More common than not, their products and pitches end up being ripped to shreds by the sharp teeth of the judges (successful entrepreneurs such as Mark Cuban or Barbara Cochrane). 

They may walk away empty-handed, but hopefully, take away from the experience some advice as to what the inventor needs to do differently in order to be successful. In any event, it is good exposure and may prove to be good publicity to drive buyers to their websites. 

Inventors are all clamoring to get on this reality show for their 15 minutes of fame to start, save or grow their businesses. 

Shark Tank is appropriately named because when you embark on the business of inventing and selling your product; you are quite literally swimming with “sharks.” The most successful marketers and distributors in the product industry have negotiated thousands of licensing contracts, and their revenues are in the billions. They think fast and they talk even faster, and their ability to negotiate deals on behalf of their companies has catapulted them into a league of their own. The companies who distribute products such as Snuggies®, ShamWow®, Thigh Master® and Red Copper® pans, are responsible for the bulk of the products you see advertised on TV, on home shopping channels, or on the shelves of Target or Walmart. These are the great whites of the industry and when working with them, you will likely receive only a small fraction of product revenues (if any), if you don’t know the key terms to include in your licensing agreements. 

Consultants or inventing schools that charge you an upfront fee or a monthly consulting fee to help launch your product or get you on Shark Tank are happy to take your money even if your product (1) is not unique (e.g., it has been done before); (2) does not have a big enough market to generate considerable profits; or is too costly to manufacture. There are also plenty of inventor-mentors who are happy to share their experiences (at no cost to you) to steer you in the right direction. A consultant who charges fees (usually a percentage of royalties) on a success basis only is the better way to go when embarking on the inventing journey. 

Are you Shark Tank ready? Tracy Hazzard, CEO of Hazz Design, Podcast Host, Brand Strategist shares the following stories followed by Stephan Palios helpful summary of Shark Tank deals – what the inventors asked for, what they received and how the business turned out. 

Shelly Ehler is an inspiring entrepreneur and the inventor of the ShowNo towel. Her towel has also been featured on The TODAY Show, The View, and Good Morning America. She was featured on Season 3 of Shark Tank, and her product and presentation were such a hit that she had three “Sharks” fighting over her. Shelly is the only entrepreneur in the show’s history to ever leave with a check in her hand from Lori Greiner. Ehler had been hand-sewing her towels, 

borrowing to prepare for what she thought would be the ride of a lifetime, and felt like she was patiently waiting on the verge of success she had been dreaming about as she poured blood, sweat, and tears into her business. Then she went on Shark Tank and was handed a check! Sounds like the ultimate Shark Tank success… right? Wrong! 

“Don’t cash that check,” Ehler was told following the show. However, that was not the call Shelly was expecting to receive from Lori Greiner. Shelly’s mouth hung open as Greiner listed her concerns on the other end of the line. “Your business is too new, the deal we made isn’t the deal I want to make now…blah, blah.” As Ehler listened to the words that were her new reality, she could feel the anxiety and stress wash over her. Entrepreneurship can be full of angst, desperation, and a constant stream of a steady inner voices asking you if you’re worthy enough to “be here.” In that moment, those very same entrepreneurial fears planted firmly in Ehler’s mind because she put her trust in a “Shark.” But “Sharks” prey on eager bait, and this story isn’t the only one where we can see the damaging effects of Shark Tank on entrepreneurs and inventors who are just trying to make their dreams come true for themselves, and their families. 

“Whatever you think,” said Shelly. The new deal on the table offered Ehler a 70/30 split, with the latter being her percentage. In her gut, she knew this deal wasn’t fair, but she was met with aggression when she spoke out. When she started asking me questions like, “Do you know what I can do for you?” or, “Do you know how much I charge for my time?” Then, she followed that up with statements like, “Shelly, I am going to do this for you; I went all in.” 

The other offers that the other “Sharks” made to Ehler on the show were now off the table, but she was under the impression, based on conversations with Greiner, that the ShowNo Towel was going to make them millions. When she looked at everything from this angle, Ehler felt like maybe she could live with a 30% deal. So, with a nod and a few famous last words, “Whatever you think,” she sealed the fate of her towel. And then things went even further downhill, and ultimately, her ShowNo Towel was a no-show in revenues and eventually, went out of business. 

The thing that a lot of people don’t realize is that those “Sharks” aren’t there to promote the entrepreneur and make the entrepreneur money. The “Sharks” are there to promote themselves, their businesses, their business acumen, and to solidify their business legacy. The guests on the show, the inventors and creators, are just part of that plan. I think viewers believe Shark Tank is the embodiment of the American Dream, but if we take a closer look, we can see that the show is more the embodiment of self-promotion, greed, and a “whatever it takes” type of attitude, no matter who gets hurt in the process basically, it’s entertainment at the inventor’s expense. 

Stories like Ehler’s make me cringe because the minute she took that deal, she was at the mercy of someone who was using her and her life’s work to self-promote, and at any cost. Just like with Ehler, it is very common for the deals made on the show to fall through. When you watch, you just assume that those deals that they air are the deals that actually happen, and oftentimes, that just isn’t the case, once the camera stops rolling. 

It’s so much easier to take innovation (as in EXPLOIT) than it is to innovate; which is one of the biggest reasons why I am weary of any reality show, or “opportunity” like Shark Tank, where 

innovators eager to grow their business expose their products (oftentimes without patent, trademark, or copyright protection) and end up as shark bait. 

Over the years, I’ve had several clients who were featured on Shark Tank, made a deal with a “Shark”, and then their deal fell through… not quite “As Seen on TV” as we might think. Sometimes, as a result of the airing of the show, viewers flock to the website to place orders. So, while customer demand was created, without funding from a “Shark”, they can’t source or fulfill the orders unless they are going to do so from their garage. It is a soul-crushing experience. I hate it! Business and entrepreneurship, and neither is for the faint of heart, but at the same time, can we go on condoning abuse, greed, and predatory behavior? 

Everything is so soft and lovely on television – even when the “Sharks” are ripping their prey apart, there’s a bit of humor and the entrepreneur seemingly leaves in one piece. Off the air, there’s no softness, there’s no editing, there’s no producer creating perfect dialogue, or heartfelt moments, or scenarios where participants leave with a check in their hand because the newest “Shark” on the show needs to appeal to a specific target audience to sell her current products and businesses. 

“I’m part of an exclusive and prestigious club,” Greiner tells a pair of female entrepreneurs. “I’m a woman” (as though she is going all out to join the sisterhood of the traveling pants). And, just like that, we can see how easily “Sharks” can manipulate the wide-eyed show participants with all the feelgood, hoorah type of attitude that TV allows. 

Off the air, businesses are crushed because, rather than putting an expert in their tank, they chose a “Shark.” Statistically, in the marketplace, you’re more likely to fail than you are to succeed, and that depends on your definition of success. 

• 14 out of 15 HSN and QVC products fail to make money and/ or fail in the marketplace.1 

• 7 out of 10 consumer products fail in the marketplace.2 

I have an 86% success rate, and when you look at statistics like this side-by-side, it’s easy to see why it makes more sense to seek out an expert in your product or service area, versus taking such massive risks to appear on reality television for your friends and family to see. It isn’t that Shark Tank is all bad. Plenty of businesses are still running, plenty of deals actually go through, plenty of entrepreneurs live to tell about their swim with the “Sharks”… but I can tell you this right now – it isn’t what you think, it isn’t what it looks like, it doesn’t happen overnight, and it isn’t all rainbows and unicorns. What you see on TV is one very minuscule piece of one very large puzzle. Some contestants get the writing on the wall much quicker in the process and are able to swim away before there is blood in the water. Kiersten Parsons Hathcock, TV network executive turned self-taught carpenter and furniture designer, won a deal on ABC’s Shark Tank in 2010. Her furniture company, Mod Mom, captured Robert Herjavec’s attention, and after her pitch, she patiently awaited his call. When the call finally came, like Shelly, it certainly wasn’t the one she was expecting either. Herjavec’s change of heart, citing her business still being too small, left her reeling. 

Luckily, Hathcock had family and friends who were able to invest; however, a lot of entrepreneurs are not in this fortunate position, and a lost opportunity, like the one Mod Mom 

suffered, is the end of the road. She was able to keep going on her own, and her furniture line was recently picked up by Little Colorado. 

