Shibumi Shade v. NB Shades: Infringement Suit Frozen by Chapter 7 Bankruptcy
Shibumi Shade, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against NB Shades, LLC in the Middle District of Florida, asserting two patents covering its beach shade technology against NB Shades’ Sunsail Shade product. After 197 days, the case was administratively closed — not resolved on the merits — when NB Shades filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, triggering an automatic statutory stay.
Beach shade patent dispute halted mid-case by Chapter 7 insolvency
Shibumi Shade, Inc. initiated this infringement action on December 5, 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, asserting patents US11946273B2 and US11970876B2 against NB Shades, LLC. The suit targets NB Shades’ Sunsail Shade product, which Shibumi alleges infringes its protected beach shade designs and structural methods. Shibumi is represented by three law firms — Findlay Craft PC, Gunster Yoakley & Stewart PA, and Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP — reflecting the commercial significance attached to this enforcement action.
The case did not reach a substantive resolution. On June 18, 2025 — just over six months after filing — NB Shades filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida. Under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), a bankruptcy filing operates as an automatic stay of all civil proceedings against the debtor. The district court responded on June 20, 2025 by ordering the case stayed, terminating all pending motions and deadlines, and directing administrative closure pending further notification from the parties.
The 197-day duration reflects an abrupt procedural halt rather than a negotiated exit or contested resolution. The court’s order requires the parties to file status reports every 120 days, beginning October 20, 2025, and permits either party to seek to lift the stay once bankruptcy proceedings conclude. Whether Shibumi will ultimately recover on its infringement claims — or any portion of them — depends on the outcome of the Chapter 7 proceedings, which could result in asset liquidation, discharge, or a negotiated resolution that prompts voluntary dismissal. The merits of the patent claims remain entirely unadjudicated.
Filing to Case Stayed in 197 days
197 days from filing to administrative closure — case remains unresolved on the merits pending bankruptcy proceedings
Bankruptcy stay: what the administrative closure means for both parties
Automatic stay under § 362(a) halts all proceedings
When a debtor files a bankruptcy petition, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) automatically stays all judicial proceedings against that debtor. The stay is self-executing — no court order is required to trigger it. The district court’s June 20 order formalises the stay, terminates pending motions, and administratively closes the file. This is a procedural pause, not a dismissal; the case can be reopened.
11 U.S.C. § 362(a) automatic stayShibumi’s infringement claims remain live but frozen
Shibumi Shade’s infringement claims survive the stay and are not dismissed. However, enforcing those claims against NB Shades during bankruptcy is prohibited without leave of the bankruptcy court. Shibumi may file a proof of claim in the Chapter 7 proceeding as an unsecured creditor. The practical recovery on any infringement judgment — particularly from a Chapter 7 liquidation — is uncertain and typically limited.
Claims preserved; recovery uncertainChapter 7 filing suggests NB Shades lacks resources to defend
Chapter 7 is a liquidation bankruptcy, suggesting NB Shades may not have the resources to continue defending the patent suit. If debts are discharged in bankruptcy, Shibumi’s ability to collect on any future judgment may be severely limited or extinguished. NB Shades’ assets, including any IP or inventory related to the Sunsail Shade, will be administered by a trustee. The infringement dispute may effectively end through the bankruptcy process.
Chapter 7 liquidation filedPatent rights intact; market enforcement path shifts to bankruptcy court
Shibumi’s patents — US11946273B2 and US11970876B2 — remain valid and enforceable against third parties. The stay applies only to proceedings against NB Shades as debtor. Competitors or new entrants marketing similar beach shade products should note that Shibumi continues to hold and presumably enforce its IP. The unresolved infringement dispute signals Shibumi’s intent to protect its technology, regardless of this defendant’s financial status.
Patents remain enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Shibumi Shade, Inc. | Company | Beach shade product company — holder of US11946273B2 and US11970876B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | NB Shades, LLC | Company | NB Shades, LLC — maker of the Sunsail Shade product; filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy June 2025Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ana Davis Johnson | Attorney | Counsel for Shibumi Shade, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brian Craft | Attorney | Counsel for Shibumi Shade, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christine Holleman Dupriest | Attorney | Counsel for Shibumi Shade, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Derek Kyle Mountford | 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 | Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart PA | 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 | J. Rice Ferrelle , Jr. | 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 | Ferrelle Burns PA | Law Firm | Representing NB Shades, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Woods Rogers V & eventer Black PLC | Law Firm | Representing NB Shades, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Florida Middle District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order does not adjudicate the merits of Shibumi’s infringement claims in any respect. The stay arises automatically by operation of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) upon NB Shades’ Chapter 7 filing — the court’s role was confirmatory and administrative. The direction to file status reports every 120 days and the express provision permitting parties to seek to lift the stay both indicate the district court anticipates the case may ultimately return. Until the bankruptcy is resolved, no claim construction, validity ruling, or infringement finding will issue.
