Shade acknowledges that it has made, distributed, sold, offered to sell and/or imported in the United States its Beach Shade Gen. 1 product that infringes one or more of the Patents-in-Suit. 8. Judgment is entered for Shibumi on all of its patent infringement claims. 9. Shibumi is entitled to patent infringement damages in the form of its lost profits with respect to each and every sale of a Beach Shade Gen. 1 product by Beach Shade. 10. Beach Shade, its agents, servants, employees, principals, attorneys, and all others in active concert or participation with any of them, are permanently enjoined and restrained from: a. further infringement of the claims of the Patents-in-Suit; and b. further manufacture, importation, use, sale, and offers to sell the Beach Shade Gen. 1 product in the United States, whether in person, in brick-and-mortar Case 5:21-cv-00256-FL Document 112 Filed 02/05/24 Page 2 of 6 3 retail stores, or through Beach Shade’s website, social media, or third-party online retailers. 11. Shibumi acknowledges that any additional recovery of damages for Beach Shade’s alleged trade dress infringement would constitute double recovery, and therefore dismisses its claims under the Lanham Act with prejudice. 12. Beach Shade acknowledges and agrees that the combined $250,000 posted by Shibumi as security for the preliminary injunction (see Dkts. 43 and 68) should be released to Shibumi. 13. Beach Shade acknowledges that a breach of this Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction by Beach Shade would result in irreparable injury to Shibumi, and that in the event of a breach, Shibumi would be entitled to immediate injunctive relief to enforce this Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction, damages, and to reimbursement of its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs arising from bringing an action against Beach Shade for enforcement of this Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction. 14. Jurisdiction is retained by this Court for the purpose of enabling Shibumi to apply to the Court in the future for such further orders and directions as may be necessary or appropriate for the enforcement of the terms of this Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction, as well as to enforce the terms of a separate Settlement Agreement entered into between Shibumi and Beach Shade with respect to the subject matter of this action. Case 5:21-cv-00256-FL Document 112 Filed 02/05/24 Page 3 of 6 4 15. There being no just reason for delay, the Clerk of this Court is hereby directed, pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to enter this Consent Judgment and to release the $250,000 held as security to Shibumi forthwith.”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 5:21-cv-00256, North Carolina Eastern District Court · Filed February 5, 2024

The consent judgment is structured as a full plaintiff win on patent infringement — judgment entered for Shibumi on all patent claims, with Beach Shade’s admission of infringement and patent validity on the record. The Lanham Act dismissal with prejudice was Shibumi’s own strategic choice to avoid double recovery, not a concession to the defendant. The court retains jurisdiction under the accompanying settlement agreement, meaning the financial terms remain privately enforceable. For Beach Shade, the public admission of validity forecloses any future IPR or invalidity argument against these five patents by the same party.

PACER case 5:21-cv-00256 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

US10,190,330 and four continuation patents — aerodynamic beach canopy system

Publication No.US1937144020
Patent details
AssigneeShibumi Shade, Inc.
ProductUS10,190,330 — aerodynamic beach shade structure, foundational patent
Publication typeB2 — grant (with prior publication)
Cited in actionJune 11, 2021

Publication No.US10190330B2
Application No.US15/675715
Patent details
AssigneeShibumi Shade, Inc.
ProductUS10,753,117 — beach canopy continuation, sail/canopy geometry
Publication typeB2 — grant (with prior publication)
Cited in actionJune 11, 2021

Publication No.US20040134536A1
Application No.US10/752117
Patent details
AssigneeShibumi Shade, Inc.
ProductUS11,111,690 — beach shade continuation, structural coverage
Publication typeB2 — grant (with prior publication)
Cited in actionJune 11, 2021

Publication No.US7789097B1
Application No.US12/228637
Patent details
AssigneeShibumi Shade, Inc.
ProductUS11,255,103 — beach shade continuation, extended claim scope
Publication typeB2 — grant (with prior publication)
Cited in actionJune 11, 2021