Another entrepreneur who experienced a similar bait and switch scenario with Herjavec was Megan Cummins, who went in the tank to pitch You Smell, her luxury soap company. On the show, Herjavec offered Cummins investment in exchange for 20% of her company, but when he sent her the contract, he was asking for 50% of her business, for the same investment amount. Cummins, reeling from the bait and switch, turned the deal down, and was able to sell her business in 2014. After selling You Smell, Cummins launched Sparklepop and is on track to be one of the fastest growing small businesses in the States. 

As previous contestant Jordan Scott puts it, in his book, Shark Bites, “There is nothing else on Earth like being in the tank.” This is true for multiple reasons. First, the process of getting a fair and sensible valuation on the show is not in any way how valuations are done in the real world. Second, you would never sit in a room with potential investors and be devalued in the manner of which we see on the show. Oftentimes, investors aren’t looking for the check marks that the “Sharks” make sticking points about on the show, and in a lot of ways, this kind of false representation of how business actually works, is damaging, especially for new entrepreneurs who are learning it all as they go. Third, I’ve had a handful of clients who got deals on Shark Tank, and were in no way ready to make those deals, but nobody told them that. 

When you don’t have the experience to know what’s missing, and you don’t have the systems and processes in place to take advantage of the swell of growth that could potentially be coming your way, it’s easy to take missteps; creating unnecessary vulnerabilities and taking unnecessary risks. This might not seem like a big deal to a “Shark” with a portfolio that is bursting at the seams, but for these entrepreneurs, this is their livelihood, their baby, their everything… they’ve emptied bank accounts, they’ve taken loans, and they’ve borrowed from friends and family. When the dust settles, it isn’t the “Sharks” who look those people in the eye, it isn’t the “Sharks” who repay those loans at exorbitant interest rates, and it isn’t the “Sharks” who nurse the wounds. With all of that being said, let’s take a look at the top 5 signs that you are ready for the tank: 

❖ You have market proof and traction.

➢ Do you have a reachable market? 

➢ Can you show who your competition is and how you’re different? 

➢ Do you have quantifiable data? 

❖ You are profitable. Entrepreneurs don’t need to have a million dollars in sales to be ready for Shark Tank, but you do need to show solid profitability or the immediate potential for profit. 

❖ You know your hook. A perfect pitch is one that is clear, speaks to the unique elements of a business, and has a hook to really grab the attention of listeners. 

❖ You know your numbers. It is cringe worthy to watch episodes where entrepreneurs don’t know their numbers because, as an entrepreneur, you should know this information like the back of your hand, no excuses. If you don’t know your numbers, you are putting yourself in a very vulnerable position because, how can you ask for your value if you don’t know your numbers? And how can you realistically pitch a plan for profitability, if you don’t know your margins? 

❖ You have a plan. If you know your plan for the future, have a vision for the business, and can show long-term potential in an investment, this is a great indicator of preparedness and sustainability. 

If you can read through these readiness signs and know, without a doubt, that you can check each box, you might be in a position to join the other 45,000 annual applications for Shark Tank. But I have to ask, if you can check these boxes, why aren’t you protecting your business and going it alone? If you have a foundation to launch, why not launch where you are, build your business organically, and control the process each step of the way? 

So many entrepreneurs think the other entrepreneurs have more knowledge or more access, but I can tell you that (for the most part) everyone is just out there hustling and figuring it out, day in, and day out. When I go back and watch Ehler’s pitch to the “Sharks,” it kills me when she gets a check on the spot. I find myself talking to the screen, “Don’t take the check…don’t take the check.” “This is a huge red flag.” In Ehler’s mind, it proved out her worth; however, in hindsight, it’s clear that if someone is willing to hand you a check on the spot, your business is probably worth more. 192 sleepless nights, anxious energy, and not speaking to a soul about the fact that she might be on Shark Tank were torture for Ehler. But finally, her episode aired… and then nothing happened. Ehler and I talked about lessons learned, entrepreneurship, and how her vulnerability and excitement were used against her in an effort to take her business out from underneath her. “The last offer Greiner made me was a royalty deal. 

My attorney said it was one of the worst he’d ever seen and it would have left me with nothing. At that point, I knew it was time to walk away, and at least keep what was left of my pride. I couldn’t help but take it personally and I felt like the biggest failure. Now that I’ve had some time to heal and get a better perspective, I see a lot more. I don’t think [Lori] ever had any intention of letting me have that money. She was new on the show, wanted to make a splash, and I felt the check hand-off was a production-value stunt to help her make a name for herself. When the dust settled, I really had nothing left, and it took me 3-years to come back and start rebuilding with a renewed vision.” 

Of course, Ehler isn’t the only one. There are entire Facebook “support” groups, hiding in the shadows, dedicated solely to building some sort of common-ground comradery to help heal the wounds of those who suffered “Shark” bites. But too many victims don’t speak up because they haven’t even begun the healing process. When you go up against a “Shark” (or an entire tank full of them), nothing can prepare you, no matter how much you tell yourself otherwise, to be ripped to shreds, to have your creation ripped to shreds, to be manipulated, and preyed upon. Nothing is going to help ease the anxiety and the voice that questions your worthiness. No one is going to hold your hand, and help you navigate the murky waters… but hey, if things get really bad, there is a show therapist who might offer some couch time. 

There are two really common misconceptions about Shark Tank that I want to debunk as I close this out. One, you have to know that the show is not for the entrepreneur. The show is for the 

promotion of the “Sharks,” their portfolios, and their brands. I know I mentioned this, but I really want you to think about this the next time you find yourself settling in for an episode of Shark Tank. This perspective shift will change the way you watch, feel, and perceive the show, as well as the “Sharks”. 

Secondly, a “Shark” is not going to launch your product or business for you. Plenty of entrepreneurs, or even viewers, have this idea that being “seen” on TV is a magic bullet, but it isn’t. If any part of your potential success dream is resting on this misconception, you really should consider talking to a product launch expert to get a more realistic idea of how this process really works. Episode after episode, I’ve seen these points hammered home, and this just proves that the show isn’t a full story and totally honest depiction of the possibilities. The entrepreneurs and creators I meet oftentimes have this vision of quality and building something that feels like an extension of their values, world view, and passion for impact. I wish more entrepreneurs would commit to that vision and stay the course. Slow and steady really does win the race. I believe “Sharks” attempt to remove the entrepreneur (along with some integrity) from the process to force it into their brand or their system. Next time your best friend from college tells you that you should go on Shark Tank because you’d be totally perfect for that, ask her how she feels about swimming alone in murky water with a bunch of sharks while playing the movie, Jaws, in the background. 

* * * 

Tiffany Krumins, who refers to herself as an “accidental entrepreneur”, had an entirely different experience with Shark Tank and one that catapulted her into a successful entrepreneur with the help of a “Shark”, Barbara Corcoran. Tiffany worked as a caregiver for a boy with Downs Syndrome. He had a difficult time taking medication; so much so that he had to be restrained in order to take even the smallest of pills. She had a lightbulb moment. He loves stuffed animals so, why not incorporate that into the medicine-taking routine? That night she went home and took different materials and created an elephant out of sponges and fabrics and fitted the inside with a recordable greeting card. She recorded her voice on the card as a talking elephant. When she took it to work the next day, she said, “Gibby, this is your little buddy. She is going to help you take your medicine today.” At the moment, something just clicked with him; it was as if he was never fearful of medicine. He listened to this elephant’s soothing directions and took his medicine. With that aha-ha moment came the next thought: “What do I do to make this available to kids everywhere?” 

About six months later, Tiffany saw a casting call for Shark Tank. It was the pilot episode of the show and the casting read, “Do you have the next big million-dollar idea but you don’t have the funding to make it happen?” She submitted her idea and, one week later, she was accepted on the pilot episode of Shark Tank. After signing the deal with Barbara, Tiffany was thrust into the product launch world -everything from designing and filing her trademark and patent and designing packaging to negotiating with manufacturers. While Barbara was extremely supportive, her background was in real estate so, this was her first product launch, too. Although there were bumps and hiccups along the way, Barbara profited from her gamble on 

Ava the Elephant® and eight years from her ah-ha moment, Tiffany succeeded in obtaining a lucrative licensing deal. Most recently, Tiffany branched out and launched Mom Genius which aims to combine the excitement of Shark Tank with access to genius, kid-inspired products and to nurture other inventors. 

So, folks, there are always tales of woe and tales of success in product launching. Even though the success stories don’t happen overnight. Shark Tank has evolved quite a bit from the original pilot episode to the big hit reality show it is today and even those that walk off the show as a winner may still find themselves swimming the backstroke as the Sharks don’t always deliver on the promises they make on national TV. 

