IP Law Daily, PATENT—S.D. Ga.: Beach shade manufacturer’s renewed preliminary injunction request against rival fails, (May 20, 2026)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., M.A., LL.B., LL.M.

The patentee failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on infringement, as the evidence did not establish that the accused product more likely than not exhibited the claimed rotational feature.

A federal district court in Georgia denied a beach shade manufacturer’s second motion for a preliminary injunction against a competing product, concluding that the patentee failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of its patent infringement claim. The court found that the evidence regarding whether the accused product rotated with the wind—a key claim limitation—was inconclusive, and therefore insufficient to establish infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. The court, however, granted the patentee’s motions for leave to amend its complaint and to submit supplemental evidence (Solbello, Inc. v. Shoreshade, LLC, No. 1:25-cv-00267-JRH-BKE (S.D. Ga. May 18, 2026)).

Background. The plaintiff, Solbello, Inc., is a North Carolina-based manufacturer of portable beach shade systems. It produces and sells the “Solbello Shade,” a wind-responsive sunshade designed for beach use. The defendant, ShoreShade, LLC, is a Georgia-based company that manufactures and sells a competing product, the “ShoreShade.” The dispute arose from alleged similarities between the two products, particularly in how they respond to wind conditions.

Solbello asserted its U.S. Patent No. RE50,606 E (the ’606 patent), titled Self-Adjusting Sun Shade Assembly covering a beach shade system comprising a mast inserted into sand and ribs supporting a sail. A key limitation at issue was claim 44, element 4, which requires “at least one rib located proximate the top end of said mast, and configured to rotate relative to the supporting surface.” The invention is designed such that the ribs rotate with the wind while the mast remains stationary, thereby maintaining shade orientation.

The plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging that the defendant’s ShoreShade product infringed the ’606 patent and caused irreparable harm. An earlier motion for a preliminary injunction had been denied for insufficient evidence of an offer to sell. The defendant subsequently modified its product, introducing a “Next Gen” version featuring an end cap with fins designed to prevent rotation. Solbello filed a second motion for preliminary injunction, arguing that despite these modifications, the ShoreShade continued to rotate with the wind and infringed the patent.

Preliminary injunction standard. The court reiterated that a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy requiring the movant to establish four elements: likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, balance of hardships, and public interest. Citing Schiavo v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223, 1225–26 (11th Cir. 2005), the court emphasized that failure to establish any one element is fatal to the motion. For patent cases, the court applied the Federal Circuit’s standard requiring the patentee to show that it is more likely than not to succeed on the merits.

Validity challenge. The defendant argued that the ’606 patent was invalid for lack of novelty and enablement. The court rejected this challenge at the preliminary stage, finding Solbello had sufficiently rebutted the invalidity arguments with contrary evidence. Relying on Titan Tire Corp. v. Case New Holland, Inc., 566 F.3d 1372, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the court noted that the patentee needs only to show that the invalidity defense lacks substantial merit at this stage. The court clarified that the defendant could renew its validity challenges at trial.

Infringement analysis. The central issue was whether the ShoreShade product satisfied the rotational limitation of claim 44. To establish infringement, every claim element must be present either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. The court cited Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 822 F.2d 1528, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1987), and Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 21 (1997), in outlining this requirement.

Because Solbello relied solely on the doctrine of equivalents, it was required to show that the accused product performed substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result. The plaintiff argued that the ShoreShade rotated around a vertical axis, just like the claimed invention, and that any difference, whether rotation occurred at the ribs or the mast, was insubstantial.

The defendant countered that its redesigned product did not rotate at all under normal conditions. It pointed to the newly added end cap with fins, designed to engage the sand and prevent rotation, as well as testing that demonstrated the product remained stationary when properly installed.

Evidentiary conflict. The parties submitted competing video evidence. Solbello’s videos showed the ShoreShade product rotating in the wind, while the defendant’s videos showed no such rotation. Each side challenged the other’s testing conditions, including installation methods and sand characteristics.

The court found that the evidence was evenly balanced. It described the issue of rotation as “at best, a draw,” and emphasized that the burden of proof rested with the Solbello. Because the Solbello failed to show that it was more likely than not that the ShoreShade rotated with the wind, it could not establish infringement.

The court further noted that the ShoreShade product had been specifically designed and tested to resist rotation, and that when properly installed, it did not rotate. Given this uncertainty, the court concluded that Solbello failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits.

Doctrine of equivalents rejected. The court held that without sufficient proof that the accused product exhibited the claimed rotational behavior, the doctrine of equivalents could not bridge the gap. Citing Sofamor Danek Group, Inc. v. DePuy-Motech, Inc., 74 F.3d 1216, 1220 (Fed. Cir. 1996), the court reiterated that each claim limitation or its equivalent must be present in the accused device.

Because the Solbello failed to establish that the ShoreShade met this requirement, it could not succeed on its infringement claim at this stage.

Other motions. Having found that Solbello failed to establish the likelihood of success, the court declined to analyze the remaining preliminary injunction factors and denied the motion. The court granted Solbello’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint, finding no undue delay, bad faith, or prejudice to the defendant. The amended complaint introduced allegations concerning the redesigned “Next Gen” ShoreShade. The court also granted leave to submit supplemental video evidence, despite procedural objections, as it had considered the material in its analysis.

Conclusion. Finally, the court denied the plaintiff’s second motion for preliminary injunction, holding that it failed to establish a likelihood of success on infringement due to inconclusive evidence regarding a critical claim limitation.

The Case is No. 1:25-cv-00267-JRH-BKE.

Judge: Hall, J.

Attorneys: Christopher A. Cosper (Hull Barrett, PC) for Solbello, Inc. Craig Killen (Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP) for ShoreShade, LLC.

Companies: Solbello, Inc.; ShoreShade, LLC

Cases: Patent GeorgiaNews