SharkNinja Operating LLC et al v. Dyson, Inc. et al (D. Mass. 23-cv-12372).

SharkNinja and collaborator Omachron accused Dyson of infringing eight patents owned by Omachron and exclusively licensed to SharkNinja related to vacuum cleaner technology.   Dyson moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.  Judge Burroughs has denied Dyson’s motion in its entirety.

Dyson first sought to dismiss the direct infringement claims for alleging infringement of unspecified products, because while the complaint identified specific accused Dyson vacuums, it stated that these were “non-limiting examples” to be supplemented as appropriate with additional infringing products.  Judge Burroughs found that SharkNinja’s specific identification of nine particular products was sufficient to state a claim.  She noted that SharkNinja’s “non-limiting” language was intended to reserve the right to add more products that it learned of through discovery, and noted that it would still be SharkNinja’s burden under Local Rule 16.6 to establish that it was diligent in seeking to add them.

Judge Burroughs allowed the claim for willful infringement to stand.  SharkNinja pled that Dyson had knowledge of the asserted patents because Dyson regularly monitors competitors patents and because many of the asserted patents had been cited as prior art in patent applications being pursued by Dyson.  While cases have held that either of these, standing alone, might not suffice to demonstrate knowledge, the combination was sufficient.  Regarding intent to infringe, at the pleading stage SharkNinja’s allegations that Dyson, despite having knowledge of the patents (both pre- and post-suit), continued to sell and to develop the accused products was enough to survive the motion to dismiss.  Dyson’s motion with respect to indirect infringement of method claims fell for similar reasons – they were largely based on an alleged lack of knowledge of the patents.

Finally, Judge Burroughs rejected Dyson’s arguments regarding marking.  SharkNinja asserted that it marked its relevant products with a first of the asserted patents via a patent marking page on its website, and that the remaining asserted patents were not embodied by any products being sold by SharkNinja.  Judge Burroughs found this to be enough, and refused Dyson’s assertion that SharkNinja had any obligation to identify products that were not covered by the first patent.  She also did not agree that SharkNinja was obliged to plead not only that it was an exclusive licensee, but that it had been the sole exclusive licensee for the life of the patent (although she did leave the door open for Dyson to come back if it discovered evidence that some prior licensee sold products covered by the patents without so marking the products).