DCT

2:19-cv-00314

Snowie v. Elite Group

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:19-cv-00314, D. Utah, 05/08/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants’ business transactions and infringing activities within the District of Utah, including offering products for sale through their own websites and third-party retailers.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ "Big Freeze" line of ice shavers infringes two patents related to the mechanical design and functional features of ice shaving machines.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns machines for producing shaved ice confections, specifically devices that can transform standard ice cubes into a fine, snow-like product for consumer or commercial use.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that U.S. Patent No. 6,908,053 is a continuation of the application that resulted in U.S. Patent No. 6,527,212. This relationship establishes a common priority date and largely identical specifications for the two patents-in-suit, suggesting that claim construction arguments may draw from a shared body of intrinsic evidence.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-06-03 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,527,212
1999-06-03 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,908,053
2003-03-04 U.S. Patent No. 6,527,212 Issued
2005-06-21 U.S. Patent No. 6,908,053 Issued
2019-05-08 Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 6,527,212, “Ice Shaver” (Issued Mar. 4, 2003)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies shortcomings in prior art ice shaving machines, noting they often require large, cumbersome blocks of ice, operate slowly, and lack features for convenient home or high-volume use ('212 Patent, col. 2:10-21).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a "blade and a spout system" for an ice shaving machine that uses common cubed ice ('212 Patent, col. 5:24-25). The system features a scraper with paddles to move ice across a blade containing one or more cutting slots with upwardly bent edges ('212 Patent, col. 6:53-65). A key feature is a specially shaped spout that not only dispenses the shaved ice but is "shaped to form a domed rounded top on the dispensed shaved ice," mimicking the appearance of a traditional snow cone ('212 Patent, col. 7:7-11; Claim 1).
  • Technical Importance: The invention sought to provide a mechanism for producing fine, powdery, "snow-like" shaved ice quickly and reliably from easily sourced ice cubes, making the technology suitable for both commercial and home applications ('212 Patent, col. 3:40-47).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3, and 4 (Compl. ¶36).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • A system with an inner surface for receiving ice and an outer surface.
    • A scraper with a paddle to bring ice into contact with the blade's inner surface.
    • A "cutting slot" punched through the surfaces, creating a cutting edge with an "upwardly bent edge" to contact the ice.
    • A "spout" for receiving the shaved ice from the cutting slot, where the spout is "shaped to form a domed rounded top on the dispensed shaved ice."

U.S. Patent No. 6,908,053, “Ice Shaver” (Issued Jun. 21, 2005)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the '212 Patent's application, the '053 Patent addresses the same technical problems: the need for a convenient, high-performance ice shaver that does not rely on large ice blocks ('053 Patent, col. 2:13-21).
  • The Patented Solution: This patent claims the complete ice shaving machine as an apparatus. It combines core components—a cabinet, a hopper, a drive motor, and a scraper—with the specific blade and spout technology detailed in the parent patent ('053 Patent, Claim 1). The claims focus on the overall structural combination, including a "blade fixed to said cabinet" and a "spout assembly" with a "domed portion" for producing a rounded top on the final product ('053 Patent, Claim 1).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provides a complete, self-contained machine architecture for producing shaved ice confections, integrating the drive mechanism, housing, and the previously developed ice-shaping components into a single claimed apparatus ('053 Patent, col. 4:35-43).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 and dependent claims 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 11 (Compl. ¶44).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • A cabinet.
    • A hopper attached to the cabinet.
    • A drive motor within the cabinet.
    • A scraper mechanically connected to the motor.
    • A blade fixed to the cabinet and a spout assembly with an outer shell "fitting over and around said blade."
    • The spout assembly must have a "domed portion for providing a domed round too [sic] for the produced shaved ice."
    • A control mechanism for the motor.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused products are the “Big Freeze Hawaiian Ice Shaver and Snow Cone Maker” and the “Professional Ice Shaver,” collectively referred to as the "Big Freeze" (Compl. ¶16).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that the Big Freeze is an ice shaving machine designed to "function like Snowie's Little Snowie line of ice shavers" (Compl. ¶18). It is accused of being a copy of Snowie's technology, introduced to compete directly with Snowie's products (Compl. ¶16, ¶32). The complaint does not provide specific technical details regarding the operation or construction of the Big Freeze machine. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Big Freeze products infringe the asserted claims but does not provide claim charts or a detailed, element-by-element mapping of accused functionality to the claim limitations (Compl. ¶36, ¶44). The infringement theory is based on the general allegation that the Big Freeze machines "embody and/or use the inventions claimed in and otherwise covered by the Snowie Patents" (Compl. ¶29). Due to the absence of specific allegations mapping product features to claim elements, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The analysis will therefore depend entirely on evidence produced during discovery.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Factual Question: The central issue will be establishing the specific components and operational characteristics of the Big Freeze machine. The plaintiff will need to produce evidence that the accused product contains each element of the asserted independent claims.
    • Functional Question: A primary point of dispute may be whether the spout of the Big Freeze product is "shaped to form a domed rounded top" as required by claim 1 of the '212 Patent and claim 1 of the '053 Patent. This will involve questions of both structure (the spout's physical shape) and function (the result it produces on the shaved ice).
    • Structural Question: For the '053 Patent, a potential issue is whether the accused product's spout assembly has an "outer shell fitting over and around said blade" in the manner claimed and described in the patent's specification and figures ('053 Patent, Claim 1; Fig. 4).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