Shark Tank Said Yes – But What Happened Next? 

Guest Submission – Stefan Palios 

Many entrepreneurs dream of raising money from famous investors like Mark Cuban or Barbara Corcoran. It’s one of the reasons Shark Tank is so popular. But little do people know, a lot goes on after the Sharks say “yes”. There are even full blogs, like Sharkalytics and SharkTankBlog, dedicated to tracking these companies. It can be crazy to see how things go when the cameras turn off. 

From failed investments to businesses disappearing, we’ve rounded up some of the most interesting businesses based on data from Sharkalytics – and looked into what happened after the founders made a deal with the Sharks. 

A pie to tamper with 

Company: Mr. Tod’s Pie Factory 

Industry: Specialty Food 

What the company does: Retail and wholesale pie factory with two retail locations in New Jersey. 

Who Pitched the Sharks? Tod Wilson 

Season 1, Episode 1 

What the founders asked for: 

$460,000 in exchange for 10% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $4,600,000 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $460,000 in exchange for 50% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $920,000 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Barbara Corcoran and Daymond John 

Company status: MIXED. 

Note: The North Jersey Record reported that Tod Wilson was arrested in 2017 on charges of witness tampering. However, the company still seems to be in operation based on an active Twitter account and listing on Google Maps. 

Reinventing the wheel 

Company: Shark Wheel 

Industry: Outdoor Recreation 

What the company does: Shark Wheel’s wheel design is not circular, it’s Q-shaped, to put it as simply as possible. It goes on all sorts of things – skateboards, strollers, and more. 

Who pitched the Sharks? David Patrick and Zack Fleishman 

Season 6, Episode 29 

What the founders asked for: $100,000 in exchange for 5% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $2,000,000 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $225,000 in exchange for 7% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $3,000,000 

Other terms: Kevin, Nick and Mark also get a 10% royalty on sales until $500,000 are recouped. 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Kevin O’Leary, Mark Cuban, and Nick Woodman 

Company status: SUCCESS. 

Note: According to Crunchbase, the company raised a further investor round of over $600,000. They are still in operation today and sell their wheels online. 

Disappearing broccoli 

Company: Broccoli Wad 

Industry: Novelties 

What the company does: A rubber band that works as a money clip. 

Who pitched the Sharks? Johnny Gennaro & Vinny Pastore 

Season 2, Episode 4 

What the founders asked for: $50,000 in exchange for 20% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $250,000 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $50,000 in exchange for 40% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $125,000 

Other terms: Closing conditions called for the product name to be changed to the Vinny Wad and for Vinny Pastore’s resemblance to be on the product. Barbara’s investment bought her a 40% stake; half went to Vinny for becoming the face of the product. 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Barbara Corcoran 

Company status: FAILED. 

Note: The company disappeared shortly after the deal was done, according to 2paragraphs.com, and the founders moved onto other projects. 

No pollution cars for cities 

Company: Zero Pollution Motors 

Industry: Automotive 

What the company does: Zero Pollution Motors is launching the AIRPod vehicle, a small zero-pollution vehicle designed for use in cramped urban centers. 

Who pitched the Sharks? Ethan Tucker and Pat Boone 

Season 6, Episode 27 

What the founders asked for: $5,000,000 in exchange for 50% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $10,000,000 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $5,000,000 in exchange for 50% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $10,000,000 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Robert Herjavec 

Company status: SUCCESS. 

Note: The business seems to be in operation, with their website (zeropollutionmotors.us) offering people the chance to reserve their AIRPod vehicle. 

A face lift for your mouth 

Company AngelLift 

Industry: Cosmetics 

What the company does: Angellift Dermastrips are over-the-counter facial lifting strips that are worn inside the mouth, over the teeth for 10-30 minutes a day. 

Who pitched the Sharks? Aaron Bruce 

Season 5, Episode 27 

What the founders asked for: $500,000 in exchange for 10% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $5,000,000 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $500,000 in exchange for 15% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $3,333,333 

Other terms: Lori’s investment is to be used solely for the purpose of funding QVC purchase orders. The deal is also contingent on proof of patent, proof that $3,000,000 of retail sales have been done, and finally, review of the clinical trials. 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Lori Greiner 

Company status: MIXED. 

Note: The Shark Tank deal didn’t end up happening, according to Sharklytics.com. The business appears to be in operation, but their social media has been inactive since summer 2019. 

Lobster boys 

Company Cousins Maine Lobster 

Industry: Food 

What the company does: A lobster roll food truck run by two cousins originally from Maine, operating in Southern California. 

Who pitched the Sharks? Jim Tselikis and Sabin Lomac 

Season 4, Episode 6 

What the founders asked for: $55,000 in exchange for 5% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $1,100,000 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $55,000 in exchange for 15% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $366,667 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Barbara Corcoran 

Company status: SUCCESS. 

Note: The business is operational and growing after the Shark Tank investment went through. 

Nutty for nut butter 

Company: Wild Squirrel Nut Butter 

Industry: Food 

What the company does: Homemade peanut butters. 

Who pitched the Sharks? Erika Welsh and Keeley Tillotson 

Season 3, Episode 14 

What the founders asked for: $50,000 in exchange for 10% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $500,000 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $50,000 in exchange for 40% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $125,000 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Barbara Corcoran 

Company status: SUCCESS. 

Note: According to a Forbes interview, the company is thriving. The founders are looking to add more products to the line and are doing millions of dollars in nut butter sales. 

A deal for royalty 

Company: Gift Card Rescue 

Industry: Retail and E-Commerce 

What the company does: A web-based company that buys back and sells some of the 10% of all unused gift cards each year in the US. 

Who pitched the Sharks? Kwami Kuadey 

Season 1, Episode 4 

What the founders asked for: $150,000 in exchange for 30% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $500,000 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $200,000 in exchange for 50% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $400,000 

Other terms: Robert and Kevin O’Leary also get a 5% royalty with the deal. 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Kevin O’Leary and Robert Herjavec 

Company status: FAILED. 

Note: As reported by the Baltimore Sun, Gift Card Rescue shut down in 2016, not too long after their Shark Tank appearance. 

Baby cups for everyone 

Company: Lollacup 

Industry: Baby and Childcare 

What the company does: Lollacup is one well-engineered sippy cup. It comes with a valve-free, weighted straw that small children can easily learn to drink from, even when Lollacup is tilted. 

Who pitched the Sharks? Hanna Lim 

Season 3, Episode 12 

What the founders asked for: $100,000 in exchange for 15% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $666,667 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $100,000 in exchange for 40% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $250,000 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Mark Cuban and Robert Herjavec 

Company status: SUCCESS. 

Note: The company expanded into other baby products like plates and utensils, and the business seems to be going well. 

Sweeping away the Sharks 

Company: Sweep Easy 

Industry: Home and Cleaning 

What the company does: A new kind of broom with a built-in scraper. 

Who pitched the Sharks? Shane Pannell 

Season 2, Episode 6 

What the founders asked for: $40,000 in exchange for 25% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $160,000 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $80,000 in exchange for 25% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $320,000 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Kevin Harrington and Daymond John 

Company status: MIXED. 

Note: The Shark Tank deal ended up falling through, but founder Shane Pannell continued working. The business is still operating and you can buy the sweep easy brooms on Amazon. 

STEM toys, ahoy 

Company: Qubits 

Industry: Toys 

What the company does: Qubits is a new construction toy for kids. 

Who pitched the Sharks? Mark Burginger 

Season 1, Episode 14 

What the founders asked for: $90,000 in exchange for 51% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $176,471 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $90,000 in exchange for 51% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $176,471 

Other terms: Contingent on Daymond being able to get a deal with a major toy company 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Daymond John 

Company status: MIXED. 

Note: The deal ultimately fell through, but Daymond John remained a mentor to the company. They secured their own growth partnerships and are still operating. 

They’re searching everyone 

Company: Postcard on the Run 

Industry: Online Services 

What the company does: An easy-to-use mobile app that allows you to take a photograph from your phone and instantly send it as a real printed postcard. 

Who pitched the Sharks? Josh Brooks 

Season 5, Episode 1 

What the founders asked for: $300,000 in exchange for 5% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $6,000,000 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $300,000 in exchange for 7% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $4,000,000 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Robert Herjavec 

Company status: FAILED. 

Note: The company shut down in an announcement from 2015 after competition pushed them out of business, as reported on SharkTankBlog.com. 