Publication No.US9051755B2
Application No.US14/327418
Patent details
AssigneeShibumi Shade, Inc.
ProductUS11,299,904 — beach shade continuation, latest claim generation
Publication typeB2 — grant (with prior publication)
Cited in actionJune 11, 2021

Publication No.US6009936A
Application No.US09/060615
Patent details
AssigneeShibumi Shade, Inc.
ProductUS10,190,330 — aerodynamic beach shade structure, foundational patent
Publication typeB2 — grant (with prior publication)
Cited in actionJune 11, 2021

The lead patent, US10,190,330, protects the core innovation of the Shibumi Shade: an aerodynamic shade structure that uses wind lift — similar in principle to a kite — to hold a canopy aloft without poles, providing hands-free beach shade. The four continuation patents (10,753,117; 11,111,690; 11,255,103; 11,299,904) extend and refine this coverage, with the later grants suggesting active prosecution through at least 2021. Together, the portfolio covers the product’s distinctive appearance, structural geometry, and method of use across overlapping claim sets.

The strategic value of this five-patent family lies in its layered redundancy. Even if a competitor argues one patent is narrow or designable-around, the remaining four create compounding risk. The consent judgment — in which Beach Shade admitted validity of all five — confirms that no successful invalidity argument was mounted during nearly three years of litigation. For any company developing competing aerodynamic or kite-assisted shade structures, this portfolio represents a significant barrier that likely defines the competitive landscape through the late 2030s and potentially into the 2040s.

Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Freedom to operate

Should you run an FTO against Shibumi Shade’s patent family before launching a beach canopy?

Any company designing, importing, or distributing aerodynamic beach canopy or shade products — particularly those using wind, sail, or kite-assisted mechanisms — should treat Shibumi’s five-patent family as a primary FTO target. This case demonstrates that Shibumi actively enforces its portfolio, was prepared to sustain nearly three years of litigation, and secured a result that permanently banned a direct competitor. The risk is not hypothetical; Beach Shade Gen. 1 is now legally barred from every channel of US commerce.

PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical features against the claims of all five Shibumi patents simultaneously, flagging overlap and identifying prosecution history estoppel that may limit claim scope. Claim monitoring alerts will notify you if Shibumi files further continuation applications — a real risk given their demonstrated prosecution strategy. Running this analysis before product launch is substantially cheaper than defending a five-patent infringement action in federal court.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US1937144020 to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

Similar patent cases in outdoor leisure and consumer shade structure technology

PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Shibumi Shade, Inc. patent enforcement history, North Carolina Eastern case history, Shibumi Shade, Inc.’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
Comparable shade IP casesAerodynamic canopy litigationE.D.N.C. IP outcomesConsumer product injunctions
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the beach and outdoor leisure IP landscape

Shibumi’s five-patent enforcement strategy secured a permanent ban on a direct competitor. The playbook has wider lessons for consumer outdoor product IP.

Multi-patent portfolios make consent judgments far more likely

Asserting five patents simultaneously — covering the same product from multiple angles — significantly raises a defendant’s litigation risk. Beach Shade faced the prospect of invalidating all five to avoid liability. That calculus typically accelerates settlement. Companies in adjacent product spaces should audit whether their portfolio creates the same layered coverage, or whether a single patent leaves them exposed to design-arounds.

Permanent injunctions in consumer product cases can be commercially decisive

The injunction here bans Beach Shade Gen. 1 across every distribution channel. For a consumer product company, that is existential. R&D and product teams should treat a competitor’s broad patent portfolio as a go/no-go signal before launch — not a litigation risk to manage after. An FTO analysis against Shibumi’s five patents before product launch would have identified the risk early.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Includes sector IP trends, Judge Treadwell’s case history, and FTO risk assessment for the truck equipment space
Continuation filing timelineE.D.N.C. injunction grant rateShibumi enforcement history
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Shibumi v Beach — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

Run your own FTO analysis against Shibumi Shade’s patent portfolio

Use PatSnap Eureka to map your product against Shibumi’s five beach canopy patents before launch. Set claim monitoring alerts to track new continuations and enforcement activity across the outdoor leisure IP space.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.