'212 Patent

  • The Term: "a spout...wherein said spout is shaped to form a domed rounded top on the dispensed shaved ice" (Claim 1).
  • Context and Importance: This functional limitation is a core element of the claimed invention. The infringement analysis will turn on whether the accused product's spout is designed to achieve this specific shaping result, which distinguishes it from a simple dispensing chute.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract describes the spout as being "shaped so as to be used to create a domed-like snow ball shape," which may suggest the claim covers any spout geometry that an operator can use to achieve the domed effect ('212 Patent, Abstract).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description states the spout "is also shaped to form the top of the cup to give it a domed round top," which could support an interpretation that the spout's physical structure must be the primary cause of the doming, rather than operator technique ('212 Patent, col. 7:9-11).

'053 Patent

  • The Term: "a spout assembly comprising an outer shell fitting over and around said blade" (Claim 1).
  • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because it defines a key structural relationship between the blade and the spout in the overall machine apparatus. The meaning of "fitting over and around" will be critical to determining if the accused device's architecture infringes.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain meaning of "fitting over and around" could be read broadly to encompass any configuration where a spout housing is located generally above and encircling the blade mechanism.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 4 depicts a specific embodiment where the outer shell (401) is a distinct component that sits over and encloses the circular blade (101) and the scraper (402) within it ('053 Patent, Fig. 4). A party could argue this specific nested arrangement is required to meet the limitation.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes general allegations of induced and contributory infringement but does not plead specific underlying facts, such as referencing user manuals or advertising that instruct on an infringing use (Compl. ¶30, ¶35).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit and were "familiar with" them "prior to designing, manufacturing, selling and importing" the accused products (Compl. ¶28). It further alleges that Defendants "deliberately chose to infringe" and that the infringement is "willful and deliberate" (Compl. ¶33, ¶38, ¶46).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  1. A central issue will be evidentiary: Given the complaint’s lack of technical detail, can the plaintiff produce evidence in discovery to demonstrate that the accused "Big Freeze" machine incorporates every structural and functional element of the asserted claims?
  2. The case may turn on a question of functional claiming: How will the court construe the phrase "shaped to form a domed rounded top"? The outcome will depend on whether this limitation requires a spout that inherently creates the dome through its structure, or one that merely facilitates such a shape through operator use, and whether the accused product meets that adjudicated standard.
  3. A key damages question will be willfulness: Can the plaintiff substantiate its allegation of pre-suit knowledge of the patents? If knowledge is established, the focus will shift to whether Defendants' conduct rises to the level of "egregious" behavior necessary to justify an award of enhanced damages.