Greasy product, solid business 

Company: Grease Monkey Wipes 

Industry: Outdoor Recreation 

What the company does: Individually-packaged degreasing cleaning wipes formulated for cyclists to easily remove grease and grime from working on bicycles. 

Who pitched the Sharks? Tim Stansbury and Erin Whalen 

Season 1, Episode 12 

What the founders asked for: $40,000 in exchange for 40% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $100,000 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $40,000 in exchange for 40% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $100,000 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Barbara Corcoran and Robert Herjavec 

Company Status: SUCCESS. 

Note: The company is still in operations after a successful Shark Tank deal. 

Customers hear you! 

Company: Origaudio 

Industry: Electronics 

What the company does: The Rocket, the company’s flagship product, can turn anything into a speaker through its vibrations. 

Who pitched the Sharks? Jason Lucash and Michael Szymczak 

Season 2, Episode 8 

What the founders asked for: $150,000 in exchange for 15% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $1,000,000 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $150,000 in exchange for 15% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $1,000,000 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Robert Herjavec 

Company Status: SUCCESS. 

Note: Still operational, the company expanded into multiple different product lines and touts its high customer satisfaction on its website. 

Bottles on bottles 

Company: The Clean Bottle 

Industry: Water bottles 

What the company does: A water container that unscrews from the bottom as well as the top for ease of cleaning. 

Who pitched the Sharks? Dave Mayer 

Season 3, Episode 1 

What the founders asked for: $60,000 in exchange for 5% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $1,200,000 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $60,000 in exchange for 8% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $750,000 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Mark Cuban 

Company Status: MIXED. 

Note: BicycleRetailer.com reported that the company was looking to be acquired in 2018, but recent news suggests that whatever the outcome, the company is running successfully. 

Learn guitar quickly, apparently 

Company: Chord Buddy 

Industry: Music 

What the company does: A two-month learning system that teaches which chords to play on the guitar. 

Who pitched the Sharks? Travis Perry 

Season 3, Episode 3 

What the founders asked for: $125,000 in exchange for 10% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $1,250,000 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $175,000 in exchange for 20% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $875,000 

Other terms: The deal stipulates that $50,000 of the investment will be placed in escrow, set aside to be used to make an infomercial. 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Robert Herjavec 

Company status: SUCCESS. 

Note: The company’s website suggests it’s still running and boasts media coverage in Forbes, CNBC, ABC, and The Today Show, among others. 

Sold it all to the Sharks 

Company: Classroom Jams 

Industry: Education 

What the company does: An educational record label and publishing house designed to get students into learning about classic works of literature. 

Who pitched the Sharks? Mark Furigay 

Season 1, Episode 2 

What the founders asked for: $250,000 in exchange for 10% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $2,500,000 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $250,000 in exchange for 100% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $250,000 

Other terms: The inventor agreed to sell his entire company (each of the 5 sharks having 20% equity) with the agreement of receiving 5% royalties from all future sales, and an option to buy 1/6 of the company back. 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Kevin Harrington, Kevin O’Leary, Barbara Corcoran, Daymond John, Robert Herjavec 

Company Status: FAILED. 

Note: Despite the backing of the Sharks, the company doesn’t seem to have taken off. 

A good barbecue time 

Company: Pork Barrel BBQ 

Industry: Specialty Food 

What the company does: The company sells award-winning BBQ rubs and spices. 

Who pitched the Sharks? Heath Hall and Brett Thompson 

Season 1, Episode 6 

What the founders asked for: $50,000 in exchange for 10% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $500,000 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $50,000 in exchange for 50% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $100,000 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Barbara Corcoran 

Company Status: SUCCESS. 

Note: Pork Barrel BBQ made the most of their Shark Tank appearance, and still advertise it today on their website. The company has since expanded and is doing well. 

Save the wine! 

Company: Wine Balloon (now Air Cork) 

Industry: Wine Accessories 

What the company does: The company sells a product that preserves wine inside any already-opened bottle. It works by inflating a balloon inside the bottle to crowd out the air and prevent it from being in contact with the wine. 

Who pitched the Sharks? Eric Corti 

Season 3, Episode 4 

What the founders asked for: $40,000 in exchange for 30% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $133,333 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $400,000 in exchange for 100% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $400,000 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Mark Cuban and Lori Greiner 

Company Status: MIXED. 

Note: Despite the deal with the Sharks falling through, the company is doing well. They rebranded from Wine Balloon to Air Cork and are continuing to grow. 

It’s pretzels AND candy 

Company: The Painted Pretzel 

Industry: Specialty Food 

What the company does: The Painted Pretzel sells creative, gourmet chocolate-covered pretzel confections in brick-and-mortar retail stores and online. 

Who pitched the Sharks? Raven Thomas 

Season 3, Episode 6 

What the founders asked for: $100,000 in exchange for 25% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $400,000 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $100,000 in exchange for 25% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $400,000 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Mark Cuban 

Company status: SUCCESS. 

Note: After a successful Shark investment from Mark Cuban, the business has continued to grow. 

Flavors combine when you kiss 

Company: Kisstixx 

Industry: Cosmetics 

What the company does: Kisstixx is a fun lip balm that comes in pairs according to compatible flavors. Each Kisstixx lipstick packs a punch of flavor, and they’re paired to mix well when they come together in a kiss. 

Who pitched the Sharks? Dallas Robinson and Mike Buonomo 

Season 3, Episode 7 

What the founders asked for: $200,000 in exchange for 20% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $1,000,000 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $200,000 in exchange for 40% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $500,000 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Mark Cuban 

Company status: FAILED. 

Note: Shortly after their Shark Tank appearance, the founders moved on from KissTixx to other ventures. 

Paddle, paddle, paddle 

Company: Tower Paddle Boards 

Industry: Outdoor Recreation 

What the company does: Stand-up paddle boarding products. 

Who pitched the Sharks? Stephan Aarstol 

Season 3, Episode 9 

What the founders asked for: $150,000 in exchange for 10% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $1,500,000 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $150,000 in exchange for 30% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $500,000 

Other terms: Mark Cuban gets 1st right of refusal for future business ventures 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Mark Cuban 

Company status: SUCCESS. 

Note: The company did well in the Shark Tank and continued to do well after making a deal. They even landed a juicy Forbes.com feature, giving them huge press. 

The vanishing nail kit 

Company: Nail Pak 

Industry: Cosmetics 

What the company does: An easy-to-use package that consolidates nail polish, pads, file and polish remover. 

Who pitched the Sharks? Barbara Lampugnale 

Season 3, Episode 12 

What the founders asked for: $50,000 in exchange for 20% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $250,000 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $50,000 in exchange for 40% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $125,000 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Lori Greiner 

Company status: FAILED. 

Note: Despite amazing success after Shark Tank, completely selling out of their inventory, Nail Pak seems to have disappeared. The founder even moved onto another cosmetics company. 

Safety AND convenience 

Company: Bev Buckle 

Industry: Accessories 

What the company does: A belt featuring a buckle that opens to make a beverage holder. 

Who pitched the Sharks? Jay Kriner 

Season 4, Episode 1 

What the founders asked for: $50,000 in exchange for 10% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $500,000 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $50,000 in exchange for 51% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $98,039 

Other terms: The owner can not take a salary from the $50,000 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Barbara Corcoran 

Company status: MIXED. 

Note: The business is still up and running, but it’s not certain that the original Shark Tank team is still behind it. According to 2paragraphs.com, the business went up for sale in 2015, but there’s no confirmation if someone bought it or the founders kept it running themselves. 

Dip dunk drop 

Company: Back 9 Dips 

Industry: Specialty Food 

What the company does: Back 9 Dips are buffalo chicken dips created with all white meat chicken breasts along with wing and dipping sauces. 

Who pitched the Sharks? David & Nique Mealy 

Season 4, Episode 4 

What the founders asked for: $150,000 in exchange for 15% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $1,000,000 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $150,000 in exchange for 25% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $600,000 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Lori Greiner and Robert Herjavec 

Company status: FAILED. 

Note: Unfortunately, the momentum from Shark Tank couldn’t save the business after a scandal involving using improper ingredients. They had to do a mass recall of their products and eventually went under. 

Brothers in vitamins 

Company: Marz Sprays 

Industry: Wellness 

What the company does: If you don’t like to swallow pills, you may feel like there aren’t any wellness supplements out there for you. Marz Sprays came up with a solution. Their supplements are designed and packaged as oral sprays. 

