DCT
0:23-cv-61743
Snogo LLC v. Ez Go LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Snogo, LLC (Colorado)
- Defendant: Ez Go, LLC (Florida)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Wolfe Law Miami, P.A.; Hassan + Cables, LLC
- Case Identification: 0:23-cv-61743, S.D. Fla., 09/11/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on the defendant’s principal place of business being in the district, as well as alleged infringing sales to residents within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "EZ Bumps" personal inhalation device infringes a design patent covering Plaintiff's "Snogo Straw" product.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns the ornamental design of a handheld, spring-loaded device used for scooping and inhaling fine powders, marketed as a "functional fashion accessory."
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent Defendant a notice of infringement on August 4, 2023, and that Defendant’s counsel subsequently claimed to be unaware of the asserted patent.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2018 | Plaintiff Snogo begins selling its "Snogo Straw" product |
| 2022-02-22 | U.S. Design Patent No. D943,913 issues |
| 2023-07 | Plaintiff discovers Defendant's allegedly infringing product |
| 2023-07 | Plaintiff's employee purchases accused product |
| 2023-08-04 | Plaintiff issues Notice of Infringement to Defendant |
| 2023-09-11 | Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D943,913 - "Footwear Upper," issued Feb. 22, 2022
- Note on Discrepancy: The complaint asserts U.S. Design Patent No. D943,913 (the "'’913 Patent") and attaches a copy as Exhibit A (Compl. ¶11). However, the provided patent document for D'913 S is titled "Footwear Upper" and its figures depict a sandal, not the "Snogo Straw" at issue in the litigation. The following analysis is therefore based on the complaint's description and depiction of the patented design, as the patent document itself does not appear to correspond to the subject matter of the dispute.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The complaint does not describe a specific technical problem but rather presents the "Snogo Straw" as a "wholly unique" product in the industry, combining function and fashion (Compl. ¶8). The product is described as a "3-in-1 straw and scoop" for inhaling fine powders such as cacao or snuff (Compl. ¶8).
- The Patented Solution: Based on the complaint's allegations and visual evidence, the patented design is for the ornamental appearance of a personal inhalation device (Compl. ¶8, p. 6). The design features a slim, cylindrical body, a plunger-style mechanism at one end, and a flared, C-shaped scoop at the other, presented as a "functional fashion accessory" (Compl. ¶8).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges the product's "proprietary and unique design" is at the "heart of Snogo's rapidly growing financial success" (Compl. ¶8).
Key Claims at a Glance
- As a design patent, the '913 Patent contains a single claim for the ornamental design as shown in its drawings (D'913 Patent, p. 1, "CLAIM"). The scope of this claim is defined by the patent's figures.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused product is the "EZ Bumps" (Compl. ¶9).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the "EZ Bumps" product is a "ripped-off" version of the Plaintiff's "Snogo Straw," copying its "exact design, including the Snogo Straw's patented functionality, colorways, and even its packaging" (Compl. ¶9).
- The complaint provides a side-by-side visual comparison of the disassembled products, showing a tubular body, a plunger, and a scoop component for both the patented and accused products (Compl., p. 6). This image shows the components of the "Snogo Straw" and the "Infringing Product" side-by-side.
- Plaintiff alleges Defendant has used "marketing techniques designed to target and capture Snogo's customers" and sells the product on its own website and an Amazon webstore (Compl. ¶9, ¶12). A visual comparison of the products' retail packaging is also provided (Compl., p. 7). This image depicts the "Snogo Straw" packaging next to the "EZ BUMPS" packaging, highlighting similarities in presentation.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Design patent infringement is determined by the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. The complaint alleges that the designs are "so similar as to be nearly identical" (Compl. ¶17).
'913 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claimed Design Feature (as depicted in Complaint) | Alleged Infringing Functionality (as depicted in Complaint) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental design of the inhalation device | The overall design of the EZ Bumps product is alleged to be "the same or substantially the same" as the patented design. | ¶17, ¶19 | The provided patent document for D'913 S depicts a footwear upper and cannot be cited for features of a straw. |
| Slim, cylindrical main body | The EZ Bumps product incorporates a slim, cylindrical main body. | p. 6 | The provided patent document for D'913 S depicts a footwear upper and cannot be cited for features of a straw. |
| Flared, C-shaped scoop at the distal end | The EZ Bumps product incorporates a flared, C-shaped scoop at its distal end. | p. 6 | The provided patent document for D'913 S depicts a footwear upper and cannot be cited for features of a straw. |
| Plunger-style mechanism with a distinct cap | The EZ Bumps product incorporates a plunger-style mechanism with a visually similar cap. | p. 6 | The provided patent document for D'913 S depicts a footwear upper and cannot be cited for features of a straw. |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A threshold issue for the court will be whether U.S. Design Patent No. D'913 S, titled "Footwear Upper," can be asserted to protect the design of the "Snogo Straw." The title and claimed subject matter in a design patent define the scope of the article of manufacture to which the design applies.
- Technical Questions: Assuming the patent is correctly identified and covers the straw, the central question will be factual: would an ordinary observer, giving the attention a purchaser usually gives, be deceived by the similarity between the designs and purchase the "EZ Bumps" product believing it to be the "Snogo Straw" (Compl. ¶17)? The side-by-side comparisons of both the product and its packaging will be the primary evidence for this analysis (Compl., pp. 6-7).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, claim construction is typically not a central issue, as the claim is defined by the drawings. However, the identity of the article of manufacture is critical.
- The Term: "Footwear upper"
- Context and Importance: This term, taken from the title of the provided patent document for D'913 S, is of dispositive importance. Design patents protect the ornamental design for an article of manufacture. If the '913 Patent claims a design for a "footwear upper," it cannot, as a matter of law, be infringed by a product that is a "personal inhalation device." Practitioners may focus on this as a potential basis for a motion to dismiss, as the complaint appears to assert a patent for an article of manufacture that does not match the accused product.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not offer evidence for a broader interpretation. A party might argue that a clerical error occurred, but the patent as issued is what defines the right.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language of the patent's title ("Footwear Upper") and every figure within the patent (D'913 Patent, Figs. 1-8) explicitly limit the claimed design to an article of footwear, specifically a sandal. This intrinsic evidence strongly supports a narrow interpretation that restricts the patent's scope to footwear.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead specific facts supporting indirect infringement, but the prayer for relief seeks to enjoin Defendant from "inducing others to infringe" (Compl. ¶K).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s continued sales after receiving a "Notice of Infringement" on August 4, 2023 (Compl. ¶14, ¶29, ¶30). The complaint alleges that this notice provided Defendant with actual knowledge of the '913 patent (Compl. ¶29).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
A dispositive threshold question will be one of scope and standing: does U.S. Design Patent No. D943,913, which on its face is for a "Footwear Upper," actually cover the ornamental design for Plaintiff's "Snogo Straw"? The significant discrepancy between the asserted patent's subject matter and the products at issue raises a fundamental question about the validity of the infringement claim itself.
Should the case proceed past the threshold issue, a central factual question will be one of visual deception: based on the visual evidence provided, would an "ordinary observer" be induced to purchase the accused "EZ Bumps" product under the belief that it is the Plaintiff's product? The court's analysis will likely focus on the side-by-side comparisons of the products and their packaging as presented in the complaint.