Dyson hair curler complaint merely hot air, says SharkNinja
Shark FlexStyle legal action adds to global litigation waged between the pair over the patented tech | SharkNinja claims differences in design and product features.
SharkNinja is asking a US federal court to declare that one of its best-selling hair dryer and multi-styling devices does not infringe Dyson’s patents.
The US household appliance company sought a declaration of noninfringement on June 6 at the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts after the UK multinational sent a cease and desist letter in May.
In the letter, Dyson accused its rival of infringing US patent number 11,044,979, which covers technology used in Dyson’s best-selling Airwrap hair styling product, with the manufacture and sale of the Shark FlexStyle Air Styling and Drying System.
Following its demands for a “a prompt but graceful exit” of the disputed product from the US market, Dyson went on to say that it expected a response by June 7 or else it would take legal action.
This latest wrangle marks another instalment in the global litigation waged between the two companies over this patented technology.
Global litigation
To date, Dyson has filed lawsuits against SharkNinja over the alleged infringement of foreign counterparts of the ’979 patent in South Korea, France, Germany and the UK.
According to this week’s motion, SharkNinja’s system is a revolutionary product that can act “as a fast, powerful hair dryer”, and “with just a twist transforms into an ultra-versatile multifunction hair styling product”.
It went on to insist that SharkNinja has not infringed and does not infringe any claim of the ’979 patent, arguing that the system does not meet at least one element “as recited in claim 1 of the ’979 patent”.
‘Stark contrast’ in design
Further, SharkNinja added that the FlexStyle’s curler accessory has openings that do not extend continuously to a distal end of the attachment, as required by claim 1 of the 979 patent, and that its design is “in stark contrast to the embodiments of the patent”.
Indeed, the company insisted that the above distinction between the FlexStyle product and claim 1 of the disputed patent is one of the main reasons why Dyson obtained its claims for the 979 patent from the US Patent and Trademark Office ( USPTO)
Dyson, it added, had been repeatedly forced by the USPTO examiner to amend its claims in order to avoid prior art and to register the patent.
In addition to a declaration of non-infringement, SharkNinja is also demanding attorney fees.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories sent like this straight to your inbox.
Today's Top Stories
EU court rules against EUIPO in figurative signs clash
Seyfarth Shaw adds TM and domains partner in Seattle
Exclusive: Realtek and IPValue on their ‘patent troll’ dispute