Who picked the Sharks? Brandon and Keith Marz 

Season 4, Episode 5 

What the founders asked for: $200,000 in exchange for 10% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $2,000,000 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $200,000 in exchange for 25% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $800,000 

Other terms: The entrepreneurs have the option to buy back half of Lori’s stake at 4X the price she paid for them. 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Lori Greiner 

Company status: MIXED. 

Note: Since the company was in the Shark Tank, they expanded their product lines into all kinds of sprays. Despite being sued by actress Jennifer Love Hewitt, the company still seems to be doing well. 

Uni-cycling all over town 

Company: SBU Unicycle by Focus Designs 

Industry: Cycling 

What the company does: Focus Designs is the maker of the self-balancing unicycle, or the SBU for short. 

Who pitched the Sharks? Daniel Wood and David Martschinske 

Season 4, Episode 7 

What the founders asked for: $300,000 in exchange for 10% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $3,000,000 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $300,000 in exchange for 33% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $909,091 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Kevin O’Leary and Robert Herjavec 

Company status: MIXED. 

Note: While the team behind Focus Designs (the maker of the Unicycle) all seem to still be involved, the Amazon product links are broken and the website returns an error. 

On your way to a better life 

Company: Better Life 

Industry: Cleaning Products 

What the company does: A line of plant-derived cleaning products. 

Who pitched the Sharks? Tim Barklage and Kevin Tibbs 

Season 5, Episode 7 

What the founders asked for: $400,000 in exchange for 7% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $5,714,286 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $400,000 in exchange for 17% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $2,352,941 

Other terms: Lori offers the $400,000 as a loan, with the equity stake dropping to 7% when the loan is paid back. 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Lori Greiner 

Company status: SUCCESS. 

Note: The company still seems to be up and running, with more products on their site and updates to their blog. 

Block that sun 

Company: SwimZip 

Industry: Baby and Childcare 

What the company does: UV sun protection bathing suits designed for babies, toddlers, and children of all ages. A signature zipper down the front makes these suits easy to put on and take off. 

Who pitched the Sharks? Betsy Johnson (Wanless) 

Season 5, Episode 15 

What the founders asked for: $60,000 in exchange for 5% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $1,200,000 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $60,000 in exchange for 20% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $300,000 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Lori Greiner 

Company status: SUCCESS. 

Note: The company is alive and thriving. Its social media channels are continually active and the website shows multiple products (even for adults now). 

The cookie monster approves 

Company: The Cookie Dough Cafe 

Industry: Specialty Food 

What the company does: Gourmet cookie dough made to be eaten and enjoyed without baking. 

Who pitched the Sharks? Julia Schmid and Joan Pacetti 

Season 5, Episode 16 

What the founders asked for: $50,000 in exchange for 20% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $250,000 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $100,000 in exchange for 30% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $333,333 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Lori Greiner and Steve Tisch 

Company status: SUCCESS. 

Note: The company has done well since its Shark Tank deal. It’s grown well and even expanded into Canada. 

Supplement or construction material? 

Company: FiberFix 

Industry: Home Improvement 

What the company does: An ultra-strength repair tape that is easy to apply and cures rapidly. 

Who pitched the Sharks? Eric Child and Spencer Quinn 

Season 5, Episode 6 

What the founders asked for: $90,000 in exchange for 10% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $900,000 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $120,000 in exchange for 2% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $1,000,000 

Other terms: Lori will also fund purchase orders. 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Lori Greiner 

Company status: SUCCESS. 

Note: The deal went through and the company continues to operate. Its products are even available on Amazon. 

Fashionable lunch? 

Company: Yubo 

Industry: Toys and Games 

What the company does: Yubo is a new kind of lunchbox featuring unique changeable faceplates that allow kids to update the look of their lunchbox as often as they’d like. 

Who pitched the Sharks? Cyndi Pedrazzi, Paul Pedrazzi, and Dan Harden 

Season 5, Episode 10 

What the founders asked for: $150,000 in exchange for 15% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $1,000,000 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $150,000 in exchange for 20% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $750,000 

Other terms: 20% stake drops to 10% if the investment is repaid in 18 months. 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Kevin O’Leary and Robert Herjavec 

Company status: FAILED. 

Note: After 10 years in the business, the company announced in early 2019 that it was closing down. 

What were they drinking?! 

Company: Tipsy Elves 

Industry: Holiday Cheer 

What the company does: A collection of quirky and humorous Christmas-themed sweaters, sweater dresses, jumpsuits and accessories. 

Who pitched the Sharks? Evan Mendelsohn and Nicklaus Morton 

Season 5, Episode 12 

What the founders asked for: $100,000 in exchange for 5% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $2,000,000 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $100,000 in exchange for 10% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $1,000,000 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Robert Herjavec 

Company status: SUCCESS. 

Note: Business Insider reported in 2018 that the company has sold over $70 million worth of product since appearing on Shark Tank. 

Don’t get stuck on surge 

Company: Invisiplug 

Industry: Home Improvement 

What the company does: A patented line of power strips and surge protectors designed to blend in to hardwood floors. 

Who pitched the Sharks? Mike Barzman and Bryan O’Connell 

Season 5, Episode 14 

What the founders asked for: $125,000 in exchange for 10% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $1,250,000 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $125,000 in exchange for; 10% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $1,250,000 

Other terms: In addition to the 10% equity stake, Lori is to receive a royalty of $1.00 per unit sold until her initial investment is recovered, then $0.25 per unit in perpetuity. 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Lori Greiner 

Company status: FAILED. 

Note: While some media claim the business is operational, the products are not available on Amazon or QVC any longer. Founder Mike Barzman was also arrested for threatening someone with a gun. 

Sleep like a baby 

Company: Sleeping Baby 

Industry: Baby and Childcare 

What the company does: Creators of the Zipadee-Zip, a onesie that provides a cozy, womb-like sleeping environment that babies need, with the freedom to roll around safely and freely. 

Who pitched the Sharks? Brett and Stephanie Parker 

Season 6, Episode 1 

What the founders asked for: $200,000 in exchange for 10% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $2,000,000 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $200,000 in exchange for 20% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $1,000,000 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Daymond John 

Company status: SUCCESS. 

Note: While the deal with Daymond John fell through, the company continues to operate – and even got a feature in Forbes. 

Roommate or building material? 

Company: Roominate 

Industry: Toys and Games 

What the company does: A line of toys that combines hands-on building, circuits, design, crafts, storytelling, and creativity. 

Who pitched the Sharks? Alice Brooks and Bettina Chen 

Season 6, Episode 2 

What the founders asked for: $500,000 in exchange for 5% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $10,000,000 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $500,000 in exchange for 5% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $10,000,000 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Mark Cuban and Lori Greiner 

Company status: SUCCESS. 

Note: After success in the Shark Tank, Roominate was acquired in 2016 by toy company PlayMonster. 

Golf until the end of time 

Company: Kronos Golf 

Industry: Recreation and Leisure 

What the company does: An independent manufacturer of premium golf putters, Kronos undertakes a labor-intensive process that includes precision milling to within 1/1000 of an inch, delicate hand work, and a calculated approach to raw material selection. 

Who pitched the Sharks? Phillip Lapuz and Eric Williams 

Season 6, Episode 2 

What the founders asked for: $150,000 in exchange for 15% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $1,000,000 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $150,000 in exchange for 30% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $500,000 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Robert Herjavec 

Company status: SUCCESS. 

Note: The deal with Robert Herjavec went through and the company is growing. It primarily sells to the Japanese market but hopes to expand into the US. 

Strong by nature 

Company: The Natural Grip 

Industry: Fitness 

What the company does: The Natural Grip is an innovative fitness product that provides comfortable and custom hand protection for fitness enthusiasts. 

Who pitched the Sharks? Ashley Drake 

Season 6, Episode 8 

What the founders asked for: $100,000 in exchange for 20% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $500,000 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $125,000 in exchange for 25% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $500,000 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Robert Herjavec 

Company status: FAILED. 

Note: Despite major early success, including being part of the Olympics, The Natural Grip has not updated Twitter since 2017 and the website fails to load. 

Remix your lips 

Company: Lipstick Remix 

Industry: Cosmetics 

What the company does: A way to save the lipstick that gets stuck at the bottom of the tube. 

Who pitched the Sharks? Jill Quilln 

Season 1, Episode 13 

What the founders asked for: $105,000 in exchange for 30% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $350,000 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $105,000 in exchange for 50% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $210,000 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Kevin Harrington, Barbara Corcoran, Daymond John 

Company status: FAILED. 

