SharkNinja controversies
Controversies tied to this brand in public sources. A listing is not a finding of fault.
Back to profile4 entries
2023
Lawsuit over frying-pan temperature advertising
A lawsuit alleged that SharkNinja’s advertising for certain coated frying pans could mislead consumers by stating that the coating process involved temperatures of 30,000 degrees Fahrenheit, despite the pans’ stated cooking-temperature limit of 500 degrees Fahrenheit. The case was dismissed without prejudice in October 2024.
2019
SharkNinja files patent lawsuit over Ninja Foodi
Lawsuit filed
SharkNinja filed a complaint in U.S. federal court against Tristar Products and Emeril Lagasse. The complaint alleged that Tristar's Emeril Lagasse Pressure AirFryer infringes three patents related to the Ninja Foodi pressure cooker. The dispute concerns patent infringement claims over the Ninja Foodi pressure cooker technology.
SharkNinja filed a complaint against Tristar Products and Emeril Lagasse in U.S. federal court, alleging that Tristar's Emeril Lagasse Pressure AirFryer infringes three patents related to the Ninja Foodi pressure cooker.
Source excerpt
filed a complaint on Friday against Tristar Products, Inc. and Emeril Lagasse in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida for infringement of three U.S. patents related to its Ninja® Foodi® pressure cooker kitchen appliance.
2019
SharkNinja filed a patent non-infringement lawsuit against iRobot
Lawsuit filed
SharkNinja Operating LLC filed a complaint against iRobot in Delaware seeking a ruling that the Shark IQ Robot does not infringe certain iRobot patents. SharkNinja said it filed in response to an iRobot letter accusing it of infringement.
Stated objective. To obtain a court ruling that the Shark IQ Robot does not infringe certain iRobot patents.
Source excerpt
SharkNinja Operating LLC (SharkNinja), an innovation leader in the consumer floorcare industry and creator of the Shark IQ Robot™ vacuum cleaner, filed a complaint last week against iRobot Corporation (iRobot) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware seeking a ruling from the court that the Shark IQ Robot does not infringe certain iRobot patents directed to robotic vacuum cleaners.
In response to SharkNinja's lawsuit, yesterday iRobot filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging infringement of some of the patents identified in SharkNinja's original Delaware lawsuit.
2019
Tristar files counterclaims against SharkNinja over patent dispute
Lawsuit filed
Tristar's court filing alleges that SharkNinja and its attorneys knowingly obtained and enforced invalid patents to interfere with Tristar's business and limit competition. Tristar seeks declarations that the patents are invalid, not infringed, and unenforceable, as well as fees and damages; these are allegations in the filing.
Source excerpt
Tristar Products, Inc. ("Tristar") sues SharkNinja and its attorneys, the law firm of Cantor Colburn LLP, Daniel R. Gibson, and SharkNinja's Chief Legal Officer, Pedro J. Lopez-Baldrich, for "knowingly participat[ing] in a scheme to tortiously interfere with Tristar's business by fraudulently obtaining and enforcing invalid patents for the purpose of limiting competition and removing Tristar from the market."
Tristar seeks a declaration that the patents are invalid, not infringed, and unenforceable, and Tristar also seeks attorneys' fees and damages.
Defendant Tristar Products Inc.'s Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint and Counterclaims, Civ. Action No. 19-cv-24114 (S.D. FL.) (filed November 29, 2019)