Shibumi Shade v. NB Shades: Venue Transfer to M.D. Florida After 188 Days
Shibumi Shade, Inc. filed a patent infringement action in the Western District of Texas against NB Shades, LLC and two co-defendants over its Sunsail beach shade patents. After 188 days, Chief Judge Alia Moses granted a joint motion to transfer, finding every venue factor favored or was neutral toward the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division.
Beach Shade Patent Suit Rerouted from Texas to Florida on All Venue Factors
On May 30, 2024, Shibumi Shade, Inc. filed a patent infringement complaint in the Western District of Texas, Waco Division, asserting US11946273B2 and US11970876B2 against NB Shades, LLC, Bluebonnet Cut & Sew, LLC, and C.L.O. Company LLC. The accused product is the Sunsail Shade — a beach canopy product alleged to fall within the scope of Shibumi’s patented shade technology. Judge Alia Moses presided over the matter in its Texas phase.
The case closed on December 4, 2024, when the court granted a joint motion to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division. Critically, Judge Moses found that every factor in the convenience analysis either favored transfer or was neutral — a unanimous venue finding that left no analytical foothold for retaining the case in Texas. No merits ruling was issued.
At 188 days, the Texas phase resolved relatively quickly, consistent with a joint motion rather than contested venue briefing. The parties’ agreement to transfer suggests the Florida connection — likely where key witnesses, evidence, or the defendants’ operations are located — was clear from the outset. What remains unknown from the public record is whether any licensing discussions accompanied the joint transfer motion, or whether the Florida court will see this dispute proceed to substantive patent adjudication.
Filing to Case Transferred in 188 days
188 days in W.D. Tex. before transfer — typical W.D. Tex. patent case runs 18–24 months to trial
Venue transfer granted: what moving to M.D. Florida means for both sides
What a venue transfer means — and what it does not
A transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) moves a case to a more convenient forum without deciding the merits. The transferring court’s docket entry closes, but the litigation continues in the receiving court. Judge Moses applied the standard § 1404(a) convenience factors — witness locations, evidence situs, local interest, court familiarity — and found every factor favored Florida or was neutral. The substantive patent dispute is live and unresolved.
No merits rulingShibumi Shade: patents intact, litigation continues in Florida
The transfer does not affect the validity or enforceability of US11946273B2 or US11970876B2. Shibumi Shade retains its infringement claims in full and must now prosecute them before the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division. The joint nature of the motion suggests Shibumi accepted Florida as the appropriate venue — possibly because key infringing activities or defendant operations are concentrated there. The patent holder’s enforcement posture is unchanged.
Claims survive transferNB Shades: home forum advantage, but litigation risk remains
For NB Shades, Bluebonnet Cut & Sew, and C.L.O. Company LLC, transfer to Florida likely reflects where their principal operations, witnesses, or evidence sit — a meaningful procedural win. Litigating at home reduces travel and logistical costs. However, the underlying infringement claims over the Sunsail Shade product are fully preserved. Defendants now face the same substantive patent exposure, before a different judge, in a jurisdiction potentially more familiar with the relevant facts.
Forum advantage onlyVenue signals where beach shade IP battles will be fought
The unanimous convenience finding — every factor neutral or favoring Florida — suggests the beach shade and outdoor canopy product market has its operative center in Florida rather than Texas. For competitors in this space, this transfer signals that M.D. Florida, Jacksonville may be the natural enforcement venue for similar product disputes. Companies commercializing competing shade products should monitor the Florida docket for claim construction rulings and any substantive developments on the asserted patents.
M.D. Florida as key forumFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Shibumi Shade, Inc. | Company | Beach shade product innovator — holder of US11946273B2 and US11970876B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | NB Shades, LLC | Company | NB Shades, LLC and co-defendants — makers of the accused Sunsail Shade beach canopy productSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Bluebonnet Cut & Sew, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | C.L.O. Company LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brian Craft | Attorney | Counsel for Shibumi Shade, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christine H. Dupriest | Attorney | Counsel for Shibumi Shade, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Eric H. Findlay | Attorney | Counsel for Shibumi Shade, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Julie C. Giardina | Attorney | Counsel for Shibumi Shade, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Preston H. Heard | Attorney | Counsel for Shibumi Shade, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Findlay Craft PC | Law Firm | Representing Shibumi Shade, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP | Law Firm | Representing Shibumi Shade, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christopher M. Staine | Attorney | Counsel for NB Shades, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John H. Yoon | Attorney | Counsel for NB Shades, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joshua F. P. Long | Attorney | Counsel for NB Shades, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nathan A. Evans | Attorney | Counsel for NB Shades, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Pietro Sanitate | Attorney | Counsel for NB Shades, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Crowe & Dunlevy | Law Firm | Representing NB Shades, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Woods Rogers Vandeventer Black, PLC | Law Firm | Representing NB Shades, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alia Moses | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s transfer order is notable for its unanimity: Judge Moses found that every § 1404(a) convenience factor either favored Florida or was neutral — none favored retaining the case in Texas. This is a strong venue finding that forecloses any argument for the Western District of Texas as a proper or convenient forum. The joint motion signals that both sides agreed on the transfer, preserving litigation resources for the substantive dispute. No infringement, validity, or damages questions were addressed. The Florida court inherits the case at the pleadings stage with all claims intact.