Note: After a successful run on Shark Tank, the company suddenly shut down in 2013 and has been defunct ever since. 

Dance like nobody’s watching 

Company: Tippi Toes 

Industry: Baby and Childcare 

What the company does: Dance education centers for children. 

Who pitched the Sharks? Megan Reilly and Sarah Nuse 

Season 2, Episode 1 

What the founders asked for: $30,000 in exchange for 5% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $600,000 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $100,000 in exchange for 30% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $333,333 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Mark Cuban 

Company status: MIXED. 

Note: The deal with Mark Cuban fell through, but the business itself didn’t fail. The due are still running the company. 

New toys all the time 

Company: Toygaroo 

Industry: Toys and Games 

What the company does: A subscription toy service. 

Who pitched the Sharks? Nikki Pope 

Season 2, Episode 2 

What the founders asked for: $100,000 in exchange for 10% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $1,000,000 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $200,000 in exchange for 40% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $500,000 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Kevin O’Leary and Mark Cuban 

Company status: FAILED. 

Note: Despite securing two Sharks, the company ultimately failed. O’Leary said in a Forbes interview it was due to the founder’s inability to execute. 

Get fit, will surf 

Company: SurfSet Fitness 

Industry: Fitness 

What the company does: Surf-inspired exercise equipment and group fitness classes. 

Who pitched the Sharks? Mike Hartwick and Sarah Ponn 

Season 4, Episode 2 

What the founders asked for: $150,000 in exchange for 10% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $1,500,000 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $300,000 in exchange for 30% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $1,000,000 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Mark Cuban 

Company status: MIXED. 

Note: The deal worked with Mark Cuban, but one of the co-founders left the company in 2018. It still operates. 

So much posture 

Company: Posture Now 

Industry: Wellness 

What the company does: A patent-pending strap that keeps the wearer’s posture perfect. 

Who pitched the Sharks? Mike Lane and Mark Franklin 

Season 4, Episode 3 

What the founders asked for: $100,000 in exchange for 15% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $666,667 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $100,000 in exchange for 30% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $333,333 

Other terms: Mark will get a $5 royalty on every unit sold until his investment is recovered. In addition, since the two entrepreneurs have full-time jobs outside of the company, Mark requires that one of them (Mike) quit his day job to fully dedicate himself to Posture Now. 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Mark Cuban 

Company status: MIXED. 

Note: While the website seems to still be up, the product is out of stock on Amazon and the company’s Twitter account has not been updated since 2017. 

Have a cool baby 

Company: Cool Wazoo 

Industry: Baby and Childcare 

What the company does: Cool Wazoo is a cover that redirects heat back to its source while serving five different functions. 

Who pitched the Sharks? Ginelle Mills 

Season 4, Episode 8 

What the founders asked for: $65,000 in exchange for 25% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $260,000 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $65,000 in exchange for 25% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $260,000 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Lori Greiner 

Company status: FAILED. 

Note: With the Amazon store shut down and products being labelled as “sold out,” it doesn’t look like Cool Wazoo is still operating. 

Fast ramen for the impatient 

Company: Rapid Ramen Cooker 

Industry: Food 

What the company does: A bowl designed to cook ramen more easily in the microwave. 

Who pitched the Sharks? Chris Johnson 

Season 5, Episode 3 

What the founders asked for: $300,000 in exchange for 10% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $3,000,000 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $150,000 in exchange for 15% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $1,000,000 

Other terms: In addition to the equity investment, the deal includes another $150,000 in the form of a loan. 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Mark Cuban 

Company status: SUCCESS. 

Note: Despite the Shark Tank deal falling through, the company expanded its product offerings and is even sold through Walmart stores. 

Surf AND skateboard 

Company: Hamboards 

Industry: Recreation and Leisure 

What the company does: A surf-style skateboard company. 

Who pitched the Sharks? Pete Hamborg 

Season 5, Episode 4 

What the founders asked for: $100,000 in exchange for 15% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $666,667 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $300,000 in exchange for 30% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $1,000,000 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Robert Herjavec 

Company status: SUCCESS. 

Note: The deal on Shark Tank helped the company grow and it still seems to be operating today, based on an active and professional business website. 

Carry your dogs 

Company: Heart Pup 

Industry: Pet Products 

What the company does: A sling and dog carrier tote hybrid, HeartPUP allows the user to carry pets handsfree. 

Who pitched the Sharks? Anastasia Heart 

Season 6, Episode 3 

What the founders asked for: $25,000 in exchange for 10% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $250,000 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $50,000 in exchange for 40% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $125,000 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Daymond John 

Company status: SUCCESS. 

Note: Since Shark Tank, Heart Pup has continued to operate and grow. She even models the product herself on the company’s social media pages. 

Kids love it! 

Company: Paper Box Pilots 

Industry: Toys and Games 

What the company does: Paper Box Pilots sells sticker kits that turn a plain old ordinary box into imaginative airplanes, fire engines and race cars. 

Who pitched the Sharks? Noah Cahoon 

Season 6, Episode 4 

What the founders asked for: $35,000 in exchange for 25% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $140,000 

Deal they got on Shark Tank: $35,000 in exchange for 50% equity stake 

Implied valuation: $70,000 

Shark(s) that went in on the deal: Kevin O’Leary 

Company status: MIXED. 

Note: While the deal worked on Shark Tank and the company still appears to be running, many items are out of stock and the company’s social media has not been updated since 2018. 

Though not all are bad actors, many invention promotion companies (and consultants) have been accused of scamming individual inventors out of thousands of dollars; just ask those involved in a 2018 class action against InventHelp in the Southern District of New York (Zanotti et al v. Invention Submission Corporation et al).

The plaintiffs allege that InventHelp runs a “fraudulent invention promotion scam that has bilked thousands of aspiring inventors and entrepreneurs into paying millions of dollars” for services that were never intended to be provided. Specifically, named plaintiff Sherry Porter claims she paid InventHelp $9700 to market her LED pet collar. According to the lawsuit, InventHelp’s Pittsburgh headquarters contacted Porter and said a company called Abrams Gentile Entertainment was interested in licensing her invention. However, when investigators for Porter’s attorney went to the office of Abrams Gentile, it was vacant. The company didn’t exist.

Unfortunately for inventors, this is not the first promotion company to be accused of engaging in such fraudulent activity. In fact, due to prior lawsuits, the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) was passed. This act requires that prior to signing an invention submission agreement with a promotion company, the firm must provide the following information:

1. The total number of inventions evaluated by the invention promoter for commercial potential in the past five years, as well as the number of those inventions that received positive evaluations, and the number of those inventions that received negative evaluations.

2. The total number of customers who have contracted with the invention promoter in the past five years, not including customers who have purchased trade show services, research, advertising, or other non-marketing services from the invention promoter, or who have defaulted in their payment to the invention promoter.

3. The total number of customers known by the invention promoter to have received a net financial profit as a direct result of the invention promotion services provided by such invention promoter.

4. The total number of customers known by the invention promoter to have received license agreements for their inventions as a direct result of the invention promotion services provided by such invention promoter.

5. The names and addresses of all previous invention promotion companies with which the invention promoter or its officers have collectively or individually been affiliated in the previous 10 years.

Upon reviewing these statistics from two companies, the numbers do not bode well for inventors. For example, promotion company Davison reported that the “total number of consumers in the last five years who made more money in royalties or sales proceeds than they paid to Davison, in total, under any and all agreements with Davison, is 15. This number includes people who first made a profit more than 5 years ago, if they continued to make additional profit during the past five years.”

InventHelp reported that “from 2015-2017, we signed Submission Agreements with 6,564 clients. As a result of our services, 166 clients have received license agreements for their products, and 49 clients have received more money than they paid us for these services.” For those doing the math, 0.7% of InventHelp clients made more money than they paid to InventHelp. The question also remains, how much more money did these inventors make to justify using such as service at such low odds of success?

There are also a host of consultants that charge monthly fees to participate in their inventing schools or to be coached through the inventing process. Some of these entities do not fit the definition of an invention promoter, and thus they are able to operate in a gray area that is not regulated by the AIPA.

Despite periodic enforcement activities and occasional legislation, the AIPA and the U.S. government do not do enough to protect independent inventors from fraud, misrepresentation and misleading statements about the success rate of so-called invention help companies.

