DCT
4:25-cv-00193
Floorazzo Tile LLC v. Nurazzo LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Floorazzo Tile, LLC (North Carolina)
- Defendant: Nurazzo, LLC (Georgia)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, L.L.P.
- Case Identification: 4:25-cv-00193, N.D. Ga., 07/16/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendant is a Georgia limited liability company with its principal place of business in Whitfield County, Georgia, which resides in the judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s terrazzo tiles are made by a process that infringes a patent on a specific method for manufacturing such tiles.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns manufacturing methods for pre-cast terrazzo tiles, a type of flooring used in high-traffic commercial applications as an alternative to traditional, poured-in-place terrazzo floors.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-03-29 | ’079 Patent Priority Date |
| 2008-03-31 | ’079 Patent Application Filing Date |
| 2011-10-11 | ’079 Patent Issue Date |
| 2024-03-27 | Nurazzo and Spartan Surfaces Announce National Partnership |
| 2025-07-16 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,033,079 - Method of Manufacturing Terrazzo Tiles, Terrazzo Tiles and Flooring System Assembled with Terrazzo Tiles
Issued October 11, 2011
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the high cost and labor-intensive nature of traditional poured-in-place terrazzo floors. It notes that prior attempts to create terrazzo tiles resulted in products that were "thick and uneven" and could not replicate the "monolithic surface" of poured floors (’079 Patent, col. 1:42-58).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for mass-producing thin terrazzo tiles that, when installed, resemble a seamless, monolithic floor (’079 Patent, col. 3:50-54). The method involves pouring a resin mixture into a mold, followed by stone chips. Critically, the process is designed so "a greater amount of stone chips settle in the composition towards the bottom of the mold" (’079 Patent, col. 4:32-35). After curing, the tile is inverted, and the side that was the bottom of the mold—now concentrated with stone chips—is ground and polished to become the final, visible top surface of the tile (’079 Patent, col. 4:48-54).
- Technical Importance: This manufacturing approach aims to create a tile with a high-density, aesthetically pleasing stone surface while allowing the overall tile to be thin (e.g., 1/16 to 1/8 inch), saving material costs and enabling a novel polishing process that prevents buckling (’079 Patent, col. 5:9-23).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶24).
- Claim 1 is a product-by-process claim for "A terrazzo tile made according to a method," where the method comprises the following essential steps:
- Mixing resin, filler, catalyst, and pigment to form a curable composition.
- Pouring the composition into a mold, leaving space for stone chips.
- Pouring stone chips into the mold "in a manner to have a greater amount of stone chips settle toward the bottom of the mold... than toward the top."
- Curing the mixture to form a rough tile.
- Grinding and polishing the tile where the "upper surface of the tile is the side toward which the greater amount of stone chips settled."
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are terrazzo tiles manufactured, offered for sale, and sold by Nurazzo, LLC (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 24).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Nurazzo's tiles are used for flooring and that Nurazzo competes "head-to-head" with Floorazzo in the terrazzo tile market (Compl. ¶20). It further alleges that on March 27, 2024, Nurazzo announced a "national partnership" with Spartan Surfaces to sell and offer its product throughout the United States (Compl. ¶19). The complaint provides images of Nurazzo's finished tiles, showing a polished surface with embedded stone chips and a rougher, unpolished back surface (Compl. pp. 7-10). The complaint includes a side-by-side comparison of what it identifies as the top (polished) and bottom (rough) surfaces of a Nurazzo tile (Compl. p. 9).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a formal claim chart exhibit but presents its infringement theory by mapping elements of Claim 1 to the accused product in narrative form.