US11946273B2 & US11970876B2 — Beach Shade Canopy Technology
US11946273B2 and US11970876B2 cover technology in the portable beach shade and canopy product space, with application numbers US18/348882 and US18/072143 respectively. Both patents are relatively recent grants, suggesting they reflect innovations in shade canopy design, anchoring, or structural configuration for beach and outdoor use. The patents form the core of Shibumi Shade’s IP portfolio for its flagship product line and represent the company’s primary enforcement assets in the outdoor shade market.
For competitors in the portable outdoor shade, beach canopy, or sun shelter product category, these two patents present a meaningful enforcement risk. Shibumi Shade’s willingness to pursue not only the brand (NB Shades) but also the manufacturing entities (Bluebonnet Cut & Sew, C.L.O. Company) signals an aggressive, supply-chain-wide enforcement strategy. Any company designing, manufacturing, or importing competing beach shade products should conduct FTO analysis against both patents before the Florida court issues claim construction guidance that could expand or narrow their reach.
Should you run an FTO against US11946273B2 and US11970876B2?
If your company designs, manufactures, distributes, or retails portable beach shade canopies, sun shelters, or similar outdoor shade structures, both of Shibumi Shade’s asserted patents warrant immediate FTO scrutiny. The enforcement action targets not just a competitor brand but the manufacturers behind the product — meaning OEM suppliers and contract cut-and-sew operations face direct litigation exposure. Before the M.D. Florida court issues any claim construction order, the patent claims are at their broadest interpretive risk.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical features against the claim language of US11946273B2 and US11970876B2, identify relevant prior art that may constrain claim scope, and flag prosecution history estoppel that could limit infringement arguments. With Florida proceedings now underway, R&D and product teams have a narrowing window to design around or challenge these patents before judicial claim construction sets the boundaries.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11946273B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Beach Shade & Outdoor Canopy Patent Cases in U.S. District Courts
Explore comparable patent infringement disputes involving portable shade, canopy, and outdoor shelter technology litigated in U.S. district courts, including M.D. Florida.
What this case signals for the outdoor/beach shade IP landscape
A unanimous venue transfer on all factors is rare — it reveals where the commercial center of gravity for this technology sits.
Joint transfers signal geographic concentration of the market
When both parties jointly move to transfer, it typically reflects consensus about where the real commercial activity — sales, manufacturing, witnesses — is concentrated. For the beach shade and outdoor canopy sector, this case suggests Florida is the operative hub, not Texas. IP teams monitoring this space should weight M.D. Florida dockets accordingly.
Two active patents with broad canopy claims remain fully enforceable
US11946273B2 and US11970876B2 survived the Texas phase without any validity challenge reaching a ruling. Any competitor selling beach shade or similar canopy products should treat these patents as live enforcement risks. The Florida proceedings will determine claim scope — FTO analysis against both patents is advisable now, before claim construction narrows or broadens the claims.
Shibumi v NB — key questions answered
Shibumi Shade, Inc. filed a patent infringement action in the Western District of Texas on May 30, 2024, asserting US11946273B2 and US11970876B2 against NB Shades, LLC and two co-defendants over the Sunsail Shade product. On December 4, 2024, after 188 days, Judge Alia Moses granted a joint motion to transfer the case to the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, finding every venue factor favored Florida or was neutral.
Judge Moses applied the standard 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) convenience analysis and found that every factor either favored transfer to the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, or was neutral — none favored retaining the case in the Western District of Texas. The transfer was granted on a joint motion, suggesting both parties agreed Florida was the more appropriate forum, likely reflecting where key witnesses, evidence, and commercial activity are located.
Two patents are asserted: US11946273B2 (application number US18/348882) and US11970876B2 (application number US18/072143). Both cover technology in the portable beach shade and canopy product space and are recent grants. The accused product is the Sunsail Shade product sold by the defendants.
No. A § 1404(a) transfer moves the case to a more convenient forum but does not adjudicate the merits. US11946273B2 and US11970876B2 remain presumptively valid and enforceable. All infringement claims travel with the case to the Middle District of Florida. The Florida court will handle all substantive proceedings including claim construction, summary judgment, and any trial.
The defendants are NB Shades, LLC (the primary brand), Bluebonnet Cut & Sew, LLC (suggesting a manufacturing or contract sewing role), and C.L.O. Company LLC. Naming manufacturer and supply chain entities alongside the brand is consistent with a strategy to capture all potentially liable parties across the product’s commercial chain, and to ensure that indemnification or contribution issues are resolved in a single proceeding.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.