If you are an inventor, do yourself a favor and contact an IP attorney about your invention, and instruct them to run a patent search to determine the novelty of your idea. A reputable IP attorney will not try to sell you monthly subscription fees or con you out of thousands of dollars for an idea that may not be patentable. You will be in a much better position to determine how you should proceed with your idea (and your money).

Please email us if you have any questions or if you would like to receive a copy of the complaint against InventHelp.

The copyright is so overlooked that even product attorneys forget what a powerful member of the IP protection league it is. For example, patent rights enforcement tends to be technical and complex, often requiring long, costly legal battles with Tony Stark caliber experts to prove infringement. However, copyrights, which protect property such as images, illustrations, infomercials, and product packaging, are pretty easy to eyeball, even for an untrained juror.

Copyright is also the most affordable IP protection to secure. Moreover, copyright infringement triggers statutory damage awards that can soar to up to $30,000 per occurrence; plus, recovery of attorney’s fees. As such, trial attorneys are more willing to take on a (properly registered) copyright infringement case on a contingency basis. Of course, statutory damages are merely a fallback, with many product owners seeking actual damages (i.e., lost profits), which is an entirely different hulk of a task.

Additionally, the copyright is the only member of the IP protection league that successfully combats counterfeit sales on platforms such as Amazon; trademark registration alone will not suffice to remove counterfeits on Amazon. To be sure, the counterfeit seller merely has to allege that it is selling a legitimate product, and then there is no infringement thanks to the First Sale Doctrine (you bought it, you own it, you can resell it and call it what it is). In some instances, the infringer changes the name of the product, which effectively shields it from a trademark infringement claim altogether. However, the right to resell a product does not give rise to the right to display copyrighted images for the purpose of that sale. This is another reason why the copyright is so powerful.

While patents and trademarks are formidable tools for many reasons other than defending against knock-offs and counterfeits, with the copyright being such a low-cost titan in the IP universe, it’s a wonder more businesses do not utilize its armor. For maximum protection, copyrights need to be registered in a flash, so be sure to summon an intellectual property attorney prior to your product rollout.

In its Request for Consultations, the U.S. alleged that China violates the TRIPS Agreement insofar as it “denies foreign patent holders the ability to enforce their patent rights against a Chinese joint-venture party after a technology transfer contract ends. China also imposes mandatory adverse contract terms that discriminate against and are less favorable for imported foreign technology.”

For example, the Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on the Administration of the Import and Export of Technologies prohibits a U.S. patent-related technology license contract from restricting a Chinese party from improving the technology or from using the improved technology. Those same regulations go on to say that any improvements in imported technology belong to the party making the improvement. Therefore, a U.S. patent holder cannot stop a Chinese entity with which it is working from modifying or “improving” a patent, even ever so slightly. Then, that improved patent automatically belongs to the Chinese entity, which now has unfettered rights to license and distribute.

In April 2018, the Ukraine, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Chinese Taipei (Taiwan), and the European Union (EU), all formally requested to join the Consultations requested by the United States, generally citing substantial interests in the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the TRIPS Agreement.

In addition to requesting to join the U.S., the EU filed its own Request for Consultations on June 1, echoing and expanding upon the concerns of the United States. The E.U. Request goes on to say that “China’s measures appear to adversely affect exports to China of technology, including intellectual property rights, by European Union undertakings and also appear to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to the European Union and its Member States.” (emphasis added)

China’s Ministry of Commerce responded to the EU’s Request stating, in part, “The Chinese government has always attached great importance to the protection of intellectual property rights and adopted many strong measures to protect the legitimate rights and interests of domestic and foreign intellectual property rights holders.”

So, what happens next? According to the WTO Dispute Settlement System, the request for consultations formally initiates a dispute in the WTO. If the consultations fail to settle a dispute within 60 days after the date of receipt of the request for consultations, the complaining party may request adjudication by a panel. The findings of the panel will be adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) of the WTO, unless a party appeals the finding or the DSB decides by consensus to not adopt the panel’s report.

As of June 7, a panel has not been requested as a result of the U.S.’s Request, even though the 60-day benchmark has come and gone, and the status remains “in consultations.” Stay tuned to this space for updates.

Essentially, companies are assigning their patents to tribes in order to take advantage of the tribes’ sovereign immunity, thus shielding them from the patent review process and potential patent invalidation.  The most recent targets of these lawsuits in the tech industry have been Apple, Amazon and Microsoft.

The method works something like this.  A company files for and is granted a patent.  That patent is assigned by the company to a Native American tribe, meaning the tribe is now the owner of the patent. The tribe then licenses the patent back to the company in exchange for a substantial royalty (last month pharmaceutical company Allergan agreed to pay the St Regis Mohawk Tribe $13.5 million up front and a royalty of $15 million annually for its now defunct Restasis patent).  Then, when instructed by the company, the tribe files a lawsuit against a third party (i.e. Apple) for patent infringement.

Normally at this stage (as previously discussed in our Battle of the Copper Pans article), the best course of action for the company being sued would be to attempt to invalidate the patent it is allegedly infringing upon through the USPTO’s inter partes review process (“IPR”).  The IPR occurs before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) rather than in the courts, and is therefore a much more time and cost-effective way to invalidate improperly issued patents.  However, if the owner of the patent is a Native American entity, it has sovereign immunity, and is not subject to the jurisdiction of the PTAB.  The company is therefore forced to litigate the infringement claims, which typically lasts over a year, and can result in the defendant companies being enjoined from selling their “infringing products” during such time.

Although defendants are crying foul at this tactic, it seems brilliant for owners who want to ensure their patents are not subject to invalidation proceedings.  However, this trend may not continue for long as we certainly expect to see the defendants of the lawsuits challenge these so-called “sham” transactions and the sovereign status of the tribes.

It is best to have a knowledgeable attorney during all stages of the patent process.  Please email us if you have any questions or if you would like more information regarding the content above.

Copper pots and pans (or at least copper in color) are the latest sensation in cookware. Big sellers such as Copper Chef (Tristar Products, Inc.), Red Copper (Telebrands Corp.) and Gotham Steel (E Mishan & Sons, Inc (“Emson”)) have spent thousands in marketing dollars to promote these competing products. However, with so many cooks in the kitchen, someone is bound to get burned; and if Keith Mirchandani has it his way, it won’t be Tristar.

On February 21, 2017 Tristar filed lawsuits against Telebrands (and Bulbhead.com LLC) and Emson for patent infringement, trade dress infringement and unfair competition. According to the complaints, Tristar has been marketing its Copper Chef product line since as early as June 2016 and holds three patents for its Copper Chef line, two of which were just issued this month. Tristar has also filed for injunctions to prevent Telebrands and Emson from “making, using, selling [and] offering for sale” the products allegedly infringing on the Copper Chef line. As of today, February 28, 2017, the orders have yet to be granted.

This isn’t the first time these companies have faced off in court, and at least Telebrands has proven time and time again that it has the recipe for stalling litigation so it can continue to sell a product. Telebrands’ secret sauce: the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”).

When an action is filed with the PTAB, courts halt litigation until such time that the PTAB makes a ruling on whether the patent in question is valid. In at least two separate lawsuits brought against Telebrands for patent infringement (for its Pocket Hose & Balloon Bonanza products), the company has filed invalidation proceedings with the PTAB challenging the validity of the patents it was accused of infringing. The strategy for invalidation is that if the patent is determined to have been improperly issued then, no infringement could have occurred. Telebrands successfully invalidated some of the patent claims with regard to the balloon product, but the PTAB declined to review the hose patent on the basis that it was determined to be valid. The action is now proceeding in court and could still take years to reach an outcome.

A successful product invites copycats, and Tristar will likely have a long battle on its hands for this one. It will be interesting to see if Telebrands stays true to its methods and attempts to invalidate Tristar’s patents.

It is imperative to have seasoned intellectual property attorneys filing patents and trademarks and diligently monitoring infringing activity as well as advising you on the risks of infringing third party patents. In some instances, it is more cost effective to license a product than to knock it off and face the consequences. A well-planned IP strategy will help product owners to better survive or avoid the messy and lengthy proceedings of IP litigation. Remember, if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Please email Jessica@DigitalLawGroup.com if you have any questions or would like more information regarding the content above.

Naturally, we were concerned by this information and perplexed as to why so many marketers continue to do business with Amazon in spite of the fact that knockoffs and counterfeits were harming their brands’ reputations as well as their profit margins.