’079 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a terrazzo tile made according to a method, the method comprising: [a] mixing resin, filler, catalyst, and selected color pigment in an amount sufficient to form a curable composition | Based on "information and belief" and "examination of Nurazzo's tiles," the defendant's manufacturing process is alleged to include this mixing step. An image of a finished Nurazzo tile is provided as evidence of the resulting composition. | ¶26 | col. 6:40-44 |
| [b] pouring said curable composition into at least one mold...while allowing space to add stone chips... | On "information and belief," Nurazzo's process is alleged to involve pouring the composition into a mold and adding stone chips. | ¶27 | col. 6:44-47 |
| [c] pouring stone chips into said at least one mold in a manner to have a greater amount of stone chips settle toward the bottom of the mold in the composition than toward the top... | Nurazzo's process is alleged to satisfy this limitation. The complaint provides an image comparing the polished top surface and rough bottom surface of an accused tile, stating the top surface shows a "greater amount of stone chips" than the bottom. | ¶28 | col. 6:47-52 |
| [d] curing the composition and stone chip mixture to form at least one rough tile | Nurazzo's tiles are alleged to be cured and have "one rough side," as shown in images of the product. | ¶29 | col. 6:52-54 |
| [e] grinding and polishing tile in which the upper surface of the tile is the side toward which the greater amount of stone chips settled | Nurazzo's tiles are alleged to have a polished upper surface that corresponds to the side with the greater amount of stone chips, as shown in comparison images. | ¶30 | col.6:54-58 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Questions: The complaint alleges infringement of a product-by-process claim but relies on "information and belief" and inferences drawn from the final product to establish the defendant’s manufacturing method (Compl. ¶¶ 26-27). A central issue will be whether the plaintiff can obtain evidence through discovery to prove that Nurazzo’s actual manufacturing process includes each claimed step. The complaint acknowledges that facts about the process are "peculiarly within the possession and control of the defendant" (Compl. ¶26, n.2).
- Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the side of the Nurazzo tile with more stone chips was, in fact, the "bottom of the mold" during manufacturing and was subsequently inverted to become the "upper surface" after polishing, as the claim requires? The complaint’s side-by-side visual comparison of the polished and unpolished surfaces of a Nurazzo tile directly alleges this correspondence (Compl. p. 9).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "a greater amount of stone chips settle toward the bottom of the mold ... than toward the top"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the inventive concept of creating a tile with a dense, chip-heavy surface. The question of infringement may depend on how significant the difference in chip concentration must be to qualify as "a greater amount." Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation—whether it requires a specific quantitative gradient or if any non-uniform distribution suffices—will be critical to determining if the accused process falls within the claim scope.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of the claim does not specify a particular ratio or degree of difference, suggesting any statistically significant, non-uniform distribution where more chips are at the bottom could suffice.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the result as creating a "predominance of stone chips" on the exposed surface (’079 Patent, col. 5:16-17). A defendant may argue this language implies a more substantial or visually obvious concentration of chips is required, not just a marginal difference.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain a count for indirect infringement (inducement or contributory infringement). The allegations focus on direct infringement by Nurazzo through its own manufacturing and sales activities (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 26).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant "has known of the existence of the '079 patent" and that its infringement has been and continues to be "knowing, intentional, and willful" (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 31). The pleading states this "upon information and belief" without providing specific facts as to how or when Defendant gained knowledge of the patent.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A primary issue will be one of proof: can Floorazzo, through discovery and expert analysis, establish that Nurazzo’s manufacturing process includes the specific steps of settling a greater amount of chips to the bottom of the mold and then inverting and polishing that particular side, as required by the product-by-process claim? The complaint currently relies on inferences from the final product.
- The case will also turn on a question of definitional scope: what constitutes "a greater amount" of stone chips? The court's construction of this term will be critical in determining whether the chip distribution in Nurazzo's tiles, whatever it may be, meets the limitation of Claim 1.
- A third key question is one of exclusivity: can Nurazzo demonstrate that its final product could be created by a different, non-infringing process? The viability of Floorazzo’s infringement theory may depend on its ability to show that the specific characteristics of the accused tiles are uniquely attributable to the patented method.