US11946273B2 & US11970876B2 — beach shade structure and deployment patents
US11946273B2 and US11970876B2 are U.S. utility patents held by Shibumi Shade, Inc., covering technology underlying its beach shade product line. The application numbers (US18/348882 and US18/072143) indicate both patents were filed relatively recently, suggesting the protected technology reflects current commercial product architecture. Beach shade patents in this category typically cover structural elements such as canopy tensioning mechanisms, stake or anchor systems, and the geometry that enables a shade to remain stable without rigid frame poles.
For the outdoor recreation and beach products sector, these patents represent a defensive moat around what appears to be Shibumi’s core consumer product. The assertion against NB Shades’ Sunsail Shade — a directly competing product category — is consistent with a strategy of using IP to constrain close market substitutes. With both patents actively asserted and the infringement claims unresolved, competitors developing or distributing similar tension-based or stake-anchored beach shade products face meaningful FTO risk until claim scope is tested in litigation or inter partes review.
Should you run an FTO against US11946273B2 and US11970876B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, importing, or distributing beach shade products — particularly those using canopy tensioning, stake-anchored, or pole-free structural architectures — should treat Shibumi’s patent portfolio as a live risk. The infringement claims in this case were never adjudicated, meaning no court has defined the boundaries of these patents’ claims. That uncertainty creates exposure for product teams operating in adjacent design spaces. An FTO analysis is particularly warranted before new product launches or expansion into the U.S. market.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and legal teams to map US11946273B2 and US11970876B2 claim language against your product specifications in minutes. Eureka identifies structural claim elements, flags design-around risks, and surfaces prior art that may support validity challenges — giving your team the analytical foundation to make informed go/no-go decisions on beach shade product development without waiting for the next litigation cycle to clarify the law.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11946273B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent infringement cases: beach shade and outdoor products IP
Explore comparable patent infringement cases involving beach shade, outdoor canopy, and recreational product patents litigated in Florida federal courts.
What this case signals for the beach shade and outdoor products IP landscape
A financially weak defendant does not neutralise a patent portfolio — Shibumi’s enforcement posture and IP remain intact.
Bankruptcy does not extinguish patent infringement exposure for the market
The stay applies to NB Shades as debtor — not to Shibumi’s patents themselves. US11946273B2 and US11970876B2 remain enforceable against any party making, using, or selling infringing beach shade products. Competitors should not interpret NB Shades’ insolvency as a signal that Shibumi’s IP is weakened or undefended.
Multi-firm plaintiff representation signals serious enforcement intent
Shibumi retained three law firms — including Findlay Craft PC, a specialist IP litigation firm — to prosecute this case. That level of resourcing for a district court first-instance action suggests Shibumi views its beach shade patents as commercially significant and is prepared to defend them broadly, not just against NB Shades.
Shibumi v NB — key questions answered
Shibumi Shade, Inc. filed a patent infringement suit against NB Shades, LLC in the Middle District of Florida in December 2024, asserting US11946273B2 and US11970876B2 against the Sunsail Shade product. The case was administratively closed on June 20, 2025 after NB Shades filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, triggering an automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). No merits ruling was issued.
An automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) prohibits Shibumi from continuing the district court litigation against NB Shades while the bankruptcy is pending. Shibumi’s infringement claims are not dismissed — they are paused. Shibumi may file a proof of claim in the Chapter 7 proceeding, but recovery against a Chapter 7 debtor is typically limited. The case may be reopened if the bankruptcy does not resolve the underlying dispute.
Shibumi Shade asserted two U.S. patents: US11946273B2 (application US18/348882) and US11970876B2 (application US18/072143). Both patents relate to beach shade product technology and were asserted against NB Shades’ Sunsail Shade product. Neither patent’s claim scope was construed or adjudicated before the case was stayed.
Yes. The automatic stay applies only to proceedings against NB Shades as the named bankruptcy debtor. Shibumi’s patents US11946273B2 and US11970876B2 remain valid and enforceable against any other party. Shibumi is free to bring new infringement actions against other manufacturers or distributors of allegedly infringing beach shade products without limitation from this case’s stay.
The court ordered the parties to file status reports beginning October 20, 2025, and every 120 days thereafter. The stay continues until NB Shades’ debts are discharged, the stay is lifted by the bankruptcy court, or the bankruptcy case is closed or dismissed. If the bankruptcy resolves the dispute, Shibumi is directed to promptly move to dismiss. Otherwise, either party may seek to lift the stay through proper motion at the conclusion of bankruptcy proceedings.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.