However, it seems that the tide has turned, as a few industry leaders – putting their competitive natures aside – banded together to take on what is arguably the largest source of counterfeits, knockoffs, and intellectual property infringement in the country. Here’s a quick synopsis of the lawsuit:

On Dec. 5, Allstar Marketing Group LLC, Ontel Products Corp., and Ideavillage Products Corp. filed a lawsuit against Amazon in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Their claims include direct trademark infringement, direct counterfeiting, contributory counterfeiting and trademark infringement, unfair competition and false designation of origin, copyright infringement, and contributory copyright infringement. These claims are based on Amazon’s routine practice of manufacturing, importing, exporting, advertising, marketing, promoting, distributing, displaying, offering for sale and/or selling unlicensed and/or infringing versions of the plaintiffs’ “As Seen on TV” products.

What is noteworthy about this action is that it includes direct infringement rather than just contributory infringement claims, which Amazon has been able to skirt in the past – relying on immunity theories under Section 512(2) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which protects internet service providers who operate third-party vendor platforms.

The complaint calls Amazon out on its well-known practice of commingling products sold by third parties (counterfeits) with inventory supplied by authentic sellers and fulfilled by Amazon. Further, the complaint details how Amazon allows third-party sellers to list their products against a legitimate product’s listing, such that a consumer can see the less expensive option, but believe it to be authentic because it shows up on the primary listing’s page. This particular conduct has been a thorn in marketers’ for some time, as it prevents easy removal of counterfeit listings (and negative reviews) on the platform.

Damages sought by the plaintiffs include profits and treble damages in the amount of a sum equal to three times such profits or damages. Alternatively, the plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages in the amount of not more than $2 million per counterfeit mark infringed. The plaintiffs are also demanding that the court order Amazon to destroy all infringing products along with advertising and promotional materials.

A pretrial hearing has been set for Feb. 15, 2017. If the complaint isn’t thrown out, as was in the case in previous efforts to sue Amazon for infringement, expect to see many other industry players jumping on the bandwagon to have their day in court. If you have concerns about infringing products being sold on third-party marketplaces like Amazon, we’d love to hear your story. Watch this space for updates.

Thanks to the attention the product has received, Murray has decided that rather than sell directly in the U.S., he is auctioning the U.S. patent and trademark to the highest bidder, transferring global rights (not including Australia). The auction commenced on Sept. 30, and Murray has suggested the Hamdog patent and trademark is worth – wait for it – $100 million! Although many experts have advised that this estimate is unrealistic, Murray pointed out that if the Hamdog picked up just 1-percent of the U.S. burger market, it would equate to approximately $2.5 billion in sales annually.

Assuming Murray is correct and the Hamdog is successful in the U.S., perhaps selling the patent is not the most lucrative option for him. In some cases, licensing the patent or distributing the product yourself can lead to a bigger payday. For example, if Murray licensed the Hamdog patent and trademark in the U.S. for just a 1-percent royalty, using his figures, he could earn up to $25 million annually. At 2 percent, he’s looking at $50 million annually.

Of course, these numbers are based on sales, rather than adjusted gross revenues, but you get the idea. By licensing the intellectual property, in just a few short years, Murray could make more money than he would by just selling it. Keep in mind, this is based solely on U.S. sales; throw in a few licensing deals in other countries, and he’s looking at several huge royalty checks.

On the other hand, Murray could have opened Hamdog restaurants in the U.S. and franchised the business. Although this could have also been a great option, it requires startup capital along with all of the responsibilities and expenses that come with running a business.

Compared to a $100 million sale and walking away from any potential liabilities, or licensing the intellectual property for millions of dollars a year, franchising is probably the least profitable option – in the short term, that is. However, there is no way to know for sure until the results of the auction are made public and the product is rolled out in the states.

Like Murray, inventors have a lot to consider when deciding what to do with their intellectual property. In addition to the financial side of things (i.e., out-of-pocket expenses and potential profits), there are pros and cons to both licensing a product and manufacturing/distributing the product. See below for some examples.

Licensing

Distributing/Manufacturing

Selling/Auctioning

When an invention has a high probability of success, having to weigh the pros and cons of how to proceed should be a great problem to have. On the other hand, when the financial benefits are largely unpredictable, choosing whether to license, sell, or distribute the product can be quite challenging and risky, and should also factor in personal and professional goals. Either way, inventors should always consult with trusted industry professionals to determine how best to proceed with a product.

The guidelines provide direction on antitrust issues that may arise when licensing intellectual property. The proposed updates to the guidelines embrace three general principles:

1. “For the purpose of antitrust analysis, the Agencies apply the same analysis to conduct involving intellectual property as to conduct involving other forms of property, taking into account the specific characteristics of a particular property right.”
2. “The Agencies do not presume that intellectual property creates market power in the antitrust context.”
3. “The Agencies recognize that intellectual property licensing allows firms to combine complementary factors of production and is generally pro-competitive.”

With those principles in mind, the guidelines remain largely unchanged. Below is a summary of two areas that underwent a great deal of redlining, whether changing or affirming the rules due to recent developments.

Intellectual Property and Market Power

The agencies have reiterated in the revised guidelines – including in the principles above – that intellectual property ownership does not create a presumption of market power. Section 2.2 states “market power (or even a monopoly) that is solely ‘a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident’ does not violate the antitrust laws.”

This reflects the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink Inc., in which the court held that a patent does not necessarily confer market power on the patentee, and is good news for intellectual property owners. For example, you can own a great deal of patents in – let’s say – kitchen products, but without a showing of more, such as anticompetitive behavior, there is no presumption of market power and thus no prima facie case for antitrust violations.

Section 3.2 goes on to address market power and licensing agreements. As stated in the guidelines, licensing arrangements still raise anticompetitive concerns if they are likely to have an adverse effect on product prices and quality, for example. The proposed revisions add that if a licensing agreement appears to have anticompetitive effects, the FTC and DOJ normally will identify the effected markets and will typically analyze the competitive effects within the relevant market(s).

So, unlike above where mere ownership of intellectual property does not create a presumption of market power, it appears that a licensing arrangement for all of those patents in kitchen products may more quickly garner the attention and scrutiny of the agencies.

Resale Price Maintenance

The most notable change, perhaps, comes in the area of resale price maintenance. Minimum resale price maintenance usually refers to a pricing arrangement whereby a manufacturer requires resellers to sell at or above a certain price point. The same principle applies to intellectual property licensing agreements when the property owner conditions the license on a particular minimum resale price. The 1995 Guidelines stipulate that it is, per se, illegal for a licensor of intellectual property to fix a licensee’s resale price. However, due to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Leegin Creative Leather Products Inc. v. PSKS Inc. rejecting the per se analysis, the proposed guidelines now apply a rule of reason analysis to be applied on a case-by-case basis to weigh the competitive benefits against the harms of the agreement.

For more information on the proposed changes to the guidelines, see the redline copy, which can be found here. The deadline for public comment is September 26.

A patent troll, or a non-practicing entity (NPE), is an individual or company that acquires overly broad patents for the sole purpose of extorting licensing fees from legitimate creators. Today, more than half of patent infringement claims are brought by trolls, and software patents account for the majority of recent filings due to the formerly relaxed standards that made it easy for trolls to obtain them. These slimy practices are often rewarded due to the high costs of litigation.

Patent litigation is so expensive that it is considered the sport of kings. Many companies are not up to the fight and choose to cave in to the demands for licensing or “royalty” fees rather than spend hundreds (yes, hundreds) of thousands of dollars in legal costs. The good news is, times are changing, so don’t bust out that white flag just yet.

In June 2013, President Obama issued executive orders “to protect innovators from frivolous litigation.” In June 2014, the United States Supreme Court handed down a ruling that significantly heightened the standards for software patents, which should limit the number of patents obtained by trolls. Additionally some state courts have taken action as well, including most recently, North Carolina, whose governor just two weeks ago signed the Abusive Patent Assertions Act, which aims to penalize patent trolls for sending “bad faith” demand letters.

While a great deal more is needed to stop patent trolls from extorting money and curbing innovation, we are seeing a good pattern here. Owners of valid patents should no longer quickly settle and give into these trolls. If you find yourself at the receiving end of a patent infringement demand letter, here are some things you should do:

-Do not ignore the notice

-Contact an intellectual property attorney who can assist with the “infringed” patent[s]

-Team up with other named defendants

-Strategize with your attorney on the best/most cost effective way to respond to the demand

Digital Law Group can help you navigate the patent process with ease – from provisional filings to defense.  Contact us today to schedule your free consultation.